Category: War

Introduction

World War I (WWI) was a conflict between 1914 and 1918 of the worlds powers militaries caused mainly by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary on 28 June, 1914. According to Goldstein and Maihafer (2004, Para.9), t he United States of America joined the war on April 6th, 1917. Prior to this, America peacefully traded with the warring nations but the Germans introduction of unrestricted submarine warfare on January 9th, 1917 made her join the war on the Allies side. Duffy (2009, Para. 1), indicates that the U.S.A. produced the greatest number of propaganda materials in relation to any other single nation participating in the war. This essay will discuss the message they sent to the American, the themes they emphasized and also the actions they promoted.

Messages Conveyed to the American people

As the posters images showed, the messages majorly advised all Americans especially those not serving in the army on what do. They included asking people to cut down on their food intake and donate the surplus to the military that needed it, joining the army irrespective of their gender and profession, and helping the dependants of those serving in the army. The posters also called for helping the charity organizations that assisted the soldiers and victims of the war especially in Europe where majority were affected by the war among other issues (Duffy, 2009, Para.4).

Themes

The themes of the messages in these posters were mostly monetary matters, food issues, service in the armed forces and humanitarian obligations. The spirit of togetherness/comradeship was emphasized in these propaganda posters

Actions promoted

In a number of the posters, the agency involved encouraged people to help finance the war through purchase of different long term maturity liberty bonds issued by the government to generate cash for the course. There were also those encouraging people to eat certain kinds of food such as fish and leave others like wheat to soldiers that were serving in the frontlines or in some cases rationing consumption of particular food stuff like sugar. Participating in military service was encouraged by the posters that advised people to enlist in various branches of the military providing detailed information on how to do so. Others gave incentives such as free legal advice on property for those that were enlisting to serve. They generally depicted the need for increased numbers in the forces in order to win the war. A number of posters called on citizens to on humanitarian grounds requesting for cash and food donations to charity organizations such as the Red Cross and professional aid by those in heath and logistics fields. The posters did portray and push for the concept of power in the masses. In several instances, whether on charity donations, saving of food or buying of the liberty bonds, the message implied was for individuals to do the little they could and the collective impact would be enormous. The implication also was that failure to do this would lead to Americas defeat and ruining of the country as a whole.

Reference

Duffy, Michael. (2009), Propaganda Posters-United States of America.Web.

Goldstein, M. & Maihafer, J. (2004). America in World War I. Virginia, U.S: Brassey

Beyond the loss of millions of people, the war caused a significant social transformation in the reconstruction period that would not have been implemented sooner had the war not taken place. Being an adult during and after WWII, one would expect to experience significant economic and social challenges. The role of the worker was highly relevant for supporting the manufacturing industry in the decreased availability of men to work, which led to many women taking their positions (Corbett et al.). The labor force transformed significantly, with tens of millions of workers taking high productivity jobs in industrial centers. Moreover, to support the populations morale, the music and cinematography industries both provided an escape from the wars horrors while also instilling patriotic ideas into the community (Corbett et al.). Besides, essential life resources such as meat, gasoline, and clothing were no longer available in unlimited access but rather rationed, and the production of durable products such as household appliances was banned. Finally, the prices and wages were under great control, which led to many Americans saving high portions of their incomes that they would spend during the period of renewed growth.

World War II had a tremendous impact on people, and its end promoted the middle and working-class Americans to live a better life than they lived before the war. The African-American population that served in the armed forces did not wish to return to the way things were before the war and wanted to have the same opportunities granted to other Americans. The proposition of Truman to carry out a social legislation program, Fair Deal, marked the point of extending civil rights to all US citizens (Corbett et al.). Finally, while the US had a history of avoiding alliances, in the post-WWII period, it began collaborating with powerful international players.

Work Cited

Corbett, Scott, et al. U.S. History. Openstax, 2020.

World War II began with Germanys attack on Poland in 1939 and ended with the attack on Japans Hiroshima in 1945 with the atomic bomb. Several battles were fought during these six years, which led to the Allies success and the defeat of the Axis Powers. There are some causes of Germanys defeat in World War II. Among these causes are some of the very wrong decisions of Hitler, which he took only because of his extreme overconfidence. Many writers are of the view that not accepting failure in Russia was Hitlers mistake. Hitlers big fault was that he believed in complete domination and complete destruction.

The reason behind why it took the Allies so long to win the war was the late entry of the United States into the war. When the war started, the US had maintained a neutral stance, but as Japan stroked its Pearl Harbor on Dec 7, 1941, it decided to join the forces of the Allies. The German reaction to the troubles Britain posed was not to reconsider fundamental assumptions but instead to reject there was a problem. Given his ideological approaches, Hitlers focus almost instantly after the defeat of France had turned to the Soviet Union. But the militarys command had moved in that direction even faster than Hitler.

It was early July 1940 when German military commanders planned the invasion of the Soviet Union. The commanders who took part in the planning included the armys commander in chief, Field Marshal Walther von Brauchitsch, and chief of staff General Franz Halder. They gave it the name Operation Barbarossa. According to Stolfi, Hitler conceived the invasion of the Soviet Union as a complete surprise, out of peace into war overwhelming strength, obsessed by the ambitious national socialists goal to colonize large areas of European Russia (Stolfi, 1993). Given the Luftwaffes focus on continental war, it is not surprising that its chief of staff, General Hans Jeschonnek, would comment upon the invasion of the Soviet Union, At last, a proper war! (Gitelman, 1997).

Underlying the Barbarossa plan was the German leaders ideological crusade to overcome the Jewish-Bolshevist state and implement the racial cleansing of Europe. From the beginning of the invasion, regular army personnel vigorously and enthusiastically cooperated in the carnage of Jews and other undesirables along with Russias educated people. Hitlers political endeavor was to create a population of slaves to do their German conquerors bidding.

As an order of the day, Panzer Group 4 commanding General Erich Hoeppner stated: The objective of this battle must be the demolition of present-day Russia and must therefore be conducted with unprecedented severity &. In particular, no adherents of the contemporary Russian Bolshevik system are to be spared. (Forster, 1981). But that German approach only served to devastate all possibility of politically undermining the Soviet Unions rulers, as had occurred in World War I. Stalins rule, though hardly popular at home, was as a result able to rally the Soviet people against an even more odious enemy and fight a war of popular liberation.

If the tactical and political theories of Operation Barbarossa were not bad enough, the operational planning and implementation were equally faulty. Operational quality is not just a matter of battleground execution but also a matter of attitude regarding the nature of ones enemy and logistics. In the case of the former, Germany failed to seize both the numbers and stubbornness of its Soviet opponent. As Halder said in early August 1941: The whole situation shows more and more clearly that we have underestimated the colossus of Russia &. We have already identified 360 [Soviet divisions]. The divisions are admittedly not armed and equipped in our sense, and tactically they are badly led. But there they are, and when we destroy a dozen, the Russians simply establish another dozen (Parker, 2000).

Highlighting the extent of Germanys folly is the fact that logisticians had warned that the advance into the Soviet Union would overrun its supply lines by the time it reached two-thirds of the distance to Leningrad in the north, to Smolensk in the center and midway down the Don in the south. Halders warning was not heard, while planners merely assumed their forces would destroy the Red Army in the border areas and then advance unopposed into the heart of Russia.

In October 1941, the logisticians again expressed the concern that the army faced two vital choices: either bring up heavy clothing and winter-weight fuels and set up supply dumps suitable to winter weather, or bring up ammunition and fuel to support the advance on Moscow. It was not complicated to guess the choice German commanders made, nor the results: soldiers shivered in gabardine uniforms, while their vehicles gearboxes froze solid (Overy, 1997).

The defeat of the Germans in front of Moscow only exposed the operational and tactical failures of the campaign against the Soviet Union. Some more strategic blunders soon followed. One of them was his declaration of war against the United States only after four days of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. While Hitler apparently never bothered to consult his senior military leaders  many of whom he was sacked for the troubles in the east  there is little evidence they would have called for an alternative course.

The navys command, for one, had been calling upon Hitler to declare war on the United States since midsummer. When Hitler asked his military staff in East Prussia whether anyone knew where Pearl Harbor was, not a single officer was able to locate the base on the globe  surprising strategic and geographic lack of knowledge for people planning to conquer the world (Overy, 1997).

Intelligence failures were also played an important role in Germanys ultimate defeat. For instance, as the Allies successively broke Germanys most important codes, its military commanders remained unaware. In fact, the Germans were amazingly ignorant of their enemies. The Soviets were able to disguise practically every one of their major offensives from 1942 to the end of the war through the clever use of deception operations; a major factor in their success was continued German contempt for those subhumans on the opposing side of the Eastern Front.

Matters were not good also on the Western Front, where the Allies executed a series of complicated deception operations to convince the Germans the great French amphibious invasion would come at Pas de Calais. Even after the Allies battled their way ashore in Normandy, trickery operations continued to persuade the OKW the main landing was yet to occur at Pas de Calais (Overy, 1997). Well before the happenings of 1944, it should have been clear to Germany the war was lost.

But the military command, its back covered by a regime that ensured the complete obedience of its people, fought on to the bitter end. Field Marshal Erwin Rommel who after the war was blamed by many German generals for not understanding policy, had perceptively prepared for the Allied assault on the basis that if the Wehrmacht failed to stop the landing itself, the war was irreversibly lost. He was right; in fact, Rommel had a far better grab of a plan than did his critics.

References

Forster, Jurgen. (1981) The Wehrmacht and the War of Extermination against the Soviet Union. Yad Vashem Studies, 14.

Gitelman, Zvi Y. (1997) Bitter legacy: confronting the Holocaust in the USSR, Publisher: Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana.

Hansen, Randall (2009) Fire and Fury: The Allied Bombing of Germany 1942-1945, Publisher: Doubleday, Canada.

Overy, Richard (1997) Why the Allies Won, Publisher: W.W. Norton, New York Parker.

Geoffrey (2000) The Cambridge illustrated history of warfare: the triumph of the West, Publisher: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Stolfi, Russel H. S., (1993) Hitlers panzers east: World War II reinterpreted, Publisher: University of Oklahoma Press, Oklahoma.

By the time that World War I erupted in 1914, it was seemingly inevitable, and most European powers were expecting a military conflict at this time. This came due to the rising international tension in Europe, both regional and broad. For years prior to the war, European countries adopted militarism ideologies, greatly building up militaries fueled by technological progress at the time. Germany, in particular, was focused on building its navy to defend against Britain and land forces to protect against France.

In light of these tensions, countries both big and small began to create a web of alliances and treaties which would ensure in case an ally was to be attacked, others would step in. When the war began with the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, it was Austria-Hungary declaring war on Serbia, both relatively small European nations, but because of the interlocking alliances Germany, Britain, France, and Russia were pulled in. It was difficult to avoid this considering that many countries had issues of historical nature or land ownership with their neighbors due to imperialism, to which the war seemed like a logical response (Mulligan, 2017).

Technically, the U.S. could have maintained its neutrality for the duration of World War I, but it was highly unlikely due to aggressive German actions. The United States was never directly attacked, and if it maintained a truly neutral status of selling to both the Allies and the Central Power, it was theoretically possible to stay neutral. However, German attacks its unrestricted submarine warfare, disregard to warnings by the American government, and attempts to instigate an alliance against the United States with Mexico were indirect acts of aggression against the United States which leadership could not ignore as U.S. citizens, safety, and the core of democracy was threatened (Dyer, 2005).

One of the premises for the U.S. entry into the war was to support democracy, and from a historical perspective, it played a large role in saving the democratic order. Central powers led by Germany were largely authoritarian and sought to establish this domination throughout the continent. Already annexing large amounts of territory, German victory in Europe would have created a neo-Napoleonic state ruled by an authoritarian leadership of the Kaiser. American entry into the war joining the Allies preserved global democratic norms and produced liberal international cooperation in the form of the League of Nations.

The Treaty of Versailles was not effective in establishing long-term peace. In the words of Ferdinand Foch, it was not a peace treaty, merely an armistice for 20 years which was prophetic. The Treaty of Versailles was a vindictive peace treaty which was meant to humiliate, suppress, and devastate Germany, its people, and its economy. It placed full blame of the war on Germany, and thus burdened it with tremendous reparations the country could not repay.

The Allied powers prohibited Germany to maintain a military and placed numerous other restrictions. Altogether this led to political and social turmoil in Germany in combination with a failing economy and hyperinflation for the next years. These conditions eventually led to the rise of highly nationalistic, militaristic, and increasingly anti-democratic ideologies of Nazism along with Hitlers leadership. One of the primary reasons to the beginning of World War II was Hitlers ambition highly supported by German people to retaliate against the humiliations caused by the Treaty of Versailles (Farmer, 2018).

The U.S. Senate rejected the Treaty of Versailles due to provisions established by Woodrow Wilson regarding collective security and the League of Nations. The Senate feared this way the U.S. will get pulled into another war easily (United States Senate, n.d.). However, because of this the League of Nations was virtually powerless without U.S. involvement. In retrospect, if the treaty was approved and the U.S. had a greater role in European peacekeeping politics with the League of Nations, it may have been possible to prevent World War II by engaging in more productive and inclusive diplomacy with Germany rather than the appeasement process which occurred leading up to 1939.

References

Dyer, J. (2005). Transforming America: U.S. history since 1877, A war to end all wars: Part 2.

Farmer, B. (2018). The Treaty of Versailles and the rise of Nazism. New American, 34(21), 33-38.

Muligan, W. (2017). The origins of the First World War. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

United States Senate. (n.d.). The Treaty of Versailles. Web.

Introduction

World War II represents a series of events that led to the contemporary global society, raised numerous challenges for the cultures, brought many sorrows and defeats, and became a turning point in world history. Different countries experienced various post-war consequences, which depended on which side the nations were on throughout multiple confrontations. Japan was one of the members of Hitlers coalition and was against the entities supporting communism. As a result, Japan ended up on the losing side of the world-changing war. By the end of 1944, many Japanese officers knew that the likelihood of victory was becoming remote, which was followed by the countrys capitulation (Craig 4). This paper aims to investigate the situation in which Japan found itself after the events of World War II and how it influenced its society and culture, economic development, and relationships with other nations.

Main body

Japan went through substantial modifications after the end of World War II. The Potsdam Declaration represented one of the first significant events in the summer of 1945, which officially declared Japans unconditional surrender (Office of the Historian). Hence, the signed statement was an ultimatum in nature and implicated the elimination of Japanese powers and militarists influence and an immediate occupation of the countrys territories. After the Declaration came into force, the U.S. started to integrate various reforms in political, economic, military, and social sectors, which continued for almost seven years (Office of the Historian). It is possible to say that the occupation period brought new opportunities for the nation. Through rushing attempts by the U.S. to establish democracy, Japan was reborn and achieved new heights. The most robust actions were performed under the Supreme Command of Allied Powers (SCAP) with General MacArthur in charge, which conducted an enormous work of rebuilding the country (Office of the Historian). Japan entered a new phase under the command of foreign forces.

One of the first phases that require careful attention and that serve as a foundation for Japans further development is the period from capitulation to 1947. This stage can be characterized by the massive incorporation of war crime trials, Japans punishment for militarism, and the dismantling of the Japanese Army (Office of the Historian). In such a way, the Allies who occupied the country were implementing fundamental changes to restructure the nation and introduce new leadership methods.

That period was also critical for the economy because it was the beginning of substantial economic reforms. The land reform proposed by SCAP represented one of the first transformations. The changes essence was to provide more benefits for tenant farmers and lessen the influence of wealthy landowners (Office of the Historian). One can say that the landowner systems prevalence was hampering the development of agricultural production, which harmed the whole countrys economy. Thus, the poverty level in that area was extremely high, and social discontent raised numerous conflicts. At the same time, rich landowners were supporters of the Japanese expansionism policy in the 1930s, and many of them advocated for war (Office of the Historian). Consequently, the land reform brought radical transformations to Japans agriculture sector, which contributed to the recovery of the post-war economy and social issues.

The first years after World War II in Japan were full of various modifications implemented by the United States. General MacArthur made attempts to break up Japanese business conglomerates aiming to transform the nations economy into a free market capitalist system (Office of the Historian). One can suggest that those wealthy conglomerates that had enormous power in the pre-war economic activities in Japan also were the ones who were in favor of the war. Thus, it was one of the goals of the occupation administration to liquidate those businesses.

The occupation periods primary focus was to reconsider the established policies and deliver a new system to the countrys population. One of the stages of reassessing the occupation principles is sometimes called the reverse course because Japans economic and social rehabilitation became central for SCAP (Office of the Historian). In other words, the country was in a weak position, and communisms spread during war times deteriorated the situation. There was an urgent need to implement substantial changes and bring Japan to a new level. In combination with the land reform and disassembling business conglomerates, SCAP also introduced various education reforms, tax modifications, and techniques to control the rate of inflation (Office of the Historian). Those strategies were decentralizing the economy of that time and renovating Japan as a nation with new perspectives.

The next essential step in the countrys development was the introduction of a new constitution. In 1947, Allied advisors integrated the constitution to Japans leaders, which included multiple profound changes (Office of the Historian). Besides the efforts to eliminate old foundations, the constitutional development was also conditioned by the outside influence, which led to the synthesis of western political culture with the local traditions and institutions.

Therefore, it is possible to say that one of the goals of establishing the new constitution was to bring stable democracy to Japan. One of the new legislations significant provisions was diminishing the emperors status and granting more power to the parliamentary system (Office of the Historian). Hence, the emperor lost all of his political and military influence and became a symbol of the government. The new constitution promoted equal wages and higher privileges and rights for women and removed all armed forces of non-defensive nature (Office of the Historian). The occupation forces brought substantial transformations to the economic, social, and political state of Japan. It is also crucial to mention one of the constitutions parts unique to the countrys essence. Article 9, peace provision, became one of the most innovative features of the document (Hahm and Kim 814). One can say that peace provision declared the no-war anticipation and forbid the creation and maintenance of armed forces, as mentioned earlier.

So, the situation in post-war Japan was taking various twists under the control of the Allies. Nevertheless, the situation in the global arena was also changing with the tensions growing in the Cold War, which also had a substantial effect on the further course of Japans development. The San Francisco Peace Treaty signed by the members of the Grand Alliance and Japan terminated the countrys occupation and officially ended Japans state as an imperial power (Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training). It is vital to understand the reasons for a peaceful agreement. First, it was the only possibility for Japan to restore its sovereignty, and the U.S. sort of granted this favor to the country through the treaty (Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training). Consequently, it was a document that allowed Japan to return to its independence and come out of the occupied position with transformed politics, society, and economic reforms.

However, one can say that there were other explanations for why America allowed this agreement and implemented it. Cold War imposed new threats to the U.S., and the nation saw the possibility of making the defeated and occupied country, Japan, their ally (Hara art. 3739). Thus, the United States changed the focus of its politics from establishing democracy in Japan to building a new associate in the face of Japan and strengthening its economy. One of the Political Advisors Office members, Richard Finn, stated that the Japanese peace treaty was the greatest contribution to American diplomacy (Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training). Hence, under the conditions of tensed confrontation between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, America shifted its concentration towards resolving the emerging issues and aimed to keep balance in the occupied territories by the agreement.

The significant aspect of the Treaty was its provisions in terms of the territories and requirements. The final agreement was not signed by the Soviet Union, Poland, and Czechoslovakia because they refused to promise not to do business with China, as it was forced on Japan (Office of the Historian). The fact that the Cold War was in action can explain the decisions of those nations. Moreover, the treaty allowed the U.S. to preserve the bases in Okinawa and other Japanese areas, and Japan was promised to receive bilateral security (Office of the Historian). Through those establishments, the countries both were on the winning sides, and the U.S. could ensure a certain level of support in eliminating the spread of communism in Asia.

Substantial reconstructions in Japan led to further changes after signing the peace treaty. The post-war occupation, with numerous reforms, accelerated the countrys economic growth. The next phase, which Japan entered after the end of the occupation, can be characterized by a robust increase in the economy. From 1945 to 1958, Japan had an average growth rate of around 7%, while it reached more than 9% from 1959 o 1970 (Beckley et al. 1). One can say that this remarkable escalation not only allowed the country to restore its position after the defeat and become one of the most influential economies. Japans post-war economic growth is referred to as the Japanese economic miracle (Beckley et al. 2). Different views on the explanations for such rapid growth exist. Some of the scholars argue that it is due to the considerable state intervention, while others suggest that exceptional international circumstances allowed that acceleration (Beckley et al. 2). It is possible to say that the combination of various conditions led to the economic miracle.

It is crucial to look at the relationships between Japan and the U.S. after the peace agreement. In the early and mid-1950s, the Japans economy was still on the low level, and discontent was rising (Beckley et al. 4). Therefore, America realized that its policies did not create a strong alliance with Japan, and it was time to make particular movements and take measures. The situation was that Japan did not consider itself an ally and started to make attempts to fix the relationships with the Soviet Union, also forging links with communist China (Beckley et al. 4). Those events generated tension between the U.S. and Japan, which multiplied the number of worries among American leaders that they were losing their primary associate in that part of the world.

All of this led to the efforts from the U.S. in designing strong collaboration with Japan. Along with other concessions, America opened the possibility to renegotiate the security measures and withdrew many troops from Japanese territories (Beckley et al. 4). One can state that the U.S. showed the desire to maintain robust relationships with Japan and keep it as one of the primary allies. Besides, different economic initiatives to boost economic growth in Japan were introduced. One of Americas primary factors was the conviction that economic growth by strategic allies would defuse the potential appeal of anticapitalistic ideologies (Beckley et al. 5). So, it became the foundation for the Japans economic miracle discussed above. An extreme growth with thrives in various industrial sectors made Japan one of the most influential nations globally.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the post-war period represents challenging times for numerous countries, and Japan went through different stages after its defeat in World War II. First, the Potsdam Declaration proclaimed Japans official surrender and the occupation. This event signalized the beginning of integrating various reforms, which aimed to restore the countrys social, political, and economic state. Some of the primary characteristics, like demilitarization or the land reform, made substantial contributions to Japans further development. The San Francisco Peace Treaty also became a significant event in the course of events. Later, Japan went through more transformations, and with its economic miracle, managed to occupy one of the leading spots in the worlds economy.

Works Cited

Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training. Beginning of a Beautiful Friendship: The 1951 Treaty of Peace with Japan. Adst,org, 2020. Web.

Beckley, Michael, Yusaku Horiuchi, and Jennifer M. Miller. Americas Role in the Making of Japans Economic Miracle. Journal of East Asian Studies, vol. 18, no. 1, 2018, pp. 1-21.

Craig, William. The Fall of Japan: The Final Weeks of World War II in the Pacific. Open Road Media, 2015.

Hahm, Chaihark, and Sung Ho Kim. To Make We the People: Constitutional Founding in Postwar Japan and South Korea. International Journal of Constitutional Law, vol. 8, no.4, 2010, pp. 800-848.

Hara, Kimie. The San Francisco Peace Treaty and Frontier Problems in the Regional Order in East Asia: A Sixty Year Perspective. Asia-Pacific Journal, vol. 10, no. 17, 2012, art. 3739.

Office of the Historian. Occupation and Reconstruction of Japan, 1945-52. History.state.gov, Web.

The Great War also named World War 1 or the First World War (1914) was a global military disagreement that involved mighty supremacy grouped into two opposing coalitions; Triple Entente and Triple Alliance. The war led to the death of more than 15 million people and it was branded as the worst form of conflict ever experience in the world. At the end of the War four superior empires; German, Russian, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman were defeated with the latter two seeking autonomy (James 8). It is not clearly known what was the main reason for the eruption of the War but it is said that one thing led to another. The trigger of one event by another was otherwise known as, The Treaty of Alliance System (James 9). Britain was caught up in the events and the paper analyzes the reasons that made Britain enter the Great War.

There were some reasons which made Britain get into the war; some were long-term others short-term. For example, Britain entered into a treaty in the year 1839 with Belgium. The treaty provided for Britain to offer neutrality to Belgium in case of war erupted. Also, Britain had some short-term reasons which were evident months before the war broke out in August 1914 (Lee 10). The first reason is that Britain was afraid of the rising power of Germany, according to Edgar (60). Germany was a young country that came into existence decades after the establishment of Britain but its rising power was outdoing that of Britain. For example in 1870, Britains steel production was 0.7 million tonnes while that of Germany was 0.3 million tonnes. In that period, Britain emerged as the top country in the world to produce steel. On the other hand, German steel production in the year 1910 was 13.8 million tonnes while that of Britain was 5.9 million in the same year (Edgar 61). As result, Britain started to realize that Germany was a great threat and its raising power was to be stopped by all means.

Edgar states that efforts to have an Anglo-German were fading away in 1907 and Britain sought to form alliances with France (64). Rivalry increased and it was showcased by the maritime race that took place. Germany laid down strategies on how to acquire a larger navy army than that of Britain, to create fear on Britain were it to be engrossed in a third party disagreement. The attempt made, brought fear upon Britain on the strategy they had laid before. Britain had implemented a strategy where the size of its navy should be greater than any two major navies combined. Germany further invented an HMS battleship which made the other battleships -including Britains- outmoded (Edgar 65). The intention of the invention of the ship by the Germans was to make Britain seek neutrality in case of war but to Britain, it was a sign of threat. These acts sent a signal to Britain of the emerging superiority of Germany and therefore, it gave them a reason to enter into war.

Another reason that made Britain enter into the war was the Moroccan crisis (Reed 12). The crisis happened in 1905. At this time Morocco was executing a chain of reforms, under the supervision of France. Thereafter, Kaiser Wilhelm invaded Morocco and proclaimed that Germany would ensure that Morocco retain its independence and protect it, as it was an independent country. The move was offensive to France and posed a probability of France disintegrating with Britain. As a result, Britain sought to protect France and prevent Germany from taking control and becoming superior.

The strong alliance created between Germany and Austria-Hungary was due to the betrayal by Italy. Therefore, the strong tie made Germany supportive of Austria-Hungary in the Bosnian Crisis in 1908-9. Britain declined to help Russians out of the crisis as Britain predicted their superiority if they won the battle. At the same time, Austria-Hungarian enhanced its territories as Russia received nothing. Lack of support by Britain to Russia was a path to the second Moroccan crisis and also it brought Europe close to the war (Reed 13-4).

According to Reed, the second Moroccan crisis erupted after the military from France were aggressively involved in the revolution in Morocco (16). The argument from Germany was that an agreement made earlier was breached, as a result, it demanded reparation and at the same time, battleships were sent to the Moroccan port. This made the British Government react angrily towards Germany. Britain viewed the situation as a big threat if Germany would ever succeed in making France obey their orders and hence, a reason to go into war.

The growth and expansion of Germany with the clashes discussed above created some sort of fear in the British territory. Germany was seen as a big threat to the security of Britain and the delight of the British Empire. A telegram sent by Kruger in 1896 was seen to cause much anger in the British Empire according to James (16). The telegram was congratulating the Boer president for defending Transvaal land which, the British saw as their own land. James states that, in 1908, Kaiser commented on Britain to be mad as March hares country and it led to another spark of events, and Britons demanded war. Reflecting on the events, other European countries had gone into war, and if Britain was to remain neutral its position as a powerful country was to weaken. Therefore, this was one of the many reasons Britain engaged in war.

In 1912, Lord Haldane, secretary for State of war in Britain, approached Germany so as they could reach an agreement (Edgar 72). On this note, Germany proposed to Britain to offer neutrality in case of any war, and on the other hand, they would reduce their naval arrangement. Britain saw this as a compromise in their liberty of action. The offer of neutrality meant that; on one hand, in case Germany won then it will become the most superior country having overruled Russia and France  powerful countries. On the other hand, if France and Russia won it meant the relationship of the two countries (France and Russia) with Britain would sink low (Edgar 72). However, the happenings of July 1914, greatly steered Britain to enter into the war (Edgar 72).

Britains main aim was to keep a balance of power and for them to achieve this they could not become, or even remain neutral as the win of any coalition would mean they are superpower countries. Britain was hesitant to enter into war but at the end of July of 1914, a possibility of Britain participating in the war was proclaimed (Lee 19). Britain argued that they had a reason to enter into war as the 1839 London treaty of Belgium was breached by the Germans according to Lee (19). Increasing pressure was mounted on Britain by Minister Edward Grey to enter into war. Grey threatened to resign if his wish was not accepted by the cabinet on the 2nd of August 1914 (Lee 20). This was a great threat as the resignation of Grey will result in Prime Minister Asquith resigning and consequently the formation of an alliance supporting the war. This saw Britain attain a reason for entering the Great War.

Britains other reason for the entry of the Great War was based on offering support and security to Belgium (James 19). Britain had entered a treaty with Belgium to offer neutrality in case of war seventy-five years before the Great War broke. So, it entered into the Great War with a reason of security obligation to Belgium. Britain was scared of losing its superiority, and if Germany was to overpower Belgium then their military power was to become more powerful and they will dominate as a superpower country. Britain was emphasizing on keeping a balance of power therefore it made all efforts to prevent and stop Germany and its alliances to reign in power.

It is evident that Germany was expanding economically and also its buoyancy was growing strong. This could be reflected in the effort they showcased during the Moroccan crisis; Germany tried to make France compliant with its rules. Earlier on Britain had attempted to approach Germany for some agreement. The offer was turned down and this implied that war was predictable. The death of Franz Ferdinand on 28 June 1914 greatly triggered the war and Britain had to be involved as it had made alliances beforehand with the states which had pronounced war (Reed 18).

Apart from what has been discussed above, Britain also had an economic interest in some of the countries involved in triggering war. Therefore, it could not avoid participating in the Great War. Historians have argued that the biggest reason above all for Britain to enter the Great War was to retain a balance of power between different states (James 20). As discussed earlier, if Britain was to remain dormant as the other states fought, its superiority would deteriorate.

To conclude, the analysis done above shows that Britain did not have a definite reason(s) to enter the Great War. The reasons as highlighted are due to the trigger of events. Britain was reluctant in getting involved with the war but pressure from all sides; cabinet ministers and its alliances prompted it to get into war. Further, it went into war to prevent Germany from becoming a powerful company. Also, it is noted that Britain went into war to protect France from being ruled by Germany and consequently, making Germany a stronger nation. The greatest of all reasons was to maintain a balance of power among states and also to avoid deterioration of its outlook in terms of power. Therefore, the alliances formed by Britain are the key reasons why Britain went into the Great War.

Works Cited

Edgar, James. Full circle: The story of air fighting. London: Cassell, 2001. pp. 56-80.

James, Joll. The origins of the first world war. London: Longman, 1984. pp. 8-20.

Lee, Kennet. The first air war. New York: Free Press, 1992. pp. 10-26.

Reed, Allan, Millet. Military Effectiveness. Boston: Allen, 1988. pp. 12-8.

What Made WWI Different?

World War I was a conflict the nations had never seen before. Over thirty countries lost millions of lives between 1914 and 1918, fighting for their ideals and principles. As a result, the great empires ended their existence, the political map was significantly reshaped, and the series of Treaties influenced modern international economic guidelines. Massive resources and significant consequences allow historians to call WWI a total war.

Lack of Clear Definition

While the word total is associated with something massive and affecting many people, there is no agreement among historians about the term. Modern scientists try to analyze WWI in numbers, participants, motives, and actions, which sometimes leads to exhaustion rather than resolution of an issue (23, PDF). Herwig points out that the definition is somewhat vague and is more of a concept as opposed to the precise term (25, PDF). Historians talk about absolute war and victory, but no guidelines exist for the numbers of people participating or dying, as well as for other resources involved.

The Conflict the World Had Never Seen Before

When people hear about ongoing wars today, for the majority, they remain distant actions described in the news. That was not the case with WWI, despite not having all the technology to quickly spread the information. Chickering does not doubt that this war is total war with its operational paralysis and continuous battle, as well as involving millions of civilians (11, PDF). He also says that WWI could not have ended with both sides benefiting from the conflict (Chickering, 11, PDF). The tension was so high that the battles would continue until one alliance is destroyed. Besides, the participants could not rely on the history lessons from past conflicts, as nothing at this scale had occurred before (Chickering, 18, PDF). All the shortcomings and lucky coincidences were new material for the military leaders to comprehend.

The Spark

Stretched over the years, political tensions and cautious alliances created a dangerous situation in Europe in 1914. The spark that ignited the wars fire was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, in Sarajevo, by a Serbian nationalist. Russian Empire supported Serbia at that moment, so Austria-Hungary unified with Germany to be ready for a powerful attack from the East. Since political agreements tied many countries, this triggered a chain reaction as they proclaimed their sides and interests in the growing conflict.

The Resources

Massive conflicts call for large volumes of resources, so mobilization for WWI was unprecedented. Bessel writes about the German mobilization as having astonishing numbers and involving millions of civilians (page 2, PDF). The country carefully planned its operations, educated new specialists in different spheres, and produced the numbers of weapons that were not possible before. However, as Bessel describes it, even with all the time, money, and propaganda invested into the military force, the result was a failure (5, PDF). Germans are known as a disciplined and strict society, but even with the detailed plan, the hyper mobilization led to shortages of food, ammunition, and soldiers, which shows the enormous demands of the resources for the participants of WWI.

The results of failure in a total war are devastating for the country that has lost. Herwig calls what happened to Germany, a war crime, after describing the high mortality rates and the diseases and starvation the citizens had to experience (24, PDF). Total war leads to complete destruction of the defeated society making it nearly impossible for the country to recover rapidly without outside help.

The Forces Were Close

Desire to win the war and tiredness from its length have led Germany to almost desperate battles with Great Britain. They were trying different methods, one of which was using the U-boats to take away British advantage at sea. As Herwig points out, the plan was brave and ambitious, but the calculations of the enemys position and resources were not accurate enough for the plan to be completed (35, PDF). It may be due to bad luck on the German side or because the Great Britain forces were better organized. However, the advantage was not obvious, and the victory could have been on either side. Close forces at war make the battles long and unpredictable, just as it happened in WWI.

Total Victory

Total war should logically lead to total victory, but this term is not clearly defined either. Keiger describes it as an unbending commitment to fight for a victors peace and thus a refusal of any compromise settlement (45). It sounds too radical to be implemented in any war, but also shows the ambitions of the leaders. French leaders refused to surrender even when the odds were clearly against them. It was a standard view for major opponents in WWI. This may also be why the final Treaties are so strict to the side that lost.

The Complexity

Since WWI involved many countries with complicated political relationships, the military action was not concentrated in one spot. As Kennedy describes it, the plan on either side had to include numerous maneuvers at different fronts and taking into account all the events taking place (58, PDF). Because dynamic factors kept changing and commanders added new details daily, WWI was an incredibly complex military event.

Conclusion

While the term total war does not have a clear definition, historians describe it as a massive military event of a great significance. It involved numerous countries fighting against each other in a lengthy and complicated conflict. Millions of lives were lost and damaged because of the struggle for power and influence. WWI was a new and horrifying experience for humankind to respect and to learn from, and calling it a total war is appropriate.

While the United States had significant resources and influence in the West, the country could not have prevented the occurrence of the second world war. The failure of the League of Nations to overcome national egoism and unilateralism (Boel, 2020) led to the outbreak of the War, rendering the organization obsolete. Essentially, the demise of the multilateralism dream marked the fall of international diplomatic attempts to resolve the blistering conflicts among nations. Although the United States could have provided the military power needed for peacekeeping missions, several other prominent superpowers also existed, like Germany. More importantly, diplomatic actions with Japan proved ineffective, forcing the United States to launch counter-attacks in the disreputable Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. Similarly, the United States could not contain the actions and progress of Hitler and the Nazi Party.

Even though atomic weapons helped subside enemy troops during World War II, it was indeed a setback for democracy. After the Japanese expansion and the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the United States responded by declaring war on Japan. Subsequently, the United States deployed two atomic bombs, dropped at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, leading to massive destruction of property and loss of lives. Notably, the two bombings also led to a considerable decline in combat motivation, where soldiers performance in attacked regions was markedly deteriorating (Adena et al., 2021). While these results led to the demise of enemy Japanese forces, they also prompted contentions against the United States role in ensuring global democracy. The narrative of the use of nuclear weapons soon changed from heroic actions of suppressing enemies to public participation in nuclear power decisions.

References

Adena, M., Enikolopov, R., Petrova, M., & Voth, H. J. (2021). Bombs, broadcasts and resistance: Allied intervention and domestic opposition to the Nazi regime during World War II. SSRN 3661643. Web.

Boel, J. (2020). Current affairs: The league of nations: A universal dream that has stood the test of time. The UNESCO Courier, 2020(1), 46-49. Web.

Introduction

It is important to note that Japan experienced a major shift in its economy, politics, legal framework, culture, and society as a direct result of World War II. The given analysis will narrowly and specifically focus on the political-legal environment impact of WWII and changes directly linked to the conflict, not changes since WWII. The only reason why Japan remains to be the closest ally of the US is the fact that the latter introduced profound changes in how Japan has functioned legally and politically since WWII. The key implications of the findings are that the United States singlehandedly changed the trajectory of Japans political and legal environment from a totalitarian empire to liberal democracy. Thus, the political and legal system changes in a nation can be set up in a manner where the victors dominance can be ensured for decades in the future.

The main concepts employed in the given analysis include Romano-Germanic and American Laws, liberal democracy, constitutional monarchy, and parliamentary government. The competing paradigms include realism and liberalism pertaining to the question at hand. The assessment will reveal how a great victorious power in the face of the United States had a significant influence on the restructuring of the political-legal environment of Japan as a direct result of WWII. The question will be answered by providing historical evidence of changes in Japanese laws, government, and politics after the war. In sum, the argument will provide a literature review on what constitutes realism in international politics, followed by a presentation of evidence on the political-legal transformation of Japan under US supervision. Thesis: The hegemonic US occupation of Japan after WWII jumpstarted American liberal-democratic political and legal reforms in foundational Japanese legal documents reducing the Emperors powers built on the groundwork of Romano-Germanic and Japanese law indicating realism.

Background and Literature Review

The setting of the problem of Japans quick transformation from an imperialist monarchy into a liberal democracy is that the United States was the prime hegemon. It was a great power dictating how the political-legal environment of Japan must change for it to have a place in world affairs as a direct result of WWII. The international system has always been mainly anarchic and offensively realistic, which means that there is no single unified mode of authority to enforce and impose regulations, treaties, and human rights on a sovereign nation. It should be noted that the explanation to the question lies in the anarchical nature of the international system, which is reflected in the theory of offensive realism. The five tenets of the latter framework include international anarchy, offensive military capability, uncertainty of intentions, survival, and rationality (Alenezi 2). In other words, it is difficult for the international community to hold governments of sovereign states accountable for violations of treaties, human rights abuses, and environmental degradation because the system is anarchic. In addition, the great powers are the main actors and catalyzers of world politics, among which the US can be highlighted.

The key debate pertinent to the topic is between liberalism and realism. The former considers human beings to be respectful and rational, whereas the latter views societies as generally brutish conquerors. It is stated that Mearsheimer contends that the combination of all his five assumptions pushes states to maximize their relative power as opposed to seeking an appropriate amount of power (Orsi et al. 35). In other words, the great actors, who possess the highest offensive military capability, will not only defend their survival but also expand their sphere of influence as hegemons. In addition, Mearsheimers offensive realism, however, makes a distinction between global hegemons and regional hegemons (Orsi et al. 35). In this case, the United States is the closest candidate for a global hegemon spreading neoliberalism, whereas Russia and China are the second closest. The latter two best fit into the description of regional hegemons, which control the sphere of influence over different parts of Asia and some African nations when it comes to Chinas economic power.

Considering the fact that great powers and hegemons seek to survive and expand their sphere of influence, other nations under the influence of hegemons are unable to act solely on their interests but have to take sides with one or several hegemons. International organizations, such as United Nations or Human Rights Watch, have no power to enforce the adherence to treaties, human rights, and environmental regulations because they have no military offensive capabilities. For example, the United States can promote these issues over its spheres of influence, such as Japan, to a certain extent but cannot force Russia or China to do the same. Similarly, Russia is capable of enforcing its interests in its sphere of influence, such as Central Asia or some Eastern European nations. In other words, if human rights issues or environmental regulations do not benefit Russias or Chinas interests due to dependence on fossil fuels, they and nations in their sphere of influence will not adhere to these matters.

Thus, war always has an adverse impact that deteriorates the livelihoods of the citizens touching all aspects of life. This reminds the next generations that war never brings profit. According to Komisarchik et al., the suffering and losses received by the nation that won the war suffered as much as the nation that lost the war (27). Of the many wars, World War II is said to have had the broadest impact in various fields, including the Japaneses economic, social, and cultural livelihoods.

Argument

Romano-Germanic and American Laws

Firstly, the victorious United States influenced Japan as a direct result of WWII in the form of a hegemon by implementing Romano-Germanic and American laws. American law was asserted in all areas of the life of defeated Japan, in particular, the post-war Japanese joint stock law. The Monopoly Act mirrored the American antitrust acts in full and had a significant impact in the area of criminal justice. In the Code of Criminal Procedure of Japan in 1948, the application of the adversarial principle was expanded, and the institution of a preliminary hearing of cases was excluded. During this period, a set of paramount laws was adopted that regulate social relations to this day, undergoing minor changes.

Despite the total introduction of American law into the Japanese legal system, its influence was not consistent enough. The fact is that most of the institutions of the main branches of Japanese law remained on the principles of the Romano-Germanic legal family. In Japanese law, the main features of the Romano-Germanic family are both the very content of positive law and the system of sources of Japanese law, the main element of which is codified legislation. Post-war Japanese law actually represented a synthesis of Western legal systems. Purely Japanese norms in the countrys legal system were reduced to a minimum.

In Japan, a codified system has been preserved, mainly consisting of six codes. Judicial precedent, as a characteristic element of the American legal system, has not been established as a source of Japanese law. Thus, the impact of World War II on the state and legal development of Japan was colossal. Japan turned from a conquering power into a defeated country, in which all state power was, in fact, in the hands of the American occupying forces (Tanaka 55). The Japanese state was forced to develop along the American liberal-democratic path. However, in the Japanese legal system, American law, which, although it had significant influence, was synthesized with the already existing Romano-Germanic and Japanese law.

Parliament and Supreme Court

Secondly, the United States acted as a great power and hegemon by restructuring the justice and government systems of Japan. The supreme legislative body was a bicameral parliament consisting of the House of Representatives and the House of Councilors. The first chamber was elected for a four-year term and the second for a six-year term, but parliament was limited in power. For example, the Supreme Court of Japan could declare a law passed by Parliament (Chen 78) unconstitutional. Even the Emperor could dissolve the House of Representatives at the request of the Cabinet. The cabinet of ministers headed by the prime minister, elected by the parliament, was proclaimed the supreme executive body of power. The emperor had to formally approve the chosen candidate for the prime minister, who then appointed the rest of the ministers. The Cabinet of Ministers is collectively responsible to the parliament that actually elected it. In the event of a vote of no confidence, the government must either resign or dissolve the House of Representatives by asking the emperor to do so.

The supreme judiciary is represented by the Supreme Court, whose judges are appointed by the cabinet for 10-year terms. The Supreme Court, in order to determine the conformity of the constitution, carried out the verification of laws and other acts. The lower-level judicial bodies were called courts of summary proceedings. Article 9 of the 1947 Constitution declared Japans renunciation of war and the threat or use of armed force as a means of settling international disputes (Yamamoto et al. 142). In the criminal legislation, the Law of 1947 excluded crimes against the imperial house, abolished family moral crimes and violations of marital fidelity but introduced severe punishments for war crimes and crimes against peace and humanity (Chen 241). Later, this made it possible to start trials against war criminals in Japan.

American Influence

Thirdly, the United States acted as a hegemon by directly engaging in legal and political changes in Japan by approving or rejecting specific drafts. The American occupation authorities rejected the draft of the new constitution of Japan, which was, in fact, a reworked version of the old constitution of 1889. The US imposed its own draft, which, of course, was based on the US Constitution as a model. Thus, in accordance with the American model, the Constitution of Japan provided for the institution of constitutional supervision. Since the Constitution of 1947 does not define the form of government, the presence of hereditary imperial power and a special mechanism for the interaction of the Parliament with the Cabinet of Ministers gives grounds to define this form as a parliamentary monarchy (Hata et al. 124). The emperor, although he formally remained the ruler of Japan, was significantly limited in his rights. He had the right to appoint the prime minister and supreme judges, promulgate laws, convene and dissolve parliament, and approve the highest state appointments to posts. Thus, the powers of the emperor were significantly limited by law, parliament, and the cabinet of ministers.

After the defeat of Japan in World War II, for a long period, she lost the opportunity to independently determine the vector of her development since the victorious states set the task of eliminating the possibility of the revival of Japanese militarism. And the radical restructuring of the state carried out through reforms, took place, among other things, for this purpose. The leading role in the development of these reforms was played by the United States, which was directly interested in turning Japan from an enemy into a country that shares American values and is an ally. It was necessary to create a solid democratic foundation in the country. The reforms carried out in Japan were aimed at serious democratization (Hata et al. 205). In the process of modernization, it was necessary to eliminate those features that made it possible to establish an authoritarian paramilitary regime. At the same time, the Japanese government did not have the right to independently establish and maintain contact with other states, and Japans foreign policy functions were in the hands of the occupation authorities.

WWII as a Foundation of Modern Japan

Fourthly, the United States acted as a great power and hegemon by setting the foundation immediately after WWII, which created modern-day Japan. For Japan, this defeat meant not just a crisis of statehood but its practical destruction. In Japan, occupied by American troops, all state powers were transferred to the commander-in-chief of the US troops, under whom an Advisory Council was organized from representatives of the USSR, Great Britain, and China. There was also a control body, which was the Far Eastern Commission, in which representatives of 11 countries that defeated Japan already took part.

The foundations of the post-war structure of Japan were predetermined by the Potsdam Declaration of the victorious powers of July 26, 1945. According to the Declaration, Japan was demilitarized, which meant that it was deprived of its army and all military structures (Tanaka 86). In October 1945, the American headquarters issued an order to restore all democratic rights and freedoms in Japan. Later, in December 1945, universal suffrage was proclaimed, which was the same for both men and women, and came from the age of 20 (Hata et al. 174). The American authorities initiated the revival of multi-party political life in Japan. The process went so actively that by 1947 there were more than 120 political parties and associations in Japan (Hata et al. 55). Among those revived were the Socialist and Communist parties as well.

Japanese Politics

Fifthly, the United States demonstrated its hegemonic position by establishing the framework for Japanese politics. World War II also had an impact on the political field since the US, which came out victorious, then became a superpower. United States-led Allied forces controlled the country after Japans capitulation in 1945, ending World War II and bringing about significant changes (Chong and Xiaoyang Li 200). Japans empire was dismantled, it became a democracy, it dismantled and rebuilt its economy, and it dismantled and dismantled its educational system. Moreover, Japanese colonies in east Asia, such as South Korea, China, and the Philippines, regained their independence after the United States oversaw the powerless Japanese, ending World War II.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the US victory over Japan jumpstarted American liberal-democratic political and legal reforms in foundational Japanese legal documents reducing the Emperors powers to ceremonial ones built on the groundwork of Romano-Germanic and Japanese law. Politically, Japan lost its colonial states, such as South Korea, and also its empire git disbanded. Generally, World War II saw Japan transform from a stable and independent country to one that was dilapidated.

The implications of the learned observations are that the United States singlehandedly changed the trajectory of Japans political and legal environment from a totalitarian empire to liberal democracy. It means that legal system changes in a nation can be set up in a manner where the victors dominance can be ensured for decades in the future. The sole reason why Japan remains to be the closest ally of the US is the fact that the latter introduced profound changes in how Japan has functioned legally and politically since WWII. More information and research are needed on specific legal levers of power held by the United States over its allies and partners, especially the ones defeated by it. Therefore, more studies are necessary on how superpowers of the world use nations political-legal frameworks to ensure their allegiance and partnership longitudinally.

Works Cited

Alenezi, Danah A. US Rebalance Strategy to Asia and US-China Rivalry in South China Sea from The Perspective of the Offensive Realism. Review of Economics and Political Science, vol. 1, 2020, pp. 1-14.

Chen, Albert. Public Law in East Asia. Routledge, 2017.

Chong, Terence Tai Leung, and Xiaoyang Li. Understanding the China-US Trade War: Causes, Economic Impact, and the Worst-Case Scenario. Economic and Political Studies, vol. 7, no. 2, 2019, pp. 185-202.

Hata, Hiroyuki, et al. Constitutional Law in Japan. Wolters Kluwer, 2022.

Komisarchik, Mayya, Maya Sen, and Yamil Velez. The Political Consequences of Ethnically Targeted Incarceration: Evidence from Japanese-American Internment During WWII. Historical Events, vol. 3, no. 10, 2020, Web.

Orsi, Davide, et al. Realism in Practice: An Appraisal. E-International Relations Publishing, 2018.

Tanaka, Yuki. Hidden Horrors: Japanese war Crimes in World War II. Routledge, 2019.

Yamamoto, Eric K., et al. Race, Rights, and Reparations: Law and the Japanese American Incarceration. Aspen Publishing, 2021.

The Second World War left a huge mark in history for many countries of the world. Almost every person has a relative who necessarily took part in the fighting. This essay is devoted to the final stage of the bloody war when the Western Front opened, and the rapid advance of Anglo-American troops deep into Europe began. To describe those events, it is worth referring to documents, articles, and the memories of the participants of the events themselves.

One of these is the memory of the son of Czech emigrants, Joseph M. Halicek, who found himself in Europe after the invasion began. He was a soldier of the 94th Infantry Division of the United States and made his way from France to Czechoslovakia. For the next few months after appearing in the European theater of operations, he faced many dangers while fighting desperate German troops. His interview is attractive because he pays great attention to details; for example, he describes how he had to jump in the trenches in his socks because shoes deteriorate quickly or describe German weapons.

He saw all the fear and horror of the people who participated in the battle in the Hurtgen Forest. The soldiers said that it was a straight meat grinder, after which the Allied troops had to retreat and no longer appear there. Having equal opportunities but poor command, the troops were forced to leave and are preparing for a new operation, which has already become successful.

The new operation was connected with the offensive in the Ardennes and allowed the Allied troops to invade German territory. The author of the memoirs vividly talks about the battles he saw when the Allied tanks opposed the German Tiger and Panther tanks. Thanks to the redeployment of troops and a skillful tactical move (the capture of German divisions in the cauldron), the Wehrmacht soldiers were forced to be defeated (Smith 88). Joseph M. Halicek was wounded and returned to the ranks already on the Rhine when the Allied forces the Reich trooped to capitulate.

Joseph M. Haliceks journey did not end there and moved to Czechoslovakia, where clashes with the Soviet army began. As the son of Czech immigrants, he found that his language skills were helpful in the battles against the USSR, which continued the occupation of Czechoslovakia far beyond the end of the war (Valenta and Condoleezza 129). The author of the memoirs made a thin line to the fact that the world was on the verge of a new war due to strengthening the USSRs positions. He mentioned the US plan to rebuild Europe and the USSRs aspirations for the expansion of Eastern Europe. In Czechoslovakia, Jonathan acted as an interpreter rather than a soldier and shared various stories from his stay: being beaten because of wine or shots fired at Czech police officers.

This story tells not only about the horror of war but also about the everyday trifles that surrounded the soldiers in the process of their advance into enemy territory. There is a uniqueness here that helps us have a complete picture of the past, but this may not always be objective. Many memories are substituted, displacing the opposing sides, or have an ideological character. But such sources can and should still be used, and this is invaluable information about one of the most terrible wars in history.

Works Cited

Smith, Robert. Blood and Steel, The Wehrmacht Archives: Volumes I Normandy 1944; Volumes II Retreat to the Reich: September to December 1944 and Volumes III the Ardennes Offensive: December 1944 to January 1945. Edited by Donald E. Graves. Frontline Press: London: 2013. Saber & Scroll Historical Journal vol. 7 no.1, 2018, pp. 87-90.

Valenta, Jiri, and Condoleezza Rice. The Czechoslovak Army. Routledge, 2019.