Why Did World War 1 Last So Long: Analytical Essay

World War I, a time of massive killings and destruction, was not the product of a single, immediate event. Rather, multiple long-term causes, including the effects of Nationalism, produced the war. While liberals believed that a peaceful Europe would emerge from using national lines to organize Europe, the opposite happened. There was no cooperation amongst Europe’s great powers; instead, there was competition and significant rivalries. Conflict over industrial and commercial interests was significant. With this competition came the formation of two alliances, which only increased the already rising tension. Increasing conflict and discontent severely tested the different governments. Regardless, these different European states significantly cherished their alliances and protected each other no matter the consequences.

Each European state believed that it was its own entity without any higher body of authority. With this, each nation consistently showcased self-motivation for personal interest and success. Thus, the war was becoming more and more possible as each European state had self-serving interests and goals that wanted to reach. Different European leaders viewed the war as an excellent opportunity to achieve such goals and authority. Along with Nationalism, socialist labor movements are considered a long-term cause of the war. They were more potent and violent in their efforts as achieving their goals was the central focus. With the fear of revolution on the mind of many Europeans, the decision to start the war was a way of controlling severe destruction. A third long-term cause of the war was the significant impact of militarism. With the size of mass armies increasing significantly in size, tensions continued to rise. Similarly, the inevitability of the war predicted its destructiveness. As the practice of conscription continued, the size of all European states’ armies increased. Since young working-class males could not participate in the army since their physical state was not adequate for the army, leaders shifted to recruiting peasants. With more massive armies came an increase in the number of military leaders who lacked flexibility in their plans and ultimately, power.

Francis Ferdinand, the Austrian Archduke, and his wife, Sophia, were assassinated in the summer of 1914. As a result., Austrian officials chose to use force in warning Serbia that the murder was wrong and would not go unnoticed. With the support of their allies, Austria served Serbia with a demanding ultimatum at the end of July. When Serbia chose to reject some of the demands, Austria subsequently declared war on Serbia. This declaration led different European states in each alliance to declare war on a European power from the other alliance. While the decisions made in 1914 were influential in starting the war, they were not the ultimate cause of the war. Instead, they were the final straw in what was a long-time coming war. With an extensive history of conflict and discontent between the different nations, the foundation for war was already present. The assassination and subsequent ultimatum initiated the war.

Serbia played a significant role in the start of World War I. Before the assassination of Francis Ferdinand; there was already a considerable rivalry between Serbia and Austria. Serbia, in support of its ally Russia, focused on creating an independent Slavic state in the Balkans while Austria prioritized preventing that from happening. With this building sense of mutual discontent and mistrust between the two nations, it is not surprising that the assassination took place shortly after in the summer of 1914. Therefore, Serbia played a significant role in the start of World War I as they ultimately took a direct shot at Austria’s empire without attempting to be discrete. Further, they illustrated just how important the two alliances were when they stood by Russia through this more focused conflict. Finally, by choosing not to meet all of Austria’s demands, they kept to their goals, a common thought by all the nations. They firmly believed that the war would provide them with the opportunity to achieve such goals. With Russia helping Serbia when Austria declared war, and Germany subsequently joining the conflict, World War I truly began.

World War I, a significant event in history, was a fight long in the making as the conflict and hatred amongst the different European nations were long-term. From the effects of Nationalism, internal dissent, and militarism, the building of the reason behind the war was not immediate; instead, it took some time. The assassination of Francis Ferdinand by Serbia and Austria’s immediate response initiated the fight that all involved nations had wanted for a long time. With each nation’s strong desire for authority and success, the war would not be easy, nor would it be without many casualties and ultimate destruction.

What Made World War 1 a Total War: Analytical Essay

Total war is when countries use any warfare that includes any civilian resources, uses all of society’s resources to fight the war, and the priority is towards warfare over non-combatant needs. World War One is considered a total war due to the fact that societies, economies, and labor were all seconded to the war effort. In World War One, the countries used all means to completely demolish the enemy so that they were unable to fight back because the destruction is beyond recovery. In World War One, the countries forced their people into the war using conscription, propaganda, war bonds, and rationing, all to help their homeland. People who were not in the war had to give their food, supplies, time, and money to help the war in another way.

The battle of Verdun was a very gruesome, bloody, and inhumane battle in World War One(a great representation of total war). Over 300 000 people died; this included nurses, soldiers, and anyone in the general area of this battle. Death(200 000 million soldiers died), injury, malnutrition, illness, and disability are some of the most severe physical impacts of war, while post-traumatic stress disorder also known as “shell shock”, depression, and anxiety are some of the emotional impacts due to the aftermath of the total war in World War One. More specifically shell shock was a term created by soldiers when one of their own would experience fatigue, tremor, confusion, nightmares, and impaired sight and hearing. It was often diagnosed when a soldier was unable to perform simple tasks causing their functions to be impaired.

This was all caused by the horrific casualties these men would see and experience themselves, throughout the first total world war. Some of the physical effects on these countries were very devastating such as France. Their economy after World War One was ruined. There was a loss of power for certain productions and lots of their farmland was wrecked and torn. This all leads to an increased need for help and shipment from other countries to help them in their predicament. France used a large amount of money to get good medical care for the millions of wounded that had survived the First World War.

The effect of total wars was very brutal and devastating, the effects of which can be felt on the economy and country as a whole for many years after.

World War 1 Summary Essay

Hew Strachan is the Chichele Professor of the History of War and a fellow of All Souls College, Oxford University. Strachan is the editor of The Oxford History of the First World War, which would lead to this three-volume history of the First World War. Strachan did not focus on covering the war in its worldwide aspect; therefore, we lose an in-depth character assessment of major figures. What he wrote is an effective framework of interpretation for hanging a lot of facts and factions and sites of conflict.

In the first chapter, Strachan starts off in Austria-Hungary. Focusing on the most important person in World War I in my opinion, Archduke Franz Ferdinand. The author starts off on June 14, 1914, in Konopischt, the hunting lodge of the Archduke. Strachan goes into detail and adds so much more information than I could have ever imagined. Strachan starts the book off with Archduke Franz Ferdinand because his assassination is what started the war between Austria-Hungary and Serbia and would lead to the first world war.

Strachan continues through the book talking about the events that took place through World War I. He continues after Ferdinand’s death with the war between Austria-Hungary and Serbia on July 28, 1914. Followed by this was Germany invading Luxemburg and Belgium dating August 2, 1914 through August 7, 1914. As Germany was invading Luxemburg and Belgium, France invaded Alsace, and British forces arrived in France. As the events played out, more and more countries were getting brought into the war. On August 10, 1914, Austria-Hungary invaded Russia.

Strachan continues the book by writing about the events playing out not only from a historical point of view but in a way that illustrates the war to the reader. He continues the book by writing about the naval blockades Germany enforced on Great Britain. On May 7, 1915, a German submarine would sink the passenger liner Lusitania which killed 128 Americans. This would eventually bring the United States into World War I.

Towards the end of the book, Strachan writes about Germany’s last gamble in the war. Germany would launch a massive attack on the Western Front. Eventually, on November 11, 1918, Germany would sign an armistice agreement with the Allies. Covered in the last chapter of Strachan’s book, the armistice and the Treaty of Versailles were signed to end the “War of all Wars”, but would Germany keep its promise and respect the armistice? Just by knowing U.S. history, I know why the last chapter is titled “War Without End”. Just wait until 1939.

To give an overall summary of Strachan’s “The First World War” from a different point of view would be to say that the book was written phenomenally in a complex way. Strachan’s book gives every piece of detail in the events of World War I and makes it enjoyable to read. Strachan gives so much detail about the events of World War I that it paints a picture in the reader’s mind, almost as if they can see it happening. I would highly recommend any person or scholar to read and study this phenomenal book.

The Machine Gun and Its Significance in the First World War: Critical Essay

Created by Hiram Maxim in 1884, the machine gun greatly influenced World War I because of its rapid fire and high kill rate. This is because the machine gun was one of the most common and effective guns at this time. During the war, one of the main causes of death was from machine guns. Therefore, the introduction of the machine gun ended up having the highest impact on the death toll because they were so effective and were soon introduced to plains. Consequently, due to Hiram’s exceptional design, the machine gun was the most effective of its time.

The machine gun was introduced in 1884 and is still highly effective to this day. This is because Hiram Maxim made such an effective design that could fire multiple bullets at a time. He made his design to be completely self-powered and made it become powered by relying on the energy released from the firing cartridge. This gun was so effective that on June 7, 1912, they decided to mount the gun on fighters’ aircraft to eliminate more enemies. Despite the fact that this weapon is so practical and dependable, it does not have excellent effects on pilots.

Although the machine gun is so effective, it does however come with some quite substantial effects. Even though the mounting of the machine gun on fighters’ aircraft seemed like a smart idea, at the time it caused the pilots some great danger. One of the biggest dangers was caused due to the propeller spinning five times faster than the machine gun could fire. Which caused there to only be an exceptionally small margin for error. However, they solved the problem by adding a gear-like disk onto the propeller, which allowed the gun to fire in between the blade rotations. So, although people think the machine gun is so great nowadays, back when it was first invented it ran into a lot of complications.

The significance of machine guns in World War I was that they inflicted casualties on both fronts, caused many deaths, and caused trench warfare. Both fronts suffered casualties as the men climbed over the trenches and had little chance of survival when the enemy opened fire. Both sides also soon learned the lesson that the machine gun, more than any other weapon introduced in that war, drove soldiers off the battlefield into the safety of their trenches, and it was called trench warfare. Therefore, the significance of machine guns in World War I caused casualties on both fronts in this war due to their high kill rate and rate of fire.

In summary, the machine gun had a huge impact on the development of World War I due to its rapid rate of fire and high kill rate. With rapid machine gun fire and a high kill count, this resulted in both fronts facing heavy casualties, forcing soldiers off the battlefield into the safety of trenches. Both sides benefited from installing machine guns on fighter planes to increase the number of deaths. The machine gun was so significant in the First World War that even after 137 years, creators are finding new and new ways to modify and recreate this gun. Something we could consider for the future is that the machine gun has been so effective that we may see more and more versions coming out in the near future. After this research, I can understand that if Hiram Maxim had not created this machine gun, the First World War would have had a very different outcome.

Research Paper on World War 2

World War 2 had a catastrophic impact on every aspect of everyday life. where the stock market crashed. Also, economic inflation had pushed building materials price up and led to materials shortages. As a result of this, the United Kingdom nationalized coal, steel, electric, and gas manufacturing. Pioneered by the infamous Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Le Corbusier, Walter Gropius, and Erich Mendelsohn. Internationalism shares many similarities with modernism but has its unique differences. The modernist movement is the parent to the internationalism style and the modernist movement was based highly on the lack of ornament “Ornamentation is for criminals and degenerates.” (Adolf Loos Ornament and Crime 1908) this is a very strong and bold used by Adolf and is simply saying architects who use ornamentation are criminals, so he is very strong-minded with his opinions and wants buildings to be functional and to have more simple aesthetics. Modernism was a very big movement at the time, focusing on clean lines and minimal ornamentation, that in turn gave birth to internationalism “development of new building technologies centering on the use of iron and steel, reinforced concrete, and glass.” It’s rare to see an international-style piece of architecture using wood as a main material as these materials stated are very clean and some very sustainable and wood doesn’t fit the profile for internationalism. To fully understand how the international style was impacted by world war 2, building such as The Bauhaus must be discussed. The Bauhaus is the most well-known piece of internationalism furthermore was bombed during the war, so this has been directly impacted by the war.

The Bauhaus School by Walter Gropius is one of the most well-known buildings embodying the principles of modern/ international architecture. The technologies and materials used in this building are now being used for countless buildings today. Most of the building is prefabricated for ease of use and that is also widely used today. With its extensive white façade and a large amount of glass used, it has a strong and clear framework that is made visible using the transparency of the glass. The complex is made into different sections, housing, a studio, a workshop, and private offices. Its view from the outside has no central viewing point so you need to walk around the building to see everything. “During the war, the complex was bombed, and the damage was at first only provisionally repaired.” The impact of war has made a mark on the school, being physically partly destroyed during the bombings but has been renovated to its original standards. The complex is very asymmetrical with the positioning for the dorms and other facilities. Then the building was recognized and achieved UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE status. So the ideals of the movement are rich enough for people to want to restore the building to stand as almost a monument that it can overcome the war. As a prime example of the earliest work of internationalism, it sets the stage for what to expect from the movement. This building was built in 1925-26 just before the great depression that swept across America affecting the entire world, this is a true example of what internationalism was before the second world war. If you look back at the key principles of internationalism it clearly gives a lot of open space which applies inside as well as out, with its staircases symmetrical to its window covered façade and its vast room and studio workshop sizes, it’s got function whether its studio space, workshop space, offices, and catering. Such a simple yet complex design from just looking at this facade.

Moving onto the Villa Savoye by Le Corbusier, Corbusier is one of the most renowned architects for pioneering modern architecture and starting the international style with fellow architects. The building itself is built for ease of use in everyday life in his words “The house is a machine for living.” A machine has a function, so it makes sense for the form to follow the function of the building. The War had an impact on the house as the family moved out during the war to then the house was occupied by Nazis and Americans furthermore the original family moved back in, but not being able to live as they did before the war they moved out and sold up. So, the function as a home isn’t valid anymore. Looking at the Villa Savoye with its striking appearance, and boldness to say the least but it is still appealing to look at. Its stilt columns hold up a simple box with windows and its white clean façade is made possible by using reinforced concrete. Villa Savoye Stripped away from all ornamental features gives it a really minimal look which is the embodiment of internationalism. Being built in 1928-31, coming after the Bauhaus which steer headed the movement it’s clear Corbusier wanted to design something that was fun and controlled. Its function is to be served as a summer house and as you can see there is a lot of greenery around it, so space is a good thing for this. Corbusier had health in mind when designing the house. Le Corbusier’s aim was to make housing that’s affordable and mostly prefabricated for ease of building, to help the efforts of post-world War 1, so this is someone who was pro-actively helping the situation. The building is described to fit the “five points of a new architecture” explained in his book “Treatise vers une architecture” (1923), the pilotis, roof garden, free ground plan, horizontal windows, and the free façade. The building features every single point with the decoration-free walls, open space living inside, its linear roof garden, and windows that are wrapped horizontally, and it’s very clear pilotis give the building a striking appearance. Is this when internationalism is at its greatest? To see how internationalism survived world war 2, Brasilia will be used for discussion as many buildings share many embodiments of internationalism.

Brasilia, led by Lucio Costa and Oscar Niemeyer, are both admirers of Le Corbusier as they invited him to Brazil in the 1930s. This city has a plan that looks like a plane with the residential blocks as the wings and the buildings of interest and other amenities on the vertical line. The buildings of interest are hotels, a hospital center, a shopping district, a recreation area, banks and offices, a bus terminal, a cultural center, a cathedral, ministry buildings, a supreme court, congressional buildings, a plaza of the three powers, and executive offices. So, the magnitude of buildings is very vast, and a tremendous achievement to of designed a whole city. Looking more closely at a few of the key buildings; ministry buildings, congressional buildings, supreme court, and the cathedral. As the plan sets out described as a plane-like design, its function as a city is mapped out into sections as stated. This embodiment of function in the plan alone is an homage to the internationalist style as there is a lack of ornamentation and is highly functioned for ease of life across the city.

The ministry building is the Ministry of foreign affairs and was designed by Niemeyer in 1970, its column like spires that make the façade are a real homage to Corbusier’s pilotis, its decoration is the material itself as decoration is not much to be seen, its concrete open spaces make the outdoor space even greater, to the curtain walls of glass encased in the spires and the pool around the building emphasizes its size and simplicity of its shapes and appearance.

The congress buildings designed by Niemeyer in 1985, now this complex is very striking in appearance, yet simple. The towers are 27 stories and are comprised of hotel rooms and office spaces. The towers are connected by a three-story bridge from the 14th to 16th floors. Whilst the two domes are the assembly chambers. The towers are surprisingly 5 sided due to the angles used, so not all as it seems. Other than the shape there is minimum decoration, the building themselves are the decoration there is no need for external features and this is an excellent example of internationalism and minimalism. The use of prefabricated concrete is an excellent homage to Corbusier’s works. The supreme court, with its ribbon-like columns and the flat roof and glass walls that are made even more powerful with the reflection of the water to make it look like it is suspended, is one of Niemeyer’s trademarks at this point. This building looks effortless and playful to what the building is meant for. And the cathedral is probably one of the most abstract designs and most striking to look at with its circular spires rising, the ceramic tiles that are inside the spires make this modern bit of architecture more ornamental going against the principles of internationalism. Some can argue “Today, the city is quite correctly regarded as a colossally wrong turn in urban planning” So as a whole the city failed to function due to traffic, getting around the city, etc. But that is not to say that the buildings have failed. “It is difficult as a pedestrian – it does not always feel like it is on a scale designed for humans” quote by Lucy Jordan, journalist. So, the scale as a city was not very liked as many people thought it lacked character and its stance as a city was very poor. After this discussion, it is clear to see that this city is proof that internationalism did not perish after the second world war. And Niemeyer has done a huge homage to Le Corbusier, But their principles of it working as a city could have been managed more precisely.

So how did post world War 2 impact the international style movement? After looking at pre and post-world War 2 and examples of internationalism, from how the war has physically impacted works with The Bauhaus being bombed to the Savoye even being occupied by the Nazis and American army it’s clear to say that it had a negative impact physically. However, people’s passion to preserve and protect buildings that have such a huge heritage “To then the building was recognized and achieved UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE status” means people want these buildings to stay to inspire future works and to not forget the principles of the movements these embodied. To say the movement is still in works today, with examples of work from Van der Jeugd and Willow House by Guz Architects, each embodying the five points of architecture stated by Le Corbusier, paying excellent homages to his work and having splashes of internationalism running through them. Stating back to The Bauhaus and how the impact of post-World War 2 affected it, “So the ideals of the movement are rich enough for people to want to restore the building to stand as almost a monument that it can overcome the war.” Through one of the most destructive times of our history, this building was hit by, the resilience of the people to restore the building to its original standards and to protect it for the future just proves that the war has impacted the movement very heavily however the movement has brought solutions to many building methods we still use today such as prefabricated materials and using more sustainable materials. The movement may have slowed down due to the impact of the war furthermore the principles are not forgotten.

References.

  1. https://thespaces.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Villa_Savoye_le-corbusier.jpg
  2. https://images.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/life/travel/2016/11/19/designer-accommodation-with-a-twist-at-the-bauhaus-school/bauhaus-building.jpg.size-custom-crop.1086×0.jpg
  3. https://www.brendansadventures.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Brasilia-Brazil-5.jpg
  4. https://www.theartstory.org/movement/international-style/artworks/#pnt_2
  5. https://www.biography.com/artist/le-corbusier
  6. https://www.archdaily.com/773568/ad-classics-national-congress-oscar-niemeyer/
  7. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20632277
  8. https://architizer.com/blog/inspiration/collections/5-buildings-that-embody-le-corbusiers-five-points/
  9. Toward architecture, Le Corbusier (1923)
  10. Cardasis., D., 2017. James Rose. Athens: University Of Georgia Press; Amherst, p.21.
  11. Bauhaus Building by Walter Gropius (1925-26), 2020)
  12. Encyclopedia Britannica. 2020. International Style | Definition, History, & Facts. [online] Available at: [Accessed 9 July 2020].
  13. Schwarz, B., 2020. Oscar Niemeyer: A Vision In Concrete. [online] The Atlantic. Available at: [Accessed 10 July 2020].
  14. http://www.havarc.com/2016/06/concrete-architecture-material-stigmatised-celebrated/

World War 2 Thesis Statement

Thesis statement:

World War two commenced on 1 September 1939 – on 2 September 1945

Soon after Hitler became chancellor, the use Concentration and extermination camps were put in place for order and the organization of deaths/labor for not only those of Jewish decent but also POWs, homosexuals, blacks, anti-war activists, those who were both physically and mentally disabled as well as many others. Concentration and extermination camps had a negative impact after Nazi development, it was obvious that due to Nazi empowerment through these camps, higher rates of death and inhumane executions were made. It is visible through such camps including Bergen-Belson, which expanded in 1941, and Auschwitz-Birkenau, established in 1940 that due to these developments, deaths for Soviet POWs and Jewish men, women, and children became largely apparent and gruesome. Questions were raised as to how this happened and what changes were made after SS invasions and the impact that trusted members of the German society, including licensed medical professionals had on these camps.

Body 1: Bergen-Belson

How concertation camps developed/changed

• P – Point – Topic sentence

Bergen-Belson was a concentration camp that originally expanded in 1941. Its original use was for the main purpose of holding French prisoners, however, its seen with the vast demand for the expansion of Jewish camps was very apparent during this time, which soon led to the mass development of this site. However, the increase in power with Hitler and his parties, following this allowed for unhygienic living conditions, which also caused disease which spread throughout the camp. It was seen once Nazis gained lead ship and superiority over Jews within this site, living conditions worsened and the cause of death became more apparent as numbers were raising at a fast rate.

– E – Explain -Explain your point with the fact

Bergen-Belson had a negative effect once developed under Nazi power, this is illustrated as following the German invasion of the Soviet Union, it was seen that a large mass of Soviet prisoners were deported to Bergen-Belson. However, in April 1943 Bergen-Belson was turned into an ‘exchange camp’ for Jewish prisons. During this time the camp living conditions and character of the camp drastically changed for the worse.

E – Elaborate – Elaborate on your facts to form an analysis –

Having the SS take over the southern section of the camp and having them use the camp for additional purposes which included labor work mostly, led to 50,000 deaths within a few months of the operation of this site. Having the nature of the camp redeveloped under Nazi power ultimately lead to horrific deaths. These deaths were due to overcrowding, lack of food, and poor sanitary conditions, however having install fear in most of the resistance in this camp, was ultimately the main cause of death throughout this time.

E – Example – Provide an example to support your explanation and elaboration. Usually in modern, this is where you might use historiography

L-Link- Linking sentence back to your argument and the question

Due to this immediate liberation a total of 52,000 European prisoners died in Bergan-Belson as a result of their imprisonment and the early few months of Nazi settlements.

Body 2:

Extermination camps developed/changed – Auschwitz-Birkenau, Poland

• P – Point – Topic sentence

• Auschwitz was both an extermination camp and concentration camp, it was established by Germans in 1940, however, Nazis had started the development of this site in the early 1930s. Auschwitz is known for its abominable and gruesome grounds, the negligence of this site and the prisoners within was not only inhumane but also shaped history today. Questions were raised as to how this could have happened, what changes within society itself led to this, and how Nazi empowerment help assist with the development of Auschwitz.

– E – Explain -Explain your point with the fact

Auschwitz originally was established due to the mass arrest of Poles which then led to overcrowding within local prisons, therefore leaving Auschwitz as a perfect candidate for imprisonment for Jews. Once opened, the camp was able to fit 125 thousand prisoners of the war, however opening as a branch for Auschwitz in March 1942 it developed into an extermination site for Jews. The first transportation of poles from Tarnów to Auschwitz was on June 14th, 1940. Auschwitz was not only used for the extermination of those of Jewish descent but also as labor work. Within the time of operation, prisoners were forced into work, however on the expansion of the camp overcrowding was still an issue at this time but it was believed that this is the way Nazis wanted the death toll to rise, through executing basic human necessities.

E – Elaborate – Elaborate on your facts to form an analysis –

Before Auschwitz and other extermination camps, under the Nazi establishment, a new policy was released. This new policy was seen as a cover-up for mass murders within this time. The policy allows for medically licensed doctors to carry out/supervise deaths, specifically Jews. The term was called euthanasia. Doctors played a critical role in the final solution, in camps such as Auschwitz supervision was made by these doctors, through lethal injections, the selection of whom would be killed, and most commonly, gas champers.

E – Example – Provide an example to support your explanation and elaboration. Usually in modern, this is where you might use historiography

Auschwitz S.S. doctors Fritz Klein stated ‘Of course, I am a doctor and I want to preserve life,” replied Klein. ”And out of respect for human life, I would remove a gangrenous appendix from a diseased body. The Jew is the gangrenous appendix in the body of mankind.” Those who were viewed as ‘hereditarily sick’ were at risk of sterilization. It is estimated that a range of 200,000 to 350,000 people were sterilized under licensed professional supervision.

L-Link- Linking sentence back to your argument and the question

This furthermore represents the fact that Nazi development had an impact and vastly developed Auschwitz, with the help of medical professionals which assisted the mass killing of Jews. This impacted any hope of survival as Nazi doctors destroyed the boundary ‘between healing and killing’   

World War 2 Research Paper

Before America joined the fight in World War 2, it was in a state of disarray. The Great Depression, which began in 1929, had ravaged the nation and resulted in record-high numbers of unemployed, 25%. Once Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, this gave the United States an opportunity to join the war full-time as they only aided the allies in a non-combative role. Joining the war would change everything for the United States. In doing so, idle factories were to be immediately repurposed into producing food, gear, and weapons for our military. Since most men were sent to fight the wars overseas, men who had been out of work for several years and women had taken their spots on the assembly line. During this time over 6 million women alone, entered the workplace to support the war efforts. War production allowed the US economy to boom. No other country could match the US’ exponential production of 300,000 warplanes per year, which was praised as the reason the war was one by one foreign military general. After the war, the US saw itself reach new levels of prosperity for a majority of citizens and saw the economy continue to boom. New technology and opportunities allowed minorities to lay the foundation for the civil rights movement. World War 2 had given the US economy a way out of the Great Depression by increasing the demand for military goods.

During 1929 the United States had been extremely optimistic and hopeful for the new decade. The United States was prospering, Americans were employed at high rates and bringing in income that hadn’t been seen for years. Unfortunately, things were about to take a drastic turn for the worse. In an event that would be known as Black Tuesday, the stock market would begin to take a tumble. Due to numerous reasons, investors had begun to grow weary and skeptical of the stock market system in place at the time. This caused them to sell their stocks in a widespread panic frenzy due to the loss of value as a result of others selling their shares. By the end of the day, the Dow Jones Industrial Average had dropped nearly 100 points, leaving analysts expecting the worst financial depression in the history of the United States. Many investors had gone into irreparable debt and as a result, many people had committed suicide. Over the following years, the economy fell into a downward spiral. By the year 1930, over 25,000 businesses had closed down, and would leave many workers jobless. As a result of this people began frantically pulling money out of banks, which forced many banks to close down. All of these factors would lead to a recession so long and bad it would be forever known as the Great Depression. While the Depression was going on, there was a war raging overseas between European nations. For the most part, the United States had done its best to remain neutral in the war. This was shown by the Neutrality Act of 1935, which forbade the US from selling supplies to nations engaged in war. This showed the US’ willingness to keep itself out of any conflicts between countries and the country’s isolationist tendencies. However, the president at the time, Theodore Roosevelt had other ideas. He didn’t think remaining neutral was a good thing and wanted to be proactive in stopping the evil that was making its way through Europe. As time went on, Roosevelt was able to sway Congress into loosening restrictions in the Neutrality Act. So much so that the US eventually began giving military supplies to Great Britain and France in 1939. As the war raged on, President Roosevelt began gradually building up military strength. He did so by building more combat planes and setting up a military draft system that required men 25 to 31 to register in order to build up military numbers.

On the morning of December 7, 1941, The Japanese Naval Fleet launched one of the most devastating attacks on United States soil. A day that Roosevelt said “would live in infamy” would bring the US into World War 2, ending their isolationist views by joining the allied nations fighting against the Axis powers. The tension between Japan and the US had been building years before as a result of Japan’s expansion. The United States had passed multiple sanctions against Japan to restrict trade that included military parts such as oil and scrap metal. Before the attack, the two nations had been negotiating to ease sanctions, to no avail. Emperor Hirohito and Japan had viewed war with the United States as inescapable. Many of Japan’s military experts viewed a war between the two nations as unwinnable. The only way to defeat the Americans was to destroy their navy in a Fatal sneak attack. In the early hours of the morning, the Japanese commenced their attack. Over 300 warplanes of the Japanese fleet began to attack the base completely by surprise. Over 2,400 American civilians and service, members were killed in an attack that lasted over 2 hours. The Japanese also managed to destroy all the Battleships stationed at Pearl Harbor as well as a few other smaller ships. They also destroyed over 150 American warplanes in the airfield attack. One Japanese Admiral was afraid that they had just awoken a sleeping tiger. The day after the attack, December 8, 1941, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt gave a determined speech to Congress declaring war on the Empire of Japan. 3 days after that, Germany and Italy declared war on the US. With the United States entering World War 2 production would have to be stepped up to meet the demands needed for 2 theaters of war. Congress would help meet those demands by passing the War Powers Act which gave the president authority to reorganize the government, regulate businesses and censor some forms of mail and communication in the country. During this time many factories began being repurposed to mass produce military supplies such as ammunition, bombs, and warplanes. Workers at Ford were able to produce bomber planes at an astonishing rate of one plane per hour. Many auto manufacturing companies got in on the war production boom, but fewer companies had more success than General Motors. At the end of the war, GM had become the largest military contractor in the world and was responsible for $12 billion worth of war supplies in production. The poverty of the Great Depression was slowly but surely going away. For most that had lost their jobs during the Depression, they were able to find some prosperity and return to a somewhat normal life. Over 20 million Americans were able to find success and jobs, many of which were on the West Coast in shipyards and Airplane Factories.

As the war was coming to an end the Allies were seen as the clear victor in both Europe and Japan. The aftermath of World War 2 left the United States in a state of extreme prosperity. Americans were employed at historic rates. The unemployment percentage of the Great Depression, which was 25%, had dropped to an all-time low of 1.2%. A statistic that has not been matched to this day. The future looked bright but not everyone viewed it that way. Some economy experts expected the US to end up in a crisis with unemployment rates predicted to go back to that of the Great Depression days. These theories were easily disproved by the population. Many veterans returning from war had no trouble finding jobs and consumers had saved money, due to rationing during the war effort, and were ready to spend their money. With the war over and family out of harm’s way, many Americans indulged in consumerism by purchasing houses, cars, appliances, clothes, and many other things. The automobile industry was booming post-war with sales quadrupling from 1945 to 1965, and by the end of the 1950s, 75% of Americans owned automobiles. World War 2 had transformed the US from an isolationist nation in the midst of a financial recession to an enormous Global Superpower.

In conclusion, The United States entering World War 2 was what allowed the nation to crawl out of the Great Depression and become a World Superpower. The Stock market crash put the US into the Great Depression. This caused unemployment rates to reach an all-time high and many people were down on their luck. The sneak attack by the Japanese immediately force the US into World War 2, when they were an isolationist nation at the time. Production was needed to keep up with the demand of the war effort and to ensure victory. The United States and the allied powers won the war in 1945 and the US continued to see prosperity after the war. Many people began owning a home and pursuing many opportunities. The United States was reaching new heights of prosperity that had never been seen before.

Could World War 2 Have Been Prevented: Argumentative Essay

Appeasement was a rational and calculated foreign policy. It was intended to prevent the possibility of a Second World War, In 1961 AJP Taylor published The Origins of the Second World War, where he lays out the Revisionist argument, that Hitler was not looking for World domination, but simply ‘continuing the policy of previous German governments in seeking eastward expansion’ (3). Taylor tries to argue that by trying to make Germany the most dominant power in Europe or the world he is no different from leaders of German history such as those in World War 1. However, although Taylor wrote persuasively and was one of the most important historians of the 20th century, his book received a lot of criticism for his ‘cavalier use of primary evidence’ (4) as well as some of the conclusions he reached after cherry picking source material that fit his narrative. Taylor also did not mention Hitler’s or the Nazi’s ideology at any point in his book as a driving force for wanting world domination. Gerhard Weinberg published Hitler’s second book that shows that instead of Hitler being an opportunist like Taylor tries to argue ‘Hitler had some very definite, fixed ideas on foreign policy before he came to power’ (5). Appeasement is a factor that is only relevant late in the origins of the Second World War, After German remilitarization and aggressive foreign policy, after the Great Depression, and long after the incredibly harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles. In 1961 AJP Taylor published The Origins of the Second World War, where he lays out the Revisionist argument, that Hitler was not looking for World domination, but simply ‘continuing the policy of previous German governments in seeking eastward expansion’ (3). Taylor tries to argue that by trying to make Germany the most dominant power in Europe or the world he is no different from leaders of German history such as those in World War 1. However, although Taylor wrote persuasively and was one of the most important historians of the 20th century, his book received a lot of criticism for his ‘cavalier use of primary evidence’ (4) as well as some of the conclusions he reached after cherry picking source material that fit his narrative. Taylor also did not mention Hitler’s or the Nazi’s ideology at any point in his book as a driving force for wanting world domination. Gerhard Weinberg published Hitler’s second book that shows that instead of Hitler being an opportunist like Taylor tries to argue ‘Hitler had some very definite, fixed ideas on foreign policy before he came to power’ (5) Appeasement in an international context is a policy of diplomacy that involves making territorial, material, and political concessions to an aggressive power to avoid conflict (1). The policy of appeasing the Germans did not lead to World War 2 as it is a preventative measure to try to stop war. The policy was fully enacted in 1937 by Neville Chamberlain (2). The country, in this case, Britain makes concessions to avoid war, and due to Germany’s actions in Poland, they still go to war. Appeasement was not a significant factor in the Outbreak of war in 1939, as war would have taken place with or without the policy, due to Hitler’s long-term plans which involved conquering lands of foreign nations. Counter revisionists such as RAC Parker argue that Chamberlain overestimated German military strength tried to manipulate the public in favor of appeasement and was overcautious in rearming. The counter Revisionists believe that Chamberlain still kept faith in appeasement even when it was certainly doomed to fail, in September 1939. Appeasement was not responsible for the Second World War; however, it did not meet its goal of stopping a war, a very unrealistic goal due to Hitler’s ideology and foreign policy. However, due to support for appeasement from the public due to the horrors seen in World War 1, it is easy to see why politicians would enact this policy. However, there were differing opinions of contemporaries especially in the 1940s once the war had started. ‘Cato’ was a pseudonym for three journalists, who published ‘Guilty Men’ (6) in 1940 and argued that Chamberlain, Baldwin, and MacDonald had not been strong and facilitated the Nazi expansion. They argued that all those who were associated with appeasement should exit the government due to their colossal failure. However, they wrote this one year after the war had broken out making it very easy to point out the grand failure during the war. although Cato was popular, and their published work was successful in spreading the message that the government’s inaction did not stop the war they had a far more popular politician that agreed with them. Winston Churchill opposed appeasement from the mid-1930s, in his book The Gathering Storm he states that ‘there was never a war more easy to stop’ (7). Churchill believed that Britain should have intervened in 1934 or 1935 to stop the Nazis from rearming or forming a powerful air force. Other anti-appeasement historians believe that Britain should have taken a stand after the remilitarization of the Rhineland. Although Britain could have stopped the war by intervention in Germany during remilitarization and not by appeasing them, these are both methods of trying to stop a war. and this shows us that the factors that led to the start of the war were already in place by the time prevention was necessary, Germany had remilitarized, Hitler and Nazi ideology were very popular in Germany, Hitler’s Foreign policy was beginning to become very aggressive and expansionary to create the ‘lebensraum’ that he wanted, as well as more long-term consequences such as dissatisfaction with the harsh terms of the treaty of Versailles. Appeasement was not why World War 2 was fought, however, if it was replaced by an effective policy, World War 2 would have never been fought. The counter-revisionists seem to have been closest to correct, appeasement was a foolish policy put in place by Neville Chamberlain and the political elite to try to promote peace, however, they seriously misunderstood The Nazi’s and Hitler’s aims in Europe due to their idealism. Appeasement was popular as it was said to be able to make sure Britain could keep their empire as well as not have to relive another world war. However, the appeasers held these goals to such great importance that they could never stand up to Hitler to truly avoid a second world war.

German foreign policy was the most important factor that led to the outbreak of war in 1939. Hitler had made his aims very clear from the 1930s as to what his foreign policy direction was going to be, and yet those same policies that he spread through his own book years before led to the Second World War. the ideology of the Nazis was rooted in supremacy, so they believed it was necessary to take the lands that did not belong to them for their nation. The historiographical interpretation that closely aligns with this is the Orthodox perspective from the post-war 1950s and 60s. This perspective theorized that Hitler was a keen planner who started World War 2 ‘due to his strong beliefs on fascism, expansionism, and the supremacy of the German state’ (8). Another historian from the Orthodox perspective Elizabeth Wiskemann wrote of ‘Hitler’s fundamental intention to dominate the world in order to establish his caste system which could not be achieved without war.’ (9) in her book The Rome-Berlin Axis. This quotation shows that Hitler’s intentional foreign policy had been planned and he caused the outbreak of the war to build the German nation that he desired. There is no other more important factor in the outbreak of war. In High Trevor-Roper’s book The Last Days of Hitler he stated that ‘the conquest of Russia, the extermination of the Slavs, and the colonization of the East’ were the ‘real message of Nazis [and]… the burden of Mein Kampf’ (10). All the Historians from the orthodox belief are in agreement that Hitler’s aggression and domination of nearby countries is the direct cause of the war, they even g a step further by saying he had planned this and did it so effectively by preparing for so long. Even at the time of the war and right at the end of the war, contemporary sources acknowledged that the Nazi’s foreign policy had been the primary reason for the start of the war. German foreign policy was underpinned by the Nazi’s need for Lebensraum (living space) in territories that were not German. This meant they would have to invade, and they knew this. The German’s foreign policy also focussed on undoing the Treaty of Versailles, building alliances such s the Nazi-Soviet pact as well as incorporating territories with German populations into the Reich, which could also only be done by invasion. German foreign policy was the primary reason for the outbreak of war as it strengthened Germany, for example, its annexation of Austria in 1938, and its acquiring of the Sudetenland in the same year due to its German population, the Nazis also signed the Pact of Steel with Mussolini. The war was then directly caused by Germany using this new strength to invade countries to form its Lebensraum, such as Poland on the 1st of September 1939. GP Gooch wrote in the Contemporary Review in July 1940 that ‘the revelation of Hitler’s Napoleonic ambitions in March 1939, quickly followed by demands incompatible with Polish independence, places the guilt of the new conflagration squarely on his shoulders.’ (11) This source analyses the move Germany made for more land, especially with Poland, how this was unable to achieve with conquest and Violence, and how Hitler’s actions led to this World War. this source was written during the war and was written as a report of the origins of the war for other historians. This source was written during the war and shows the reader a realistic perspective of how Hitler was willing to conquer other lands in a ‘Napoleonic way’ which was surprising after Years of good relations with Germany. Another primary source about the origins of the war was the report on the Origins of war from The Nuremberg Trials ‘the Nazi conspirators deliberately planned, determined upon, and launched their aggressive wars and wars in violation of international treaties, agreements and assurances’ (11) this post-war report that was used to punish the war crimes committed by the Nazis show that their invasion of other lands, eastern or otherwise in order to create their Lebensraum for ‘racial Germans’ directly caused the war as they had invaded nations who were allied with France and Britain. The primary evidence proves the importance of the aggressive German foreign policy in starting the Second World War in that century. The only reason Britain would need to appease the Germans in the late 1930s was because of the threat of them invading non-German territories with their newly reformed military. Another source that shows the German’s plans to invade new territory as well as start a war is the Hossbach Memorandum. The Hossbach Memorandum shows early evidence of Nazi planning, it is a document that shows proof of a meeting between Hitler, and his top military and political leadership in November 1937. Hitler stated that the time to wage war for Lebensraum was close, Hitler was asking his staff not how, but when. He had even narrowed down which lands he was aiming to conquer in Austria and Czechoslovakia. This, as well as Hitler’s speeches and his own book, show his clear intentions of waging war to meet the ends of his cause, ‘living space’ for Germans. Many sources including those previously mentioned show how clear Hitler was in the instigation of this war. German foreign policy was the most significant factor in the origin of World War 2, it was deliberate and effective, and an example of this is that at the start of September 1939 Hitler invaded Poland for his lebensraum after signing the Nazi-Soviet Pact, and 2 days later on the 3rd of September Britain and France had declared war on Germany.

The dissatisfaction with the Treaty of Versailles and the knock-on effect that had to then lead Germany to Nazism supports the orthodox perspective of the origins of World War two and can be used to reject the Revisionist argument presented by AJP Taylor. This is because Germany was in a poor economic state, so the country needed intentional economic planning to improve the well-being of the people, it was not the work of an opportunist to completely reshape the German economy through policy to improve employment rates and reduce inflation. It shows Hitler’s ‘master planning’ from the orthodox perspective. And the ultra-nationalist rhetoric and ideology that emerged from the dissatisfaction and ramifications of the Treaty of Versailles became so prominent that it directly influenced the aggressive policies we saw Germany apply abroad, which is ignored by revisionist Historians as they do not differentiate between German recovery and the start of World War 2 from any German instigated war in the past. Another more significant reason for the outbreak of World War 2 was dissatisfaction with the Treaty of Versailles. the treaty of Versailles had many important terms that drastically reduced Germany’s power militarily and economically. Germany was only allowed an army of 100,000 men, a navy of 6 battleships, and no air force. The Rhineland was to be made a demilitarised zone as well. Economically, Alsace-Lorraine was given to France, all of Germany’s coal for 15 years was given to France, rich farmlands were given to Poland and Germany would have to pay reparations of up to 132 billion gold marks (12). All of these sanctions, especially the reparations drove Germany into severe hyperinflation. With the worth of the German mark plummeting in the early 1920s (13). Germany then went into a long recession, where the German mark became practically worthless. The German people suffered mostly from poverty and unemployment due to their country’s economic state. This then led the German people to vote for a party that promised to prioritize the German people and economy. Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party changed the German economy to become more socialized and militarised, by the time the Second World War came around, the German economy had recovered. The Treaty of Versailles was deemed so harsh by the Nazi government that Hitler rejected the League of Nations restrictions on German armament levels and walked out of the League of Nations conference for disarmament. Hitler tore up successive clauses of the Treaty of Versailles due to how much he disagreed with it and its ramifications on Germany. He had already seen its economic effects, which had stunted his progress in achieving his goal of winning a war, and he refused to negotiate with the future allied powers as to how far he was allowed to re-militarise. The Treaty of Versailles created a major rift between the League of Nations and Germany. It is the earliest factor in the start of the Second World War due to what it did to the German military, economy, and morale. The German people were displeased with the outcome of the treaty, and Hitler was able to exploit that for his own personal cause of European domination.

Another factor leading to the outbreak of World War Two in 1939 was the Great Depression following the Wall Street Crash in 1929. After the Wall Street Crash, America called their loans back, as well as withdrawing capital investments they had made in Germany. The historian Ruth Henig believes that the economic situation that was worsened by the Great Depression led to a rise in the popularity of Nationalist politics. This is because the people were willing to vote for any party that prioritized their needs and wanted to improve their standard of living. The number of German workers unemployed in March 1929 was 2.8 million. After the effects of the Great Depression, by February 1932 the number of people unemployed was almost 6 million, which constituted 30% of the available workforce, and 10% of the Population (14). The German government at the time attempted to use deflationary policies, which caused further unemployment as well as wage cuts. This only increased the popularity of the National Socialist Party. The party supported protectionist policies which would increase the national economy, the most effective of these policies would be the amount of spending on re-armament. This increased their popularity and caused Hitler and the party to receive more than 13 million votes twice in succession. Henig states that the German economy ‘was just starting to improve as Hitler came into power’ (15). This meant that he could take responsibility for the improvement and increase his popularity. Hitler had military aims, and his party gaining popularity and coming into power allowed him to plan for his future war. we are aware of this due to our access to Hitler’s Four-Year Plan document from 1936 (16). This plan sets out two major goals for the Nazi party and Germany from 1936-40. The first is that ‘the German armed forces must be operational within four years’ and the second is that ‘the German economy must be operational within four years’. This source is useful as evidence of Hitler and the Nazi party’s co-dependent relationship with the war they planned for and their economic situation. As they grew in popularity and gained governmental power due to their nationalism and ideology during the Great Depression, they needed that governmental power to then begin their ideological war in Europe. To fully capitalize on their popularity and power and to reach the stage where they were able to wage war in Europe, they still needed fast economic growth from their proposed nationalist economic policies. The policy that was most effective for the Nazi party was re-armament. According to Richard Overy’s research, between 1936-9 two-thirds of Germany’s economy was allocated to preparing for war (17). Re-armament also created millions of jobs, and in 1938 52% of government spending as well as 17% of GDP was attributed to spending on arms. This is higher than the combined arms spending at the time of France, Britain, and The United States (18). The Great Depression was instrumental in the breakout of World War Two in 1939. According to the historian AP Adamthwaite ‘without the depression, Hitler would not have gained power’.

Argumentative Essay on World War 2

No matter what the outcome of world war 2, the outcome would of still been the result of imperialism in one way or another. There were many causes that headed up to the start of World War 2, some of which can be traced back and connected to the first world war. After the first war, many countries were left in economic ruin; as such they have become vulnerable to being taken over by dictators. Dictators taking charge and many countries vulnerable by the preceding war were up for grabs by countries looking to expand their imperialist foothold. With dictators like Mussolini in Italy, Stalin in Russia, and Hitler and his Nazi party from Germany, they began to take control of the neighboring countries to expand their power and empire; World War 2 broke loose. The end of world war 2 will then determine the shift of power among the involved countries of the war.

In the period before the Second World War began, many countries were going through what is now regarded as the great depression. With the Great Depression, many people have been out of work in the streets with little to no means of survival. During these times countries’ governments become unstable and vulnerable to being overrun. The economic crisis that has been going on at the time, left countries vulnerable to being taken over. Countries such as Italy that have been taken over by dictator Mussolini; And Germany later had fallen under the grasp of Hitler and his Nazi party. With other Dictators in Europe such as Franco in Spain and Stalin in Russia nearby, European countries were on guard and wary of another war starting up again.

Nearing the beginning of the Second Countries like Italy and Germany have begun to make their imperialist move and expand into nearby countries. Taking control and building up their armies and resources. However, nothing happened in retaliation to this movement. Since Countries were wary of another war starting, no one wanted to make a move. So much so that they let Hitler do as he liked. This is a policy called Appeasement in the 1930s, Countries like Britain and France did nothing about Hitler taking over Czechoslovakia. With this, they had hoped that Hitler would be pleased with the land he acquired and wouldn’t proceed any further. However, this just made Hitler more confident that he can do and take whatever he pleases without any interference. Later on, on September 1st, 1939 Germany took over Poland. In retaliation Britain and France declared War on Hitler and his Nazi nation, and sparked World War 2.

At the beginning of World War 2, these three dictatorships were joined together on the Axis side of the war with the intention of expanding their dictatorship; Alongside the Japanese who were interested in increasing their empire. In the Modern History sourcebook link given on Adolf Hitler: The Obersalzberg Speech, Hitler goes on to tell of his plans to take over Poland and put his imperialist plans in motion by wiping the land of jew men, women, and children, for as it states in Christopher R. Browning’s The Nazi Decision to Commit Mass Murder: Three Interpretation, “What role could Jews have in a German Garden of Eden?” (Browning, 474). Then using the land to stretch their forces across Europe and exterminate those they considered imperfect humans along the way. In that same speech, he states “After all, there are only three great statesmen in the world, Stalin, I and Mussolini… So in a few weeks hence I shall stretch out my hand to Stalin at the common German-Russian frontier and with him undertake to re-distribute the world.” This states the plan he has on uniting with other Dictators in the area to then be able to begin their accession to power and take control of the world. However, this friendship between these fascist nations will not last long.

As the saying goes, there is no honor amongst thieves, the same applies to those who steal land. The friendship that Hitler has spoken of in his speech was only a first stepping stone for him on the road to world domination. In his speech, he goes on to say “Poland will be depopulated and settled with Germans. My pact with the Poles was merely conceived of as a gaining of time. As for the rest, gentlemen, the fate of Russia will be exactly the same as 1 am now going through within the case of Poland. After Stalin’s death-he is a very sick man-we will break the Soviet Union. Then there will begin the dawn of the German rule of the earth.” Just like when Germany entered a non-aggression pact with Poland and backed out of it, Hitler planned to do the same with Russia, in so taking control of Russia and their resources, it was only a matter of time.

“In late February and March 1941, Hitler openly and repeatedly called for a ‘war of destruction’ against the Soviet Union involving considerable Wehrmacht participation. The relatively favorable Wehrmacht into realistic planning in the spring of 1941.” (Browning, 479). By late June 1941, Hitler had betrayed their Soviet friends in an attempt to seize control of the USSR and proceed with the extermination of Jews. Because of a strategic retreat on the Russian part and harsh weather, the German surprise attack had failed. Soon after Russia left the Axis side of the war and joined the Allied forces. A couple of years later surrendered to the Allied forces in late 1943, then later Italy proceeds to declare war on Germany and Japan, switching sides to the Allied forces.

Two years later the War ends with the United States dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and then later on Nagasaki, causing Japan, who had attacked most of its neighbors in Asia and surprised to attack and United State Navy base, to accept an unconditional surrender. However, the imperialist factor of the Second World War does not end there. With the unconditional surrender, the Japanese agree to many things from the United States, one of those things being the United States’ occupation of Japan. Even though it was seen as a way to help Japan better themselves it’s still a country being overtaken and controlled by another, in its purest form, imperialism. In Mire Koikari’s essay Gender, Power and U.S Imperialism: The Occupation of Japan, 1945-1952 in Bodies in Contact, it says “The U.S. objective in occupying Japan was to civilize, modernize, and, most important, democratize this Asian Country that had ‘gone astray’ in the recent war.”(Koikari, 343). Thus making it seem like the united states where doing this for a just cause. The United States is being seen as heroes at this point because they believe that they are helping a nation get back on its feet or find its way after straying away from the path which they deem right and worthwhile. “The lack of attention to U.S. imperialism is not simply an oversight on the part of the scholars, but evidence that U.S. scholarly communities share a strong compulsion to disassociate the United States from colonialism and to perceive it as inherently anti-imperial since its independence from British rule. Thus, for many U.S. scholars, U.S. imperialism is a contradiction in terms.” (Koikari, 344). In the eyes of the victor of the war, it is impossible to be seen as the bad guy.

Americans believe that because they were once the subject of imperialist rule they themselves would know better or are incapable of doing such horrible things to the point where they themselves turn a blind eye to their own actions. On the contrary, the occupation of Japan even as minimal as it may seem, is still a form of imperialism. The crimes committed by the Axis powers in terms of invading and ruling countries prove that either side of the war was capable of imperialist rule. Though the result of the crimes would have been different than just a temporary foothold on a country had the Axis won the war; However it is hard to refuse that World War 2 was an imperialist war.                    

Repeated History: The Case of the World Today since 1968

The year of 1968 is said to be the most unforgettable year. From protests and riots to violent wars, the world thought that it would never see anything like it. However, worldviews have revived. For the past 51 years, there have been many cases of history rewriting itself. Young people have found themselves once again in the heart of anti-authoritarian protests against powers that worked to suppress them. The fight against racism and injustice in America hasn’t changed much. Neocolonialism and the influence of Western nations had little to no alterations on the world since then.

Anti-Authoritarian World Views in Young People

More times, students have been victims of suppression and abuse of power when protesting. This caused a big rise of anti-authoritarian worldviews in the youth. In October 1968, thousands of students gathered in Tlatelolco Plaza for a peaceful protest against the right-wing party that led the Mexican government. They hoped to create a new student movement as they had witnessed around the world. They wanted a communist, leftist government. However, it did not last long. When the police and military showed up, they shot in the crowd and killed approximately 400 unarmed people (Schuessler, 2). This massacre’s aftermath “gave rise to a wave of activists determined to seek new paths of resistance” (Malkin, New York Times). A participant of the protest and survivor of the attack, Sergio Aguayo, documents that till this day “students are creating institutions that gradually weakened the foundations of authoritarianism” (Malkin, New York Times). Evidence of this is shown today in Chile. The protests against the transportation fares and poverty have been arranged and orchestrated by secondary-school students. There’s also military sent to the streets to control and arrest protesters. Death toll is rising day by day (Armus, Washington Post). Students have also been victims in the wake of all these movements they’ve been creating. After the death of teenager Edson Souto in Brazil 1968, students started a year-long protest against military dictatorship that ruled the country. All over the world, the youth population often showed displeasure over authorities that would take advantage of people and overuse of power from people and institutions that are supposed to protect and govern properly. This rise of political awareness in the youth has given them this radical persona. Young people are continuing their fight against authoritarian figures and governments.

Anti-Racism in America

Racism in the United States hasn’t gone anywhere since the beginning of its history. What describes the best anti racism is that whoever is anti-racist is also against the institutions and foundations that protect racism. This includes governments and authorities. Equality and justice are long overdue for the African American community. 1968 was a crucial year for the fight for justice for African Americans. The leader of the Civil Rights Movement, Martin Luther King, was killed. This was a turning point for the anti-racism movements in America. His death caused more racial division between the black and white population. Other movements were quick to emerge such as Black Power and the Black Panther Party. They focused more on the violence then the nonviolence. “Many black leaders wanted to fight segregation with segregation” (quoted in Wood, week 8, slide 6). Riots and the targeting of black people was roaring greatly in 1968. This did not change in present day America. The murder of Trayvon Martin and the not guilty verdict of George Zimmerman sparked what would be a current movement that has the same goal as the ones that came before it; justice and anti-racism against African Americans. The Black Lives Matter movement is a social movement that also focused on nonviolent actions like the ones used during the Civil Rights era; peaceful organized protests and boycotts. It also focuses on gun control. They believed that racists with weapons and a badge is the most terrifying and it threatens the black population the most. The movement continued after events of police killing unarmed black men such as Mike Brown in Ferguson and Eric Garner in New York. The Mike Brown shooting kickstarted the ‘Hands up, Don’t Shoot’ slogan. Ferguson protests activists also had the same fate as the Civil Rights Movement activists; six people in the Ferguson activist community were all found dead in four years since the protest and riots started (Dickson Rolling Stone). Unlike 1968 and past movements, BLM has no hierarchy and is not restricted to black people only. Whoever is interested to take part in this fight are invited. From American lawyers, teachers and politicians to people all over the world that are watching the anti-racism movement in America. Unfortunately, racism in America is still relevant and as long as it is, there is always going to be an anti-racism movement fighting it.

Neocolonialism

Throughout the years, neocolonialism has taken many forms. From sending American troops to Vietnam in 1968 to China building empire companies in Africa in the 2010s, neocolonialism has been a serious threat to many countries’ freedom. “An increasing number of political scientists are exploring the notion that colonialism is not dead, but has instead given rise to neocolonialism” (Auerbach, 1). France has been a prime example of this. Since the decolonization of Africa, France has kept a close relationship with its former colonies and even calling it ‘Francafrique’ (Roesch, 25) and “Charles de Gaulle considered this special relationship to be a condition for the grandeur de la nation and as a mean to secure France’s position as one of the world powers” (Roesch, 27). In May 1968, students of the University of Dakar protested against the fact that the school was still a French school and that they were learning French studies and history even though the country had been independent for almost 10 years. They argued that they still felt under French rule and that they were fighting neocolonialism (Gueye, 1). They also believed that fighting neocolonialism also meant to change the world (Gueye, 13). Neocolonialism is said to be a way for big countries with lots of resources help countries with failed economies. Ironically, all these failed countries are actually former colonized countries. The United States is also a big benefactor of neocolonialism. In recent decades, it has sent troops to Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, all Muslim populated countries, in the name of intervention. What neocolonialism really does is to keep former third world countries from being fully independent which can become a risk to the great powers of the world. “Neo-colonialism is…the worst form of imperialism. For those who practice it, it means power without responsibility, and for those who suffer from it, it means exploitation without redress” (quoted in Auerbach, 2). These colonizers worldview stems from the privilege that they had during colonization.

Conclusion

This rebirth of worldviews is mostly caused by the division of the world. The danger and violence that the world is facing in the future is originated from the lack of understanding between generations. As long as the world is divided like this, where the rich benefit from the poor, where race defines laws and generational gaps are ignored, worldviews like anti-authoritarianism, anti-racism and neocolonialism are going to rampant.