Category: World War 2

World War II had a great impact on social order and international relations between the nations and continents. A major influence on international policies was the relations between the two opposite camps, the Allies and the Axis, and the views each held of the other. The Allies and the Axis were reluctant to follow any line that risked running into the antagonism of the other for fear of alienating their ally and therefore endangering one of the precepts of their distant policies (Gordon 32). In an epoch of growing international anxiety and doubt, Germany remained one of the few relatively sure supports upon which they could depend on. Certainly, in the formulation and conduct of international war policy the significance attached to the views and position of the other was considerable, indeed the contacts and discussions between them were often decisive. The history of World War II suggests that the greatest impact this war had in African and Asian countries was through the processes of decolonization and modernization coming to these geographical regions.

World War II changed the landscape of North Africa and opened new opportunities for independence. The countries became independent immediately after the end of the war, but the war changed the national consciousness and self-determination of the nations. For either to be successful the cooperation of their partner across North Africa was considered imperative. Neither the Allies nor the Axis was prepared to take any initiative alone: among diplomatic, military and political circles there was a refusal to act either against Italian hostility in North Africa or German treaty violations in Europe without the guaranteed support of their partner (Hargreaves 65). This perceived incapability to operate without the backing of the other extended at several vital junctures to the point where the Allies and the Axis allowed the other, possibly willingly so, to determine their own policies (Gordon 65).

The main African countries involved in World War II were under Italian rule and included the Italian North Africa, the Italian east Africa. Also, such Asian Middle East countries as Iran, Syria and Lebanon were involved. The outcome this emphasis placed on the other’s strategy was to strengthen the case for appeasing Italy and Germany. Each was depressed from taking a firm posture by the belief that the other was not committed to a policy of confrontation. During the first months of World War II, the countries recognized that, whatever their public statements, the British were not committed to a hard line over Italian hostility (Hargreaves 77). Later, following the reoccupation of the Africa, a similar sight was held in London of French attitudes. Equally important, each knew, indeed it was explicitly stated, that their ally would not act without them and without having first received a formal promise of their support. The Allies and the Axis pacification policies were further reinforced by the denial to accept a trade-off by which support for a policy of resistance against one fascist aggressor would be exchanged for the promise of support against the other (McGowen 87). The only result of these political maneuvers was to further damage their relations, with each berating the other for failing to provide the necessary support. In fact, these often hurtful exchanges had more to do with seeking to place the onus for (in)action onto their ally’s shoulders than with any wish to adopt a policy of resistance towards fascist hostility (Gordon 63). “Between Cairo and Cape Town operational activities were at first confined to a few ports and airfields. Freetown, an important staging-post and assembly-point for naval convoys, was quickly affected” (Hargreaves 51). The outcomes drawn from these common considerations, firstly, that it was impossible to act without the backing of their ally and, secondly, that their union was no more than half- hearted in its desire to oppose Italy or Germany (and also that they lacked the means even if they had desired to accept such a policy), accentuated their already unsure policies, impeded any firm answer, and acted as a further impetus to the policies of appeasement.

When considering the African and Asian responses to Italian hostility in East Africa, a contrast has been made between ‘the complicated “game” and the determination of the English Government; of a strong-willed British administration wanting to do all it could to halt Italy and defend the League but being held back by the cynical policies of the French (Hargreaves 66). The obvious contradiction with France’s traditional record of determination in upholding the settlement and the League, and with Great Britain’s previous half-hearted and flexible approach towards both, is explained away by a supposed dual volte-face in which each at the same time assumed the mantle of the other. This actually rapid and total about-turn in policy simply cannot explain the complexity of the Allies and the Axis policies. For both there were numerous issues to be taken into account, some pushing towards opposition to the Axis ambitions and defense, others towards maintaining Italian friendship through acceptance of her expansion at Africa’s expense. Although these were not felt equally, there were strong cases made on either side of the dispute in both countries (McGowen 34). In their respective parliaments, governments and public views the war crisis produced widely divergent, and often contradictory, opinions towards the Axis. The result was that neither was firmly attached either to opposing or conniving at Italian hostility. For the Allies and the Axis leaders the importance of the Africa crisis, coming at a critical time in international affairs, lay in its repercussions beyond Africa – in the Mediterranean, in Europe, and above all in their future relations with Germany (Gordon 49). Not surprisingly, their opinion turned as much towards Berlin as towards Rome, Addis Ababa or Geneva throughout the whole affair. Faced with growing evils in Europe, complicated by an expansionist Japan in the Far East, the significance of Italy greatly increased. With Germany rearming and clearly seeking to expand to the African and Asian continents and east the value of Italian support could not be overlooked. The result was an effort, led by the French but closely followed and supported by London, to tie Italy more closely to the western camp. “Political doctrines apart, all France’s African subjects suffered new hardships in consequence of the interruption of peacetime patterns of production and trade, and of increased demands by their rulers” (Hargreaves 53).

Not only was there a concern not to estrange their union and to keep as close to them as possible but both the Allies and the Axis also considered that their own policy could not be successful without the fuIl and active participation of each other. This refusal to operate outside a joint Allies approach acted throughout the crisis as a restraint on the policy initiatives that emerged from the Allies and the Axis whether they were for greater concessions or stronger coercive measures. Although for Great Britain the issue was less one of dependence there was still a great emphasis placed on Paris (McGowen 65). This was certainly much in evidence when consideration was given to the issue of sanctions. The issue of French military support should Italy attack the Royal Navy in the Mediterranean in some ‘mad dog’ attack was repeatedly raised. Equally, there was a general insistence that France should prepare fuIl-scale armed operations against Italy before sanctions could even be considered, and any policy of opposing Italian ambitions was simply considered impossible without the full military and diplomatic support of the French (Gordon 69). The war in Asia took place between Japanese and communist Chinese armies aimed to protect their national interest and became independent.

Time and again the Allies pointed to failure to provide this as a reason for their own unwillingness to consider sanctions. At the same time they insisted on the necessity of keeping in step with France and made this principle of their policy clear to all involved. British statements that they had no understanding with African countries, their demands that before sanctions were apprised upon France must be prepared to undertake large-scale military operations (in fact, take the brunt of these as well as from any Italian retaliation) and their refusal to offer in exchange for French support over Africa a guarantee of British support for future sanctions against Germany, only added to the general suspicion in Paris (Hargreaves 74). British demands that a sanctions policy be adopted, and moreover that it be led by France, met with little support (McGowen 48). French leaders, aware of British silence on this issue, saw no reason to do anything other than drag their heels – certainly they often argued that London would be only too pleased if sanctions were avoided.

Similar to Africa, Asia was intestinally involved in the war with poor military resources and colonial state power. It has been argued that the crisis posed a straightforward, if awkward, choice for the Allies and the Axis between resistance and appeasement, between threats (backed up if necessary by collective action) and sufficient concessions to Italy to prevent her from resorting to arms combined with pressure on the Asians to concede. In this the choice that confronted Paris and London over Asian nations reflected the wider and longer-term choice over policy towards the fascist powers. The choice was not, though, so simple. The recognized pattern of appeasing Mussolini and the desire to preserve the advantages of Italian friendship pushed them in one way; concern for the League and for the widespread public support it enjoyed pushed them in another (McGowen 65). Neither Government, though, saw the option in such stark terms. For both it was an issue of attempting to balance the many demands placed on them. Nor were conciliation and coercion considered as being equally exclusive but rather as two paths to be followed simultaneously. Both the Allies and the Axis were pushed towards what were often incompatible options by conflicting advice and concerns. The understandable inclination was to seek to avoid these alternatives, to preserve both Italian co-operation in Europe and the prestige and force of the League; neither France nor Great Britain accepted that by attempting to keep both they would fall between two stools (Gordon 77). The World War II led to formation of Asian states including the Republic of China (under Communist regime,) The North and South Korea, the Taiwan, and Vietnam. The decolonization process touched Indochina, Algeria, Indonesia and Madagascar, the dominion of India and Pakistan. Such states as Israel and Palestine were created in the Middle East.

The story of the Allies and the Axis policies towards the African and Asian countries is in large part that of how the Governments sought to come to terms with this dilemma. Neither saw a simple choice between coercion and conciliation and in neither country was the eventual outcome of the debate a clear decision either to resist or to cede to Italian demands. When faced with the threat and then the fact of Italian hostility against a fellow member of the League both France and Great Britain worked fervently to find a diplomatic solution (Hock 101). The central, seemingly insoluble, problem remained how this could satisfy both the League and Italy; how Italian needs could be sufficiently fulfilled to keep her in the anti-German camp while not delivering a fatal blow to the League and to the system of collective security. Such hopes proved to be based on an unfounded optimism or, more probably, on an irresolution characteristic of both countries’ leaderships. At the heart of British and French policies lay what were to prove intractable problems arising from inherent inconsistencies (McGowen 51). Furthermore, however understandable the policies pursued, they were always poorly adapted to the nature of Mussolini’s power. Given this, it is not surprising that their open rejection of effectual sanctions and their public acceptance of Italy’s need to expand did little to convince Mussolini of the need to accept anything less than the complete annihilation of North Africa. This gulf between fascist Italy and the democracies always worked against a successful resolution of the crisis along the lines envisaged in the Allies and the Axis. The weaknesses inherent in such an approach and the basic incompatibility of the two halves of the dual-line were never fully accepted by the Allies and the Axis policy-makers (Gordon 88).

Pushed in often opposite directions by various international and domestic considerations, the Allies and the Axis policies in Asia and Africa were equally ambivalent. The first inclination for both was to temporize, to leave the problem to others, to urge conciliation all round and to attempt to avoid the awkward dilemma posed by Italy’s hostility (Hock 103). Driven by conflicting advice, interests and considerations, weakened in their formulation by the absence of decisive leadership and in their application both by material weaknesses and the lack of Anglo-French solidarity, ended in failure: the League was ruined as an instrument of peace-keeping, the Italian alliance permanently damaged and mutual relations strained almost to breaking point. “The secretary of state entered 1941 certain that he wanted no confrontation with Japan over China or Southeast Asia until the situation in Europe had improved” (Lee 14).

Having unsuccessfully turned to each other for a lead, ministers and their military advisers looked to Great Britain for a way out of their predicament. Safe in the knowledge that British opposition would rule out any military response, the new direction was instructed to open talks under the auspices of the League. The crisis was, however, far from over (Hock 107). The importance of Asian theater was that for the Allies, all hopes of improving relations with Germany were dependent on one thing – the support of France. Everything turned on first neutralizing any French demands for action and then winning her over to the appeasement of Europe. For the Government in London the present dangers, and future possibilities, all revolved around an agreement with Paris. Both approached the events from this same sense of weakness (McGowen 38). Attempts to look to other allies (in the case of France to Poland, the Little Entente, the Soviet Union and Italy; for Great Britain to her Dominions) never got off the ground. Faced with growing threats in Europe, the Mediterranean and North Africa, Great Britain had to abandon her inclination to be the arbiter of Europe (Hock 106).

Their immediate reactions, however, were often to condemn their partner as much as the aggressor. The French attacked what they regarded as Great Britain’s lack of solidarity, their failure to provide adequate commitments to the defense of Western Europe, and for playing too much to a German tune. They also questioned the inconsistency with which the British sought to apply the Covenant against Italy while denying its value in Europe. In London French intransigence was blamed for the long-lasting failure to reach a settlement with Germany (McGowen 23). The inherent issues in relations between Britain and France in Asia were heightened by the fact that before either reached a policy decision the other’s attitude was solicited and, despite a pronounced lack of confidence, their support made an essential precondition for any diplomatic move (Kelly 81). Throughout both crises each constantly referred to the attitudes of other actors. In turn, the League, the United States, France’s Eastern European allies, British Dominions, and numerous other states as far apart as Turkey and Japan, were considered in policy deliberations. What really mattered, however, was the attitude of their partner across the Channel. Beyond the limitations imposed by material resources and the broad outlook and aims of the two leaderships, it was these considerations that each gave to the other’s position that was the major determinant of international policy (McGowen 87).

In Asia and Africa, the Allies relations were marked by requests and refusals for action against international hostility: British attempts to halt Italian ambitions in Ethiopia were blocked by French unwillingness to follow their lead; over the Asia the roles were apparently reversed, with Great Britain’s non-co-operation holding back the French. In both cases there is much in this that is simply myth. The myth, however, both at the time and since, proved to be remarkably useful. Consequently it took deep root (McGowen 47). That the Allies tensions were added to by these diplomatic exchanges is evident. Over the crisis the British disapproval of the French failure to stand by them was strongly voiced. In return, Paris attacked what many there considered to be Great Britain’s willingness to raise the stakes to dangerous levels.

Those successes offered twin rescue to a beleaguered Imperial Army. First, the colossal drain of the China “incident” might at last be ended by an occupation of French Indochina that would nearly sever the remaining flow of Western aid to Chiang Kai-shek. It was a perversion of the “total war” officers’ original attempt to achieve autarky (Lee 16).

In both cases these connections had a direct and lasting collision. In large part these divergences make clear the failure to overcome either crisis successfully (McGowen 54; McGowen 66).

In sum, African countries and Asian nations were the stronger partners is beyond doubt. The greater reliance of the Allies on ally was shown in the frequent use made of the unequal relations. None the less, the Allies retained a clear edge of political maneuver and took its own part in the policy of pacification. The direct insinuation of their recognized interdependence was a refusal to maneuver in the political arena outside the boundaries of what was jointly agreed and applied. World War II proposed great opportunities for Asian and African nations to become independent but it also ruined their cultural and social achievements. Their interdependence also meant that the world’s powers chose to bow to the other’s position. Critics told that the world’s powers would adjust their position to that of dependent nations. This is a mistaken impression and expression. The debate constantly placed Asian nations at the centre of their decisions and any action to resolve the war crisis, either along the path of further concessions or greater pressure on the Axis, was based on winning co-operation.

Works Cited

Gordon, J. W. The Other Desert War: British Special Forces in North Africa, 1940-1943 Greenwood Press, 1987.

Hargreaves, J.D. Decolonization in Africa; Longman, 1996.

Hock, D. Legacies of World War II in South and East Asia. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2007.

Kelly, O. Meeting the Fox: The Allied Invasion of Africa, from Operation Torch to Kasserine Pass to Victory in Tunisia. Wiley, 2002.

Lee, L.E. World War II in Asia and the Pacific and the War’s aftermath, with General Themes: A Handbook of Literature and Research. Greenwood Press, 1998.

McGowen, T. World War II. Childrens Press, 2002.

Introduction

Studies on the Second World War have yielded varied perspectives; according to Erdelja, “there is no other experience that was more crucial to the development of the U.S. and Europe in the 20^th century than the Second World War” (Erdelja, 2009, p. 1). The war marked the struggle for social and political freedom for the entire world.

The consequences of the war were characterized by chaos, which broke human bonds, destroyed homes and communities, and uprooted foundations of societies. From today’s perspective, World War II was more than the series of battles and diplomatic negotiations, which are widely studied today (Royal Air Force 94).

This paper will discuss the World War II in the light of the U.S. history. The paper will describe the role that the war played in shaping the U.S. government and its policies. The lessons learned due to the U.S. engaging in the war are also highlighted.

World War II and U.S. History

World War II was the most gruesome epoch ever in the U.S. history. It was characterized by struggles, deaths of many citizens, financial constrains, damaged property and many other challenges in the country. The number of deaths between 1939 and 1945 was estimated to be more than 55 million.

The war began on September 1, 1939 when Poland was invaded by Germany. It spread out to the entire world with almost 50 countries taking part in the war and men and women fighting in almost every part of the world.

After the war became rampant, Americans became divided on whether to participate or to stay out of it completely. However, their hopes and desires were for their allies to win the war while they remained calm and isolated from the war.

While some wished the U.S. could avoid the war at all costs, there was a group of interventionists that demanded the government to do all it could within its power to help the allies of U.S.

It was then that the government changed its policy from being neutral on issues related to the war into being prepared through expanding its military forces and later proceeded to support its allies. The president then made the U.S. to be an arsenal supplier; the U.S. started by supplying war materials to its allies (Teachers Guide 1).

World War II was a turning point to the lives of Americans and in the history of the U.S. In 1944, the three great allies came together to invade Germany. In the pacific, the Americans drove the Japanese forces back. The devastating bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki followed in August 1945; this made Japanese government to surrender (The Choices Program 4).

Impact of the Second World War II to the U.S.A

World War II had an unalterable impact on the US history and in our present life. The period was characterized by a vast number of families lost through the death of young men and women, those who became crippled, mass deportation, conflicts in cultures, religions, confusion and outright fears.

Although the war was away from United States, it had a huge impact on the American society. Undeniable, it was a gruesome time in history and the many incidences from the war presented numerous lessons to be learnt.

To start with, its leaders transformed U.S. to be an arsenal and produced vast numbers of war materials. Prior to the involvement in war, its economic sectors such as industries and agriculture had been mobilized to support factories which manufactured weapons. America’s business had become larger with its federal government expanding its power (Ayers, Gould and Oshinsky 766).

The war brought about a 10% shift of Americans to war production centers. Japanese-Americans were evicted from their homes and were incarnated to relocation centers whilst the African Americans demanded full citizenship.

More women were employed into the armed forces and in the factories which were manufacturing weapons (Ayers, Gould and Oshinsky 766). The World War II cost the U.S. approximately $304 billion. The U.S. obtained this money through deficit spending, lending and selling of war bonds. Its debt is said to have skyrocketed from $49 billion to $259 billion in 1945, which remained unsettled until 1970 (Schug 142).

Other challenges encountered were the concentrations of people in weapon manufacturing centers. The influx resulted to strained community resources. The overcrowding of migrants into war material producing centers made them to shelter in substandard woodsheds and in trailer parks with inadequate sanitation facilities.

This resulted to high prevalence of communicable diseases, including scabies, ringworms, and tuberculosis among others. With the concentration of people in the centers, confrontation arose. Historians have claimed that by 1943, there were almost 250 racial conflicts. Social evils were also on the rise, for example, African Americans roamed in the city attacking police and dragging white passengers off street cars. There were increased criminal activities which also led to a considerable loss of lives at the home front (Schug 142).

Families break ups were on the increase. It was estimated that approximately 3 million families separated; it was estimated that 16 families out of 1000 were separated by 1940 with the rate almost doubling to 27 in 1000 families by 1944. More so, the number of unmarried women rose from 73 per 1000 in 1939 to 93 by 1942.

There were fears of people getting into marriage as spouses were being sent to battle fields. Birth rates also increased from 2.4 million in 1939 to 3.1 million in 1943. Majority of which were described as “good bye babies”; who were conceived for family continuation incase the father died at war (Anon 1).

Another challenge was increased and rise of social immorality. Much of the immoral behavior that had become rampant was not evident during the peace times. The war period also witnessed increased opportunities for gay affairs, and same-sex relationships; gay communities in cities such as San Francisco became common.

Briefly, the war time swapped traditional gender roles where men lost their roles as bread winners in the family. During this time, women worked to feed their families at home whilst most men defended their nation away from the U.S. (Norton et al. 749). It be should be noted that there were also women who were directly involved in the battle field.

Importance of World War II in Americans’ History

World War II marked a major turning point for the World history. It was one of the major events in the world that should never be repeated. This event marked the importance of teaching the future generations the impact of engaging in war and the many lessons learnt from the mistakes committed.

Knowledge of the World War II helps one to understand how the contemporary society was developed; knowledge necessary in laying the foundation for tomorrow’s generation.

Studying history helps the students to become good citizens and to have knowledge of the past events together with lessons learnt from the mistakes committed in the past. In learning about World War II, students understand the impacts of participating in such events. This way, graduates will perfectly suit to the U.S. society and its dynamic requirements from the citizens (World War II 4).

The significance of World War II includes the end of dictatorship ruling in Asia and Europe. America would have been surrounded by enemies had Germany and Japan won the war. More so, the era ushered in the Atomic age where peaceful use of atomic and nuclear knowledge became of importance.

Most importantly, the war brought up the need for establishing effective world organizations that would help in solving disputes between nations thereby, mitigating future wars re-occurring. This led to the formation of United Nations with the aim of resolving disputes between nations peacefully (United States History 1).

Conclusion

World War II came to an end with depression in most of the most powerful nations. The war shaped the U.S. history by making it the most dominating country as most of the powerful countries had been ruined economically. The Office of scientific Research and Development led to inventions and improved commodities such as jet engines and other war materials.

The war also placed the U.S. among the most powerful nations. However, it is undeniable that World War II was the most expensive war in history. It is estimated that the cost of the war totaled $2 trillion, and the property damage was about $239 billion with the United States spending 10 times than it had spent in the World War I.

Works Cited

Anon. “Virginia women and the Second World War.” Library of Virginia, 2011. Web.

Ayers Edward, Gould Lewis, and Oshinsky David. American passages: A history of the United States since 1865. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning, 2008. Print.

Erdelja, Kresimir. The Second World War: Workbook 4. Teaching Modern Southern European history. New York, NY: Prentice Hall, 2008. Print.

Norton et al. A people and a nation: History of United states. Boston, MA: Cengage learning, 2011. Print.

Royal Air Force. “The Second World War 1939-45.” Royal Air Force, 2011. Web.

Schug, Mark. United States history: Eyes on the economy through 20^th century. New York, NY: National Council for economic education, 1993. Print.

Teachers Guide. “The cold war.” Disney, 2000. Web.

The Choices Program. “Teachers guide for. The fog of war. An Errol Morris Film developed by the choices Program and the critical Oral History Project Watson Institute for international studies.” The Choices Program, 2004. Web.

United States History. “World War II.” United States History, 2011. Web.

World War II. “How did World War II affect people around the world?” Teacher Link, 2003. Web.

Abstract

There is a significant interdependent relationship between the Office of Strategic Services (O.S.S) operational groups, and the effectiveness of governance structure. The primary purpose of establishing an O.S.S functional group encompassed gathering intelligence from rival countries and using the information during decision-making. The strategy demonstrated core effectiveness by distributing the power and enhancing dominance against Germany. This study explores dynamic concepts steered by the development of the O.S.S operational group and relativity to governance approach. The research methodology involves analyzing secondary sources under the gradient of national interests and measuring the effectiveness scale. The outcome affirms the thesis statement regarding a profound influence of the O.S.S operations towards promoting the incorporation of functional international relations and peaceful coexistence across the global community.

Introduction

Significance of the Study

World War II optimally influenced international relations due to the variate consideration of dominance in the intelligence framework. One of the factors that highly affects military performance and attack strategy enshrines acquiring crucial information regarding the enemies. In this case, the countries involved in the battle proficiently used spies and global networks to attain vital insights concerning the rivals as a formative aspect of decision-making. The Office of Strategic Services (O.S.S) operational groups are an outcome of the American government’s strategic combat initiatives. Despite using spies to acquire vital details, the administration assigned different teams dynamic tasks encompassing attacking villages in a short span and retrieving to the home country. Therefore, the core factor engulfed maximizing surprise assaults in the dissentient nations. The aspect fostered gathering of intelligence based on the weaknesses and strengths of rivalries across the various regions attributing in the decision-making among the executive military personnel.

The study of the importance of O.S.S operational groups attributes to the attainment of crucial insight concerning information during wrangles. Different countries uphold distinct practices and strategies during battles (Deterding, 2020). However, the efficiency optimally relies on attained intellect regarding the rivalries. The lack of adequate details risks poor decision-making and dysfunctional policies. Therefore, it is the responsibility of key stakeholders to coordinate in the governance of a nation and distribution of power to alleviate bias and contrasts on philosophical foundations. The derived overview intensifies the evaluation of crucial variables that impact international relations and the implementation process within the academic scholarly domain. In a different spectrum, the interdependent relationship exploration contributes to the pool of ideologies concerning strategic management mainframes for administrators.

O.S.S operational groups is an initiative aptly used during World War II to influence dominance based on decisions made by the government officials and policies implemented for counterattacks.

Research Objectives

• To investigate the impact of O.S.S operational group strategy during World War II.
• To assess the impact of international relations on alleviating World Wars.
• To determine the significance of intelligence to policy development and implementation.
• To establish the interdependent relationship between dynamic philosophies and governance structure.

Research Questions

1. What was the impact of O.S.S operational group strategy during World War II?
2. What was the contribution of international relations to World Wars?
3. What is the significant relationship between intelligence and policy development and implementation?
4. How do dynamic philosophies affect the governance structure of a country?

Reviewed Sources

America faced a profound challenge after the Second World War due to the proficient spread of communism against the preferable capitalism philosophy. One of the emergent social and economic consequences involved the Vietnam conflict and the increased inflation rate (Maddox, 2018). Establishing the integral approach of effective recovery is crucial to alleviate the imminent problem. The loss of soldiers and property destruction derailed the aspect’s convalescence, highly influencing the trade relations and trickle-down effect of the accrual benefits.

World War II contributed to a significant loss of American lives and the destruction of property. Apart from the damage, the government prompted investing in weaponry to win the combat, compromising the economic growth and development index. Researchers argue that capitalism leads to competition despite the adverse effect on the population (Maddox, 2018). It is one of the factors that contributed to the conflicts as a means of profitability at the expense of the soldiers’ lives and the parsimony’s performance outlier. The primary responsibility of all stakeholders encompasses enhancing the advancement of standards to justify the framework and the interdependent variables. In this case, the mainframe attributed to a dynamic impact towards the burgeoning contrary to Russia’s recovery in the short run due to the coordinative efforts.

The emergence of World War II highly affected countries that engaged during World War I due to the adept impact on the socio-cultural and economic foundations. During the industrialization era, the European nations attained profound developmental initiatives such as technological advancement (Kumari & Tiwari, 2022). It is a condition that cultivated tension across countries due to the differences in achievements and power status. An excellent example of the impact of development is the essence of imperialism and alliance justified by militarism. The short-term and long-term causes of the battles are a consequence of the notable blooming; hence nations focused on establishing their worldwide position.

One of the significant differences between the two world wars is the short-term cause of the conflicts. At the onset of the first combat, although there was tension among nations, Archduke Franz Ferdinand’s assassination, heir to the Austro-Hungarian leadership. He was murdered by a Serbian nationalist known as Gavrilo Princip. The two countries were rivals; therefore, assassinating an influential person in one of the parties triggered the clash (Kumari & Tiwari, 2022). The provocation of the second military confrontation engulfed the disagreements and arrogance between the American and Japanese governments. The U.S administration received news of Nanjing’s rape and the Manchurian crisis that led to its decision to establish sanctions against Japan (Huddlestone, 2021). These sanctions included the exportation of oil, iron, and essential supplies. It is an initiative that significantly affected the economic growth in Japan hence the promptness to foster an attack at Pearl harbour, thus triggering the tussle. Therefore, while the incite for the first strife was politically inclined, the spark for the second battle was socio-economically inclined.

The establishment of different O.S.S operational groups significantly elevated the attainment of the critical objective. Research by Moon (2018) indicates that the development of the strategy encompassed empowering the military force of countries against the German policy during World War II. In this case, different countries incorporated policies enhancing the incorporation of distinctive O.S.S operational groups. The teams included the American Office of Strategic Services, British Special Operations Executive (S.O.E.), and French Bureau Central de Renseignements et d-Action. The institutions significantly contributed to gathering intelligence concerning German military operations and action plans to develop countermeasures. Notably, the collection of vital information aptly influenced the objective overview of promoting peaceful endeavours by avoiding biased international relational frameworks.

Evaluation Methods

This study analyzes insights based on relativity to the national interests in a different spectrum. Different countries uphold dynamic socio-cultural, economic, and political philosophies. According to Neuchterlein (2001) cited in Graham (2001), there are four categories of national interests. The frameworks encompass defense, economic, world order, and ideological interests. The distinction in the variables contributes to the objective overview regarding the effectiveness and accomplishment of functional governance structure. The development of the O.S.S operational group is an outcome based on the intersection of world order and ideological mainframes. As a result, the measure of O.S.S operational groups’ success and failure relies on a distinction between the purpose entailing gathering of intelligence to accomplish the core objective of peace and harmony. Domestic and global relations depend on the decision-making approach among the distinctive administrative entities, hence prioritizing objectivity as the orienting gradient for the practice.

Dependent and Independent Variables

The study focuses on exploring the impact of O.S.S operational groups during World War II. There is a significant interdependent relationship between the dynamic variables due to the attributable factors. On the one hand, the independent variable encompasses O.S.S functional groups. On the other hand, the dependent variables enshrine the consequences of World War II to America’s socio-cultural, economic, and political structures. Different countries involved in World War II engaged in the tactical strategy to elevate dominance and win against the opponents. The O.S.S operational group’s primary purpose is to gather intelligence from enemy countries and use the insights to strategize counterattacks. Therefore, the mediating factor to the relationship is the acquisition of intelligence.

Literature Review

Introduction

The first and second World Wars emanated from similar long-term causes that encapsulated the effect of industrialization on the global territories. Technological advancement is an entity that empowered countries and the necessity to test the limits of power dynamism worldwide. In this case, America and other European states focused on competing for recognition and martial dominance, a concept that enhanced the tension among rivalries (Wilson et al., 2022). Societies with similar philosophies formed alliances to establish an influential baseline while the margin intensified. The significant frameworks spearheaded the conflicts, and the motivation involved imperialism, nationalism, and militarism. There is a significant difference and similarity between the causes of the two world wars. On the one hand, the long-term triggers of the confrontations involved nationalism, imperialism, industrialization, and militarism. On the other hand, different short-term factors led to the emergence of tussles. While the incitement for the first combat was politically inclined, the instigation for the second clash was socio-economically motivated. The evolution of the global society rendered a significant imbalance among communities to determine the power position internationally.

Influence of O.S.S Operations during World War II

Different scholars establish dynamic effects of the Office of Strategic Services’ dynamic effects on the American military practice. Ames (2020) articulates that the O.S.S emerged as an essential element contributing to the effective gathering of information from rivalries. During World War II, the core value for the battle enshrined the use of strategic initiatives to win the wrangle. Therefore, the central role of the combat groups encompassed infiltrating the hostile nations, stealing crucial details, and returning to the home country. The government exploited the gathered intelligence to make policy decisions and determine essential domains of optimal performance.

Over the decades, the central economic policy that contributed to the significant growth index in America is capitalism. The approach enshrines the personal ownership of property and wealth hence imposing the importance of business competition for optimal profitability margin. The concept rendered a proficient effect to the marginalization of poor communities from the elite social group. However, the American government encountered the challenge due to the philosophy after the Second World War. The core reason for the problem involved the demand for togetherness and cooperation among all stakeholders in rebuilding the country for better living conditions (Maddox, 2018). The aftermath of World War II attributed to the justification of communism and the spread across the highly affected nations globally and a trickle-down effect to the U.S.

The Significance of International Relations

Asia-Pacific

Over the decades, one of the prevalent issues affecting the global society is the competition among the superpower nations towards attaining individual objectives. On the one hand, the U.S seeks to maintain the international order and the ideal security and superpower state globally. On the other hand, China aims to regain its leading influential position within the current global order (Nordin & Graham, 2018). Before colonization, China was one of the leading nations globally in producing goods and trading activities. However, the political influence fostered the derail of Chinese economic growth and maintenance of the top position. An excellent example is the communist ideology and abounds policies that led to the imbalanced distribution of wealth across the Chinese population. The contrasting American and Chinese convergent goals reflect a duel encompassing both parties striving to attain the core objective of power and global influence based on individual principles.

The American socio-economic policy encompasses capitalism, while China’s socio-economic policy is communism. The contrasting policies foster the distinctive differences between the countries. In this case, it becomes hard for the American government to convince China to regain its leading position. According to Nordin and Graham (2018), a significant percentage of the Asia-Pacific region is China’s territories. It is essential to establish the war between U.S and China as a duel of two wrestlers in a ring to battle and determine the winner for the title. On the one hand, the American motivating factors as a global superpower nation are interest and fear. On the other hand, China’s motivating factors in regaining trading power and influence are honor and fear. Although America attempts to develop a close relationship with China, its fear includes the Chinese winning the economic leadership and altering the international order and global nations’ convergent goals (He & Mingjiang, 2020). Further, China is a major exporter of goods to the American economic entities. Therefore, poor relations between the two countries threaten Americans’ economic and social integrity.

China features the highest population ratio globally, hence the adequate labor workforce and productivity provision. Apart from the vast population, the Chinese territories mark a significant percentage proportionate to the people. Therefore, the country easily accesses the resources and labor workforce to boost productivity. On the other hand, the U.S is a superpower nation and enjoys certain security privileges based on international treaties hence the government’s concern to maintain international order. Over the decades, Americans have sought to ensure peace and capitalist influence globally to elevate economic growth and development. In this case, there is the fear of the unknown from the American government due to contrasting communist policies (Johnston, 2019). The central communist policy focuses on the equal distribution of wealth. It is an initiative that hinders competence in the business environment. However, the Chinese government seeks to retain the honor and eradicate the fears of the unknown based on the communist policies.

Russia’s International Relations’ Philosophy

Stalin is considered one of the historic mass murderers mainly because of his policies implemented in Russia. The leader considered the ultimate solution of resistance as terror. The first approach to promote development engulfed the exploitation of collectivism among the small farmers. Although the agricultural worker fostered optimal produce, Stalin imposed socialism as the solution in elevating productivity among the kulak (Rozenas & Zhukov, 2019). Nevertheless, the statesman geared violence among the peasants to agree and amalgamate farmlands. The use of intimidation and fear is a high cost that led to the loss of Russian lives to enhance economic development and supremacy on a global scale.

As a political leader, Stalin spearheaded communism in Russia, and the transition incurred a high cost of Russian lives. Between 1933 and 1934, the country experienced famine, and at least four million residents died due to hunger (Rozenas & Zhukov, 2019). The idealist argued that despite the decline in productivity, economic development was a prominent issue over the lives of the workers and the peasants. In this case, Stalin emerged as one of the greatest mass murderers because of his vision to lead the nation to greatness through industrialization. Apart from the famine that led to the deaths of inhabitants and laborers, terror as the primary motivational element caused a significant loss of lives.

Stalin led the Russian economy to communism based on strict policies that cost a significant percentage of workers’ and peasants’ lives. The politician and idealist focused on empowering the nation to avoid being colonized by other developed countries. As a result, Stalin enhanced industrialization based on the essence of boosting communism and economic competence globally (Maddox, 2018). However, the initiative negatively affected the residents and mainly the peasants. The lucrative impact of the concept nurtured its widespread adoption across different nations as a reconstructive philosophy to the negative effect of World War II.

Communism significantly affected the U.S economic growth and development because of the interplay of dynamic values. As a capitalist, the American government faced a profound problem after the Second World War due to the demand for labor and resources to reconstruct the socio-economic system (Maddox, 2018). However, other nations utilized bolshevism to establish the efficient rebuilding of the structures despite gender and ethnic disparity. It is contrary to America’s philosophy on private ownership of factors of production alleviating the inherent challenges of dependence and poverty. After the combat, tension intensified between the U.S and Russia due to the distinct economic frameworks. It is an initiative that attributed the emergence of the Vietnam conflict and other South American nations with the American administration adopting Russia’s perspective. In the short run, socialism was necessary to enhance the residents’ unity and cooperation. Nevertheless, it was a threat to the enterprise’s profitability in the long run. As a result, the American government focused on enhancing a proficient influential value across a broader scope of the global realms, elevating commercialism.

The Significance of Information to Policy Development and Implementation

The two world wars played a vital role in transforming different states’ socio-cultural, economic, and political domains. One of the key factors contributing to the significant impact from the wrangles involved the media’s role in promoting distinct propaganda. The broadcasting industry focused on monetizing news to acquire market and attain relevance (Jones, 2018). In this case, the news agencies aptly violated the journalism spectrum’s ethos, pathos, and logos ideologies. An excellent example encompassed the lack of advocating for peaceful agreements among states and encouraging youths to enroll in the army to boost defense. The ethical obligation among the professionals enshrines promoting socialization and international relations based on the relayed insights. Despite divergent opinions, the press’s mandate is to advocate for harmonized and sustainable living under the spectrum of propagandas.

The news agency utilizes different forms of advertising and relaying information to the public. A significant percentage of journalists focus on outlets that render a considerable number of audiences for marketability. In this case, researchers establish that one of the factors attributed to intensified war among nations entailed the essence of capitalism (Mehrpouya & Marie-Laure, 2019). The key stakeholders in the industry prioritized profit maximization, hence amplifying the benefits of winning the war while minimally addressing the repercussions of the violence to the international community.

War is an event that poses significant repercussions to the participants and non-partisans due to the optimal destruction. Different societies uphold distinct socio-cultural, economic, and political overviews concerning governance and relationship-building inbound and outbound. Human behavior mainly depends on the rules within a region. An excellent example of an outcome due to the conflict of interests is the emergence of the Great War, also known as World War I. The combat attributed to a profound loss of lives and the wreckage of costly properties. The survivors encountered prominent health effects due to the horrific experiences and existing wrangles. The lack of agreement among nations risks confrontations that significantly affect residents due to the displacement from their settlements, rise in insecurity, and loss of relatives (Hall & Ross, 2019). Primarily, the psychological consequence among people after World War I encompassed the survivor’s guilt and post-traumatic stress disorder.

One of the factors that led to World War II encompassed the influence of industrialization on the European and American nations. In this case, leaders rendered the initiative to utilize effective and highly graded tools for the bombing, shooting, and facilitating counterattacks against enemies. During World War I, the Americans cooperated with the French armies to fight against the Germans in Arbonne (Cooper, 2021). Although the unity fostered the increase in the number of battalions, it is a situation that caused the loss of a significant number of soldiers due to the lack of strategies for attacks and counterattacks. Although weaponization empowered the armies with an additional support system, the issue lay in the traumatic experiences of hunger, thirst, and loss of colleagues.

The contrast in economic ideologies significantly affected international relations between the capitalists and communists. It is an initiative that attributed the emergence of the Vietnam conflict and other South American nations with the U.S administration adopting Russia’s perspective. In the short run, socialism was necessary to enhance the residents’ unity and cooperation (Sampson, 2019). Nevertheless, it threatened the enterprise’s profitability in the long run. As a result, the U.S government focused on enhancing a proficient influential value across a broader scope of the global realms, elevating commercialism. There was a prominent effect among the Chinese due to opening up the economy to international organizations. Despite extending the Chinese market to other countries through World Trade Organization, the government encountered hindrances on subsistence.

Capitalism is a concept that proficiently influenced international relations between the U.S and other regions through treaties and agreements. The approach enshrines the personal ownership of property and wealth hence imposing the importance of business competition for optimal profitability margin. The concept rendered a proficient effect to the marginalization of poor communities from the elite social group. However, the U.S government encountered the challenge due to the philosophy after the Second World War. The core reason for the problem involved the demand for togetherness and cooperation among all stakeholders in rebuilding the country for better living conditions (Liczbińska, 2018). The aftermath of World War II attributed to the justification of communism and the spread across the highly affected nations globally and a trickle-down effect to the US. Ideally capitalism is the foundation of the U.S budget akin to China’s communist domain as the pillar of its economy.

The global political economy is a framework that entails the optimal interdependent relationship between private and public power-sharing initiatives. The researcher interprets the international political economy as a foundation for the globalization effect through dynamic theoretical frameworks (Shapiro, 2019). In this case, neoliberalism, Marxism, and realism play a crucial role in developing an international political economy (Shapiro, 2019). Primarily, the context focuses on the various mainframes that attribute to the globalization effect based on the influence of individual state decisions to the globally-based socio-cultural and economic standards (Froese et al., 2019). China faces difficulty adapting to globalization through its accession to World Trade Organization. The resolution poses a central problem due to contrasting economic ideologies to domestic economic practices. As a result, it is the responsibility of the World Trade Organization executive team to establish clarity regarding the individual interests between China and the World Trade Organization member states based on the established trade pacts.

World War II fostered optimal disparities among countries based on the philosophical ideologies. An excellent example is international companies operating in China. The diversity on economic policies across nations fosters significant effect to the success of a business due to the contrast on integral values of ethical practices. Chinese firms utilize communist aspect during the implementation of an action plan to enhance adherence to domestic entrepreneurial culture (Froese et al., 2019). However, the development of O.S.S operational groups enhanced attainment of crucial insights among dynamic stakeholders regarding the economic conceptual frameworks through the acquired intelligence. Therefore, investors aligned enterprise goals based on the formative structures of socio-cultural, economic, and political structures across various nations.

In a different spectrum, the O.S.S operational groups significantly contributed to acquisition of crucial insights concerning functional neoliberalism concept. According to Saad-Filho and Lecio (2018), there is a significant difference between neoliberalism and democratic notions. Neoliberalism encompasses the integration free will and capitalism to enhance economic growth and development. On the other hand, democracy entails the focus on promoting equality despite the need for elevating economic sect in the country. Stiglitz (2019) articulates that after the neoliberal concept implemented after World War I, government agencies used intelligence concerning the spread of communism to intensify the balance between democracy and neoliberalism. Therefore, the O.S.S operational groups aptly contributed in the acquisition of crucial details regarding the efficacy indicators on governance and business practice.

Research Methodology

Introduction

This chapter focuses on the description of dynamic research methodology in analyzing primary and secondary sources. Therefore, the framework presents the design, evaluation technique, and analysis approach. The illustration fosters an objective overview and attainment of the core objective to understand the failure and success level of the O.S.S operational group strategy utilized by the American government during World War II. International relation is a multidimensional phenomenon that influences the socio-cultural, economic, and political domains. Therefore, it is vital to assess the productivity of the interdependent relationship between O.S.S operational groups and effective governance structure.

Research Design

This study optimizes on exploratory research design based on the in-depth overview regarding the efficiency scale of developing O.S.S operational groups to the American government. According to Meharg (2009), the critical approach to achieving the main goal based on the core assessment mainframe involves measuring the effectiveness. The researcher indicates that despite the subjective consideration of efficiency, the primary entity during practice involves articulating relativity between the outcome and the objective. In this case, this research focuses on measuring the relationship between results from gathering intelligence and the initial intention rendering the intervention.

Analysis Approach

This study uses a descriptive analysis approach based on the comparative essence of the secondary sources. The comparison fosters optimal understanding concerning the topical issue. On the one hand, the research aligns its objectives under the gradient of America’s national interests during World War II. On the other hand, the study steers its assessment criteria under the spectral view of measuring effectiveness to determine the success and failure prominence from the process. Notably, World War II involved the determination of superiority within the construct of socio-cultural and economic foundations. The evolution of the global society rendered a significant imbalance among communities to determine the power position internationally. As a result, the use of O.S.S operational groups was a guideline towards attaining dominance and power based on the acquired crucial intelligence regarding the enemies.

Discussion

Introduction

There is a significant interdependent relationship between the establishment of O.S.S operational groups and the effective governance initiative. This section focuses on the analysis of attained information under two key frameworks: national interest objective and measure of effectiveness. Primarily, implementing the strategy to intensify gathering intelligence is an initiative that faces adept controversies due to the violation of a nation’s sovereignty and privacy essence. Therefore, the significance of the discussion is the indication of core values attained from the exploration of crucial details concerning O.S.S operational groups and the attribution during World War II.

Analysis Based on National Interest

Globalization is a multidimensional phenomenon that profoundly affects the structuring of the social frameworks within a region and internationally. The significant issues associated with the globalization effect include inequity, migration, and the exploitation of laborers. A considerable percentage of entrepreneurs focus on increasing profit margins, relying on capitalist ideology regarding the personal acquisition of wealth over equality (Otero, 2021). In this case, globalization fosters the surplus in wealth accumulation and expands the poverty margin across different social classes. In a different aspect, the international political economy enhances the migration among people from one region to another for better living conditions and employment opportunities. The mainframe triggers the establishment of border deals that accommodate free movement and the market. As a result, individuals and families seek alternatives for an enhanced living quotient based on the available data regarding economic performance.

Another factor that attributes to the international political economy is the hegemony status of the U.S across the scope to intensify its influential power. The paradigm shift through technological advancement empowers other nations to emerge as powerful entities in the decision-making forum. An excellent example is China and Russia’s upcoming major global economic players while the globalization effect persists (Plehwe et al., 2020). Therefore, the significant parties in the international economy must cooperate towards implementing effective initiatives. The centralization of the global political economy within one state risks a proficient effect during an economic crisis such as the recession that caused increased bankruptcy and loss of jobs among people worldwide (Froese et al., 2019). Globalization involves redefining international relations as a foundation of adequate growth and developmental index.

The establishment of different O.S.S operational groups significantly elevated the attainment of the critical objective. Research by Moon (2018) indicates that the development of the strategy encompassed empowering the military force of countries against the German policy during World War II. In this case, different countries incorporated policies enhancing the incorporation of distinctive O.S.S operational groups. The teams included the American Office of Strategic Services, British Special Operations Executive (S.O.E.), and French Bureau Central de Renseignements et d-Action (Gregory, 2021). The institutions significantly contributed to gathering intelligence concerning German military operations and action plans to develop countermeasures. Notably, the collection of vital information aptly influenced the objective overview of promoting peaceful endeavors by avoiding biased international relational frameworks.

Analysis Based on Effectiveness Scale

The establishment of the O.S.S operational group encompassed determining the core value of the outcome to the nation and the international community. Despite its evolution to Central Intelligence Agency (C.I.A.), the O.S.S significantly contributed to attaining optimal dominance against the rivalries (Nelson, 2021). The lack of coordination among states risks the rise in tension and misunderstandings concerning particular ideologies. An excellent example is the establishment of distinctive trade treaties and agreements. O.S.S operational group was a success due to the proficient collection of information within enemy regions, that is, Germany (Royack, 2018). In this case, researchers indicate that the military action fostered the acquisition of vital insights used in strategizing for counterattacks (Schachtner, 2018). The primary goal encompassed exploiting the details to defeat Germany. However, the mainframe contributed to the enlightenment of vital approaches within the international relations domain. One of the significant outcomes to the European nations engulfed the development of the European Union.

The development of the strategy involving British S.O.E., O.S.S operational group, and French Bureau Central de Renseigne ments et d-Action contributed to the emergence of the European Union. Therefore, the establishment of the European Union features as a success indicator of the initiative’s goal to enhance peaceful coexistence (Van Voorst & Ellen, 2017). The European Union regulations address two main functional groups across the member states: the government and the firms. Further, the legislation distributes the power based on the duties and responsibilities. However, the European Union faces one profound limitation. The critical shortcoming is the poor coordination between the commission and the citizens in enforcing the regulations (Garrett, 2018). The European Union Council, Court, and the Commission must implement policies that promote the participation of all member states encompassing the citizens. Sustainability spearheads the equitable distribution of resources (Crespo, 2020). In this case, it is the responsibility of the commission to participate in all litigations of infringement despite the marginal status of either losing or winning. As a result, the commission’s engagement in all case proceedings reduces the marginalization impact and empowers the functional decentralization pact of law enforcement.

Effective international treaties such as the European Union constructs heavily rely on the compliance ability of the governments in the member states. In most cases, administrations join and agree to treaties that align with the nation’s interests, such as the merging of the European member states to boost the economic function (Gould, 2018). Ideally, the lack of compliance is an issue rendered by the crash in the interests of a government with the welfares of the regional treaty, namely, the European Union treaty (Riccardi et al., 2020). Some of the major causes of the compliance issues include reputation and reciprocity, the credibility of the commitments, cultural and social norms, and the domestic support system (Soffer et al., 2020). The implementation of the compliance issue, that is, either centralized or decentralized, significantly affects the level of compliance of governments to the European Union treaty.

The establishment of the O.S.S operational groups aptly contributed to achieving the main objective involving intensifying international relations objectively. Under the spectrum of enhancing networks among nations, the alleviation of bias enshrined determining the dynamic variables (Do, 2020). In this case, the O.S.S operational groups significantly influenced the balance and distribution of power by neutralizing the rivalry countries, mainly Germany, leading to its defeat and the end of an era (de Wit, 2021). World War II profoundly negatively affected the global economy, socio-cultural, and political structures. Therefore, intelligence gathering empowered American government agencies with decision-making and policy development knowledge.

The significance of a policy encompasses the demonstration of critical values fostered through certain practices. In this case, the O.S.S operational group contributes to establishing functional guidelines steering domestic and international relations (Kilcullen, 2019). The administration’s mandate is to develop approaches that enhance protection among the citizens and the advancement of the local and global economy (Scherer, 2018). However, it is challenging for countries to coordinate advocacy for unity across regions based on limited knowledge resources. As a result, the O.S.S significantly attributed the necessity of power and dominance by attaining crucial details concerning the rivalry territories (Spitaletta, 2021). Notably, the critical indicator of O.S.S’s effectiveness lies in implementing strategies that elevated coordination among the states involved in World War II (Rose, 2020). One of the profound outcomes featuring the apt efficacy is the development of the United Nations. The O.S.S operational group represents vital tenets of World War II consequences and strategies.

Conclusion

There is a significant interdependent relationship between the establishment of O.S.S operational groups and the efficiency in the governance structure. The team’s primary role encapsulated intelligence gathering to empower American executive officials with crucial insights during decision-making. Implementing different policies during military actions boosted strategic combat missions against the rivalries. Economic growth and development eventually depend on the intersectionality of public and private power-sharing and the inherent strategic management initiatives. In this case, Germany lost during World War II due to the lack of information concerning the counterparts’ mainframes. Apart from ending the war, the prioritization of knowledge fostered an understanding of the significance of functional international relations pillars. The evolution of the global society rendered a significant imbalance among communities to determine the power position internationally. It is the responsibility of government leaders to adhere to the bounds of networking across the distinctive regions despite the difference in economic and political philosophies. The frameworks significantly contribute to the advancement of essential values on ethical and moral pillars.

References

Ames, J. Agriole. 2020. Spy Combat Tenets of WWII. Lulu.com.

Cooper, Malcolm. 2021. The Birth of Independent Air Power: British Air Policy in the First World War. Routledge.

Crespo, Ricardo. 2020. “Currency warfare and just war: The ethics of targeting currencies in war.” Journal of Military Ethics 19 (1): 2-19.

Deterding, Bailey. 2020. “The Rise of U.S. Army Special Forces in the 20th and 21st Centuries.” The University of Wyoming. Libraries.

de Wit, Daniel. 2021. “Fake News for the Resistance: The O.S.S. and the nexus of psychological warfare and resistance operations in World War II.” Journal of Advanced Military Studies 12 (1): 34-56.

Do, Phuong Thuy. 2020. “The O.S.S. in Vietnam during the Second World War.”

Froese, Fabian Jintae, Dylan Sutherland, Jeoung Yul Lee, Yipeng Liu, and Yuan Pan. 2019. “Challenges for foreign companies in China: Implications for research and practice.” Asian Business & Management 18 (4): 249-262.

Garrett, Tanner C. 2018. Mission Command Principles Applied to Paramilitary Forces in Europe During the Second World War. Army command and general staff college fort leavenworth ks fort leavenworth United States.

Graham, Ross. 2001. “Canada’s Vital Interests.” Canadian Forces College, NSSC 3: 2.

Gregory, Derwin. 2021. The global infrastructure of the special operations executive. Routledge.

Gould, Jonathan S. 2018. German Anti-Nazi Espionage in the Second World War: The O.S.S. and the Men of the TOOL Missions. Routledge.

Hall, Todd H., and Ross, Andrew. 2019. “Rethinking affective experience and popular emotion: World War I and the construction of group emotion in international relations.” Political Psychology 40 (6): 1357-1372.

He, Kai, and Mingjiang Li. 2020. “Understanding the dynamics of the Indo-Pacific: US–China strategic competition, regional actors, and beyond.” International Affairs 96 (1): 1-7.

Huddleston, R. Joseph. 2021. “Causes of War.”

Johnston, Alastair Iain. 2019. “China in a world of orders: Rethinking compliance and challenge in Beijing’s international relations.” International Security 44 (2): 9-60.

Jones, Matthew L. 2018. “How we became instrumentalists (again) data positivism since World War II.” Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences 48 (5): 673-684.

Kilcullen, David. 2019. “The evolution of unconventional warfare.” Scandinavian Journal of Military Studies 2, no. 1.

Kumari, Pushpalata, and Nishikant Tiwari. 2022. “Analyzing the causes of the First World War.” Journal of Studies in Social Sciences 21.

Liczbińska, Grażyna, Zbigniew Czapla, Janusz Piontek, and Robert M. Malina. 2018. “Age at menarche in Polish University students born before, during and after World War II: Economic effects.” Economics & Human Biology 28: 23-28.

Maddox, Robert James. 2018. The United States and World War II. Routledge.

Meharg, Sarah Jane. 2009. Measuring Effectiveness in Complex Operations: What is Good Enough. Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute.

Mehrpouya, Afshin, and Marie-Laure Salles-Djelic. 2019. “Seeing like the market; exploring the mutual rise of transparency and accounting in transnational economic and market governance.” Accounting, Organizations and Society 76: 12-31.

Moon, Millard E. 2018. “Secret operations of World War II.”

Nelson, Taylor. 2021. “North Africa and the making of American psychological warfare and propaganda, 1942-1945.”

Nordin, Astrid HM, and Graham M. Smith. 2018. “Reintroducing friendship to international relations: relational ontologies from China to the West.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 18 (3): 369-396.

Otero, Gerardo. 2021. “The neoliberal diet.” In Handbook of Critical Agrarian Studies. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Plehwe, Dieter, Quinn Slobodian, and Philip Mirowski, eds. 2020. Nine lives of neoliberalism. Verso Books.

Riccardi, Mark T., John P. Dolan, and Robert W. Redding. 2020. “O.S.S. operations in occupied Yugoslavia: Enduring principles.” Special Operations Journal 6 (1): 55-69.

Rose, Matthew A. 2020. “Commanding America’s Military Spies.” In Intelligence Relations in the 21st Century, pp. 123-155. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

Royack, Christopher J. 2018. “The Creation of the O.S.S. and Anglo American Intelligence Cooperation in Yugoslavia: A Case Study in Diverging Agendas.” PhD diss., University of Massachusetts Boston.

Rozenas, Arturas, and Yuri M. Zhukov. 2019. “Mass repression and political loyalty: Evidence from Stalin’s ‘terror by hunger’.” American Political Science Review 113 (2): 569-583.

Saad-Filho, Alfredo, and Lecio Morais. 2018. Brazil: Neoliberalism versus democracy. London: Pluto Press.

Schachtner, Alan J. 2018. Military Intelligence in the Gray Zone: The Strategic Role of Intelligence in Unconventional Warfare. U.S. Army Command and General Staff College Fort Leavenworth United States.

Scherer, David A. 2018. “The secret war in the Far East: American espionage in China and the establishment of AGFRTS.”

Shapiro, Carl. 2019. “Protecting competition in the American economy: Merger control, tech titans, labor markets.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 33 (3): 69-93.

Soffer, Sarah, Carter Matherly, and Robert Stelmack. 2020. “Psychology as a warfighting domain.” Global Security & Intelligence Studies 5 (1): 27828.

Spitaletta, Jason A. 2021. Operational Cyberpsychology: Adapting a Special Operations Model for Cyber Operations. Johns Hopkins University-Applied Physics Laboratory.

Stiglitz, Joseph. E. 2019. “After neoliberalism.” Project Syndicate, 30.

Van Voorst, Stijn, and Ellen Mastenbroek. 2017. “Enforcement tool or strategic instrument? The initiation of ex-post legislative evaluations by the European Commission.” European Union Politics 18 (4): 640-657.

Wilson, Sandra, Michael Sturma, Arjun Subrahmanyan, Dean Aszkielowicz, and J. Charles Schencking. 2022. The U.S. and the War in the Pacific, 1941–45. Routledge.

Introduction

The Second World War was the greatest world unrest in the history of humanity. It culminated in the death of over 30 million people. The war brought things to a standstill in the world with reduced or no economic activity being realized between 1939 and 1945. The war came at the time in which the global economy was recovering from a deep depression (Howard, 2007). Fighting reached most countries across the world.

Retrospectively, many analysts argue that the war could have been prevented. Others say that it was inevitable to engage in the war. This way, they argue, the world was brought to some level of structural sobriety with bodies such as United Nations coming to the fore in maintaining global harmony. This paper looks into the argument that the war was preventable and highlights some of the reasons why.

Chronology

Germany’s meteoric rise under Hitler was because of the First World War. Hitler began to pursue an aggressive foreign policy between 1919 and 1933. Earlier on in the treaty of Versailles, Germans lost precious land to Poland. Most Germans were unhappy and wanted to reverse that.

These factors shaped the politics of the Nazis with Hitler pursuing his personal ambitions including addressing the outcomes of the First World War (Weinberg, 2005). As Hitler rose to power, most of the people in Germany were unemployed. With the unemployment rate soaring high, the Nazi regime established its political policies.

Hitler began to revise the treaty of Versailles by attacking various neighboring states as he tried reclaiming lost land and increase the territory of Germany (Cogley & Sargent, 2001). Britain was one of the global powers at the time and it was involved in resolution of international conflicts involving various countries through appeasement.

As Britain continuously gave into the demands of Hitler, USSR was alienated .Stalin was made to believe that the Western powers had allowed Hitler to continue his aggressiveness as Germany expanded in the East. The expansion promoted further conflicts between the Nazis and the Soviets. As noted by Cogley & Sargent, (2001), the appeasement policy pursued by Britain and France was cowardly as it allowed continued aggression of expansionist states.

German began attacking states that were allied to Britain in late 1939. In 1940, Germany began assault on Britain too through airstrikes resulting into the battle of Britain. However, Germany failed to conquer the British Air Force. Italy joined the war together with its allies by attacking North African states as Hitler planned his next move. Germany invaded the USSR in 1941 (Davies, 2008).

The initial efforts to invade Russia were successful but the outcome thwarted the efforts of Germany to continue its aggression. A full-scale retreat of Germany was realized in 1943 after the Stalingrad and Kursk battles in which German soldiers were badly injured and many died. In 1944, Germany was forced out of the USSR completely.

In the same year, the U.S. joined the war by launching daylight invasion of Germany in one of its colonies that it had captured from France through the port of Normandy (Simkins, Jukes & Hickey, 2002). Therefore, Germany had established enmity with almost all superpowers: U.S., USSR, and Britain among others. Despite the efforts of each country, USSR was the first country to get to Berlin with the effects of the war forcing Germany to surrender in 1945 (BBC 2012).

Argument

Could the war have been prevented? Many people concur that it could have. Although most nations were independent, the rise of Germany under the unpredictable Hitler after the First World War should have been stemmed. Additionally, many European superpowers at the time had expansionist policies.

The United States was the sole superpower with nonexistent expansionist policies. Hence, it was in a better position to curb the hunger of Hitler for more and more territory. The US should have played a big role in resolving and possibly repealing the Versailles treaty that was a major catalyst to the war. The Nazi regime was also repressive and should not have existed with US doing nothing (BBC 2012).

Unlike in the more recent Rwanda Genocide where the United States’ poor run in Somalia prevented her from acting, the case in 1939 and before was not preceded by a foreign policy mishap. Hence, the US should have played a more active role. Germany was still weak in many fronts.

However, with the help of France and Britain through appeasement, Germany grew into a formidable force. The two countries should have used their power to forestall Germany’s meteoric rise. However, as critics argue, this would have given Stalin leeway to further his expansionist ways, which Hitler had beaten at him. Hence, prevention should have been directed at the two nations. The UN played a role too.

The economic policies it was proposing worsened the Germans’ resolve to get back their resources. The Japanese had a minimal role though it was also significant if the consequences and outcomes of the war are anything to go by. Conclusively, most of the superpowers at the time played an active or passive role in worsening the war (BBC 2012).

References

BBC. (2012). History: World War 2. Web.

Cogley, T. & Sargent, T. (2001). Evolving Post-World War II U.S. Inflation Dynamics. NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 16: 331-388.

Davies, N. (2008). No Simple Victory: World War II in Europe, 1939–1945. New York: Penguin Group.

Howard, M. (2007). The First World War: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.

Simkins, P., Jukes, G. & Hickey, M. (2002). The First World War, Volumes 1-2. NY, New York: Osprey Publishing.

Weinberg, GL. (2005). A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Introduction

Many European countries played central roles in creating animosities between nations that culminated into the emergence of World War II. The war was initiated by Hitler’s attack on Poland in 1939. However, apart from this attack, there were other dominant issues such as social and economic differences that made nations across the globe engage in the war.

This short paper traces the trajectory of World War II citing issues of collaboration and resistance in the European countries as well as the Grand Alliance’s planning for a postwar order. It also digs into the economic issue that initially defined postwar Europe by discussing postwar experiences in the European countries.

WWII Trajectory

The Second World War can be traced from the Napoleonic era of absolute war. This concept was crucial in the Second World War in Europe as there was a “large-scale mobilization of state resources for war to anticipate the modern concept of total war that was typically associated with World War II” (Merriman 122).

In the context of Europe, collaborations and resistances characterized World War II. A good example of resistance was the case of Poland. The nation had a home-based army that was composed of 300,000 people (Merriman 124). However, the army was crushed when the Warsaw uprising emerged. As a result, 12, 000 deaths were recorded (Merriman 357). Many other people found themselves in concentration camps by 1943.

In France, resistance to war was also experienced. The French resistors were termed as masquisards. They were able to “hide behind brush called maquis” (Merriman 359). While resistance in France seemed to bear fruits, the situation was harder in Belgium. Often, the resisting people were killed. In this context, Merriman argues, “there is hardly a hill that is more than a hump in Denmark…the Danes in Copenhagen saved the Jews who got them out with the help of a German officer” (367).

Apart from France, Belgium, and Poland, resistance occurred in almost every country. The main forms of resistance entangled recapturing of territories, non-cooperation, and disinformation. Many Europeans decided to resist Italian and German occupiers. The main mechanism of resistance was hiding for the Jews, sabotage, and bureaucratic obstructions among other ways.

Amid the discussion of the resistances in many nations in Europe against Second World War, it is fallacious to assume that collaboration was not experienced. For instance, even if France had a resistant force, it also collaborated. In this line of argument, Merriman asserts, “it was conveniently forgotten that the Jews in Paris who were arrested, in the Marais, in the Jewish section of Paris, and in other places, too, were arrested by the French police” (373).

Therefore, even if German forces could have wanted to arrest the Jews in Paris themselves, the French police were better prepared to execute the task. Netherlands is yet another country that immensely collaborated. While the camps at the border of Germany and Netherlands were to be run by the Nazi, locals took up a proactive role in running them. Ukraine was also not left out in the collaboration. In fact, with the aid of Ukraine police, the Nazi slaughtered 33,000 Jews.

Adolf Hitler indirectly created the grand alliance thus bringing in together the Great Britain, Soviet Union, and the United States. President Roosevelt established strategies considered critical for enhancing post war peace during World War II. However, the Yalta conference that was held in 1945 “appeared to expose the problems and contradictions of Roosevelt’s two‐track approach” (Merriman 675).

Indeed, by 1947, the United States’ policy on Soviet Union predicated containment. In the attempt to ensure that post war order was establishment directly congruent with ideals of the American institutions, Truman’s administration resorted to viewing Soviet Union as threatening interests of the United States.

Towards the end of 1940s, anticommunism and containment were globalized to include Latin America, Asia, and Africa. However, there emerged economic and security demands, which were competing in Europe. The demands had the aftermaths of shattering the grand alliance. Consequently, the cold war emerged.

Economic Issues

Economic issues initially defined postwar Europe differently. Britain depended incredibly on trade for it to prosper (Merriman 209). First World War resulted in the destruction of large fleets owned by British merchants. Consequently, Britain encountered challenges in exportation of coal, textiles made from cotton, and steel.

These challenges were replicated during the Second World War. Hence, Europe experienced economic structural shocks that influenced economic growth negatively during the time of war. However, in the post second world war era, Britain’s economy grew rapidly. Indeed, Britain initiated in 1950 with a very high level of income compared to other parts of Europe since it stood at 73 % (Merriman 712).

This income level was measured based on the U.S. income level figures (Merriman 718). By 1973, the GDP per capital of Britain settled at 71 percent of that of the U.S. During the same period (1950-1973), the GDP per capita of France rose from 52 % to 77 % of that of the U.S. On the other hand, the figures for West Germany were 49% and 87% in the same period while Italy also experienced a tremendous economic growth (40 % to 70%) in the same period.

Europe remained nationally divided after the Second World War (Merriman 609). There were political and intellectual movements that proved important to the new balance of power in the divided Europe. Some of these campaigns included women drives and cultural movements. The movements resorted to dividing Europe based on gender and cultural identities as opposed to national divisions.

For instance, in the case of women movements, the main claims were permission of women to participate in paid labor and accordance of suffrage rights. Claiming these rights in an already divided Europe, European governments had little options other than according them so that woman who had not been given voting rights acquired them by 1950s. There were also increased numbers of women participating in paid labor.

These were all attempts to enhance unity within individual European nations. The quests for concretization of democracy led to the emergence of many intellectual movements in Europe. For instance, students’ movements in France had substantive impacts on the policies made by the government in 1960s. Such movements led to a right back swinging of politics to the extent that economic growth in France dwindled in 1970s.

Conclusion

Conclusively, the 1939 attacks on Poland initiated World War II. Some European nations collaborated while others resisted the war. The War affected Europe in various ways. People died while economic growth was at its lowest percentage in comparison to the United States’ GDP growth. On the other hand, the post war era was characterized by an increasing economic growth generally in France, Britain, and Germany especially during the first two years though it suffered later in 1960s and 1970s.

Works Cited

Merriman, John. A History of Modern Europe: From the Renaissance to the Present. New York, NY: Norton & Company, 2009. Print.

Before the Second World War, a number of world powers, including Britain, France, and the US had attained their war objectives. This implies that they had prepared amicably to face any enemy in the international system. Before the war, Germany had been reduced to a military cipher while the rest of European powers had been weakened economically.

In other words, France and Germany had hegemonic powers in Europe because their militaries could not be matched with those of other states in the continent. In the postwar period, Britain and France could not agree over simple issues because of mistrust and suspicion. In fact, they were unable to control major issues affecting the continent, particularly security issues. The British and French could not come with a single foreign policy that could dictate what was to be done in the continent.

Since the two major powers could not agree over issues, they adopted the policy of appeasement, which was very dangerous to other states. Britain and France came with a resolution to appease Germany to abandon its military programs, which were related to arms race. The two powers believed that appeasing Germany would pave way for negotiations and peaceful resettlement of conflicts.

European states could not pay the US its debts, which forced the US to adopt isolationist policies. The US decided to keep off from European problems. The treaty of Versailles could no longer hold because many countries had been forced to pay debts that did not belong to them. Germany had been forced to enter into compensation program, which stated that the Germany populace had to compensate other nations that had lost their resources during the First World War.

With the above factors, the Second World War was inevitable. The First World War veterans felt that their governments had not honored them in any way. They resorted to circulating new, radical ideas, which were very dangerous to global peace. For instance, fascism was circulated in Italy, which was later adopted by Hitler and his Nazi Party. After the First World War, the victors stated that they would do everything to preserve peace in the world. Germany was one of the losers, which was forced to adopt democracy.

Instead of adopting democracy, states turned to fascism, which is compared to nationalism. A number of states observed that they were being forced to obey some of the rules and regulations that were inconsistent to their culture and beliefs. Germany and Italy are some of the nations that resorted to fascism (nationalism) because they believed that countries such as Britain and France were inferior to them. Benito Mussolini was the first leader to adopt fascist ideologies in 1922.

In the late 1920s, Hitler joined Mussolini in preaching racism. Hitler promised the Germany populace to create more space for them. In 10930, Germany was hit by a financial crisis, which gave Hitler and his party a chance to introduce fascism. He claimed that foreigners destabilized the economy of the country. Hitler promised Germans that he could everything to achieve their lost glory. He became aggressive to an extent of attacking other states without a valid reason.

While some countries collaborated with Germany, some opposed its move strongly. Those that opposed its mission faced severe consequences because they were badly destroyed. The countries that resisted Hitler’s ambition were referred to as the Allies of the Second World War. The Allies decided to resist Hitler’s ambitions because they were directly affected. Countries that supported Hitler’s ambitions were referred to as the Axis. The Axis decided to support Hitler because they were faced with similar threats.

As earlier noted, the Versailles Treaty affected a number of countries, which ganged up to fight for their rights. Some of the Allies of the Second World War include France, the United Kingdom, Austria, Canada, New Zealand the Soviet Union and later the United States. Italy and Japan were the only countries that collaborated with Germany during the Second World War. The collaborators shared one thing, which was the hegemonic power.

After the Second World, the Grand Alliance was formed. The alliance consisted of the United States and the Soviet Union. The US was under Franklin Roosevelt while the Soviet Union was under Joseph Stalin. Winston Churchill controlled Great Britain. After the Second World War, the Grand alliance had an ambition of controlling the affairs of the world. However, the two major partners differed over the best policy to be applied in the development of the economy. The US adopted capitalism while the Soviet Union adopted communism.

This difference led to a war referred to as the Cold War. The Cold War was fought in a number of ways. However, it was not a serious war as compared to the previous wars. The war changed the international system because it came bipolar. Before the Cold War, the international system was multipolar because there were various powers, including Germany, Britain, Japan, Russia, and China. Cold War brought about the new world order because power was distributed between two states only.

Humanity knows what a war is. It is impossible to find a part in the world where people live and who have never been involved into war relationships. War has always been considered as the final stage of solving conflicts when nothing used in negotiations helped. People understand that wars have never led to anything good, however, weapon conflicts are still used for making sure that people have done absolutely everything.

A weapon conflict which leads to the war is usually used for achieving humanistic goals. One of the main ideas of the war is to maintain justice when one country acts inappropriately. Therefore, the humanistic goals in war conflicts cannot be rejected. However, World War II was traumatizing for mankind with having an idea to break humanity into pieces rather than achieve humanistic goals.

Speaking about humanism as a theory, it should be stated that it was invented by Carl Roger and Abraham Maslow. According to the humanistic theory the have developed “all people have the potential for creativity, positive outlook, and the pursuit of higher values” (Comer and Gould 19).

Applying this theory to the war, it is essential to speak about the better future for those who were involved into the war conflict. Therefore, it is necessary to speak about the reasons of the World War II. Which were much complicated that those of the First World War.

Different countries entered the World War II to satisfy their own needs. Therefore, it is difficult to speak about humanism as humanistic goals are similar for all countries and when it goes about various purposes there is no place for humanism. What is meant? For example, the reason of Japan to attack China or USA, and the reasons of Great Britain to declare war to Germany do not coincide. Each of these countries pursued their personal goals (Ross 8).

Is not it a desire to break humanity into pieces? Following personal goals and trying to pursue individual needs government of the countries as well as the leaders of the wars never think about people, their families, etc. It is important to remember the partisan war when the family members appeared on different sides. Is this humanism? Is it possible to call the actions where people are killed a humanism? Such problem formulation is considered as the covert reason for the war in general and the World War II in particular.

However, there are still some reasons which were similar for all counties. Many scholars divide the reasons of the World War II on three major groups, social, economic and political. Each of these groups has several particular causes which lead to the beginning of the war.

Thus, social reasons are absence of the enforcement of the international community of the demands of the treaty after the World War I, Germany appeared as the main responsible party for the World War I. Considering these social reasons from the humanistic point of view, it is possible to say that they shaped society and created the particular aspects which could make the gaps in humanistic reasons of the wars.

Germany was blamed for everything, it was considered as the worst in its actions which is not what may be appreciated by others. German citizens wanted to assure that they are not worse than others, therefore, the war was inevitable. The political problems were centered on Hitler and German aggression. The problems after the World War II were not decided, therefore, there was no place for the humanistic considerations.

Finally, economical problems were the largest, as the society was divided into the successfully developing reasons and those whose economy was shaken by the World War I (Harrison 28). Considering these causes of the World War II as the most effective and reasonable, the logical considerations do not allow to call them humanistic. Returning to the discussion of humanism as the main possible reason of the war, it should be stated that humanism “in the general sense entails the replacement of despotic capitalism with democratic socialism” (Parsons 79).

However, it is impossible to agree with this statement, as fighting for general good, it is impossible to be that firm and categorical about “despotic capitalism” and “democratic socialism” (Parsons 79). Hitler wanted to be the headmaster of the whole world, therefore, he needed to divide it into pieces to be able to ruin it and impose his empire.

Therefore, refusing the humanistic theory as the central reason for the war, many scholars agree that the World War II “shaped the world in which we live now” (Ross 9). Considering the problem of the effects of the World War II in the long term period it is also possible to find the remnants of the humanistic effect, if it was, or to come across the signs of the social breaking into pieces.

Hormats and Ratner speak about the following long-term effects of the war, the emergence of women, the emergence of the global economic and financial system, the re-emergence of state-owned and state-supported enterprises, the internet and the free flow of information, the diffusion of opportunity and innovation, and globalization (Hormats and Ratner 144).

However, speaking about these reasons as a result of the humanistic war, it is impossible to refer to all of them as to the equal consequences of the war. There are a lot of countries which were involved in the World War II, but which economic situation is not that good as in other countries.

There are also many particular countries where the relation to women cannot be called as equal. Globalization has also affected various countries differently. Therefore, looking at the world after the World War II in the long term period, it is possible to say that it did not follow humanistic goals but is was rather directed at shaping and break humanity into pieces.

Many movies have been shot and many books have been written as the supportive ones for the ruining nature of wars. Reading Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five or watching the movie based on the book, it is possible to see how war can be traumatizing and ruining to a person. Thanks to the particular presentation of the events which flow in unstable order without time frames, a reader has an opportunity to see how specific events of the war affect a person.

Comparing and contrasting the beginning of the trip of the main character in time and its end, the shade of meaning in the text may be compared and contrasted. “Billy is spastic in time, has no control over where he is going next, and the trips aren’t necessarily fun. He is in a constant state of stage fright, he says, because he never knows what part of his life he is going to have to act in next” (Vonnegut 23), this is how the trips of the main character begin. “Billy and the rest wandered out onto the shady street.

The trees were leafing out. There was nothing going on out there, no traffic of any kind. There was only one vehicle, an abandoned wagon drawn by two horses. The wagon was green and coffin shaped. Birds were talking. One bird said to Billy Pilgrim. ‘Poo-tee-weet’?” (Vonnegut 215). This is the end of the trip. In the first sentence the curiosity may be seen, while the last phrase shows indifference to the surrounding world which is anyway empty.

Considering the life of those who came through the war, it is important to state about their mental problems. Dementia is considered one of the main problems of the post war period.

Additionally, many scholars point to the fact that veterans required help when they were 20, but not when more than 60 years has passed. Although research has not been carried out on Second World War veterans it is fair to assume that a lot of the dementia we have here in that age group is a result of the war” says Rosemary Black, a correspondent of Daily News.

The problem of dementia and other types of traumatic stress disorders have been considered by different scientists. Erica Weir says that “It is normal to want to avoid painful memories, but if the avoidance is accompanied by hyper arousal, flashbacks, nightmares and a restricted range of emotions, the syndrome of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) may be present” (Weir 1187).

Dwelling upon the traumatism of the war, it is logical to conclude that the World War II had nothing in common with humanism. Langer said that the intention to kill and the intention to destroy ruin human understanding of morality. Morality is the “foundation of all other values” (Langer 56), therefore, being destroyed at war people cannot get used to new principles when they are at home.

Before the war people usually lead their normal lives, they experience the desire of intimacy and love, they value beauty and pleasure. However, after the “humanizing” war as many scholars try to assure us, these people return absolutely different with ruined understanding of previous moral and ethical norms.

Therefore, where the World War II was humanistic and directed at common good? Looking at the reasons of the war and its consequences, not even a word about humanistic nature of the war should be said. The World War II was traumatizing for people, it broke humanity into pieces and even after some many years passed after the end of the World War II people still unable to gather these pieces.

In conclusion, it should be stated that having tried to consider the main aspects of the World War II from the point of view of humanism, the reasons and consequences are to be considered. Neither causes nor the effect of the war have humanistic nature, therefore, the World War II may be considered as purely traumatizing with the purpose to break humanity into pieces. People are too lucky as their natural tension to beauty and good leaves its imprint and the World War II ended with the victory of the good.

Works Cited

Black, Rosemary. “Traumatic experiences during World War II may be source of dementia for veterans: study.” Daily News 16 Sept. 2009. Web.

Comer, Ronald and Elizabeth Gould. Psychology around Us, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2012. Print.

Harrison, Mark. The economics of World War II: an overview, 1998. Web.

Hormats, Robert and Ariel M. Ratner. “World War II to 2011: Changes and Challenges in the Global Economy.” Business Economics 46.3 (2011): 144-153. Print.

Langer, Ron. “Combat Trauma, Memory, and the World War II Veteran.” War, Literature & the Arts: An International Journal of the Humanities 23.1 (2001): 50-59. Print.

Parsons, Howard L. Man Today: Problems, Values and Fulfillment, New York: John Benjamins Publishing, 1979. Print.

Ross, Stewart. The Second World War, New York: Evans Brothers, 1995. Print.

Vonnegut, Kurt. Slaughterhouse-Five, New York: RosettaBooks, 2010. Print.

Weir, Erica. “Veterans and post-traumatic stress disorder.” CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal 163.9 (2000): 1187. Print.

World War II was the most devastating war in world history. The war resulted in horrific property damage as well as about 17 million military deaths and even more civilian deaths. The devastation of the war was mainly due to the advanced military weapons used, from the infantry on the front line to the ships in the sea and the planes in the sky, these weapons destroyed lives and property in nearly every part of the world. In 1939 the United States became involved in the war.

Introduction

As the “greatest generation” (Sledge 1990) fades, it is most significant to appreciate the important role they played in the shaping of our country today. Buried deep in the hearts and minds of every veteran are their many unforgettable memories.

From these memories veterans can reflect and realize what precious treasures they have gained as they endured the many experiences World War II has offered them. The efforts of these veterans will never be forgotten as the stories of these heroes are passed from generation to generation. To fully appreciate the sacrifices of these veterans, it is important to pay close attention to what knowledge they have to share.

We can learn from their mistakes or follow in their footsteps but either way we must take interest before it is too late. Without the help of these important veterans, our view of World War II might not be what it should have been. The same mistakes could just have easily been made and another world war could have surfaced. The American soldiers and veterans who had fought foreign wars formed together but most of the people preferred new Am vets.

The first convention of American veterans of World War II later who served the US military was held in Chicago in October 1945. Even the smaller groups of veterans formed together to support them mutually in organization such as American Veterans Committee (Schneider and Schneider 2003). To these heroes we owe every aspect of our life. These veterans came from all over the nation to defend and honor our country.

United States and the Japan in the World War II

The American said this war as the good war as the America entered World War II for good reasons. They had to defend their allies in the European continent. Friendly European nations were losing the battle against the Axis forces and needed the United States’ forces assistance (Sledge 1990).

The U.S. had the much needed military power the Allies needed to win. (Elson 1043) Since the European nations being attacked were allies and foreign trade partners, it was in the best interest of the United States to assist them. Many people felt it was the duty of the United States to travel overseas and defend them.

The U.S. had to prevent the war from reaching home. Attacks on U.S. soil would be very dangerous to the security of the nation. If the war reached North America, it surely would have meant the Axis would be victorious. This is one reason the U.S. entered the war when they did; they had to keep the war overseas. When there was an attack within U.S. borders, immediate action was taken.

On December 7, 1941, Japanese planes bombed Pearl Harbor, a military base in Hawaii. The results were devastating. 19 ships were sunk, 150 planes destroyed, 2403 were killed, and 1178 wounded. This attack threatened both the United State’s pride and security. Since “part of this government is based on pride, action had to be taken to defend the United States of America. Only one day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, war was declared by the U.S. on Japan (Sloan 2007).

When the declaration of war was voted upon, the results were astonishing. In the Senate, the vote was a unanimous 82 yeas to 0 nays. The House of Representatives voted 388 yeas to 1 nay. The lone vote against the war was from pacifist Jeanette Rankin. It seemed everyone felt the same way toward the idea of war. The government was concerned for the nation’s defense.

Pearl Harbor was the point of no return. The United States was attacked, and now it had to join the war to protect itself. The event riled up the citizens to support their country. Many men joined the military to fight for their country. People in the U.S. never felt as safe as they had prior to the attack. Every ethnic Japanese citizen was seen as a hazard. Americans were fearful that all Japanese-Americans had the same feelings of support for Japan.

Americans became paranoid of the Japanese. Song requests on radio stations were banned from being played by the National Association of Broadcasters. They believed it may allow the Japanese to send coded messages. Weather reports were cancelled for fear enemy fliers would use them to plan bombing raids on American cities. Man-on-the-street interviews were stopped because of the possibility that a national secret might be revealed.

This fear of the Japanese race kept growing and affecting American life. The Japanese paranoia grew so great, a 1941 issue of Time even taught its subscribers how to distinguish between our Chinese friends and the hated Japs, who were, presumably, lurking around every corner. The differences were almost comical. The magazine said the Chinese were not as hairy and more kindly and open. On the other hand the Japanese were uncertain and panicky and “laughed out loud at the wrong time” (Yang 2003).

The government, fearing for national security, took steps to minimize, if not eliminate, the threat the Japanese could pose (Yang 2003). To deal with the problem of the Japanese Americans, the United States set up internment camps for the Japanese to be sent to. Persons with as little as 1/16 Japanese blood were told to go to internment camps (Sloan 2007).

The Japanese people that were sent to these camps were allowed to bring only a bedroll and what they could carry. The internment camps were not nice places to be. They were surrounded with barbed wire and armed guards. The internees were sent to the camps only because of their ethnicity; they did not commit any crimes.

The most controversial part of the internment included American-born children and youth who had both U.S. and Japanese citizenship. Nevertheless, they were sent to the internment camps just in case. The United States could make no exceptions to their policy on the grounds that they could be allowing the enemy to walk freely in their boundaries. Some of the internees were still loyal to the United States and wanted to fight for it.

Critical Analysis

There were many shortages of critical materials during World War II. Even so, civilian consumption rose about 22% during the war. Production on many civilian products sharply declined or stopped altogether. This decline in production of these products led to shortages. There were shortages of materials such as leather, metal, and rubber. To solve the problem of these shortages, many items were rationed (Sloan 2007).

The rationing of products occurred from 1942 through 1943. In 1942, coffee and gasoline were rationed. Shoes, meats, fats, and cheese were placed under rationing in 1943. A point-rationing system for processed foods was also introduced in 1943. 1944 marked the end of rationing with the end of meat rationing with the exception of various choice cuts of beef. In 1945, shoes, all meats, butter, and tires were no longer rationed.

During this period of rationing goods, coupons were needed to purchase these items (Dickson 2008). Schools set up rationing stations to distribute coupons. Every person, no matter their age, received the same type of coupons. To purchase an item, three things were needed: the store must have the item, the buyer needed the cash to buy the item, and the appropriate coupon had to be used for the item.

With these restrictions on purchasing products, black and grey market activity arose. Black market activity was the selling of ration coupons for a personal profit. Grey market activity was the trading of coupons among friends, family, or neighbors. Both were illegal (Elson 1945). This system of rationing was used until the end of World War II

After the war, the economy was on the rise. There was a boom in housing because of the easily affordable mortgages for the returning military veterans. From this growth in the economy came a growing middle class. People migrated from cities to suburbs and businesses were involved in consolidation phase.

By 1956, most people held white-collar jobs. Labor unions were able to gain long term employment contracts and associated benefits for their members. Farmers, though, were still facing hard times. Farming continued to decline for many years. Besides the economy, there were improvements to the United States elsewhere.

The military started allowing African Americans equal treatment. Nearly 500,000 African Americans had fought in World War II, most of which were confined to cheaper, segregated quarters. Despite their unequal treatment, the African Americans had fought well in the war and the military acknowledged that. The President’s Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Service was established specifically to study this matter. The armed services would never treat African Americans differently again (Elson 1945).

After World War II, the United States had more respect as a world power than they ever had before. It made a great change in American societies. The people of America gained self-Confidence and believed what they were capable of, they had a victory as a nation and the individuals found themselves capable of doing what they can do (Schneider and Schneider 2003).

They were seen as a world power prior to 1945, but not like they were after the war. World War II was the first real time the United States chose to exert its true power. The U.S. has dominated the affairs of the world since 1945 (Dickson 2008). Since then, the United States has been considered one of, if not the most, powerful country in the world.

Bibliography

Dickson, Keith D. World War Two almanac. New York: Infobase Publishing, 2008.

Elson, Henry W. History of the United States of America. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1945.

Schneider, Carl J., and Dorothy Schneider. World War II. New York: Infobase Publishing, 2003.

Sledge, E. B. With the Old Breed: At Peleliu and Okinawa. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.

Sloan, Bill. The Ultimate Battle: Okinawa 1945–The Last Epic Struggle of World War II. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2007.

Yang, Timothy M. The Malleable Yet Undying Natiure of the Yellow Peril. 2003. Web.

Introduction

During the WW II in America, the government of America forced more than 120, 000 Americans of Japanese descent from the regions of Washington, Oregon, California, and Arizona to relocation centers where they lived for the entire period of the WW II. Since the internment process involved all ages among the Japanese American population, the general process of relocation was done by the humane War Relocation Authority (WRA), which spread the Japanese Americans in the relocation centers and US Army facilities. Although all the internees were released by the windfall of 1946, they had lost their businesses, homes besides deleterious effects on their social lives. Thus, this analytical treatise attempts to explicitly review the infamous Japanese Americans internment and what it suggests on the nature of American democracy. Besides, the treatise reviews the historical dynamics that allowed for the internment of Japanese Americans and the impacts of internment in the Japanese American communities during and after the end of WW II.

Japanese American internment and the democracy of America during WW2

Basically, the Japanese American communities’ internment during WW2 was justified by the American government that classified it as a military necessity. The period was characterized by an indiscriminate roundup of Japanese and Japanese Americans who lived in the states considered a security threat since the main foes of the then America was Japan. Several instances of constitution abuse occurred in the disguise of national security. The American Japanese were forced and actually moved to relocation centers against their will despite the clear human rights clauses in the American constitution that protect the basic human rights of all American citizens irrespective of their descent (Starr, 14).

Though the fallacy of security concerns applied by the government seemed justifiable on the basis of generalization of threat, the decision lacked any concrete premise for the actions taken. Before relocation, there had never been any serious security threat reported as committed by the Japanese Americans. Despite being in the bracket of taxpayers and citizens of American, the democratic space of freedom of association and participation, the civic duties as citizens of America were denied since this group was subjected to unjustified detainment against the constitution of the United States of America through the ‘Executive Order 9066’ authorized by the then president Roosevelt (Executive Order 9066, par.13).

Interestingly, the internment policy was proven unjustified by the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians that was later appointed by President Carter to find out if the government did overstep its mandate in targeting a single ancestry. Basically, the internment policy lacked objectiveness since the process only targeted one part of the nation and left other Japanese Americans living in other parts of America. The government has never been in a position to prove substantial incidences of disloyalty by the Japanese Americans who were subjected to internment (Connell, 71).

Despite the fact that the American government adopted humane strategy for relocation, the reasons for the same were never clearly communicated to the Japanese Americans despite claims full democracy and right to timely information on the reasons for actions before actualization. Besides, those rounded were never offered any form of compensation but were denied the opportunity to continue building the nation, which is the foundation of American democracy (Dye, 19).

For instance, in the Manzanar relocation center was lacking several basic human survival facilities despite hosting Japanese Americans of different ages. It would take unnecessary longer hours to access medical facilities and other basic social services for the internees who had a unique culture. Supposedly a totalitarian democracy, the internees were denied their freedom of association and access to social services on the basis of a biased internment policy targeting a single descent. It was only the Japanese descent which was targeted though the US had other foes like the Germans (Connell, 29).

The unfair treatment of this descent was a direct defilement on democracy, and the human rights principles enshrined in the constitution of the United States of America. Reflecting on the internment policy adopted by the government of America on the Japanese American communities, it is factual that the totalitarian democracy regime was defiled by policymakers and social decision-makers. Through internment, the basic roles played by the Japanese Americans were grounded and suspended without their consent despite having been part of the taxpayers (Houston, Jeanne, and James, 32).

The relocation centers were never designed in line with the unique culture and ways of life of the Japanese American internees. For instance, unlike in their former homes, the Japanese American internees did not have an opportunity to incorporate building architecture they had previously enjoyed and used to maintain a unique identity. Thus, the status of democracy in America in the period of WW2 can be described discriminatory based on unjustified biasness on the American citizens of Japanese origin (Hanel, 14). The government was unjustified to adopt internment policy on the Japanese Americans on the basis of national security threat since communal punishment does not serve the purpose of containing a situation. Rather, it only serves to expose the ills of a government supposedly democratic.

Historical dynamics that allowed for Japanese Americans internment

Several historical dynamics played against the Japanese Americans living in the regions of Washington, Oregon, California, and Arizona before the internment policy. Following the infamous Pearl Harbor attack by the Imperial Japan in 1941, the government felt threatened by the action of the Japanese and had to develop a policy to quickly prevent possible reoccurrence of the same.

Political dynamics: Following the Pearl Harbor attack by Japan in 1941, the political and military leadership of America felt threatened and developed a fear that the then relatively powerful Imperial Japan was strategizing for a combat showdown on the strategic West Coast regions of the United States. Before this attack, the Imperial Japan had enjoyed military conquest described by historians as very rapid since they had full control of major counties in Asia besides the Pacific by 1936. The reports reaching the political class in America was unbearable and some viewed Japan as unstoppable. As a result of this fear, the military and political classes were unsure of ethic Japanese loyalty in the face of an eminent threat to survival of the US. This fear was compounded by the ‘Niihau Incident’ when a captured naval airman of the Japanese regiment was forcefully released by three American Japanese civilians on the Niihau Island (Malkin, 22).

Social dynamics: The loyalty concerns by the political class in America on the Japanese American descent was fueled by the then common racial prejudice and the Nihau incident. For instance, the ‘A Jap’s a Jap’ racial slang propaganda made the Japanese Americans an easy target in the face of a possible attack by the relatively powerful Imperial Japan (Houston, Jeanne and James, 32). Due to the Nihau incident, the then internment program administrator seemed justified before the congress when he revealed his sentiment that;

I don’t want any of them [persons of Japanese ancestry] here. They are a dangerous element. There is no way to determine their loyalty… It makes no difference whether he is an American citizen, he is still Japanese. American citizenship does not necessarily determine loyalty… But we must worry about the Japanese all the time until he is wiped off the map (Mullen, Par. 5).

Economic Dynamics: The Imperial Japan had gained economically from the series of successful military campaigns in Asia and the Pacific. Due to fear of possible destruction of the economic system of the strategic West Coast region, the leadership of America developed a rationale that interment of the Japanese Americans in these regions would give them a better chance of fighting an invading Japanese Army before they mingle with the Japanese Americans. Had the Imperial Japan army attacked the West Coast region, it would have been difficult for the government to identify the attacked since Japanese poses more or less same physic.

Impact of internment on the Japanese Americans during and after the WW2

Economic impacts: As a result of the internment policy, the Japanese Americans directly lost their business valued at five billion dollars. The five years of internment grounded all their business activities and their businesses collapsed. The Japanese Americans lost their means of livelihood. Besides, this group lost their homes and investments in constructing these homes. Upon release, most their business have been destroyed, as was the case with their homes. The meager compensation of twenty thousand dollars for each of the survivors cannot be equated to five years of internment and lost property. The Japanese American community dominance of the West Coast region was completed destroyed.

Social impacts: During the interment process, the Japanese Americans lost their religious powers which could only be fully exercised in accordance with the deities and beliefs endorsed in the light of principles and ideals acceptable to their unique culture. These fundamental ideas from the Japanese American religious culture were then misinterpreted into social conception of prejudice that resulted in abuse of their basic human rights. The supposedly democratic government which was mandated with the responsibility of protecting its citizens neglected its group (Burton Farrell and Lord, 7).

The Japanese American conscientious citizenship was compromised by biasness that victimized this group during their period of internment. They lost their social identity, traditional way of life, and communal existence. Though, the government of the US had offered apology for the biased internment of the Japanese Americans, the prejudice has remained among the other Americans as evidenced in the minimal political leadership roles played by Japanese Americans at present (Daniels, 34).

Conclusion

The infamous Japanese American community interment during the Second World War in the West Coast regions of America defiled the totalitarian democratic regime of the US. Besides, the process was the state constitution on basic rights of American citizens to free associations, participation in public service, and right of protection by the government against human rights violation. However, the Niihau incident and attack on Pearl Harbor provided the then political and military classes the rationale for internment of the Japanese Americans. As a result of internment, the Japanese Americans lost their dignity, private property, and freedom of association.

Works Cited

Burton, John, Farrell Michael and Lord Randy. Confinement and Ethnicity: Sites of shame. Web.

Connell, Thomas. America’s Japanese Hostages: The World War II Plan for a Japanese Free Latin America. Alabama: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002. Print.

Daniels, Roger. Prisoners without Trial: Japanese Americans in World War II. New York: Hill & Wang, 1993. Print.

Dye, Bob. How bigots ‘cleansed’ Legislature in 1942. Chicago: The Honolulu Advertiser, 2001. Print.

Executive Order 9066: The President Authorizes Japanese Relocation, 1942. Web.

Hanel, Rachael. The Japanese American Internment. New York: Hill & Wang, 2008. Print.

Houston, Michael, Jeanne Wakatsuki and James Diana Houston. Farewell to Manzanar. New York: Random House, Inc. 2007. Print.

Malkin, Michelle. In Defense of Internment. New York: Hill & Wang, 2004. Print.

Mullen, Fred. DeWitt Attitude on Japs Upsets Plans: Watsonville Register-Pajaronian. New York: Santa Cruiz Library, 1943. Print.

Starr, Kevin. California: A History. New York: The Modern Library. 2007. Print.

Propaganda is an essential element of warfare because appropriate techniques make people support the policy and even join the armed forces. That is why governments draw significant attention to the impact on people’s minds during military conflicts, and World War II was not an exception. All the parties to the war, including Germany, the Soviet Union, and Britain, invested many resources in propaganda, but the present essay will focus on the United States’ effort. The US utilized versatile and effective propaganda means during World War II.

The United States relied on different propaganda techniques during World War II. Firstly, posters were a significant communication channel because they were inexpensive and accessible. Appropriate images and text messages were displayed in the streets, at schools, and in other places to affect citizens. Secondly, movies and cartoons were also produced to make ordinary people develop a specific opinion regarding the war. All these channels were used to convey two powerful messages. On the one hand, propaganda militarized society and forced men to believe that their primary task was to protect the nation. On the other hand, the purpose was to show that the enemies, Germany, Japan, and Italy, were a significant threat to the entire civilized world. A single fact can demonstrate that American propaganda was successful. Before World War II, Americans were mostly isolationists and believed that they should have focused on internal problems. However, the posters, movies, and cartoons contributed to the fact that many citizens entered the war as volunteer fighters.

In conclusion, the essay has overviewed the United States World War II propaganda techniques. The country relies on posters, movies, and cartoons to make its citizens understand that their duty is to participate in the war and defeat the enemy. Furthermore, propaganda messages were created to show that the enemies were cruel and barbaric. A high number of Americans who voluntarily joined the army showed that the American government’s efforts were effective.