SCORCHED EARTH

A view of World War II as the child of colonialism and the father of superpower neo-imperialism.

“The last time that a world leader launched a war to dominate Eastern Europe and a rising Asian power sought to challenge American power in the Pacific, it led to the bloodiest war in human history.” So, with an eye on the present, ventures Columbia University historian Chamberlin in closing his sweeping survey of World War II. Fittingly, that narrative begins with World War I and its antecedent conflicts in Africa, where the European colonial powers and the U.S. tested techniques and strategies that would come to full fruition a generation or two later: concentration camps, poisonous gas, aerial bombardment of civilian populations. In this regard, Chamberlin dismantles the “good war” narrative so cherished by celebrants of the “greatest generation”: World War II had “overarching moral clarity,” but it had plenty of ignoble aspects. One, Chamberlin notes at the outset, was contingency planning on the part of the U.S. and Britain to immediately rearm German soldiers and go to war with the Soviet Union; another was the prewar expansion of American power deep into the Pacific, the result of a racist view that assumed that it was the white man’s role to lead the world (Japan, an allied power, was explicitly denied racial equality in the Treaty of Versailles). In the end, Chamberlin argues, the Soviet Union bore the brunt of the European fight, losing millions of soldiers, while the U.S. bore the brunt of the Pacific War but relied on technological superiority to bomb Japan into submission. The outcome: a postwar world order dominated by those militarized superpowers and their satellites, “forced to prepare for perpetual warfare and the prospect of nuclear annihilation.”

A fresh, closely argued interpretation of a global conflict that continues to reverberate.