In the writing the author describes the contradictory actions of the US government regarding the officially stated reason to enter World War II. The author believes that Americans were told World War II was a people’s war but it was not. He gives examples of the numerous times the American government became involved in the internal matters of other governments, changed sides depending on the circumstances and reacted only when its national interests were at stake.

The US government makes its decisions because they appear to be favorable to national interests at that time, including the decision to go to war. According to him the US did not enter World War II to rid the world of fascism and the prosecution of innocents by Nazi Germany, but to further its interests in the world.

I hope this isn’t true. I think of World War II as the only war that even a pacifists like myself would have entered. It is probably safe to say however that a government that has decided to go to war must gain the popular public support to make it possible. It is probably true that governments state different reasons and goals for war to the public than is the reality. Let’s face it most of the general public is pretty stupid. The true reasons for entering a war become apparent after the war is over and the public, as well as experts and politicians, can review the developments in hindsight.

For example, after the US invasion of Iraq, it was expressed by some that the true reason to invade Iraq was not weapons of mass destruction as was stated before the invasion took place. After WMDs were not discovered in Iraq, other possible causes for invading the country began to emerge. And made Americans feel unsafe. Pearl Harbor was of course a strong reason before World War II. Before the US entered World War I, American deaths due to the destruction of a British ship by Germany and secret plans about Mexico and US territories encouraged the US to enter the war. The US invasion of Iraq was strongly encouraged by the events of September 11. So perhaps it is not wrong to think that both national interest and ideals such as liberty were at play in the US decision to enter the Second World War.

I do not believe the authors saying that World War II was an unjust war, merely that it was a hypocritical war. Hitler and his totalitarian regime were evil, but so have been countless other global atrocities that we as a nation have chosen to ignore. When we have intervened in other places - like Latin America and Asia - it has been to improve our ability to acquire resources and improve our trade conditions.

 

Many African-Americans felt that the war fought in Germany against oppression was a joke because of course they were treated like animals in the United States and no one seemed to care about their plight. Zinn claims we ignored the poor treatment of Jews in Germany throughout the 30s and sold oil to Italy after fascism had already taken root was not for moral but for capitalistic and imperialistic reasons. The best quote in the book that sums up their authors views is:

Roosevelt was as much concerned to end the oppression of Jews as Lincoln was to end slavery during the Civil War; their priority in policy (whatever their personal compassion for victims of persecution) was not minority rights, but national power.

Zinn discusses the ways we ended the war and how we gained from it. He also talks about the crimes we committed against Americans in the name of patriotism and security. On Bainbridge Island we have a Japanese internment Memorial. The incredible crimes against the Japanese living in the United States is something most of the nation rarely speaks about. I’m convinced the only reason we even speak about it here is because we can’t ignore it because there is a gigantic Memorial to it and we actually have survivors that still live here.

Zinn also talks about the fascinating ways that the government created the Cold War and used it to manipulate Americans into buying into oppressive and exploitive foreign policy decisions.The Red Scare unified parts of society against Communism, permitting the military to get bigger and stronger to defend against the enemy. At the start of 1950, the total US budget was about $40 billion, and the military part of it was about $12 billion. But by 1955, the military part alone was $40 billion out of a total of $62 billion. By 1970, the US military budget was $80 billion and the corporations involved in military production were making fortunes. Two-thirds of the 40 billion spent on weapons systems was going to twelve or fifteen giant industrial corporations, whose main reason for existence was to fulfill government military contracts.

The author argues that the reason we need such a huge military is to write a pretend war so we can make a handful of billionaires richer with military contracts. As a country, we wanted control over oil and other resources, so we interfered in the governments of South America and Lebanon and Cuba. I agree with a lot of what Zinn is saying and I guess I am just naïve enough to not one of believe what he is saying about World War II. I believe the US even today takes the interests of corporations above the interest of its people. Yet I also would like to think that the US government saw the atrocities happening in World War II and decided they had to take a stand because when Europe falls they will be coming after us next and the government simply wanted to protect us. I have no idea if that’s true but I hope it is.