World War II is presented as a clash between good and evil. The real story, however, was not black and white at all. War crimes were committed not only by the Axis countries, but also by the Western Allies. In an interview with Piotr Zychowicz, political scientist, prof. John Mearsheimer.
Piotr Zychowicz:You watched the series Band of brothers Steven Spielberg?
prof. John Mearsheimer: No.
This is the story of a squad of American soldiers who land in Normandy. The ninth episode is entitled Why We Fight . The heroes of the series liberate a German concentration camp in it. They find mountains of corpses and terribly emaciated, exhausted prisoners in striped uniforms. And then it gets to them - and to the millions of viewers in front of their televisions - why Americans are fighting and dying so far from home.
It's just a movie. Contrary to what is said today, the United States did not enter World War II for moral reasons. They joined it for strategic reasons. This was how they pursued their interests.
Of course, the American government from the very beginning - from Adolf Hitler's rise to power in 1933 - was extremely critical of National Socialist ideology. This is beyond discussion. But it was not because of his aversion to Nazism that Washington got involved in the war on the European continent. That's not why American boys died.
It was not because of his aversion to Nazism that Washington got involved in the war on the European continent. That's not why American boys died.
Why then?
Because Germany upset the balance of power on the continent. And the United States performs the function of offshore balancer towards Europe .
You mean?
This means that the guiding principle of American foreign policy is to prevent any power in Europe or Asia from attaining the status of a continental hegemon. So it dominated all other regional powers.
Such a state would quickly become so powerful that it could challenge the United States in the fight for global domination. When a country becomes powerful enough to dominate the Old Continent, America steps in and stops that country. In the 1940's, Germany was such a state.
It was already known that Germany would try to gain hegemony in Europe.
Yes, but at the time America hoped that other European powers would manage to stop Germany on their own. Hitler attacked Poland in 1939, but the United States decided not to intervene because France and Great Britain were still in the game.
It was not until 1940, when Germany quickly smashed France and drove the British out of the continent, that Washington began to become seriously concerned. For it seemed that Hitler would attack and destroy the Soviet Union now. This, in turn, would mean that Germany would gain the status of the hegemon of Europe.
The text is an excerpt from the latest book by Piotr Zychowicz, “Alianci. Politically incorrect stories V ", which has just been released by Dom Wydawniczy REBIS.
And thus - they will disturb the world's balance of power.
That's it. This situation was unacceptable to the United States. This is why a red light came on in Washington when Operation Barbarossa began on June 22, 1941. And America shifted into high gear.
In December 1941, the United States entered the war against Germany. They did not, however, because they wanted to fight Hitler's nasty tyranny, but because Germany had become so powerful that it could dominate Europe. The system that ruled in Germany was of secondary importance in this game. It was about the balance of power.
Wait, but it was Germany that declared war on America, not America on Germany.
It was a formality. Hitler only saved the Americans a lot of trouble. The decision to fight Germany has already been made in Washington.
The German-American war began in December 1941, but the Americans were reluctant to come to the continent. Why?
Because that's their tactic. They did the same during World War I. At that time, they feared that imperial, Wilhelmian Germany would become the hegemon of Europe. The Americans, however, hoped that the British-Franco-Russian coalition would deal with Germany on its own.
US troops began arriving in Europe in late 1917, but most troops were redeployed in 1918. In the final phase of the conflict.
The problem appeared in early 1917. Then it became clear that this scenario would not come true. And indeed - the Germans managed to defeat and exclude Russia from the game, thanks to which they could transfer the bulk of their forces to the Western front. There was a risk that they would beat England and France and, as a consequence, become hegemon. This was the moment when the United States had to enter the war.
US troops began arriving in Europe in late 1917, but most troops were redeployed in 1918. In the final phase of the conflict.
So the United States is always the last one to throw their cards on the table.
Of course. This is the wisest strategy a state can employ:join the war as late as possible. Then the smallest losses are incurred and the strength is retained for the moment of decisive conflict. It's a recipe for victory.
Yes, this is without a doubt the smartest tactic. But how do you explain that America wages wars in defense of its interests, but is able to sell them to the world as a fight for freedom, human rights and democracy?
Nations like to believe that they are fighting for the good. That their governments are not driven by selfishness and Realpolitik but altruism and humanism. They also want all other people on the globe to believe in this idealistic vision. That is why each side of the conflict claims in its propaganda that moral reasons are on its side. That she represents good. And the opponent is evil.
Nations like to believe that they are fighting for the good. That their governments are not driven by selfishness and Realpolitik, but by altruism and humanism.
The United States is no exception. Wars between powers are about interests, but it's nice to wrap them up in moral narratives. There is also a practical side. Governments find it difficult to get their soldiers to shed blood by telling them they are fighting to advance the strategic interests of a great power. It is much easier to mobilize them to make sacrifices by ensuring that they are fighting for a good cause. The same is true for entire societies.
Let's go back to World War II. General Patton said right after the war that the Americans liberated half of Europe from one tyranny, but gave the other half to another. The fact that the Soviet Union was an ally of the United States seems to make it clear that the black and white narrative of WWII as a clash between good and evil is a myth.
Stalin was a great criminal, but - in my opinion - Hitler was an even greater criminal.
This is just a moot point. But my point is, the US ally was terrible, bloodthirsty totalitarianism. America supported this totalitarianism with the supply of weapons and equipment. So it's hard to talk about America as a flawless empire of good.
Well, that's politics. Please remember that before the Americans and the British landed on the continent, the Eastern Front tied an overwhelming part of the Wehrmacht forces. 93 percent of the losses that Germany had suffered in World War II by that time were in the fight against the Red Army.
It was the Soviet Union that for several years took on almost the entire burden of the fight against Germany. America reject such an ally because of its repressive internal system? Let's be serious. It doesn't work that way.
But in May 1945, Germany capitulated. And Stalin was still a good "Uncle Joe."
Yes, I know. Many people in Eastern Europe resent the United States for not attacking the Soviets in 1945 and liberating their homelands from the red occupation. However, this regret stems from the ignorance of the military situation at the time and the nature of American politics.
It was the Soviet Union that for several years took on almost the entire burden of the fight against Germany.
Let's start with the military situation.
First, the Red Army was more powerful than the British-American forces that were on the continent at the time. The Western Allies were too weak to drive the Soviets to Moscow. Second, when the Third Reich capitulated, the war in the Pacific was in full swing.
The Americans could not defeat the Japanese without the help of the Soviet Union. They tried hard to get Stalin to attack Japan. So they could not act against him in Eastern Europe at the same time. As you know, in August 1945 the Red Army actually attacked the Kwantung Army in Manchuria, which resulted in the surrender of Japan.
And what is ignorance of the nature of American politics about?
On failure to understand the basic fact that Americans did not come to Europe to fight "nasty dictatorships" that violate human rights. They came here to fight the Germans who have upset the balance of power on the continent.
Americans did not come to Europe to fight "nasty dictatorships" that violate human rights. They came here to fight the Germans who have upset the balance of power on the continent.
In one of your lectures, you said that when the United States pursues its interests, it can be ruthless. What did you mean?
For example, carpet raids on German cities where tens of thousands of civilians died. And also raids on Japanese cities.
Dropping atomic bombs.
Not only! After all, on March 10, 1945, American bombers destroyed Tokyo. More people died there in one night than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The United States Air Force conducted a systematic campaign to burn Japan to the ground. Together with the people who live there. Did you know that Kyoto came first on the list of Japanese cities to be bombed?
No, I didn't know. Why did the Americans abandon this target?
The then secretary of war, Henry L. Stimson, ordered Kyoto to be deleted from the list of targets. It so happened that he had spent his honeymoon in this city and he liked it very much. In 1945, he decided to save them from annihilation. Thus, in Washington, life and death decisions were made for hundreds of thousands of civilians.
On March 10, 1945, American bombers destroyed Tokyo. More people died there in one night than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Many films have been made in Hollywood about the suffering of American soldiers in Japanese captivity. However, there is silence about the ordeal of Japanese prisoners of war in American captivity.
Yes, the soldiers of the Imperial Army often did not even have a chance to become prisoners. American soldiers killed them on the spot as soon as they surrendered. Much of this happened again during the Korean War. As a result of the American bombing of North Korea, up to 20 percent of the country's population could have died. The US Army also wreaked havoc in Vietnam.
But America has probably also had an idealistic policy?
Yes, but with a tragic effect for myself and the world. I mean the period after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. 1990–2016. It was the only period in history in which the United States did not need to worry about the balance of power in the world. They were the only superpower in the world. No other power has challenged them in the game for global domination. No other power posed a serious threat to them.
Did they start acting irrational then?
Unfortunately yes. And each time they got into incredible trouble. Because the truth is surprising. Idealistic politics does not make the world a better place. Conversely - it becomes much worse. Above all, such a policy is ineffective. It only brings terrible disasters.
The text is an excerpt from the latest book by Piotr Zychowicz, “Alianci. Politically incorrect stories V ", which has just been released by Dom Wydawniczy REBIS.
What was the idealistic politics of the US about?
On the conviction that the whole world should be changed into the image and likeness of America. Impose a liberal democratic system on it. They wanted to turn all the countries of the world into liberal democracies, which was to put an end to human rights violations, wars and terrorism.
It wasn't idealistic politics, it was extremely stupid.
Agreed, it couldn't have worked. America tried to run a colossal social engineering operation. But, interestingly, she used brute military force to achieve these "lofty goals".
I am talking about the so-called Georg W. Bush doctrine - that is, attacking and overthrowing subsequent regimes in the Muslim world. According to its assumption, the entire Middle East was to be turned into a sea of democracy.
It turned out a bit different.
There was a great drama. And a spectacular disaster. The war in Afghanistan, which started in 2001, is the longest war in the history of the United States. And it looks like if the Americans someday withdraw from the country, the Taliban will regain control of it.
So the situation will go back to where it started, to what it was before the invasion. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of civilians have died. The whole country has been ruined by years of armed conflict.
And how did the Americans do in Iraq?
Even worse. Iraq is a country where Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds live. These groups - to put it mildly - do not like each other. As a result of the American intervention in 2003, Iraq de facto broke up into several parts. And to make matters worse, a radical terrorist Islamic State appeared in it, which caused so much trouble for the West. There was no problem of terrorism in Iraq until the Americans came there.
There was no problem of terrorism in Iraq until the Americans came there.
The US attack on Iraq in 2003 was called "Iraqi Freedom." Instead of liberation, however, the Iraqis received destruction, terror and chaos from Uncle Sam.
Yes, this country was simply ruined. A sea of blood has been spilled. If I were Iraqi, I would prefer Saddam Hussein to stay in power. Which, of course, does not mean that life under Saddam Hussein was enjoyable. The point is, America has made things even worse.
Then other countries were "made happy":Libya, Egypt and Syria.
Yes, the United States played no small role in the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi and Hosni Mubarak. And also in the attempt to overthrow Bashar al-Assad. We all know the deplorable effects of these operations.
Syria plunged into a terrible civil war as Assad was supported by the Russians and Iranians. Several million Syrians had to flee their homes, several hundred thousand died. A piece of Syria has been blown to rubble. A bloody civil war also broke out in Libya. And in Egypt, democratic elections were won by the Muslim Brotherhood, which had to be overthrown with a… coup d'état.
Only disasters.
Yes, only disasters. This was, in practice, the idealistic politics of the United States. The march from disaster to catastrophe. By the way, the Americans have caused human suffering on a gigantic, shocking scale.
The death of hundreds of thousands of people, enormous destruction and destabilization of the strategic region of the world. The result was a wave of refugees that flooded the Old Continent and sparked a serious crisis in the European Union.
What's the moral of that?
If you pursue an idealistic policy, you lose.
***
John Mearsheimer, a professor at the University of Chicago, is an American political scientist, one of the world's most prominent experts in geopolitics. Creator of the concept of offensive realism, supporter of Realpolitik . He wrote, among others, with Stephen Walt, the famous book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (Polish edition entitled The Israeli Lobby in the USA ) and The Great Delusion:Liberal Dreams and International Realities . In Poland, Universitas published his opus magnum The Tragedy of Political Power .
Source:
The text is an excerpt from the latest book by Piotr Zychowicz "Alianci", the fifth part of the series "Politically incorrect stories", which has just been published by the REBIS Publishing House.