The US Involvement in WWII Essay Example

Throughout the 20th century, humanity and civilization had gone through a technological, cultural, and economical surge seen nowhere else in history before. The world had become more connected, as people and ideas were more easily moved around. However, as the size of the world decreased, the weight of conflicts and wars increased. At the forefront of the 20th century, The Great War was a turning point in conflicts, which saw a new age in warfare and politics. Unfortunately, this war, the War to end all wars, would soon become known more commonly as WWI, with the debut of WWII in 1939. By the time the 1930s were ending, great powers around the globe were fighting to be top dog. Amongst those were the United States. For many, our involvement in the war was detrimental to the ultimate outcome of the war. In this paper, I will explore why the United States joined the war, from the perspective of security and personal power, as well as explore the question regarding if our involvement should have happened. More specifically, the United States was justified to join the war, based on readings of Mearsheimer and Morgenthau.

In order to best support my argument, this paper will be broken into two major sections. The first section will be tasked with objectively analyzing the factors that lead to the US’s involvement in WWII, specifically how it relates to the ideas of security and hegemony. This will look more at why the US wanted to join the war, what it saw as threats, and what it could potentially gain. The second section will look to see if the US was justified to join the war at all. The goal of this paper is to observe the actions of the United States in WWII through the realist lens, specifically those of Mearsheimer and Morgenthau. 

SECTION I

Although the United States was perhaps one of the most important and influential nations to fight in the war, it should still be mentioned that it took two years before getting properly involved. There were various and numbering factors that kept the US out of the war before the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941. In order to remain within the scope of Mearsheimer and Morgenthau, the focus will be specifically on the axis powers, and how that impacted the security of the US as well as its personal goals.

A major central idea that was promoted in John J. Mearsheimer’s Anarchy and the Struggle for Power is this idea of hegemony, or a power above all powers. This term works quite well when analyzing the Nazis, who were dead set on expanding their political, but also their physical and geographical strength. It would not take long following the start of the war for many nations to succumb to or be heavily weakened by the Nazi Empire. It is very likely that at this point, the Nazis had reached a regional hegemony in Europe, or close to one. Of course, this does not mean they eased up on their offense, which is supported by Mearsheimer, “Even when a great power achieves a distinct military advantage over its rivals, it continues looking for chances to gain more power.” (Mearsheimer, 94) This part here is vital to how the rest of WWII would shape up to be, as the two following reasons given by Mearsheimer are; the difficulty in assessing how much relative power is needed to stay secure, and how much power is needed when combatting other powerful nations. (Mearsheimer, 94) The axis powers were quickly expanding their power in all shapes and forms, with Japan doing so similarly in and around Asia. Indeed, one of these “other powerful nations” was the United States.

The ever growing power of the Axis powers would have had major concerns regarding the security of other nations. The initial goal of the US at the start of the war was to stay out of it, whom many had a false sense of security being separated by large oceans on either side. However, after the Pearl Harbor Bombing, it became clear to the US that its security was being truly threatened by that of aggressive nations. Another idea mentioned by Mearsheimer is the security dilemma, which simply states that the more secure one nation becomes, the less secure others will become. (Mearsheimer, 95) The United States knew this, and so did the Axis Powers. If the US wanted to maintain its security as well as its growing power and global status, it would have to get involved and fight the Axis powers. This could also be why it formed alliances with otherwise undesirable states, such as the USSR, as the current status quo was much too severe. 

SECTION II

When analyzing the United States entry into WWII through the scope of Mearsheimer, there are clear motives for it to want to protect its security and power from other nations. This does bring up the question, however: was the US justified in joining the war? Specifically, was the US objectively justified for joining for its own sake, and was the US justified for any other reasons? Section II will analyze these two perspectives, specifically through the lens of Mearsheimer and Morgenthau.

As stated earlier in this paper, from the words of Mearsheimer, states will want to compete to become more powerful, and ideally to become hegemons. It is not desirable for a state to lose its hegemonic status, as that could very well mean the end of its existence. This imbalance of powers was very well illustrated by Thucydides in Melian Dialogue, in which Athens, a major power, perhaps hegemon, confronted Melos, a very small and effectively powerless nation. It is of no surprise that when the Melians fought back against the Athenians, they were quickly defeated and wiped out. To be a hegemon is to be secure. The United States had amassed large amounts of power and gained global reputation, qualities that would be devastating if lost. As Mearsheimer puts it, “Survival is the number one goal of great powers.” (Mearsheimer, 100) This simply concludes that the US was justified from an objective perspective.

Beyond the obvious and understandable reason of wanting to purely exist as a nation, there are other avenues for justification. For instance, after the War, the threat of authoritarian states had proven to be a genuine concern to the world. Although heavily fueled by the Cold War, the aftermath of WWII helped form the United States’ plan to spread democracies to unstable nations. In his work, A Realist Theory of International Politics, Hans J. Morgenthau explains this concept of how human nature, morality and ethics, work with and against politics and power. Ultimately, “International politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power.” (Morgenthau, 88) This opens up the possibilities for nations to act upon various issues around the world, without ignoring the allure that is power. He used Woodrow Wilson’s want for a more democratic world. This is because we need power to change how the world works. The United States after WWII wanted to keep its power to keep itself safe, but also, by having this power, it was able to change how the world looked by promoting ideas such as democracies. When only focusing on WWII and the aftermath, it is justifiable for the US to have wanted to stabilize a war torn world by installing democratic governments, as it ensured the safety and security of the US.

The subject matter that is World War II is complex, and there are many other aspects that could be applied to how the US acted during its involvement. The point of this paper, however, is to focus specifically on the realist principles brought by Mearsheimer and Morgenthau. With their perspective, the US joined the war to protect its security and protect its power and hegemonic status. It was justified to join in order to protect its interest and existence. Morgenthau wrote heavily on how human nature works for and against decisions, which I feel best captures the United States: a nation who had justified reasons to fight, mixed with the reality of humanity.

Citations:

Mearsheimer, John. “Anarchy and the Struggle for Power.” From Essential Readings in World Politics, by Karen Mingst et al., 7th ed., Norton, 2019, pp. 91-108.

Morgenthau, Hans. “A Realist Theory of International Politics.” From Essential Readings in World Politics, by Karen Mingst et al., 7th ed., Norton, 2019, pp. 86-90.

Thucydides. “Melian Dialogue” From Essential Readings in World Politics, by Karen Mingst et al., 7th ed., Norton, 2019, pp. 16-20.