Race & Imperialism in World War Two: Thematic Analysis of Global Conflict
University of Minnesota – Twin Cities
HIST 1000W “ Visions of The Past”
Professor Hiromi Mizuno
Amon J. O’Connor
May 5, 2016
Race & Imperialism in WWII; O’Connor
The interplay of racism and imperialistic military conquest held a powerful,
functional relationship during World War Two, creating an environment of
multifaceted global warfare. It was this unique dynamic that allowed Hitler to
engage more than 60 countries in “total war”,1 Japan to spread its anti-west
ideology in stride with its territorial claims, and The British Empire, as a global
powerhouse of western culture, to leverage its pre-existent colonial resources.
Through an analysis on each of these factors – race and the clashing of empires,
respectively – we gain deeper insight to the implications and context of the Second
World War, and may observe the nuanced prevalence of these two characteristics in
all three of the countries listed above. This whole integration of empires, thematic
characterizations, and understanding the scope of a Word War begins with the
characterization, a part of reflective analysis that is vital in every case. Racism
indeed provides a valuable characterization of World War Two, but it may also be
said that any one, thus-exclusive categorization of the bloodiest war in recorded
history invariably limits historians (or anyone) from developing an optimal
understanding. More specifically, it is not only such deductive tunnel vision but also
failing to address the broad myriad of influences in its entirety that denies a realistic
interpretation from being attained. Even truth if not complete is therefore an
inherent fallacy in the absence of its complementary arguments. One such
fundamental compliment (to race, as a characterization) is an understanding of the
war through the lens of imperialism, specifically that of the then-dominant global
Empires. The Empire of Japan, Germany, and the British Empire in particular were
undergoing growth and measures of reformatting into economic powerhouses of the
1 Evan Mawdsley, World War II: A New History (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press, 2009), 46.
1
Race & Imperialism in WWII; O’Connor
era, and were a representative sample of dominant global cultures in early
twentieth century geopolitics. This approach merits acknowledgement because of
the blatant role that territorial expansion played in World War Two, a theme explored
in depth throughout this paper. Regardless of any one descriptive measure’s merit,
World War Two must be considered in terms of its broadest and most impactful
characterizations; to choose otherwise would be unproductive. This paper argues for
such a characterization being that of race and imperialism’s combined effect, a duo
seen at work over the entire scope of the war.
World War Two was undoubtedly one of the most complex and involved wars
in the history of mankind, and modern warfare in particular. With the broad
spectrum of players, interests, ideologies, national identities, and locations that
were implicated around the globe, this violent conflict may easily be interpreted and
remembered in contrasting lights (for example: a race war, “Hitler’s War”, a war of
attrition, “Haves versus Have-Nots”, “Content versus Uncontent”, a war of clashing
empires, et al.). It may be offered, however, that an integrated characterization of
World War Two as race-driven and a war of clashing empires offer a comprehensive
and effective analysis. Where many alternate characterizations might explain
important elements of the war on one continent for example, there are equally valid
factors of the war’s broader, global implications that this label would automatically
neglect; it would be too narrow. For instance, a “Hitler’s War” characterization might
highlight the atrocities of the Holocaust and addresses a majority of the countries
involved in the war, yet it neglects to account for the geopolitical, military, and
cultural implications that were unique and existent in the Paci7c arena as well.
Further explained, it just so happens that due to the concentration of States in the
European mainland as compared to other areas involved in World War Two, calling
2
Race & Imperialism in WWII; O’Connor
this conflict “Hitler’s War” might seem logical – it does after all encompass a lot of
the people and militaries involved. However, it is not comprehensive. Even in how
Hitler’s agendas involved both racism and imperial effort, it looks like quite a good
characterization, but “HItler’s War” still only acknowledges Europe. The conflict in
Asia, some six thousand miles away from the “Deutschen Vaterland” of Central
Europe, was just as involved and affected both racially and in terms of border and
cultural shifts, meriting recognition by way of a comprehensive characterization and
memory of the war.
Examples of the parallels in both historical signiticance and merit for analysis
between the Paci7c theater and Europe – the existence of which negates many
Europe, Hitler, and Holocaust-centered characterizations – include the Empire of
Japan’s attack on The United States’ troops and base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii;2
Japan’s need for land and resources, exhibited explicitly through the Greater East
Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere’s outcomes;3 Japanese society’s rapid rejection of
