Paul Chamberlinâs masterful new book, Scorched Earth: A Global History of World War II, is a vitally important work that fundamentally reframes our understanding of the twentieth centuryâs most devastating conflict. It meticulously dismantles the comfortable and enduring narrative of a simple âgood versus evilâ struggle, replacing it with a more complex and unsettling truth: World War II was, at its core, a catastrophic clash between rival, racist, and relentlessly brutal empires. While Chamberlin, an Associate Professor of History at Columbia University, makes it unequivocally clear that the Axis powers were an abominable evil and their defeat a necessary cause for celebration, his book brilliantly demonstrates that the Allies were far more similar to their enemies in their motivations, strategies, and criminality than standard histories admit. This review will explore the bookâs monumental thesis: that World War II is best understood not as an ideological crusade for democracy, but as the bloody, pivotal turning point in the global history of empireâa conflict where all major powers fought to build or preserve their own imperial dominance.
Chamberlinâs argument is a persuasive indictment of the imperial hubris that defined the era. With the precision of a scholar and the narrative grip of a master storyteller, he situates the conflict within a much longer story of the rise and fall of world empires, a context that traditional accounts have often downplayed. He challenges the conventional wisdom by arguing that the warâs immense moral clarityâthe righteous victory over fascismâhas paradoxically stifled historical debate and obscured the uncomfortable truths about its origins and conduct. Scorched Earth is not a polemic, but a forensic audit of how the imperial ambitions of all belligerents, cloaked in self-serving ideologies, plunged the world into an abyss of violence and paved the way for a new, American-led global order. (...)
The Silicon Valley crowd fully acknowledges the problems current industry leaders have had in producing effective weapons at an affordable price, and they have an answer â give the money to them instead, and they will produce nimble, affordable, easily replaceable, software driven weapons that will restore America to a position of global primacy.
But the new guard is interested in much more than just building new products that they can sell to the Pentagon. The leaders of these emerging tech firms â led by Elon Musk at SpaceX, Peter Thiel at Palantir, and Palmer Luckey at Anduril â describe themselves as âfoundersâ who will drag America from the doldrums to a position of unparalleled military dominance.
And unlike the CEOs of the big contractors, these new-age militarists are vocally hawkish. Some, like Palmer Luckey, have publicly gloated about how we can beat China in a war that he sees coming in the next few years, while others, like Palantir CEO Alex Karp, have cheered on Israelâs campaign of mass slaughter in Gaza, even going so far as to hold the companyâs board meeting in Israel at the height of the war as a gesture of solidarity.
Even after Elon Muskâs messy public breakup with Donald Trump, the tech sector still has a leg up over the old guard in influence over his administration. Vice President J.D. Vance was employed, mentored, and financed by Palantirâs Peter Thiel, and former employees of Anduril, Palantir, and other military tech firms have been appointed to influential positions in the national security bureaucracy.
Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin and its cohort have a strong hand to play in Congress, where campaign contributions, hundreds of lobbyists, and suppliers located in a majority of states and districts give them immense power to keep their programs up and running, even in cases where the Pentagon and the military are trying to cancel or retire them.
Even at a proposed budget of $1 trillion a year, there may need to be some tradeoffs between legacy firms and new tech companies as the Pentagon chooses the next generation of weapons. The missing ingredient in all of this is the voice of the public, or strong input from members of Congress who care more about forging an effective defense strategy than they do about bringing Pentagon dollars to their areas.
"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."
Did not read the link. Just working with the title.
That said, a one and done bombing raid does not constitute a war.
Besides, from what everyone here is saying, the bombing was a complete failure. The bombs do not work. Iran's nuclear program was only set back a month or two and WW III is underway.
I'm so confused.
I couldnât agree more! About you being confused, that is.
A âbombing raidâ on a sovereign country with which we are not at war is indeed an âact of warâ, which often sets off an actual war. Thatâs something the president campaigned on NOT doing, very clearly & in no uncertain terms, as even the MAGA faithful have been railing about.
BTW, for whatâs itâs worth. Every time you say things like ââ¦from what everyone here is sayingâ¦â followed by an exaggeration of the actual discourse here, itâs reads as a poor attempt at slapping at âeveryone hereâ & just another throw down of a sad victim card.
For the record, this is just my humble opinion, as I certainly to not speak on behalf of, well, everyone here.
Did not read the link. Just working with the title.
That said, a one and done bombing raid does not constitute a war.
Besides, from what everyone here is saying, the bombing was a complete failure. The bombs do not work. Iran's nuclear program was only set back a month or two and WW III is underway.
According to a lengthy report by the New York Times, President Trumpâs decision on June 22 to authorize airstrikes at nuclear sites across Iran was influenced in part by Fox News. For days, Trump was fed a steady diet of pro-war personalities on the cable channel, such as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, and hardline anti-Iran congressional hawks like Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC).
However, according to an RS analysis, many other Fox guests were funded by the defense industry, which absolutely stood to gain from the shift to a hot war between Israel and the U.S. and Iran. One by one, these guests lined up on White House TV screens to praise Israelâs strikes and urge further U.S. involvement. As Palantir Founder and CEO Alex Karp put it bluntly back in 2022, âbad times are very good for Palantir.â Of course, many of these conflicts of interest were not disclosed on air.
One of Karpâs employees, former Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.), appeared on Fox praising Israelâs war campaign against Iran. âI think beyond the physical destruction that Israelâs attacks have imposed, there is a sort of mental destruction underway, right? Taking out key leadership in the IRGC, taking out 8 of the 13 top Iranian scientists,â he said in a reference to the assassination of senior officers of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. âI do think weâve set the nuclear program back, but this is the early stage of what will be a multi-phase complex back and forth, and important that we, America, stand firmly behind our closest ally in the Middle East, Israel.â
Gallagher is now the head of defense at Palantir, a military contractor that provides AI-enabled targeting capabilities. Last year Palantir signed an agreement with the Israeli Ministry of Defense to âharness Palantirâs advanced technology in support of war-related missions.â (...)
