On the other hand, the dependence of individuals on the state has sharply increased and continues to grow. Ensuring even basic rights – and the interpretation of human rights is constantly expanding – requires significant expenditures from governments. If, in the pre-war period, a person, excluding the Soviet one, spent most of their earnings at their discretion, now tens of percent and sometimes the majority of the national product is distributed through taxes and state mechanisms. No business and even everyday life itself occurs without state participation and regulation, which, on the contrary, was not previously considered the norm. As a result, stability and guarantees of well-being have benefited, while prospects and opportunities for self-realization have suffered. And, of course, the entire pre-war organization of the world – in conditions of universal equality of rights, a colonial system based on the “white man’s burden”13 is fundamentally impossible.
Whether to consider the collapse of the colonial system as a good or an evil – everyone has their own answer to this question.
Who fought for what
Any war begins with certain considerations.
No one attacks a neighbor with sabers and machine guns just because they are evil, and the neighbor is good. However, states are neither good nor bad – they may have one regime, social structure, or system of governance or another – and that’s it. When we talk about the causes of any war, we must forget the concepts of “better”, “worse,” “us” and “them,” detach from personal biases and preferences, studying only the question of who was guided by what and what goals they pursued.
The same goes for the results Heroism and cowardice, greatness and weakness, and feat.
And betrayal – all the feelings and emotions that war unleashes have no relation to its outcomes. Hannibal was a great commander who instilled fear in the world’s largest power for decades. But Rome won the Punic Wars, Carthage lost, and now we are all heirs of Roman civilization not Carthaginian. This applies to any war, whether the Patriotic War or the Trojan War. The meaning and foundation of any science lies in its impartiality.
War, as a rule, is an unnecessary thing. It’s only in fairy tales that a king wakes up in the morning and thinks:
“Why not send my army to the neighbor?” In reality, war is a tool of politics, a means of achieving goals, one of many. If this tool turns out to be or seems optimal, only then do politicians call the generals. And the image of the sole instigator-aggressor and culprit of all evils is almost always fabricated later. Rarely, very rarely does it happen that one side wants to fight while the other tries with all its might to avoid war. And the Second World War, as well as the First, was desired by everyone or almost everyone. Each of the main participants had their own reasons to engage in war.
The Soviet Union… no, the Soviet Union did not want to conquer the whole world – to say so would be too simplistic and simply incorrect. The Soviet Union wanted the whole world to become a communist paradise. For this purpose, it created a special international organization – the Comintern14 – the Communist International – designed to encourage all countries to adopt the only correct social system. Either independently or with armed assistance from those who already recognized its progressiveness. No one was particularly eager to voluntarily establish the dictatorship of the proletariat15, although there were attempts, and some nearly succeeded – known the Red Army was supposed to somewhat assist the oppressed masses. And as soon as such an opportunity arose, the USSR began helping its neighbors adopt the ideals of socialism with enthusiasm poorly aligned with peacefulness16.
Germany, unlike other parties in the conflict, did not hide its motives. The initial significant economic successes of the National Socialists required expansion. The humiliation of the Treaty of Versailles17 wounded German pride, and the theory of racial superiority, eagerly embraced by a nation feeling unjustly wronged and oppressed, implied that it was the Germans, as the superior race should occupy a dominant position over others. From a political standpoint, the position is, by the way, obviously losing, as it excludes the possibility of mass support from the population of the conquered territories18.
For Japan, the war was the same as for Germany – a means to expand its sphere of influence and secure for the Japanese their “deserved” place as the ruling nation among other Asian peoples. Additionally, overpopulation and the scarcity of natural resources objectively dictated the necessity of external expansion for the Land of the Rising Sun.
In Great Britain and France, a severe colonial crisis was brewing and had already matured: the strain of World War I undermined the economy and especially the military power of Western countries. Maintaining, defending, and supplying the majority of the globe with qualified administrators, garrisons, teachers, doctors, missionaries, and even traders became an overwhelming burden. The economy was cracking, governments were losing popularity, and a fresh agenda was needed, along with a reason to unite and the taste of victory.
And only the USA, strangely enough, didn’t need anything. It soon became clear, however, that the economic boom caused by the war would finally pull the country out of depression and provide momentum that would last almost a century. But at the start of the war, the USA was quite content with the role of an overseas observer and trading partner, supplying friendly countries but not getting involved in others’ fights. Even Japan’s capture of British and Dutch East Indies did not become a reason for America to enter the war19, and only a direct attack forced the United States to once again abandon the Monroe Doctrine20 and non-interference in European and Asian interests.
Everyone wanted to fight, but with whom and against whom remained unclear until the last moment. One pair of opponents was considered almost certain over the last 20 years: the USSR and Great Britain. Both countries systematically prepared for war with each other, developing equipment, weaponry, doctrines, and statutes based on the capabilities of the potential adversary. There were plenty of reasons for this.
Firstly, neither England, its elite, nor public opinion could forgive the Bolsheviks for betraying the Entente21. Additionally, the execution of the royal family – close relatives of the British ruling house – did not evoke any warm feelings towards the new Russian government. In turn, the active support of the White Movement by the British and direct intervention during the Civil War evoked oppressive memories among Soviet leaders. But the main issue, of course, was not past grievances but the obvious antagonism in political and social organization: on one side, a class-based monarchy, a colonial empire with a capitalist structure, and institutional inequality as a fundamental state-forming element. Let us