In the saturated world of World War II historiography—long dominated by hagiographies of Churchill, Roosevelt, and the so-called “Greatest Generation”—Paul Chamberlin’s Scorched Earth: A Global History of World War II arrives as a disruptive force, though one that remains shackled by the ideological limitations of its author. Chamberlin, a Columbia University historian embedded within the very institutions that have for eight decades curated the official mythology of the war, presents a book that—despite its many hedges and apologetic qualifications—lays bare the central truth that revisionist historians have been asserting for generations: the Second World War was not a moral crusade but rather a vicious contest between decaying and aspiring empires. Far from being a struggle of good versus evil, it was a global conflagration in which all major powers engaged in systematic atrocities, with the Allies ultimately emerging not as liberators, but as the architects of a new, more sophisticated form of global domination.
While Chamberlin dutifully performs the expected genuflections—asserting the wickedness of Nazi racial ideology, referencing the Holocaust with appropriate reverence, and condemning Japanese militarism—what stands out in Scorched Earth is not what is said, but what is conceded, sometimes reluctantly and often unwittingly. When stripped of its academic euphemism, the book confirms what mainstream narratives have assiduously suppressed: that the Western Allies—particularly the United States and Britain—were not champions of liberty but imperial powers intent on preserving their own global dominance, even if that required carpet-bombing civilian populations, arming Stalin to the teeth, or prolonging the war unnecessarily to position themselves for the postwar order.
At the heart of Chamberlin’s thesis is the observation—finally admitted in a major academic work—that the world of the 1930s was one of imperial hierarchy, racial ideology, and ruthless realpolitik. The global order was dominated not by democratic ideals, but by empires: the British and French ruled vast swaths of Africa and Asia, while the United States—though posing as anti-imperial—controlled the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Cuba (effectively), Hawaii, and a series of other strategic outposts. This so-called “liberal world order,” constructed after the First World War under the Treaty of Versailles, was not a peace settlement but an enforcement mechanism for Anglo-American hegemony. It was, as Chamberlin makes clear, explicitly racial, unapologetically violent, and systemically rigged against rising powers such as Germany, Japan, and Italy, who—rather than being pathologically aggressive—were simply determined to assert their own claims in a world where only empire guaranteed survival.
And this is where the book becomes genuinely subversive, whether or not Chamberlin realizes it. By locating the origins of the Axis’s aggression in their belated efforts to join the imperial club, it completely dismantles the tired moral binary of the war. Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan did not emerge from a vacuum. They were not inexplicable aberrations but natural outgrowths of the very imperialist system that the Western powers had cultivated for centuries. Hitler openly admired the British Empire and sought to replicate its model in Eastern Europe, envisioning a German-run colonial order with Slavs as helots and German settlers as a new aristocracy. He praised the United States for its ethnic cleansing of Native Americans and its conquest of the West, explicitly likening the Volga River to the Mississippi. Japanese officials, likewise, invoked the U.S. Monroe Doctrine in crafting their Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, modeling their regional dominance on precisely the kind of imperial logic the West had long institutionalized.
The “shock” expressed by Western powers at Axis atrocities—whether in Nanjing, Warsaw, or elsewhere—was never moral in nature. It was strategic. Chamberlin acknowledges this: Britain and France did not go to war with Germany because it was a fascist dictatorship (Mussolini had ruled Italy for nearly two decades without protest from London or Paris), but because it threatened their imperial possessions and geopolitical balance. Japan’s internal politics were irrelevant to Washington; it was Japanese encroachment on Western colonies and access to oil that prompted the Roosevelt administration to impose crippling sanctions, effectively goading Tokyo into war. The supposed ideological dichotomy between fascism and democracy was always a convenient fiction, a justification for a war whose actual stakes were material control and geopolitical dominance.
This becomes especially obvious when one examines the actions of the Allies once war commenced. As Chamberlin meticulously documents, the United States and Britain carried out campaigns of staggering brutality against civilian populations, often with little strategic justification. The firebombing of Hamburg, Dresden, and Tokyo—long whitewashed in Allied apologetics—were deliberate acts of mass murder, not unfortunate byproducts of war. RAF chief Arthur “Bomber” Harris made no secret of his intention to incinerate German workers, while General Curtis LeMay admitted that if the U.S. had lost the war, he and others would have been tried as war criminals. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki—indiscriminate attacks that killed over 200,000 civilians—were not necessary to end the war, as even Chamberlin hints. They were geopolitical demonstrations: warnings to the Soviet Union and a field test of unprecedented weaponry.
Meanwhile, the Soviet Union and China bore the brunt of the fighting. The Eastern Front and the war in China accounted for the overwhelming majority of Axis casualties, yet Western narratives continue to portray D-Day and the Pacific Island campaigns as decisive. Chamberlin challenges this mythology head-on, showing that U.S. and British leaders deliberately chose a “peripheral” strategy—not to minimize total suffering, but to minimize their own casualties and to preserve the infrastructure of their empires. North Africa, Italy, and the Pacific islands were not chosen because of their strategic necessity but because they were safe arenas for imperial policing. The idea that the West “saved” Europe collapses under Chamberlin’s weight of evidence.
Perhaps the most disturbing revelations come toward the end of the book. As early as 1943—two years before the end of the war—Allied planners had begun preparing for confrontation with the Soviet Union. The infamous “Operation Unthinkable,” a British plan to attack the USSR using rearmed German Wehrmacht divisions, lays bare the true nature of the conflict. In the eyes of the Anglo-American elite, the war was not about destroying fascism—it was about preserving a global order dominated by Western capital and racial hierarchy. Once Germany’s defeat was assured, the real enemy became the Soviet Union, and yesterday’s Nazi executioners were quietly transformed into potential allies in the next great struggle. Chamberlin does not push this conclusion to its logical extreme—but others have. The Cold War was not the aftermath of World War II. It was its continuation by other means.
In the final chapter, Chamberlin attempts to reassert the conventional moral framing, insisting that the Axis powers were “the greater evil.” He points to the genocidal plans in Eastern Europe, and the depravity of the Japanese military. But even here, he undermines his own argument. He admits that the unique ferocity of Axis crimes was not the product of ideological mania alone, but of geopolitical desperation. These were societies facing encirclement by vastly more powerful empires. Their genocidal policies, though inexcusable, were the logical—if horrific—outgrowth of an imperial system that permitted no middle ground between domination and subjugation. The Axis powers, far from being the exception, were merely the most brutally honest participants in a game whose rules had long been set by the West.
The war’s final result, as Scorched Earth makes clear, was the consolidation of an American empire—one that eschewed the old colonial model for a more sophisticated form of domination. The United States emerged unscathed, industrially supercharged, and politically dominant, with military bases scattered across the globe and a new economic order rooted in the dollar. Unlike Britain or France, the American empire would not require direct rule. It would control through proxies, debt, military alliances, and covert interventions—all cloaked in the language of freedom, democracy, and human rights.
In short, Scorched Earth is a remarkable and often revelatory book—not because of its author’s conclusions, but in spite of them. Chamberlin, to his credit, assembles a mountain of damning evidence that thoroughly discredits the mythology of World War II as a moral struggle. Yet he remains bound by the ideological requirements of his profession, unwilling to fully embrace the implications of his research. He still insists that Allied motives were ultimately “better,” that the postwar order was, if imperfect, a step toward progress.
But for readers who have already stepped outside the confines of establishment narratives, the truth is unmistakable. Chamberlin has, perhaps unintentionally, confirmed what revisionists have long known: that the Second World War was not a defense of civilization, but a savage reordering of the imperial chessboard. The real victors were not the peoples of Europe or Asia, but the emerging American security state, which used the war to establish a global apparatus of control that endures to this day.
For those willing to confront this reality, Scorched Earth is not just a book—it is an admission. Carefully worded, cloaked in the language of scholarship, and hedged at every turn—but an admission nonetheless. The “Good War” was a lie. And like most lies of the twentieth century, it served to mask an agenda that had little to do with justice and everything to do with power.
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Arming Stalin hardly helped the West.