Militarism and Conquest Theme Analysis

From 1492 onwards, conquest has been one of the key themes of American history. The New World was founded on Christopher Columbus’s military conquest of Haiti and, in the centuries that followed, Spanish and English explorers’ bloodthirsty conquest of the Native American tribes who’d lived in the Americas for thousands of years. Throughout his book, Zinn shows how militarism—both the literal act of conquering other people with military force, and the more abstract ideology that celebrates fighting and conquering—has strengthened the American Establishment and weakened the American people.

Zinn offers a few different senses in which militarism strengthens the Establishment. On the most literal level, militarism has brought new wealth to the Establishment. Much of the land that America acquired during the Mexican-American War of the 1840s, for instance, ended up under the control of powerful railway companies. Even the land that went to poor farmers was often repossessed by large industrialized agricultural businesses, since many 19th century farmers struggled to pay their debts. In more recent years, however, militarism has strengthened the Establishment by bringing it into contact with new markets, plentiful resources, and cheap labor. Zinn argues that, during most of the Cold War, corporate interests encouraged the American government to conduct wars in countries where Socialist uprisings threatened corporations’ ability to trade freely. In Vietnam, Chile, Iraq, and dozens of other countries, a major factor in the government’s decision to go to war was the plentitude of resources. As Zinn sees it, the federal government wanted to ensure that American businesses would be able to access those resources. While the government offers many reasons for going to war—including, throughout the Cold War, the deadly threat of a worldwide Communist takeover—its real reasons are often much simpler: it wants to protect business.

Militarism doesn’t merely strengthen the Establishment; it also weakens the American people. By focusing the people’s attention on external threats (such as a global Communist takeover), the Establishment mitigates popular resistance to its own unjust policies. During World War Two, for example, labor unions pledged not to go on strike out of support for America’s war with Germany and Japan. Similarly, war ensures that many young, energetic people are abroad, fighting for their country, rather than back at home, fighting against their government. Finally, militarism weakens the American people by bolstering patriotism, making citizens more loyal to their country and, therefore, to their government.

It’s important to recognize that Zinn isn’t saying that the American government intentionally starts wars to strengthen itself. (Indeed, Zinn spends several pages refuting one of the most beloved left-wing conspiracy theories, that Franklin Roosevelt provoked the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in order to enter World War Two). Zinn fully acknowledges that many elites sincerely believe they’re taking their country to war to protect their own people. Nevertheless, Zinn argues that, whatever people’s motives for war, the overall effect of war is to strengthen the Establishment and weaken the American people. Furthermore, Zinn argues that at least some elites in American history have supported war with the intention of benefitting themselves.