Howard Zinn Rhetorical Analysis

2138 Words5 Pages

Howard Zinn gives an important view and statement when he writes about World War l. Zinn argues that the World War l was a battle between the interests of big businesses and the ruling elite. He says that the war served the interests of the wealthy. He describes that World War l led to the suffering of the common people. Zinn challenges the idea that World War l was fought for noble reasons such as freedom and democracy. Instead, he says that the true motives were rooted in economic interests. Hofstadter argues that World War l had an important effect on American politics and on American society. He says that the war served as a catalyst for the growth of centralized power in the government. He also says that it contributed to the emergence …show more content…

Overall, Hofstadter’s thesis on World War I revolved around the impact the war had on American politics, government, and policy. He also mentioned how it changed the actions of many political figures. Like Hofstadter, Johnson’s thesis focuses on the impact World War l had on American society and the role World War l had in shaping the country’s emergence as a global power. Johnson says that World War l marked a turning point for the US, which pushed it towards becoming a major player in international affairs. He emphasizes the important effects of the war on American society, which includes the change in demographics, politics, and economics. Johnson implies that the war accelerated the process of urbanization and industrialization in the United States. Johnson highlights the ideological shifts that happened during and after the war, particularly in terms of America’s attitude to international involvement. Overall, Johnson’s thesis is like Hofstadter’s and implies the many changes World War I …show more content…

In other words, his thesis was that the WWl was fought just to benefit the wealthy. The first piece of evidence can be found on page 363, Zinn says, “The British and French governments, true to their own imperialist interests, had encouraged Japan to enter the war on their side by promising them German possessions in China and the Pacific. This brought Japan into the war on the side of the Allies, and assured them that when the war was over they could keep what they had taken from Germany.” This line from Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" presents a clear argument about the motivations behind Japan's entry into World War I and the promises made to them by the British and French governments. However, it could benefit from some additional context and nuance. Firstly, even though it’s true that the British and French governments had imperialistic interests and wanted to gain support from other nations, the portrayal of Japan’s involvement as purely motivated by promises of territorial gain oversimplifies a historical situation. Japan had its own interests in mind, including its dominance in East Asia and countering the influence of its rival Russia. To add on, the line should have expanded on the broader geopolitical context of that time, which includes Japan’s ambitions for expansion in the Pacific and its

More about Howard Zinn Rhetorical Analysis

Open Document