Question

In the book, “A People’s History of the United States” by Howard Zinn in Chapter 16 “A People’s War” what are the key points and what does the title mean?

Answer 1

Summary

World War Two is unique in American history because it was widely regarded as the “people’s war”—a fight tha

industrialist, Communist, regular workers and high society Americans upheld. World War Two was a battle against fiendishness: the authoritarian, bigot, aggressive German state, headed by Adolf Hitler. Notwithstanding, Zinn asks, did the administrations battling against Hitler "speak to something altogether extraordinary?" During World War Two, did the U.S. behave in a way reliable with its responsibility to human rights?

The U.S. has dependably situated itself as a protector of powerless nations. In any case, even a fast take a gander at the authentic record discredits any such case: despite what might be expected, the U.S. has dependably acted to ensure its very own advantages, specific the premiums of the rich

Indeed, it has done this so consistently that it’s difficult to believe that during World War Two the United States acted out of magnanimity.

Many history textbooks claim that the U.S. entered World War Two in part because of its commitment to ending the racism of Hitler’s regime. However, such a claim doesn’t hold much water. Racism was rampant in America during the 1930s and 40s, and most Americans were unaware of the extent of Hitler’s racist policies until the end of the war.

For much of the 1930s, the U.S. traded with fascist countries; for example, American businesses sent oil into Italy, which strengthened the fascist government there.

Right away, Zinn questions some of the clichés about World War Two: that it was a “just war,” waged for moral reasons; that it was waged to end Fascism in Europe, etc. In reality, Zinn shows, America did business with Fascist countries during the 1930s, showing that the government didn’t let morality interfere with its business interests. (Also, America later supported many right-wing dictatorships around the world, further suggesting its lack of any strong moral commitment in its foreign policy.)

In China

n its unique definition by Mao Zedong, individuals' war misuses the few points of interest that a little progressive development has—wide based prevalent help can be one of them—against a state's capacity with a huge, proficient, all around prepared and very much financed armed force.

People's war strategically avoids decisive battles, since a tiny force of a few dozen soldiers would easily be routed in an all-out confrontation with the state. Instead, it favours a three-stage strategy of protracted warfare, with carefully chosen battles that can realistically be won.

Outside China

Outside China, the people's war doctrine has been successful in Cuba, Nepal, and Nicaragua, but generally unsuccessful elsewhere in which the government has the will and the means to break up the movement before it can establish base areas

Outside China, individuals' war has been premise of wars began in Peru on May 2, 1982, and in the Nepalese Civil War started on February 9, 1999. A gathering of Peruvian Maoists known as the Shining Path now and again controlled huge parts of the nation amid the inner clash in Peru, however they were managed a pass up the capture of their pioneer Abimael Guzmán in 1992. While they guarantee to consider this occasion just a "twist in the street", most free sources have asserted them to be in decrease since that time.

Apparently, at the stature of the contention in Peru, both the Shining Path and the Peruvian government utilized dread strategies against the regular citizen populace, particularly in the wide open. Government strategies included sponsorship of death squads; Shining Path strategies included rough assaults on exchange unionists and others they saw as adversaries for the authority of those restricting the administration. This has made it extremely hard to get any target proportion of help among the lower class for either the legislature or the Maoist radicals, since such strategies on the two sides are at risk to threaten individuals, yet far-fetched to win hearts and brains.