What do you think?
Rate this book
Scorched Earth: A Global History of World War II
A panoramic history of WWII that argues that much of what we thought we knew is wrong - rather than being a conflict between democracy and fascism, it was a colonial race war that forged the Soviet and American empires.
This new international history of World War II will challenge conventional Western understandings of the conflict as an ideological crusade against fascism concentrated in Western Europe, East Asia and the Pacific Islands. Instead, the book will argue that the war was a massive colonial struggle waged by rival empires, marked by vicious atrocities, and focused along the periphery of Eurasia. In this history, the Western front was little more than a secondary theater to the far bloodier battlefields of Eastern Europe, China, and the colonial world. Race and empire, rather than ideology, formed the touchstone of this global conflict that would force its key players to prepare for perpetual war on a scale never before seen and transform the world into a colonial battlefield. In doing so, World War II brought about a fundamental transformation in the relationship between war, society, and the state that is still very much with us today.
Ultimately, this book presents a far darker picture of the Second World War than most conventional accounts. The war marked the culmination of modern imperialism, witnessed globalized colonial violence and systematic racial atrocities, ushered in a new age of atomic war, unleashed far more powerful and aggressive state security forces around the world, and set the stage for global imperial competitions in the postwar era. In doing so, World War II served as the midwife of the contemporary age.
This new international history of World War II will challenge conventional Western understandings of the conflict as an ideological crusade against fascism concentrated in Western Europe, East Asia and the Pacific Islands. Instead, the book will argue that the war was a massive colonial struggle waged by rival empires, marked by vicious atrocities, and focused along the periphery of Eurasia. In this history, the Western front was little more than a secondary theater to the far bloodier battlefields of Eastern Europe, China, and the colonial world. Race and empire, rather than ideology, formed the touchstone of this global conflict that would force its key players to prepare for perpetual war on a scale never before seen and transform the world into a colonial battlefield. In doing so, World War II brought about a fundamental transformation in the relationship between war, society, and the state that is still very much with us today.
Ultimately, this book presents a far darker picture of the Second World War than most conventional accounts. The war marked the culmination of modern imperialism, witnessed globalized colonial violence and systematic racial atrocities, ushered in a new age of atomic war, unleashed far more powerful and aggressive state security forces around the world, and set the stage for global imperial competitions in the postwar era. In doing so, World War II served as the midwife of the contemporary age.
656 pages, Hardcover
First published May 6, 2025
57 people are currently reading
600 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
October 10, 2025
Scorched Earth wants to be something new, while disguising itself as something old. The problem is that it forgot to be something good.
Earth
The basic contention in Scorched Earth is that the popular view of World War II of being between good versus evil is wrong. Instead, we need to view the conflict as a clash of empires, both as to their methods and goals. Apparently, the realization of this perspective is a recent thing which… …well I must have been hallucinating some guy called Gore Vidal whom I doubt is even the original progenitor of the concept of American Empire via World War II.
In terms of that refocusing Scorched Earth does contain discussion-worthy points. The heart of the book is clearly Chapter 13 and the prospective applications of the theories of heartlands and control of critical areas to the postwar stage. More generally, Chamberlin paints British and American strategies as reflecting imperial goals that were achieved on the back of naval and air power rather than limited manpower. Chamberlin describes events from an imperial viewpoint which, while a matter of interpretation, do occasionally land as challenging the received wisdom. He does dig up supporting evidence I was not aware of, such as the British military coup of the Egyptian Government in February 1942, as part of Britain moving:
to tighten imperial control against Axis incursions. For London, victory against the Axis required a heavier rather than light hand in the colonial world.
…which is a value-add in terms of adding novelty to the argument Chamberlin is making.
However, I am not going to analyze the substance of Chamberlin’s view of World War II in part because this is Goodreads and I am a rank amateur. I will leave that to paid reviewers and journal articles. However, with the caveat that Scorched Earth is very Western focused, there is buried within this book a debate about the extent to which the Western Allies embarked upon Imperial projects, both in the sense of trying to uphold the old order (UK) or to forge a new own (United States).
Scorched
There’s another reason why I’m not going to debate the imperial perspective – it would give the impression that this book has been well written and coherent.
It isn’t.
My speculation is that something when awry with the planning of this book. The decision appears to have been to apply Chamberlin’s imperial viewpoint to an entire narrative of the long version of World War II, i.e. starting with Japan’s invasion of China in the 1930s. That’s a massive scope to cover in less than 600 pages while still offering something novel. Chamberlin picks and chooses points in the narrative to emphasise the imperial perspective, but when there’s nothing worth discussing from that perspective, he just falls into regurgitating popular histories that have said the same things a million times before while losing perspective of what matters from a military/strategic standpoint.
The recounting of the early Pacific campaign is noticeable for its laxness. Hornet and Wasp get mixed up, the number of bombs that hit Akagi is mis-stated, and the Naval Battles around Guadalcanal are misdescribed. The near straight copying from popular sources leads to the absurd situation where the factoid that a single torpedo salvo from a Japanese submarine hit three warships is treated as more worthy of space than the entire Norwegian campaign (not even one word devoted to the latter!). Chamberlin is generally sloppy with the narrative, describing Doenitz’s submarine fleet at the start of World War II as formidable when it very famously was not. Good luck also on any substantive treatment on the Resistance or Special Operations.
My central criticism is not that Chamberlin failed to include the things I like or state niche details incorrectly. Rather, it is that he had a clear goal in the introduction of his book but planned poorly in going about achieving that goal. He races through the narrative history because he (or his editors/publishers) presumably thought he had to write it as a narrative history. It probably makes the book easier to sell than what might otherwise be perceived as an overly academic treatment on the goals of each (imperial) party and specific steps they took to achieve them (perhaps even split by country).
Even the final form it is more saleable, I found it a fatiguing read. Scorched Earth not written in an especially gripping manner and it is very easy to tell when Chamberlin is on autopilot. When he switches into his preferred subject matter, such as with Chapter 13, the depth and quality noticeably improve. It makes it obvious that the problem is a planning one where Chamberlin had to justify the parts he does like writing about by shoehorning them into a very mediocre retelling of the global conflict, often sourcing from better written popular histories while missing a few detailed treatments (e.g. Shattered Sword or Hell to Pay).
Perhaps Scorched Earth exists in the form that sells best. However, it does not give the best value for money. I do not recommend it, not for what it wants to be, not for what it pretends to be, nor for what it is.
Earth
The basic contention in Scorched Earth is that the popular view of World War II of being between good versus evil is wrong. Instead, we need to view the conflict as a clash of empires, both as to their methods and goals. Apparently, the realization of this perspective is a recent thing which… …well I must have been hallucinating some guy called Gore Vidal whom I doubt is even the original progenitor of the concept of American Empire via World War II.
In terms of that refocusing Scorched Earth does contain discussion-worthy points. The heart of the book is clearly Chapter 13 and the prospective applications of the theories of heartlands and control of critical areas to the postwar stage. More generally, Chamberlin paints British and American strategies as reflecting imperial goals that were achieved on the back of naval and air power rather than limited manpower. Chamberlin describes events from an imperial viewpoint which, while a matter of interpretation, do occasionally land as challenging the received wisdom. He does dig up supporting evidence I was not aware of, such as the British military coup of the Egyptian Government in February 1942, as part of Britain moving:
to tighten imperial control against Axis incursions. For London, victory against the Axis required a heavier rather than light hand in the colonial world.
…which is a value-add in terms of adding novelty to the argument Chamberlin is making.
However, I am not going to analyze the substance of Chamberlin’s view of World War II in part because this is Goodreads and I am a rank amateur. I will leave that to paid reviewers and journal articles. However, with the caveat that Scorched Earth is very Western focused, there is buried within this book a debate about the extent to which the Western Allies embarked upon Imperial projects, both in the sense of trying to uphold the old order (UK) or to forge a new own (United States).
Scorched
There’s another reason why I’m not going to debate the imperial perspective – it would give the impression that this book has been well written and coherent.
It isn’t.
My speculation is that something when awry with the planning of this book. The decision appears to have been to apply Chamberlin’s imperial viewpoint to an entire narrative of the long version of World War II, i.e. starting with Japan’s invasion of China in the 1930s. That’s a massive scope to cover in less than 600 pages while still offering something novel. Chamberlin picks and chooses points in the narrative to emphasise the imperial perspective, but when there’s nothing worth discussing from that perspective, he just falls into regurgitating popular histories that have said the same things a million times before while losing perspective of what matters from a military/strategic standpoint.
The recounting of the early Pacific campaign is noticeable for its laxness. Hornet and Wasp get mixed up, the number of bombs that hit Akagi is mis-stated, and the Naval Battles around Guadalcanal are misdescribed. The near straight copying from popular sources leads to the absurd situation where the factoid that a single torpedo salvo from a Japanese submarine hit three warships is treated as more worthy of space than the entire Norwegian campaign (not even one word devoted to the latter!). Chamberlin is generally sloppy with the narrative, describing Doenitz’s submarine fleet at the start of World War II as formidable when it very famously was not. Good luck also on any substantive treatment on the Resistance or Special Operations.
My central criticism is not that Chamberlin failed to include the things I like or state niche details incorrectly. Rather, it is that he had a clear goal in the introduction of his book but planned poorly in going about achieving that goal. He races through the narrative history because he (or his editors/publishers) presumably thought he had to write it as a narrative history. It probably makes the book easier to sell than what might otherwise be perceived as an overly academic treatment on the goals of each (imperial) party and specific steps they took to achieve them (perhaps even split by country).
Even the final form it is more saleable, I found it a fatiguing read. Scorched Earth not written in an especially gripping manner and it is very easy to tell when Chamberlin is on autopilot. When he switches into his preferred subject matter, such as with Chapter 13, the depth and quality noticeably improve. It makes it obvious that the problem is a planning one where Chamberlin had to justify the parts he does like writing about by shoehorning them into a very mediocre retelling of the global conflict, often sourcing from better written popular histories while missing a few detailed treatments (e.g. Shattered Sword or Hell to Pay).
Perhaps Scorched Earth exists in the form that sells best. However, it does not give the best value for money. I do not recommend it, not for what it wants to be, not for what it pretends to be, nor for what it is.
July 16, 2025
Outstanding. I had gotten tired of reading about the 2nd World War some time ago and was quite skeptical when I bought this. It turned out to be one of the best books about the war I’ve ever read.
Highly recommend.
Highly recommend.
July 8, 2025
Disappointing; adds little to scholarship.
It’s digestible and fairly well-written, but it makes promises at the beginning that it fails to keep. This book is advertised as a “global history” of the war - and explicitly states at the beginning that it will focus more on the colonial/imperial origins of the conflict as its novel approach. Its emphasis on the “global” nature of the war made me hope it would reach out with great detail into the theaters of war often neglected in Western scholarship (Eastern Front, China, etc.). The map even at the front makes the point of showing the allied operations on a world map based on casualties (showing the sheer scale of the war in China and Eastern Europe) - which was a promising start.
The book quickly devolves into the familiar approach to World War II history in American works. Acknowledgement of the scale in other theaters, but a deeply disproportionate degree of attention and detail given to the American operations. These are of course worthy of great attention - but to advertise this as a truly global history is false. We receive a plethora (albeit, highly familiar and heavily mined already in other works) primary source material for American operations in Normandy and the Pacific. By contrast, almost nothing primary from the eastern Front and the Chinese theaters. The Rzhev Campaign, for example, gets a single sentence, while Western campaigns frequently receive huge passages going through tactical detail.
Again, there’s nothing wrong with a history of the Western operations. But this is not a truly global history of World War II and its source material is not innovative in any way. I was expecting a little more originality from a professor of history at Columbia.
It’s digestible and fairly well-written, but it makes promises at the beginning that it fails to keep. This book is advertised as a “global history” of the war - and explicitly states at the beginning that it will focus more on the colonial/imperial origins of the conflict as its novel approach. Its emphasis on the “global” nature of the war made me hope it would reach out with great detail into the theaters of war often neglected in Western scholarship (Eastern Front, China, etc.). The map even at the front makes the point of showing the allied operations on a world map based on casualties (showing the sheer scale of the war in China and Eastern Europe) - which was a promising start.
The book quickly devolves into the familiar approach to World War II history in American works. Acknowledgement of the scale in other theaters, but a deeply disproportionate degree of attention and detail given to the American operations. These are of course worthy of great attention - but to advertise this as a truly global history is false. We receive a plethora (albeit, highly familiar and heavily mined already in other works) primary source material for American operations in Normandy and the Pacific. By contrast, almost nothing primary from the eastern Front and the Chinese theaters. The Rzhev Campaign, for example, gets a single sentence, while Western campaigns frequently receive huge passages going through tactical detail.
Again, there’s nothing wrong with a history of the Western operations. But this is not a truly global history of World War II and its source material is not innovative in any way. I was expecting a little more originality from a professor of history at Columbia.
May 31, 2025
I got about a quarter through it but couldn’t quite see where the thesis really diverged from what I’ve read previously. I felt it was oversold, or maybe I didn’t make it to what would have surprised me, but that’s a lot of exposition to make me wade through.
August 30, 2025
"This book argues that history's largest conflict as tno the good war between democracy and fascism that history books often describe. Rahter, it was a massive, colonial race war marked by vicious atrocities and fought by rival empires across huge stretches of Asia and Europe." (p.4)
Nice when a book so neatly lays out its own thesis so clearly for you at the outset. The book has its strengths. Chamberlain clearly knows the ins and outs of the war and can give plenty of solid evidence for the book's main point that this was more or less a power struggle.
That said, it presses things too far. Either the war was fought for ideals or it was fought for power politics. I mean, there is a pretty clear ideological component to why so many European (and American) powers had a problem with Hitler.
Also, the book might have been better served by some editing. I noted up top that Chamberlain knows the ins-and-outs of the war. Yeah, but it gets so detailed that it's easy to lose the book's main point as it comes off like a standard military narrative. (Also: wouldn't his own argument be better served by including the Bengal famine? While he knows his way around WWII, this is a heckuva thing to lay out).
He argues that the Axis Powers just took the logic of imperiaist overseas conquest and applied it to Europe itself. OK. But the book isn't as strong as it could've been.
Nice when a book so neatly lays out its own thesis so clearly for you at the outset. The book has its strengths. Chamberlain clearly knows the ins and outs of the war and can give plenty of solid evidence for the book's main point that this was more or less a power struggle.
That said, it presses things too far. Either the war was fought for ideals or it was fought for power politics. I mean, there is a pretty clear ideological component to why so many European (and American) powers had a problem with Hitler.
Also, the book might have been better served by some editing. I noted up top that Chamberlain knows the ins-and-outs of the war. Yeah, but it gets so detailed that it's easy to lose the book's main point as it comes off like a standard military narrative. (Also: wouldn't his own argument be better served by including the Bengal famine? While he knows his way around WWII, this is a heckuva thing to lay out).
He argues that the Axis Powers just took the logic of imperiaist overseas conquest and applied it to Europe itself. OK. But the book isn't as strong as it could've been.
May 30, 2025
A fantastic narrative of the geopolitics behind World War II. The book makes a strong case that the War was not a fight against fascism as is widely believed and made out to be. It was a war for imperialism and colonialism with deep racial undercurrents. While Germany and Italy tried to use the war as a means to build an empire in Europe, Japan tried to do the same in Asia. This meant snatching power from the existing colonial powers that were. Obviously, this did not go well with the existing imperial-colonial powers like Britain and France whose empires spanned the globe from Africa to the middle east to Asia. Even America which has always tried to portray itself as a beacon of democracy and a non-colonial power had colonial interests around the world eg: Phillipines. A rising military power in Japan was definitely not something it wanted to allow. In the end, the war resulted in the creation of two global superpowers - USA and USSR. I loved reading this candid take on the War which significantly deviates from the popular conventional narrative written by the Allied victors.
August 23, 2025
Professor Chamberlin sets out to prove that WWII was less a war of liberation than a defense of colonialism, which, in fact, morphed into a bipolar neo-colonialism. He succeeds admirably. He mixes macro views with the micro, in a way that is entertaining, instructional, and informative.
He encapsulates battles with adequate detail for understanding. He takes us through the struggle of the various parties, politicians, generals, admirals, and leaders, as they plot the war goals, actions, and advantage, and eventually the post-war plotting outcomes. He quietly but forcefully compares the traditional 'story' with his colonial-centric thesis. He is a generally reliable reporter, though I question his coverage of General Stilwell in the CBI. He seems to follow the China Lobby (he is not) in his description of the meager amounts of Lend-Lease Aid to China, without ever mentioning the manipulations and conniving of Chiang Kai-Shek. It is a lengthy tome, but it reads fast and is a quality book.
He encapsulates battles with adequate detail for understanding. He takes us through the struggle of the various parties, politicians, generals, admirals, and leaders, as they plot the war goals, actions, and advantage, and eventually the post-war plotting outcomes. He quietly but forcefully compares the traditional 'story' with his colonial-centric thesis. He is a generally reliable reporter, though I question his coverage of General Stilwell in the CBI. He seems to follow the China Lobby (he is not) in his description of the meager amounts of Lend-Lease Aid to China, without ever mentioning the manipulations and conniving of Chiang Kai-Shek. It is a lengthy tome, but it reads fast and is a quality book.
November 22, 2025
Paul Thomas Chamberlin's "Scorched Earth: A Global History of World War II" is a massive, richly detailed account of the global conflict that shaped the world as we know it. The book offers an intriguing blend of narrative, analysis, strategy, and eyewitness testimony, making for compelling and informative reading.
Chamberlin looks at the Second World War not as a "good war" against fascism, but as part of a more extended episode of racial violence, colonial warfare, and the ascendancy and decline of great powers. Each chapter of the book discusses the origins, evolution, and progress of the war, as well as the main protagonists' ideologies, strategies, and goals. Each chapter ends with a summary and analysis of the impacts of the events described.
The book provides an unflinching look at the war's cost, not just in military casualties, but also in the horrific number of civilian casualties. Readers interested in a different perspective regarding World War II should seek "Scorched Earth."
Chamberlin looks at the Second World War not as a "good war" against fascism, but as part of a more extended episode of racial violence, colonial warfare, and the ascendancy and decline of great powers. Each chapter of the book discusses the origins, evolution, and progress of the war, as well as the main protagonists' ideologies, strategies, and goals. Each chapter ends with a summary and analysis of the impacts of the events described.
The book provides an unflinching look at the war's cost, not just in military casualties, but also in the horrific number of civilian casualties. Readers interested in a different perspective regarding World War II should seek "Scorched Earth."
December 20, 2025
My 5 rating may have something to do with the similarities in our last names—full disclosure, he is my nephew. However, the 5 really represents how much I learned from reading this! Can’t say I was ever great at history, and somehow I got through both high school American history and college 20th century American history without ever learning anything about the two world wars. In high school the year ended with the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. My college course picked up at the end of WWII. I’ve read many books that took place during the war—but those were dominated by things happening in Europe. Having two uncles who were in the Pacific and one in North Africa didn’t really register much—no one talked about the war.
Sooooooo…. This was really a great way to fill in for some of my ignorance.
While not exactly a page turner, it was written in a manner that kept my attention. Personal quotes and details really helped to make it less like a text book.
Sooooooo…. This was really a great way to fill in for some of my ignorance.
While not exactly a page turner, it was written in a manner that kept my attention. Personal quotes and details really helped to make it less like a text book.
October 31, 2025
Far from your average narrative about the "good war," Chamberlin's even-handed account provides a fresh perspective on World War II that resonates in today's world of rising far-right nationalism and militarism. The author uses a breezy narrative of the military struggle to support his thesis that "the war did not end imperialism; imperialism ended the war." His argument is strengthened by a constant reminder of the human cost, including the extent to which both Allied and Axis powers targeted noncombatants. Readers seeking a play-by-play of military campaigns won't find it here. But those searching for the bigger picture of the war and its consequences won't be disappointed.
December 2, 2025
Highly recommended! He almost gets it right, and that’s an achievement. Unfortunately he doesn’t know what imperialism is, and doesn’t get why the Soviet Union (and now the Russia-China cooperation) was (is) such a powerful anti-colonial force. - Read this great account and follow it up with Michael Parenti (on imperialism) and Domenico Losurdo, who rightly describes WWII as the greatest anti-colonial liberation war in history.
June 24, 2025
To quote “Collectively, then, the victorious Allies chose to narrate the history of the war as a series of patriotic fairy tales designed to justify postwar national ambitions”
The book explains the role of imperialism and racism as leading to the war and downplaying the role of fascism.
The book explains the role of imperialism and racism as leading to the war and downplaying the role of fascism.
August 24, 2025
Excellent and detailed history of World War Two. Provided alternative insights to the version usually presented. Not sure if it completely delivered on its initial premise, but was an informative read nonetheless.
September 20, 2025
Comprehensive and thorough. Thesis is sound, I rather liked it and it holds up. US had most excellent soldiers but the war was won through American economic and logistical power, and Soviet manpower (though the cost to the USSR was a terrible one).
October 13, 2025
For the topic the book seemed a little long. There was some unnecessary repetition during some topics. There were notes but no bibliography. I could not find it but the book was a little off to me.
November 25, 2025
I find it hard to believe this book has so many negative reviews, but let me try to respond a bit to them. First off: this is not a history book primarily, it's an academic one. Does that make historical inaccuracies excusable? Of course not, but it also means this isn't meant to be a blow-by-blow account of the second world war, rather it's a piece trying to make the author's point: that WWII was essentially a war of empire, the expansion, defense and forging of them. In that vein it succeeds admirably. I don't think the premise is particularly controversial (comments here notwithstanding) but the author does a great job of hammering his point home, from Hitler's expansionism to Japan's to Russia's desire to defend its hard-won gains to the US ensuring the burying of the British empire and forging her own. It's by no means a perfect book, and if you're searching for another single-volume WWII history look elsewhere, but if you want to view the war through a specific lens, that of imperialism, it makes for a fantastic read!
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews