Murray Rothbard famously said, "Our entry into World War II was the crucial act in foisting a permanent militarization upon the economy and society, in bringing to the country a permanent garrison state, an overweening military-industrial complex, a permanent system of conscription. It was the crucial act in creating a mixed economy run by Big Government, a system of state-monopoly capitalism run by the central government in collaboration with Big Business and Big Unionism."
It is quite telling that the Old Right and the old Republican Party of the United States had people who did not approve of US entry into the Second World War. Jeannette Rankin voted against US entry into the war, even after Pearl Harbour. Before Pearl Harbour, Republican stance was against any intervention or action related to the war in Europe. Isolationists like Vandenberg and Taft considered such intervention as unconstitutional. Many angry outspoken sort of people did not try to even be subtle and bluntly considered League of Nations and United Nations to be a move towards international communism, with the US at its forefront, which they felt to be in line with what they considered to be the "socialism" propogated by Roosevelt.
Just look at the cost of that war. Allowing the lives of thousands of young men to be thrown away. Government rationing and price controls. An industry of war profiteers. Resources of that nation diverted towards fueling that war. A massive public debt and enormous inflation which left a huge cost to be borne by anybody who bought government bonds at that time, since their real value became far less than what it was before the war. And all of it just so that US could liberate other nations for which it had responsibility, and then spend billions of dollars rebuilding their nations, whilst finding themselves confronted with the now empowered Soviets who ate up half of Europe. And in the internationalist paranoia that followed after, US was building bases all over the world and did questionable things like appointing a puppet Shah in Iran. And most of all, the terror of possible nuclear warfare. Such a cost was borned by the entire world.
Does anybody think that maybe if the US focused on protecting its seas against Japanese raids, and not go all the way with sending their troops into Europe to fight Nazi Germany, it could have secured the future of its own nation better? Instead of going for total war, and even aggravating the terrible losses they already suffered in Pearl Harbour, so as to keep focusing on their development as a peaceful industrial nation, and work rather to make the lives of its own citizens better?
Was it really the United States' war?
To a certain degree, the war in Europe is largely irrelevant in the study of why the United States went to war. Let's remember that it was Hitler, who on 8 December 1941, declared war on the United States (the United States had only declared war against Japan, up to that point). But, there is no doubt that the United States did shape its foreign policy in order to goad Japan into offensive action. It was difficult for Roosevelt to justify going to war, especially with so many economic problems, and so Japan's Pearl Harbor attack really allowed Roosevelt a political coup. It mobilized the population against a common enemy, allowing most to "forget" about the past eight years of poverty they had experienced under Roosevelt.
The United States' decision to focus on Europe before the Pacific came out not just due to solidarity with the United Kingdom. If you notice, while operations in the Pacific began almost immediately (there had to be a reconstruction of the fleet, but the fleet set out to the Pacific before there were any largescale movements to Europe), the first grand scale American operation in Europe did not occur until November 1942. That was Operation Torch, or the invasion of North Africa. Compared to American operations in the Pacific, Torch was relatively "light". There was no major resistance, originally, and the liberation of North Africa finished relatively quickly (most of North Africa was liberated by March 1943, and then the Germans launched a series of counterattacks, but then these petered out and they were forced to capitulate at Tripoli). The United States also had it easy, because the majority of German forces in North Africa were soon to be routed at Alamein by the British 8th Army and other satellite forces in the area (and the French did not put up resistance to the Allied invasion).
The Western Allies then invaded Sicily in the spring of 1943, and they would not take Rome until 4 June 1944. A large part of this was due to German resistance, but it's obvious that there was not major strategic motivation to finish the war quickly in Europe. Events were going "well" in the Pacific, and I think that the United States was really more interested in defeating the Japanese and regaining their lost assets there (including the Philipinnes).
I hope to write an article for Mises (if it's good enough to be published; something I have not suceeded at yet) on the 6 June 1944 invasion of Normandy. Before I took on economics, I used to be a WWII historian (in my personal library I have almost 100 books, and in storage this number is 3,500), and so I have always looked to tie history with economics. The topic is the reasons behind the launching of Operation Overlord. The fact of the matter was the the Americans were always reluctant to launch an amphibious invasion of France. Historians tend to cite the fear of high losses, but I don't believe that was ever the principle factor behind this reluctance. A year before, the Germans launched their last major strategic offensive on the Eastern Front. The Red Army, at this point entirely superior to the Wehrmacht in most regards, including quality and experience (the idea that the Red Army was evern truly inferior to the Wehrmacht in a myth which was propagated largely becuase of their initial defeats), was able to not only hold the attack, but launch a counterstroke and reoccupy territory which von Manstein had been able to salvage in his March 1943 Kharkov counterstroke (believe it or not, this was one of fourteen articles I managed to take to featured article status when I was active; I'm sure they have all been defiled). By early 1944 it was clear that the war against Germany had been won out of the efforts of the Red Army (the Red Army was already planning to launch Operation Bagration on 22 June 1944, which would eventually destroy German Army Group Center).
Operation Overlord was launched out of fear that Europe would fall into Soviet hands. It was in the Western Allies' interests to land in France and advance to the East as fast as possible to make sure the least possible territory fell into the Soviet Union's sphere of political influence. If you notice, the Allied advance did not let up until territorial lines of demarcation were agreed upon. By that time, there was little motivation in fighting for land that the Western Allies would not eventually occupy. It was a political move. The war against Germany was already won (and had, in fact, been won the day it began).
In any case, back to the original point, there were obvious political manuevers which the United States took to goad Japan into war. Europe had little to do with anything. There was never a threat of Germany invading the Americas, or anything like that (even when Germany "occupied" French territories in South America, there was very little threat to the Panama Canal—they hardly had the aircraft to risk; Germany lost more aircraft over Britain than they could replace and their Luftwaffe never returned to full strength). Of course, all of these were used to incite fear into the American people so that they would throw their full support behind Roosevelt.
Two liberal monarchies blah blah
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: To a certain degree, the war in Europe is largely irrelevant in the study of why the United States went to war. Let's remember that it was Hitler, who on 8 December 1941, declared war on the United States (the United States had only declared war against Japan, up to that point).
To a certain degree, the war in Europe is largely irrelevant in the study of why the United States went to war. Let's remember that it was Hitler, who on 8 December 1941, declared war on the United States (the United States had only declared war against Japan, up to that point).
Juan:Two liberal monarchies blah blah LOL. A fair amount of the members of this forum live in a parallel universe...
Marko: He did it because from his point of view the USA had already entered the war on the side of the allies. US was already producing large amounts of war material and shipping it to UK and USSR. Also US war ships and aeroplanes were already playing a significant military role in the Battle of the Atlantic as convoy escorts.
He did it because from his point of view the USA had already entered the war on the side of the allies. US was already producing large amounts of war material and shipping it to UK and USSR. Also US war ships and aeroplanes were already playing a significant military role in the Battle of the Atlantic as convoy escorts.
Although this is all true, this was not Hitler's primary consideration. He hoped that if he declared war on the United States, Japan would reciprocate by declaring war on the USSR. The Soviets had been allowed to ship huge amounts of men and resources to the West, as they saw Japan had no intentions of fighting the Red Army (dissuaded by the events which took place in 1939 around Khalkin Gol).
liberty student: If not for the American intervention in WWI, Hitler might never have risen to power.
If not for the American intervention in WWI, Hitler might never have risen to power.
Maybe. But the US did intervene back then, causing a nearly unprecedented cesura in European governance that the American representatives then decided to treat with the very "laissez-faire" attitude that Wilson had dropped by joining the war.In other words, the tree of monarchy was cut, democracy was sown and the field abandoned. 25 years later, weeds were all over the place. Whooda thunk?Non-intervention is a fine principle, but one that needs to be applied consistently. Otherwise, the intervener bears responsibility for what's happening. This doesn't mean that Joe from Kansas bears responsiblity for Hitler, though. And herein lies the ultimate pitfall of the question: in a consistent libertarian society, if any, Woodrow Wilson and his cadre should've been the ones fighting WW II, and Roosevelt would've been allowed to join - by himself. Everything else will lead to injustice.
Marko: So was it right for me to interveene or should have I just waited for the cops?
So was it right for me to interveene or should have I just waited for the cops?
Well, I would have to concede that in your example, I cannot demand to be rescued by you, especially considering the human suffering caused by your aid. But this analogy does not accurately reflect the relationship between the United States and Europe at the onset of WW II.As for states not having the right to do stuff, this may be so. Yet the damage was already done; the US government had acted in previous decades and thereby intervened in the affairs of Europe, causing the currents of history to shift. Who's responsible? Who should fix the results of these interventions? Was Hitler a result of this intervention at all?
GilesStratton: I don't think Sphairon was necessarily saying the US should never have been involved. I took Sphairon's post as saying that it's a little more complicated that most people suggest, and it is.
I don't think Sphairon was necessarily saying the US should never have been involved. I took Sphairon's post as saying that it's a little more complicated that most people suggest, and it is.
That is the gist of my post, indeed.
Even if the government of Germany declared war on the government of the United States, how does that make it okay for the government of the USA to bombed the civilians of Germany. How is it a "good war" innocents are being murdered?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Daniel: Even if the government of Germany declared war on the government of the United States, how does that make it okay for the government of the USA to bombed the civilians of Germany. How is it a "good war" innocents are being murdered?
It doesn't, but I never even considered that in any part of what I wrote. I was obviously pointing out the reasons why the United States went to war (and their real motivation in the European Theater). The topic title says " Was it right of the US to enter WW2?", not " Was it right of the US to bomb German civilians?".
Has anybody here read Garet Garret's The Bubble that Broke the World? It is one of the best books on how the U.S.-inspired credit bubble in Europe directly led to antagonization between the major European powers, and you could ultimately link that to the rise of Hitler and the Second World War.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: Although this is all true, this was not Hitler's primary consideration. He hoped that if he declared war on the United States, Japan would reciprocate by declaring war on the USSR. The Soviets had been allowed to ship huge amounts of men and resources to the West, as they saw Japan had no intentions of fighting the Red Army (dissuaded by the events which took place in 1939 around Khalkin Gol).
Very optimistic of him. Richard Sorge had by September 1941 definetely determined that the Japaneese were not going to invade. I had always assumed that he did in order to preemt the Americans. That by feinting boldness in declaring the war himself he hoped to avoid the blow to the morale of the populace that would follow a US declaration of war on Germany.
Sphairon: As for states not having the right to do stuff, this may be so. Yet the damage was already done; the US government had acted in previous decades and thereby intervened in the affairs of Europe, causing the currents of history to shift. Who's responsible? Who should fix the results of these interventions? Was Hitler a result of this intervention at all?
As for states not having the right to do stuff, this may be so. Yet the damage was already done; the US government had acted in previous decades and thereby intervened in the affairs of Europe, causing the currents of history to shift. Who's responsible? Who should fix the results of these interventions? Was Hitler a result of this intervention at all?
Even if that is true and the American ruling class was responsible for Hitler`s rise to power (which is as silly as it sounds), that would not give them the justification for for example conscription. If you are responsible for some bad event occuring then you should work to redeem yourself by using legitimate means only, using illegitimate means and taking on a greater good mentality will only add to your list of sins.
Essentialy you are using a variant of the "you break it you own it" argument. If you broke something, you should stop hammering at it already. Not hammer on with twice the zeal.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: Daniel: Even if the government of Germany declared war on the government of the United States, how does that make it okay for the government of the USA to bombed the civilians of Germany. How is it a "good war" innocents are being murdered? It doesn't, but I never even considered that in any part of what I wrote. I was obviously pointing out the reasons why the United States went to war (and their real motivation in the European Theater). The topic title says " Was it right of the US to enter WW2?", not " Was it right of the US to bomb German civilians?".
I was replying to the OP.
Marko: Very optimistic of him.
Very optimistic of him.
This is the same man who believed he could unite the Soviet Union behind his objective of strategically defeating the British.
I'm trying to find the exact quote, but I don't know if I will. David M. Glantz, in When Titans Clashed, doesn't make any mention of it:
On 7 December 1941, while Hitler was purging his generals and G.I. Zhukov was trying to destroy Army Group Center, the Japanese attacked the United States in Hawaii and the Philippines. Washington responded by declaring war on Tokyo the next day, but American participation in the Europea struggle remained limited. Hard pressed in the Pacific, the United States was unprepared politically and militarily for a two-front, global war.
Four days after Pearl Harbor, Adolf Hitler solved the American dilemma. In a speech to the Reichstag, Hitler definatly declared war on the Unitd States, even though his defensive alliance with Tokyo did not require such action. Undoubtedly, Hitler regarded this declaration as a mere formality after months of U.S. Navy participation in convoys and other antisubmarine actions in the North Atlantic. He apparently hoped that the Pacific War would distract the United States, reducing its constrbution to the struggle with Germany. Certainly Hitler underestimated the potential for American industrial and military mobilization, a surprising mistake for a man who had presided over a similar mobilization in Germany during the 1930s. Still, this declaration proved to be as fatal for Germany as the Barbarossa invasion itself. Within six months, Germany had gone from undisputed mastery of the European continent to a desperate struggle with the two greatest powers on earth. The short-term Axis successes of 1941-1942 were eventually dwarfed by the Soviet and Americal attacks that Hitler had invited.
So, for the time being, it doesn't seem that I was correct. I believe it was Glantz who had made mention of Hitler's hopes of Japan attacking the Soviet Union, but it may not have been (maybe it was Albert Seaton, but I have no way of remembering).
After all these posts and history lessons, I think we can take this away:Even if it were moral for the US to fight WWII, they certainly could have been a lot more libertarian about it
American ambassador to Italy William Phillips delivered this message on May 17, 1939, to Italian Foreign Minister Galeazzo Ciano "...that the American people intend unanimously to concern themselves in European affairs, and it would be folly to think they would remain aloof in the event of a conflict."
That's just the rhetoric from the Roosevelt administration, but your post just simply overlooked all of the important historical foreign policy events and actions before the war was declared on America. What about America's "neutrality patrol" that directed British warships? What about on October 18th when the ships of all belligerents were forbidden to enter American ports? Even earlier than that, America was getting war contracts hence the creation of the War Resources Board. I can go on, but the point is America and certainly Roosevelt were covertly acting as aggressors. Don't brusquely brush aside all of the Revisionist work that has been done on this. I suggest you read Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, Chapter 2 entitled " Roosevelt is Frustrated in Europe."
Edit: I was directing my post towards Jonathan Finegold Catalan, I forgot to quote you. My apologies.
Sphairon:.That said, I am thankful that so many American soldiers laid down their lives so that my grandparents could start a new life in a much more free and dynamic society.
I've always wondered about this. I imagine you had relatives serving in any number of branches of the German armed forces. Was it a good thing so many German soldiers died ?
I understand the self critical nature of Germans. But often I see it boil down to just a kind of permanent masochism. Being a German speaker, more often than not I read Germans defend the Dresden bombings as OK, even necessary. I cant often discuss it with them on most German sites for I am quickly swarmed.
The myth (yes, myth) of WW2 as a 'good war' is in my mind feeds the dehumanizing of America's 'enemies' in later wars. "Oh he's just a Nazi. Who cares if we machine gun him and 20 of his buddies in the back", or "He's Waffen SS, no quarter for those guys" (the reality was much more complicated than that). All is now glorified in the silly films they feed us over here about the war. This is a precursor to the "He's just a gook", "He's just an a-rab terrist" dehumanizing campaign of our more recent wars.