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.
TheOrlonater: 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.
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.
No, I didn't. I explicitly suggested that the United States goaded Japan into war. I just said that the Pacific Theater was more important than the European Theater, and the only reason the Americans put so much effort in Europe was out of political necessity (especially the threat of Soviet expansion into Western Europe).
What about on October 18th when the ships of all belligerents were forbidden to enter American ports?
I'm not sure what's wrong with this, especially if it covers all belligerents.
Even earlier than that, America was getting war contracts hence the creation of the War Resources Board.
I'm not sure how trading is an act of aggression, and the United States can trade with whomever they want.
Marko: 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.
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.
As I said,"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."
I'm not arguing that it was good for the US to join. To be honest, I'm not sure whether I've taken my arguments too far out of my intellectual reach already.
sicsempertyrannis: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 ?
No, I don't think so. I cant often discuss it with them on most German sites for I am quickly swarmed.It's a hot button topic. The party that is currently considered the heir of the NSDAP likes to push the issue when the anniversary of the Dresden bombings comes up. Thus, it's often considered "Nazi".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.It might have something to do with the overarching American militarism, too. A "friend-foe" mentality that naturally dehumanzies whoever is currently considered an enemy.
sicsempertyrannis: 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.
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.
Dehumanising the enemy happens in every war. It is not a post-WWII phenomenom. What the good war mentality feeds into is liberal interventionism where you have people dedicated to uncovering new Hitlers and launching new crusades against them - good wars for the present generation.
Marko: Dehumanising the enemy happens in every war. It is not a post-WWII phenomenom. What the good war mentality feeds into is liberal interventionism where you have people dedicated to uncovering new Hitlers and launching new crusades against them - good wars for the present generation.
Sure sure, but there was an element of chivalry to America's post war periods prior to that. There might have been dehumanizing campaigns of Mexicans, Southerners, and Spanish but they werent dehumanized to the point where murdering them in cold blood would have been considered OK.
Does the fate of the Indians and of the Fillipinos really fit into that?
Marko: Does the fate of the Indians and of the Fillipinos really fit into that?
Well, I meant front line armies but I guess you make a good point. The Indian Wars (1864 on) and the post-SpanAm War insurgencies would have been considered 'savages'.
Say whatever you want, Inglorious Basterds is totes awesome.
Vitor: Say whatever you want, Inglorious Basterds is totes awesome.
That movie makes my point, in particular the ending.
But pretend its any other American war; instead of Nazis its Vietnamese or Arabs and it wouldnt seem so fun.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: No, I didn't. I explicitly suggested that the United States goaded Japan into war. I just said that the Pacific Theater was more important than the European Theater, and the only reason the Americans put so much effort in Europe was out of political necessity (especially the threat of Soviet expansion into Western Europe).
You did overlook the European situation.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:I'm not sure what's wrong with this, especially if it covers all belligerents
Except Russia; so much for neutrality.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: I'm not sure how trading is an act of aggression, and the United States can trade with whomever they want.
War contracts for producing for the British and only the British. Political favoring doesn't show neutrality.
TheOrlonater: You did overlook the European situation.
And I hold that Roosevelt was not originally interested in going to war with Germany as much as he was interested in going to war with Japan. War with Germany became a political necessity because of the dire situation Great Britain was in (in North Africa and at sea, at least, since it was not realistic for the Germans to invade the British Isles). It is clear that Roosevelt did not manipulate events in the Atlantic as much as he did in the Pacific. Ultimately, he knew that his entry into the war would be through Japan, since they were in the best position to attack the United States (and they did).
It's true that Hitler had little choice, given that the United States was already actively participating in arming its allies, but that was not as much manipulation on Roosevelt's part as much as it was just a series of events which occurred. On the other hand, as aforementioned, American politics in the Pacific are a much better example on how the United States' entry into WWII was no accident.
A country cannot trade with who it wants? This is news to me.
Like I said, is it not within a country's right to trade with who it wants?
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:And I hold that Roosevelt was not originally interested in going to war with Germany as much as he was interested in going to war with Japan. War with Germany became a political necessity because of the dire situation Great Britain was in (in North Africa and at sea, at least, since it was not realistic for the Germans to invade the British Isles). It is clear that Roosevelt did not manipulate events in the Atlantic as much as he did in the Pacific. Ultimately, he knew that his entry into the war would be through Japan, since they were in the best position to attack the United States (and they did). It's true that Hitler had little choice, given that the United States was already actively participating in arming its allies, but that was not as much manipulation on Roosevelt's part as much as it was just a series of events which occurred. On the other hand, as aforementioned, American politics in the Pacific are a much better example on how the United States' entry into WWII was no accident.
He did try to manipulate the war against the Axis and the Germans! I'm not arguing to what degree like you;re trying to show. Don't be so naive as to say he didn't do much at all. Here's an interesting letter that I think you should read:
(Harry Hopkins to Churchill)
"The President is determined that we shall win the war together. Make no mistake about it. He has sent me here to tell you that at all costs and by all means he will carry you through, no matter what happens to him--there is nothing that he will not do so far as he has human power."
Roosevelt thought of America as in the war after the passage of Lend Lease, but "not officially."
Roosevelt also gave orders to the Atlantic fleet to attack German submarines and or ships. There was an incident ten days later between the Greer and some German submarine. Roosevelt later commented on this in his publicly announced "Shoot-on-Sight" Speech. There were more incidences similar to this one, but it's clear that the manipulation is there. Please read chapter two of PWPP and then come back to me and tell me what you think.
I could go on, but you're being ignorant here. You're taking you're old talking points and reposting them.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:A country cannot trade with who it wants? This is news to me.
Arming one nation and closing trade to the Axis shows that you're participating in the war,but not officially. Tell me how that shows neutrality and I'll leave you alone.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:Like I said, is it not within a country's right to trade with who it wants?
No, you can't favor one side over the other unless you have some intentions.
Roosevelt was far worse than you think. On a side note, don't bother respond in such as way that you state "as much as this." Do you want to count with me all the aggressive acts against Germany, Japan, and Italy that Roosevelt and his government did with me?
TheOrlonater: He did try to manipulate the war against the Axis and the Germans! I'm not arguing to what degree like you;re trying to show. Don't be so naive as to say he didn't do much at all. Here's an interesting letter that I think you should read: (Harry Hopkins to Churchill) "The President is determined that we shall win the war together. Make no mistake about it. He has sent me here to tell you that at all costs and by all means he will carry you through, no matter what happens to him--there is nothing that he will not do so far as he has human power." Roosevelt thought of America as in the war after the passage of Lend Lease, but "not officially."
We are not talking about the same thing, and you are discounting my points by positioning a straw man. I did not say that Roosevelt was ever explicitly neutral in the war between Great Britain and Germany. I said that to Roosevelt the priority was to goad Japan into war in the Pacific, and in that respect the European Theater was a secondary priority (as it was not as an immediate threat to U.S. interests). I am not talking about his resolve of supporting Great Britain through lend-lease to the end. I am talking about his resolve to ship men over to Europe. His interests were in the Pacific first. What forced him to reconsider and focus on Europe was political, after war had already been declared (and, as I showed, even then fighting began in the Pacific much earlier than in Europe... fighting as in men being sent on offensives, as opposed to straight defensive operations against Japanese attacks).
Um, if you want to buy me the book, I would be happy to read it. Don't tell me to read a book that I don't have, and then come back and discuss. Were these orders to go out and look for German submarines or ships, or where they explicitly to protect American shipping to Britain in the Atlantic?
No I'm not. You are accusing me of things I'm not doing, setting up a straw man and then proving it wrong, without considering what I actually wrote.
I never said Roosevelt was neutral. You are misinterpreting what I wrote.
This doesn't address what I said.
This goes to show that if you are actually reading my posts you are not actually understanding them.
I would argue (from the minarchist perspective that a state is necessary) that fighting the Japanese was necessary. Japan attacked American soil, and seemed to have every intent of conquering and subjugating America. Fighting the Japanese was an act of self-defense, in terms of nations being "selves".
Fighting on the European front was unnecessary and stupid. Germany talked big, but they were showing signs of weakening even before we got involved, not to mention the fact that Germany/Italy and the other Axis countries in Europe had not attacked America. We should not have been involved in Europe to any extent. Besides, a more destroyed USSR might have left the world better off...
We should have beaten the Japanese only as much as necessary to secure a peace treaty, then go back to living and trading peacefully with all possible nations. No nation-building, no occupation, no Cold War, etc.
Periodically the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
Thomas Jefferson
Sphairon: Still, I'm somewhat worried by how easy the US intervention is being dismissed as bad by so many libertarians. Hitler wasn't just a misunderstood do-gooder. There were many millions of Jews, homosexuals, communists and unionists who were saved by the American intervention - and if you add these up and come to the conclusion that still, more people died fighting the war to its end, who knows whether the Nazis would've closed the camps after the original enemy groups were destroyed? After all, government programs don't just end in most cases, right?It's a very difficult topic.
Still, I'm somewhat worried by how easy the US intervention is being dismissed as bad by so many libertarians. Hitler wasn't just a misunderstood do-gooder. There were many millions of Jews, homosexuals, communists and unionists who were saved by the American intervention - and if you add these up and come to the conclusion that still, more people died fighting the war to its end, who knows whether the Nazis would've closed the camps after the original enemy groups were destroyed? After all, government programs don't just end in most cases, right?It's a very difficult topic.
WWII meant the rise of the USSR, which was no safe haven for Jews or Homosexuals (hence why huge number of Jews fled from the USSR to Israel after Israel was created), and many other groups were horribly treated as well (Ukrainians come to mind, there were many others). Just because one bad guy was destroyed does not mean it was a good thing. It would have been better if the Nazis and the Communists had been left in a stalemate, with neither winning or able to continue a war.
I largely agree, without American intervention, the Central Powers would have won. The withdrawal of Russia would have meant that Germany, Austria, and Turkey all had one less front to fight on. The Germans would have been able to pour into France, in this case unaugmented by Americans. Also, German troops could have been sent to regain colonies they had lost earlier in the war. The Austrians would be charging down the Italian peninsula, able to attack Venice easily, probably Genoa, Pisa, and Milan within a year, opening a Southern Front for France. Ottoman troops could be moved from the Caucuses to the Middle East. All the Allied fronts would have additional strain, strain, they could not hold.