There are a few similar threads in the past, but I'm still trying to learn. I recall FDR telling Britain that he wouldn't give them any more foreign aid without having them secure Poland's independence, and that led them to declare war on Germany. And then I recall hearing that FDR purposefully intensified and created conflicts in Europe with which he had no business dealing, but I can't find any specific information.
Also, why do some people say WWII wouldn't have happened without US involvement in WWI?
I think it is easy to understand why the US did not need to get involved. It did not need to get involved because it was in no way threatened, and could not ever be threatened. I think the argument that the whole WWII ordeal was avoidable centers rather on the actions of Britain. The point of view that Britain also did not need to fight. AJP Taylor in Origins of the Second World war in my opinion conclusively showed the war breaking out was a consequence of a confused, indecisive policy in London, that alternated between appeasment and containment. Either approach would have probably worked, but because the Brits did not know what the hell they were doing and which of the two they were attempting Hitler misread them and worked himself into a corner from which he then wasn't willing to back away from. You can get the book here: link And acess a favorable LRC review here: link
Marko, I still have no idea how you would go about persuading someone that the U.S. did not need to get involved in WWII. The main arguments would be that would have/could have posed a threat if they continued domination of Europe, because he used force to conquer them and there is no guarantee he would not attempt to do the same elsewhere across the world, especially if they developed some kind of mass destruction weapon.
And the second would be "we're just supposed to stand by and let all those people be slaughtered, because 'it doesn't concern us'?"
How would you respond to that?
So the whole position is based on this? Germany would have lost to Soviets anyway? Both Nazis and Soviets sought for world domination(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Order_%28Nazism%29) in one way or other, in one year or in hundred. This is what general portion of people think and it actually seems that it was what leaders of the Nazis and Soviets at the time wanted(Hitler and Stalin). SO if A) Nazis would in any case have lost to the Soviets B) what would have happened to the West-Europe? I don't think that Red-Europe, especially Red-Germany, would have done any good to the global distribution of labor.
Nothing good came of US anti-Soviet stance post-1945. I don't know how would adopting such a stance four years earlier be an improvement. Also it is strange to me to that fear of the Soviets should be a reason to go to war with the Germans?
Also it is strange to me to that fear of the Soviets should be a reason to go to war with the Germans?
Soviets "liberated" many nations, turning them to Communism. E.g. Bulgaria.
I still have no idea how you would go about persuading someone that the U.S. did not need to get involved in WWII.
The main arguments would be that would have/could have posed a threat if they continued domination of Europe, because he used force to conquer them and there is no guarantee he would not attempt to do the same elsewhere across the world, especially if they developed some kind of mass destruction weapon.
And the second would be "we're just supposed to stand by and let all those people be slaughtered, because 'it doesn't concern us'?" How would you respond to that?
http://sofiaecho.com/2011/06/20/1109190_painting-the-soviet-army-monument-is-vandalism-bulgarian-minister-of-culture
The Soviet army monument was built to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the Russian "liberation" of Bulgaria in 1944. It is regarded as the prime example of the forceful socialist-realism of the period.
10th anniversary. So built by Bulgarians and not Soviets. Can you find a Soviet source using the term?
Anything that happened in Bulgaria was an order from the Soviets...
Also,
On 5th September 1944, the Soviet army entered Bulgaria. The Bulgarian Communist party became dominant and other political parties were banned. AllBanks were nationalized and all arable land was taken by force.
(From http://www.skiholidaybansko.com/history.html)
Call it whatever you want. The Soviets came in and took over the country. Many people had wanted the US to come, but the Soviets arrived first.
Marko:Fact is most people live in countries far smaller and weaker than the US jet they don't tremble like the Americans seem to.
The reasons for this are threefold:
1) They don't see themselves as much of a target, as they don't have much to lose (as in, there isn't much to be gained from invading them...especially when compared to other nations that would provide much greater spoils)
2) They don't see much of a threat because they are under the impression a stronger nation will come to defend them. (Because they either believe like those in the US who say the US has a duty to help them (a la "with great power comes great responsibility"), or they just go on past experience/current world sentiment.)
3) There's not exactly much they could do about it anyway.
Those things do no apply to the US. The U.S. does have the capacity and the ability to defend itself and in fact prevent or deter a future attack. So I don't see how this "well those weaker countries aren't getting all worked up and trying to engage possible enemies, so why should we?" argument holds much water. The facts are different for the US. We all know what Keynes does when the facts change. What do you do, sir?
That's just a stock humanitarian intervention argument. As anarchists we have some immediate responses, such as "and I'm just supposed to stand by and let you expropriate and conscript me and my neighbours for the sake of your pet cause?" You could try reading this for additional arguments against humanitarian intervention. Anyway most fundamentally I see libertarianism as a 'punishment theory' as proposed by Block, so I can in some sense accept conscription, taxation, "collateral damage" and so on, but the problem with interventionists is that they are hypocrites and so their arguments are about using high flying causes to give themselves a blank check to carry out coercive and often henious acts. If a cause is indeed so worthy then prove it by taking on the punishment for aggression commited in order to advance it. But if you won't face the music for your own coercive actions then why should we even listen to you as a moral authority breaking down what is a worthy cause to us?
Don't tell me you're the Marko who authored that article. That would be so funny that the one article you have published as a Mises Daily pertains exactly to what we're talking about. That would be hilariously convenient and coincidental. That being said I enjoyed the article and found it quite persuasive.
Block however left a little wanting. He was quite thought-provoking and provided an interesting angle (as always), but a couple of small places didn't seem to make sense. For example, claiming that "it is appropriate for a libertarian to oppose [...] lowering tax rates, assuming our location on the top part of the Laffer curve." I would hope this is just an innocent gaff on his part, but obviously if we are at the top of the Laffer Curve, then lowering taxes (or raising them, for that matter) would reduce tax revenue...thus provide less funds to the state. I think it would be quite obvious the proper position in this case would be to advocate lower taxes...as it would be the perfect "having cake and eat it too" situation of having people be robbed of less of their property and having the state receive less funds.
Which leads to another point...the only way this punishment theory would come into play in this case of cutting taxes, would be not only in an instance of where we are at a lower end of the curve (on the higher tax side of the hump), but also required would be the cutting of taxes only to a point of where new revenue to the state would be higher than current revenue. In other words there are tax cuts that libertarians could and should be in favor of, even when we are on the far side of the Curve...they just have to be big enough.
And the case of the Nazi ultimatum for the Jewish town did not really do much for his argument. The whole point of the paper was to suggest that violation of NAP is okay (and even preferred) in certain circumstances, provided the violator will be punished (or at least can have punishment exacted on him should the victim so choose). However the Jewish case provides no such context. I was actually quite surprised at this, because that exact case provides a very interesting conundrum. Perhaps there is more to the punishment theory (he did list at least half a dozen sources), but his quick description sounded quite clear:
"proportional punishment—that people may be punished by losing their rights to the extent that they have invaded the rights of others—is frankly a retributive theory of punishment, a 'tooth (or two teeth) for a tooth' theory."
This provides an interesting situation with the "give up a volunteer to be executed or we'll slaughter you all" scenario...which Block completely neglects to address in his paper about encouraging NAP violations. All he says is that the highest Rabbi or someone else should volunteer himself to be the sacrifice, as it would save more lives...then Block moves on to another case. My mouth dropped at this. Again the whole point of the paper was in addressing the legitimacy of violating NAP on utilitarian grounds. And here we have a very difficult hypothetical, and he doesn't even introduce the central argument of the paper and carry it through to conclusion. He says someone should volunteer. Well let me apply his argument for him:
Let's actually put this thought experiment to it's full use: suppose no one does volunteer. Then what? According to the central argument of the paper, Block says someone should be forced into the position of the sacrificial lamb...thus violating his NAP rights, but at the same time making the utilitarian optimum a reality...the rest of the town will be spared. But also central to Block's argument is that those responsible for the NAP violation must not only receive punishment, but must welcome it. And of course the punishment must be "proportional—punished by losing their rights to the extent they have invaded the rights of others"...which in this case means being forced into execution.
Suppose the town is made up of a bunch of Blockians, the scenario would ideally go like this: A is chosen to be the sacrifice, but A refuses. The group then must find someone (B) who is not only strong enough to force A into the hands of the Nazis, but also willingly accept his own execution. This would provide the maximum utilitarian position because the more people it takes to force A, the more people have to be ultimately executed. However, obviously, B cannot exist, as if there were anyone willing to accept execution as punishment for forcing A into execution, then he would simply volunteer himself to spare A and the rest of the town in the first place.
So it would appear this is more like Block's ultimate Martian scenario in which there is no way to "eat our utilitarian cake, and keep our deontological cake, too." Either the town disregards its libertarian proportional punishment stance, or they all parish...either at the hands of the Nazis for not giving up a sacrifice, or at the hands of each other for violating NAP.
Ultimately though it's an interesting perspective. I'll definitely have to learn more about the details of the punishment theory itself...because of course it raises questions of its own...not the least of which is, how exactly does one determine the extent to which NAP was violated in the case of promoting drug laws, or a war?
From the little I've read of Block I find him to be a half-principled libertarian pulling out his principles only when it is convenient and the rest of the time going on intuition and convenience.
Wheylous:From the little I've read of Block I find him to be a half-principled libertarian pulling out his principles only when it is convenient and the rest of the time going on intuition and convenience.
Got an example? (If you've only read a little, I would think it wouldn't be hard to come up with something)
The McKibbin quote is in the context of "If you are going to intervene in interstate affairs..." In other words, the war wasn't prevented and is now progressing.
What I meant is that from the point of view of imperialists employing art of war 101... la dee da. The Roosevelt cabal was at the head of inciting the war, which rest assured was a plan set in stone by the communist cabal since Mein Kampf was published laying out the plans for Lebensraum. No human cost on any side was too high for their purpose.
Nothing good came of US anti-Soviet stance post-1945. I don't know how would adopting such a stance four years earlier be an improvement.
One would argue "War against Hitler was good, Cold War interventions were bad".
Stalin got only East-Europe, not the whole Europe, because US came to war.
Yeah well that is just a preventive war reciepe. If somebody is sticking to this woulda, coulda thing that can really be applied to any state out there and therefore demands a war against all foreigners out there if taken far enough then I don't know what can be done. Fact is most people live in countries far smaller and weaker than the US jet they don't tremble like the Americans seem to. Tell them it is time to grow some balls and have a little faith in the Atlantic and the Pacific, if not in America's manhood.
I think that you answered to this by yourself. Hitler wasn't ruling a country far smaller and weaker than the US - and this is what most modern non-interventionist think. Hitler was a real threat, unlike post-WW2 banana-countries and Middle-East dictators with weird moustache.
I know that when the Soviets issued medals for participation in the taking of major cities, they discriminated between cities in Axis states, and cities not in Axis states.
For example you would be given a medal "for liberation of Warsaw", or "for liberation of Belgrade", but you would get a medal "for the capture of Budapest" or "for the capture of Berlin". The Soviets did not claim they were liberating Berlin or Budapest, so I would be surprised to learn they claimed they had liberated Sofia. Just speculating here, but the force behind such monuments were probably Bulgarian Communists to try to bolster legitimacy of their rule. They probably sought to present their taking of power as some type of liberation.
Many people had wanted the US to come, but the Soviets arrived first.
Many people also wanted the Soviets to arrive first. Uniquely in an Axis country there were Bulgarian Communist partisans in the forrests battling their government. History often comes with nuances.