What are the general thoughts on WWII here on Mises.org?
Were the Allies justified in fighting WWII?
What would have happened if the US wouldn't have gotten involved in the European theatre? Should they have?
I have always been interested in this time period, so I was curious what you guys thought on the issue. Any articles or books discussing the war from a Libertarian standpoint are very welcome.
JackCuyler:Still useless to repell the actual invasion.
But that is why there is not an invasion in the first place...
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
wilderness:the American Revolution the colonists were looked down upon by the supposedly highly trained British. The British would call them uncivilized, undisciplined, farmers with pitch-forks, cowards that hid behind trees (and the special forces are rooted in these tactics picked up from the Amerindians by Rogers Rangers) primitive, and more savage than anything. Even those uniformed and trained under George Washington.
Indeed, and mortality in battle was higher on the revolutionary side than it was on the loyalist/British. Indeed the real killer in the war, for both sides, wasn't actually musket balls but desease.
The reason the British threw in the towel was primarily because she never fully committed to the war in the first place believing right up until the end that peace would be reached through concessions as opposed to military domination, secondly because of Britain's spiraling national debt which the war was causing to increase far beyond tolerable levels, thirdly a natural distaste for fighting kin, and fourthly the decision of the French and Spanish Empires to join the war.
twilly: Juan: Public militarism is pretty good at total destruction. I take it that in your mind successful war = maximization of suffering ? I hate to be the one to bring us all back to reality, but the very fact that you are capable of discussing this topic is a measure of the fact that at no time in all history has a war resulted in 'total' destruction.
Juan: Public militarism is pretty good at total destruction. I take it that in your mind successful war = maximization of suffering ?
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."
Partially correct, the U.S., or FDR was inticing Germany and especially Japan to attack us. The Germans didn't have the military power to go with us, and they were pleading for peace to the British. Mr. Roosevelt had prewar munition buildups and peacetime conscriptions too. Roosevelt in July 2, 1940 prohibited munitions exports and other desirable goods to war(food, etc.) without his advice. Roosevelt also had war plans made in 1940. He also had tried to intice the Germans into attacking us. His war ships were extending out past the Western Hemisphere. Remember War Plan 51?
Jacob Bloom: Try it, start your own private army. And then go fight the US army. We shall see who wins.
Try it, start your own private army. And then go fight the US army. We shall see who wins.
You sir are an insult to all militias who took up arms against the British in their independence (uSA,etc) or against any enemy in our history(Ireland,Scotland,etc). If you think modern warfare would make things any different, like someone before me posted, all we need now is to acquire a few Nuclear weapons, Nuclear weapon making materials and factories.
Is this all necessary?
Poor Japanes. Everyone provokes them. The Russians, Koreans, Chinese, Americans... They really didn't have any other choice than have a big navy in place for preemptive strikes against inferior races. I guess the Rape of Nankin is one the things they absolutely had to do to protect themselves?
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
Poor Japanes. Everyone provokes them. The Russians, Koreans, Chinese, Americans... They really didn't have any other choice than have a big navy in place for preemptive strikes against inferior races.
You should ponder what you are actually saying. In this case, where the quality of the armed forces is entirely qualified by 'might', 'might' manifestly is what determines 'right'. What other way do you determine the effectiveness of an armed force than attempting to analyse its 'might'? I guess you didn't think this through.
I guess you didn't think this through.
Define "effectiveness" because I think it is you who has not bothered thinking it through.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
I'm not suggesting anything, much less than anyone is blameless. I just question some assertions here that it's the Japanese (and Germans even) always seem to be "provoked" into attacking or committing atrocities. Black ships of Commodore Perry is not an excuse for imperialist invasions of other countries.
Natalie: I'm not suggesting anything, much less than anyone is blameless. I just question some assertions here that it's the Japanese (and Germans even) always seem to be "provoked" into attacking or committing atrocities. Black ships of Commodore Perry is not an excuse for imperialist invasions of other countries.
Not always.
Just in this particular case. It's not a narrative here for me. It's just the facts that I've seen which are a bit deeper than what my high school history teacher could tell me.
existence is elsewhere
Juan:Your retort is ridiculous and purposely misses the point. Let me put it this way - the aim of public militarism is not defense.
Not at all, your point was a strawman proffering a retort to a point nobody had made, and worse still it was a complete exaggeration aimed to score emotive points.
Jon Irenicus: Define "effectiveness"
Define "effectiveness"
More capable in fulfilling its purpose; providing a greater insentive among other power to find a peaceful conclusion to disputes and should that fail to ensure that the military in question defeats its opponent. Quite obviously a military that commands more might than its opponent has a far greater probability in fulfilling these aims.
Jon Irenicus:because I think it is you who has not bothered thinking it through.
Another example of a retort that basically boils down to "nu-uh", but lacks anything to discuss or convince. Why don't you explain the problem you have with my position? I will either offer a responce, or, if I find your argument to be insurmountable, revise my position.