Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

WWII a just war?

rated by 0 users
Answered (Not Verified) This post has 0 verified answers | 322 Replies | 18 Followers

Top 500 Contributor
Male
341 Posts
Points 6,375
sirmonty posted on Wed, Jan 28 2009 11:45 AM

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.

 

  • | Post Points: 170

All Replies

Top 10 Contributor
Male
4,985 Posts
Points 90,430

See Pat Buchanan on this.

No, it wasn't a just war. The holocaust didn't began until 2 (or three?) years after the war. The final solution was only put on the table when Germany had essentially lost the war. Granted, by the beginning of the war Hitler had done some horrible things, but Stalin had killed 1000 people to Hitler's 1 by the the outbreak of the war, and yet, the British thought it was acceptable to ally with Stalin.

Hitler was never going to attack Britian or France, in fact, he wanted an alliance with Britain. The British also initiated the bombing of the German cities.

Not to mention the whole thing was the result of the ridiculous ToV.

"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"

Bob Dylan

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 500 Contributor
Male
341 Posts
Points 6,375
sirmonty replied on Wed, Jan 28 2009 12:07 PM

GilesStratton:

See Pat Buchanan on this.

No, it wasn't a just war. The holocaust didn't began until 2 (or three?) years after the war. The final solution was only put on the table when Germany had essentially lost the war. Granted, by the beginning of the war Hitler had done some horrible things, but Stalin had killed 1000 people to Hitler's 1 by the the outbreak of the war, and yet, the British thought it was acceptable to ally with Stalin.

Hitler was never going to attack Britian or France, in fact, he wanted an alliance with Britain. The British also initiated the bombing of the German cities.

Not to mention the whole thing was the result of the ridiculous ToV.

Indeed.

One question though:  How do you know he was never going to attack Britain or France, exactly?  What makes you think this?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
4,985 Posts
Points 90,430

Because he was far more concerned with Russia.

In fact, the reason he attacked Russia in an attempt to knock them out and end the war with Britain.

"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"

Bob Dylan

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
2,959 Posts
Points 55,095
Spideynw replied on Wed, Jan 28 2009 12:22 PM

sirmonty:

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?

No, the Allies were not justified in fighting WWII.  If the US had not gotten involved, there would probably have been a lot less death and destruction.  They should not have gotten involved.

At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
5 Posts
Points 100
jdavidb2 replied on Wed, Jan 28 2009 12:23 PM

See Richard Maybury's World War II: The Rest of the Story.  Actually, first you need to see his WWI book, and in fact, you'd do best to read every single one of his books, in order.  But that'd put WWII at the end. :)

My view is that Hitler was never a plausible threat to the U.S. and that Franklin Roosevelt provoked Japan into attacking as an excuse to get us into war.  My view is that the genesis of the war came from the U.S.'s unnecessary entry into WWI, which turned a war which was stalemating and liable to end into an overwhelming crushing defeat for Germany, which became the genesis of WWII.  My view is that the outcome of WWII was to eliminate a potential situation of two evil tyrants (Hitler and Stalin) counterbalancing each other into a situation where Stalin won and was able to dominate and appear to threaten us.

See also Murray Rothbard's audio speech (available at mises.org) about America's only just wars.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
341 Posts
Points 6,375
sirmonty replied on Wed, Jan 28 2009 12:24 PM

Spideynw:

sirmonty:

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?

No, the Allies were not justified in fighting WWII.  If the US had not gotten involved, there would probably have been a lot less death and destruction.  They should not have gotten involved.

Whilst I agree for the most part (at least in principle), I am curious as to what you back these assertions up with, exactly?

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Male
341 Posts
Points 6,375
sirmonty replied on Wed, Jan 28 2009 12:32 PM

jdavidb2:

See Richard Maybury's World War II: The Rest of the Story.  Actually, first you need to see his WWI book, and in fact, you'd do best to read every single one of his books, in order.  But that'd put WWII at the end. :)

My view is that Hitler was never a plausible threat to the U.S. and that Franklin Roosevelt provoked Japan into attacking as an excuse to get us into war.  My view is that the genesis of the war came from the U.S.'s unnecessary entry into WWI, which turned a war which was stalemating and liable to end into an overwhelming crushing defeat for Germany, which became the genesis of WWII.  My view is that the outcome of WWII was to eliminate a potential situation of two evil tyrants (Hitler and Stalin) counterbalancing each other into a situation where Stalin won and was able to dominate and appear to threaten us.

See also Murray Rothbard's audio speech (available at mises.org) about America's only just wars.

Yeah I've listen to Rothbard's piece on that.  Very good.

I have a question about Maybury's book.  What is it's take on the Holocaust, exactly?

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
412 Posts
Points 8,630

WWII is clearly the most disasterous war in US history, ahead of even the Civil War part soley because of the A-bomb and the tragedy in Hiroshima/Nakasaki.  Albiet that was at the end, but take account into the reasons for going in the War was still a mistake. The US goverment did everything it could to set the conditions for Nazi Germany ("treaty" in Paris), and provoking Japan into War.  Even if the US was completely benevolent in the events leading to Pearl Harbor, Hitler was no threat to Americans on the continental United States.

do we get free cheezeburger in socielism?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
341 Posts
Points 6,375
sirmonty replied on Wed, Jan 28 2009 12:43 PM

fezwhatley:

WWII is clearly the most disasterous war in US history, ahead of even the Civil War part soley because of the A-bomb and the tragedy in Hiroshima/Nakasaki.  Albiet that was at the end, but take account into the reasons for going in the War was still a mistake. The US goverment did everything it could to set the conditions for Nazi Germany ("treaty" in Paris), and provoking Japan into War.  Even if the US was completely benevolent in the events leading to Pearl Harbor, Hitler was no threat to Americans on the continental United States.

Ahh but didn't we, as a "freer" nation, have the "moral duty" to stop the slaughter and genocide at the hands of these fascists!?

 

Stick out tongue

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
157 Posts
Points 2,710

The huge deficit spending and desolate conditions made it so that a revolt was inevitable, and Hitler would have been overthrown by the people who instituted him. Aside from this, no we weren't justified. 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
5,538 Posts
Points 93,790
Juan replied on Wed, Jan 28 2009 1:40 PM


Oh, and the anglo-american 'freedom fighters' were partners of the most brutal commie regime ever , go figure...

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."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
5,538 Posts
Points 93,790
Juan replied on Wed, Jan 28 2009 1:50 PM
In case it's not clear, this is american war propaganda



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."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
3,739 Posts
Points 60,635
Marko replied on Wed, Jan 28 2009 2:07 PM

I don`t really care much for WWII from the Western perspective. Should UK and USA have joined the war? I don`t care, probably not, from their perspective.

But it does irk me is when folks like Buchanan make Nazi and Soviet occupations of Eastern Europe to be equivalent. It simply isn`t so. It is not at all true that for example the war achieved nothing at all for Poland because it stil ended occupied, since Poland and Polish people were in a much worse position under the Nazi occupation than as vassals of the Soviets.

Yes, Soviet regime was brutal, but most  of its brutality was turned inwards towards the Soviet peoples themselves. The Nazi brutality on the other hand was for the most part not turned against Germans, but against occupied Eastern Europe.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
4,985 Posts
Points 90,430

Yeah because the USSR didn't do anything to the Hungarians for example.

"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"

Bob Dylan

  • | Post Points: 35
Page 1 of 22 (323 items) 1 2 3 4 5 Next > ... Last » | RSS