Was it right of the US to enter WW2?

Miscellaneous History
1

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?

2

Well… if you let Hitler kill all the jews and dissenters aaand let him take over france and poland… It should be better than the 10s of millions who died. Its interesting.. I wonder what would happen if nations declared their desire to trade peacefully. It would make war very futile because wealth is flowing freely across borders.

Hitler didnt initially plan to attack Britain. He thought the brits were cool. He thought america was cool too. Maybe if we had talked to the germans and tried to relieve their problems peacefully it would have worked.

3

It served no real American interest. It was just a manifestation of pan-Atlantic Anglo-Saxon solidarity specificaly among the WASP elite. American involvment was a matter of time once Britain found itself in a tight spot in 1940.

4

Well considering that the U.S. set up WWII by changing the outcome of WWI, they had to intervene at some point.

5

If you are saying the conclusion to WWI made WWII inevitable I have to disagree.

6

WWI was a “peace” imposed by American power. It was going to take American power to keep it enforced.

7

You have a point. Did not ever look at it from that perspective.

8

America had the most to gain. Europe destroyed, America super-industrialized, and all of the gold in Fort Knox. An amazing coup.

9

Actually the treaty of versailles is pointed to as the primary cause for a second world war. See here

Germany was basically gangbanged by the allies before and after the war.

10

War always means destruction. Destruction of lives, hope, capital. There is no good in waging war, and the only reason I would engage in such a thing would be pure self-defense.

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.

Think about what might have happened had America not intervened (and by that I mean no Cash and Carry etc either). Either the Third Reich would’ve consolidated and established a permanent national-socialist dictatorship or the Soviet Union would’ve pushed back and established a permanent communist dictatorship. These are the most likely scenarios in my opinion.

Additionally, a solidified Nazi empire would soon have found itself in a position to conduct crucial research in the field of rocket science or weapons of mass destruction, and given the drive behind the Nazi ideology for an Aryan world empire, this might have put a good chunk of the planet in a “surrender or be wiped out” situation.

I can’t say whether it was “right” for Joe from Kansas to die so that I do not have to grow up in a racist tyranny. I can’t arrogate to myself the right to judge this; if anyone, only Joe can. 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.

11

You lost me at “Was it right of the US to…”

12

Why? Non-interventionism is a core idea in libertarian thinking. Of course they will think intervention is bad.

If not for the American intervention in WWI, Hitler might never have risen to power.

And by stopping Hitler and empowering Mao and Stalin, many millions more people died.

13

Sphairon, lets say you and I and William Tell are neigbours. One day you find yourself attacked in your house by a motorycle gang. I wish to help you but I have no means to do so, so I break into William Tell`s home and steal his handgund, in the process scaring the crap out of his young family and breaking his door. Then I use the handgund to scare away the gang besiging your house, but it turns out that many of my stray shots actually wounded a number of people in the hoses on the other side of the street.

So was it right for me to interveene or should have I just waited for the cops?

It is not a difficult topic at all. The state has no right to exist, thus it has no right to carry out any government programme, the least of which is a war of choice. It just has to be understood that the same way you can not fault a welfare recipent for being happy to get his paycheck for nothing, you can not fault a beneficiary of a military intervention for being happy about his being better off than he would be without the intervention.

The same way you personally would have been happy about my driving off the motorcycle gang, although it would be clear to you that my actions were undefensible on the whole.

14

To an extent this is true, but at the same time, I don’t think America shoulders much of the blame here. Whilst the British (and America, I think) wanted Germany to pay reperations it was largely the French that were pushing for them to be as harsh as they way. Perhaps you’re not referring the ToV, in which case my post is irrelevant, but that’s generally what people mean (what Keynes described as "Carthaginian Peace ") when they refer to WWI causing the rise of Hitler.

Edit:

Two more points,

  1. I’m not sure what Mao has to do with anything,
  2. 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.
15

Wilson entered the first world war not because it was right, but to save the allies from total disaster. By the time the Russians had been defeated in the East and the German Empires were able to concentrate their entire forces on defeating the mutilated and mutinous allied forces.

Try to picture it. Two liberal monarchies ruling over all of Europe while democracy and republicanism was discredited, the Russian revolution won by the Whites, the French empire restored under whatever monarch the Germans were friendly with. The liberalization of the Ottoman Empire would have accelerated under German protectorate, and there would be no “Middle East” as we know it.

In other words, the United States of America would be completely, utterly alone, the last imperial Republic.

WWII was more of the same, only with a much more dangerous form of government, and thus justifiably an imperative for America to intervene.

16

LOL. A fair amount of the members of this forum live in a parallel universe…

17

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.

18

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.

Indeed. A dreamland.

19

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).

20

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.

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?

That is the gist of my post, indeed.