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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
You too discounted my argument about your rankings of FDR’s involvements on the two fronts. How are you measuring the degree to which Roosevelt wanted war with Japan more than he did with Germany? Reading through what he did on his foreign policy, it seems as though he has done equal damage to American neutrality on both fronts. If arming the Axis’ enemies and attacking their ships and submarines isn’t war goading then what is? Wouldn’t you expect the enemy to notice?Also, why was it in the U.S.'s interest to fight Japan? The U.S. had nothing to gain from the war in the Far East; we had very close business ties in Japan.
From what I remember, both. It’s an important WW2 book, and I thought you held an interest in WW2 history. I was just making a suggestion. Sorry if I seem harsh.
Earlier you wrote:
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).
The way I interpreted this passage is that I thought you had thought Roosevelt was acting neutral in Europe. Perhaps I did misinterpret what you said, but I only responded to you because of that feeling of neutrality in Europe. I tried to show that Roosevelt didn’t actions weren’t irrelevant at all in Europe. Don’t hide under the accusation of “straw men” if you use words such as “irrelevant” when it comes to why the U.S. came to war in Europe. It’s not irrelevant, and that’s why I’m debating this with you.
I think it shows how Roosevelt didn’t act “irrelevantly” in Europe.
Theorethising about the situation on the various fronts is meaningless in the context of WWI. It was a war of attrition. The only factor that matters is for how much longer could the belligirents hope to stay in the war. Rather than geting all Rommel on us you should examine indications like the effects of naval blockade, prevelance of desertion and mutinies, industrial output, discontent among the civilian population, mortality due to disease…
Even a war of attrition is affected by troop numbers. All the fronts would have had more German, Austrian, and Turkish soldiers due to Russian withdrawal. The Middle Eastern front was never as static as the Western Front, and the war in Italy was already turning into a generic retreat by the Italians.
Middle East was a meaningless sideshow and Italy had been long neutered by the Twelfth Battle of the Isonzo (incidentaly the only time in WWI an outcome of a battle actually had a decisive effect on the big picture) wether it was forced to surrender or not was meaningless, its had been rendered incapable of offensive action due to a large number of POWs taken in 1917 and the blow to the fighting spirit caused by endless manifestations of the incompetence of their command. In this situation for Austro-Hungary to take decisive action to take further territory would have been counter-productive.
You fantasize about Austrians taking Milan within a year and opening a front with France, but you are forgetting at this point in time every combatant was very close to a breaking point and a collapse, Austro-Hungary more so than most. The last thing they needed was more costly offensives to exhaust themselves further. If anything Austro-Hungary is the ultimate example of the meaninglesness of triumphing on the front (in a war of attrition like WWI). In the spring of 1918 on paper the situation for Austro-Hungary had never been better. Serbia had been crushed in autumn of 1915, Italy pushed back and the spine of its army ripped out in autumn 1917 and Russia had just pulled out of the war (and had been due to low fighting spirt of its troops it had been drawing down its commitment since a year earlier). On the map Austro-Hungary was secure from all directions and (thanks to Germany) triumphant on every front.
In reality though its navy was mutinous, its nationalities discontent, its people hungry and its army hit by desertions and defections unseen in armies of any other remaining combatant. And to make things worse POWs taken earlier in the war by Russia were as by the terms of Brest-Litovsk on their way back to Austria and were going to be reincorporated into the army. Having been convinced the war was over for them when they were taken prisoner and now learning they would be sent back to the front, they quickly proved a mayor source of instability, lack of discipline, insubordination and even Bolshevik agitation in the army and an enormous headache.
Austro-Hungary was utterly incapable of attempting let alone surviving one year of offensives against Italy and an additional front with France would have killed it as surely as a bullet. Wether a lack of American intervention would have meant a victory for the Central Powers is open to speculation, but in whichever case the war would not have been concluded as a result of some dash accross the map, but by factors of attrition. By hunger, epidemic, blockade, mutinies and green brotherhoods. US involvment or not, the war was in 1918 breathing its last breath.
I’m not sure what you mean by completely utterly alone. Would all Europe have ganged up and tried to conquer us? Seems unlikely to me. Would they have closed our embassies worldwide and refused to trade with us? Also unlikely, Would no one seek us as allies against their enemies? Why not?
I for one am very glad Hitler was defeated, don’t get me wrong. But I think the q’s being addressed here is: was it the USAs interest to enter WW2? Was it moral?
I think the answers are no and yes.
About a diferent post here:
I think the guy who tries to help out a person being attacked by a motorcycle gang is a hero, pure and simple. In the illustration given here he was inept and bumbling, but that doesn’t make him wrong or less heroic.
And if libertarianism says don’t help innocents who are being attacked, because that’s wrong, then to hell with libertarianism. But I doubt it says that. Any relevant links, someone?
Marko, say what you will about the Austrian mutinies, in 1917 half of the french front line army mutinied. The only thing that got them back to the line was the promise by the new Marshall that only the Americans would go on the offensive from then on.
Had there not been an American intervention, there would have been no resistance to a German assault. It was over, France was out of the war, probably turning communist if not liberated by the Germans.
Europe would not have tried to conquer America. Europe was exhausted. Ideologically, however, America would be seen as a sham of a nation, on par with France and Britain. Remember that the French and American revolutions paralleled each other, and the Statue of Liberty was given to the U.S. as a celebration of republicanism.
Men like Wilson took ideology very seriously. Democracy and republicanism was worth every sacrifice. That is why they couldn’t allow France to return to monarchy, or fall to communists.
As I said, the choice in WWII was much clearer. Everyone hated the fascists.
And think of it this way, Mises had a direct line to the Habsburg’s court. Upon returning from the war he saved the Republic of Austria from hyperinflation. Had he returned to a restored Austro-Hungarian Empire, he could have turned it into an economic powerhouse a million times more productive than America.
I do not know how you can go from the French soldiers demanding to only be used in defensive action to concluding there would be no resistance to a German assault. The French troops resented their lives being spent in pointless offensives that inevitably achieved nothing, but they were ready to defend their country. They mutinied because they correctly saw that the costly offensives were leading France into ruin.
German army maintained a higher morale during 1915-1917 because they spent most of that time on the defensive exhausting themselves less, as they moved over to the offensive they would be the ones hit harder by attrition and that advantage would slowly evaporate.
In any case the French army only knew mutinies. Austrian army actualy knew of soldiers, and sometimes whole units, crossing over to the enemy to carry arms in its ranks. France was in an unenviable position and may have turned communist, but Austria is one country that actually disintegrated into dust with the war and from being at war with itself. That had very little to do with US involment, but much more with the nature of the empire and the anachronism that prison of nations represented.
Maybe he could have also drugged the radicalised and now fully nationaly awakened the subjugated peoples of the empire into inaction? I don`t know about you but when an empire bites the dust I sing a happy song. Esspecialy when we are talking about an empire which bullies small Balkan nations and launches wars of aggression.
Since this topic also has come to WW1, could any good have come to Serbian citizens from their government agreeing to let Austria-Hungary freely investigate the Archduke’s murder in their territory?
I once knew a libertarian who said that it could have avoided a lot of hostilities, and let people go on with their lives than instigating violent militarist nationalism that caused a war.
Somehow, I can’t be sure that if giving a nation a free hand in investigating you would ever be a good thing. They’d be allowed to come in and conduct arbitrary arrests and detainment all over your country, and forcefully invade the privacy of any or every man in the nation. It’s very difficult for me to imagine decent Serbian leadership acting differently.
The Austrian ultimatum was intentionaly written in such a way that it could not possibly be accepted. They wanted war not an investigation. Austrians were horrified when Serbia despite that sent back a reply agreeing to nearly everything. It had nearly ruined their plans.
From a consequentialist point of view it may have been better if Serbia capitulated, since Serbia lost per capita more people than any other participant in WWI. But it would have meant that Serbia would have reverted to being a satellite of Vienna (as it had been between 1881 and 1903).