15 ms·

War Is a Racket (1933)

336 points by rahuldottech 7y ago

splittingTimes 7y ago
Just in case you want a nice pdf printout read. https://github.com/frankMilde/interesting-reads/blob/master/ratville_smedley-butler_war-is-a-racket.pdf https://github.com/frankMilde/interesting-reads/blob/master/...
hpoe 7y ago
>War is just a racket. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket. I'd add one more, when a genocidal meglomanic is intent on wiping out an entire race of people that I would say qualifies as one more reason. War is terrible tragic and should be avoided at almost any cost, but there is also evil in the world that needs to be stopped. I think part of our problem in today's society is that the anyone born after 1990 has spent the majority of our lives with the country at war. If a war is worth fighting it is worth winning, if it isn't worth winning than it isn't worth fighting.
- walru 7y ago
  I think it's also crucial to ask who financed these endeavors.
- soperj 7y ago
  >I'd add one more, when a genocidal meglomanic is intent on wiping out an entire race of people that I would say qualifies as one more reason. Has the US ever gone to war for that reason? No. They've supported some of the worst dictators through out the world.
- int_19h 7y ago
  I would agree that it qualifies. The problem is that none of the Allied countries in WW2 got involved for that reason. That a full-fledged genocide was going on, much less the true scope for it, became known only fairly late in the war. And then you can look at events such as the Evian Conference before the war, where those same countries could have averted the worst of said genocide without firing a single bullet. But didn't, because they were hella racist themselves - as the famous quote from that conference went, "as we have no real racial problem, we are not desirous of importing one". Or you can look at the polls - one such in US in 1939 had 53% of the respondents saying that "Jews are different and should be restricted". I don't know if there are any stats on how many American soldiers in that war were KKK members, but it would be an interesting study. WW2 was a war over state interests, which themselves boil down to economic and political power of the elites. It was retconned into this glorious crusade of the Free World against the Evil Empire, and it was spectacularly successful because the Evil Empire turned out to be even more evil than the war propaganda painted it; but we should never forget that it is a post hoc justification! WW1 actually had very similar propaganda (https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/otheringatrocity_propaganda https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/otheringat...) - it just didn't hold up in retrospect, which is why our perception of it is so different today.
merpnderp 7y ago
I thought he was going somewhere besides conspiracy theory-ville until he said "The trend is to poison us against the Japanese." By 1933 Japan needed no one to make them look bad. The invasion of Asia was well underway, and only those not paying attention were shocked by the Rape of Nanking. If this guy was carrying water for the Imperial Japanese by 1933, he was making excuses for genocide, torture and horror on a scale impossible for a single person to take all in.
- z3ncyberpunk 7y ago
  So you just conveniently forget Japan has always had an immensely violent history, and only care that someone "made excuses" in the midst of war? Or the innumerable atrocities historically committed on behalf of the US MIC too much for your blind patriotism?
  - merpnderp 7y ago
    Are you now making excuses for Japan invading Asia in 1931 and proceeding to average something like 180,000 innocent civilians murdered per month until the end of WWII? And your excuse is they were also bad some other times, and anyone who disagrees with you is a blind patriot?
praptak 7y ago
I wonder what on earth could have prompted this to raise to #1 just now :)
nostromo 7y ago
This is mostly about the WWI era, and WWI was indeed a racket, fought for elites at the expense of everyone else. I'm curious if he would write the same article after WWII.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  Iraq definitely was a racket. At the same time the war went on , defense companies reported record profits and upper incomes received big tax cuts. So for upper management of defense companies it was a huge win to go to war. I am always thinking we should make sure that when a country goes to war everybody suffers. In most wars young guys have to die for something they don’t understand, most population suffers, but upper class and leadership usually still lives in splendor.
- modwest 7y ago
  Yes. War is a racket ESPECIALLY in the post-WWII era, when America became both the world’s armory AND the world’s bank. Every single conflict that America has been in since has been a war of choice designed to pursue capitalist interest. Our wars are imperial wars designed to perpetuate American hegemony. That hegemony is designed to continue/enable the pilfering of global wealth by a relative handful of elites. It is all about centralizing power & wealth. When I was growing up in the 90s this was pretty fringe thinking. Now, though, 20-30 years later, multiple combat tours & a military career under my belt I realize we should have been listening to Butler all along. It’s painfully, agonizingly naive to think that WW2 of all things would somehow be a counterweight to Butler’s point.
  - Consultant32452 7y ago
    I have exactly the same feelings you do here, but I struggle with one thing in particular. What is the real alternative to American hegemony? I believe it's likely Chinese hegemony. China, on the one hand, is an ethno-state which is rounding up the Muslim (Uyghurs) men, tossing them in concentration camps, and assigning rapists to live with their families to re-educate them into being good Communists. On the other hand, the Chinese are also committing mass murder to fulfill orders for human organs. That's just what they're willing to do to their own people. I wonder if it's possible to thread the needle such that we temper the US while not letting China take over. I think that will be difficult, and China is likely to win in the long run anyways. What are your thoughts on the real alternatives to American hegemony?
Bostonian 7y ago
"There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket." By that logic, six years later, were Britain and France wrong to declare war on Nazi Germany when it attacked Poland? Should the U.S. not have joined them in 1941 in declaring war in Germany, which had not attacked the U.S.? And even regarding our fighting Japan after Pearl Harbor, American homes in the continental U.S. were not under threat. So was Allied participation in WWII a "racket"? If not, why is this piece getting so many up votes?
- KC8ZKF 7y ago
  Germany declared war on the United States.
- jackfoxy 7y ago
  Germany declared war on U.S., not the other way around. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_declaration_of_war_against_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_declaration_of_war_agai...
  - dragontamer 7y ago
    WWII would have been far easier if the USA actually attacked Japan first. If the USA declared war when Britain / France did in the late 30s, then France may have not been overrun by the Germans. Maybe we wouldn't have needed to land in Normandy Beach. I don't think anybody would look at the events of the next 10-years after 1933, and consider that war to be a "Racket". Nazis were evil. Imperial Japan, was evil. By delaying our entry into the war for years, France was wiped out, and Japan sunk many battleships in a surprise attack. USA got lucky that our carriers were out on a training mission: if we lost our Carriers at Pearl Harbor, Japan may have very well won the war. US had 3 carriers stationed there: USS Enterprise, USS Lexington, and USS Saratoga. All unharmed in Pearl Harbor, because they were elsewhere. And critical to the battles to come. USA won by the skin of its teeth, shear luck that our best ships were elsewhere during the surprise attack. --------- US Pacific Fleet was composed of ~200 ships, ~18 of which were lost in the Pearl Harbor attack. The singular attack wiped out 10% of the US Pacific Power, WWII would have been far easier if US Declared war on Japan. --------- If USA helped defend France in 1939, then the incredibly deadly Normandy Beach invasion would have been unnecessary. It was due to our failure to fight against the Nazis / Japan that France fell, and many more lives were needed to reclaim that territory.
nabla9 7y ago
According to CBO analysis the total cost of Afghan & Iraq wars is going to be something like $2.5 trillion for the US. Imagine if this sum would have been used mostly nonviolently for bribing and buying influence in the region. Depending how the money is distributed, it would have been: * $35k per each person in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you divide it into households maybe something like $100k - 150k per household. * 2.5 million millionaires, or * assuming you need to just bribe 20,000 most influential persons/families/groups in Iraq and 10,000 in Afghanistan that would be something like $80 million each. corruption >> war, almost every time.
- dragontamer 7y ago
  The CIA absolutely bribes local officials. The issue is you need to bribe the right people: 1. People who will change their opinion, reliably, when bribed. 2. People who won't backstab you (aka: take the money, and attack you anyway). Figuring this out is an intelligence problem. To get good intelligence, you need boots on the ground. To have boots on the ground, you need to protect them. Etc. etc. With regards to Afghanistan culture: they have a different way of thinking than us Americans. Sure, some can be bribed with money, but a history of being a warzone for... I think 200 years at least... has made their culture strange and alien to us. -------- IIRC, Afghanistan culture is about accepting and protecting of strangers, even when they are under attack. But as soon as the stranger leaves, you're allowed to shoot them or otherwise kill them again. So this makes #2 more difficult, you need to understand the local's religion, their culture, their legends and their stories. (I'm probably butchering the concept, but I read about the details a long time ago...) In the case of Afghanistan, if US Troops could take advantage of the "accepting of strangers" culture, then US Troops will be protected by the locals. Diplomacy leads to better war-fighters and safer people. Play your cards right, and you don't even need to bribe people. You'll be a good-guy in their culture and they'll protect you.
  - nabla9 7y ago
    They do and they do have success and make allies. In fact CIA and SOF had pinned Taliban and Al-Qaeda combatants into Kunduz in November 2001. Then came the order to stand down let them fly into Pakistan unharmed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_airlift#Revelation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_airlift#Revelation
agumonkey 7y ago
Conclusion of the internet Era : information is not enough. Will to act is necessary. Just like club of rome report, this text is old news. Yet it pops up regularly and it means few.
vga805 7y ago
Smedley Butler is like a God figure to Marines, second only to Chesty Puller. I've often referenced this when arguing about the military-industrial complex with people who assume that if you criticize military spending you are somehow anti-military. I don't know if it has any effect. Some might think it's a fallacious argument from authority, but I don't think it is. Fortunately, or unfortunately?, the people I tend to argue with about this stuff likely don't know what that fallacy is.
- daveslash 7y ago
  I've had several Marine and ex-Marine friends mention Butler to me. How does "War is a Racket" align or jive (or not!) with the presumed reason that most young men and women sign up for the military, which is to valiantly protect and defend the country?
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    Same way people genuinely join the police to make things better. They think they can make a difference, even if the system is all fucked up. Sometimes they're right.
  - hoorayimhelping 7y ago
    I almost joined the Marines (but failed to make it for OCS due to health reasons). My dad's side of the family is a military family, with my grandfather being a career officer in the Army and two uncles also serving. I think it's much deeper than "defend the country." For a lot of people, the military is the only ticket out of their bumfuck nowhere life. For some people, it's a chance to learn some self discipline and self confidence. For some people, it's a brotherhood of warriors they're part of. For some people, it's a way to get a college education. For some people, it's about defending their nation. Of course there are plenty of people who watch a Michael Bay movie and think they'll be some badass operator if they enlist. I think someone like Smedley Butler might have viewed the military as a place that turns boys into confident men, teaches them valuable skills, instills discipline and self respect into them, and hooks them into a network of lifelong brothers. War is not necessary for any of this, and he realized that when we go to war, he has to send his men to die so that people with contacts in Washington can get rich. He says in the linked paper that he suspected it when he was a Marine and finally realized it after he retired.
adaisadais 7y ago
Major General Smedley Butler was a 2X Congressional Medal of Honor recipient. In his literary magnum opus, “War Is a Racket” he argues just that. A true statesman, he informed FDR & Co of the Business Plot, the cartel of big businesses who plotted to overthrow the US government. An amazing American that time will not allow us to forget.
aazaa 7y ago
> Beautiful ideals were painted for our boys who were sent out to die. This was the "war to end all wars." This was the "war to make the world safe for democracy." No one mentioned to them, as they marched away, that their going and their dying would mean huge war profits. No one told these American soldiers that they might be shot down by bullets made by their own brothers here. No one told them that the ships on which they were going to cross might be torpedoed by submarines built with United States patents. They were just told it was to be a "glorious adventure." Very strange how WWI makes almost no sense from today's perspective. Every country was damaged either directly by the conflict, or indirectly through its protracted (and still ongoing) resolution. Had those young men simply decided to do nothing rather than join, the world would have been a better place. I'd be curious to know Butler's take on WWII (he died in 1940). That's the one that people seem most hung up on. It's the only war in living memory considered near universally "good" by those in the US. It's the war that's invoked by every administration trying to stir up popular support for a military adventure in a country most voters can't place on a map. I'm doubtful our current reverence for WWII will stand the test of time. Long after Hitler has been replaced by the next boogeyman, history students of the future will scratch their heads at what could have possibly motivated a young man to volunteer for such a fool's errand.
- cheeko1234 7y ago
  This radiolab podcast goes into detail of men deciding to do nothing on both sides in WWI, but it got complicated really fast: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/segments/104010-one-good-deed-deserves-another https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/segments/10401...
  - commandlinefan 7y ago
    The whole “white feather” campaign during WWI (women would hand unenlisted young men a “white feather” which was understood to represent cowardice and shame men into enlisting) really contrasts with the unemployment that British soldiers faced after the war: “no former servicemen need apply” was a common warning on shops in the early 20’s. They were treated like garbage before the war, during the war, and after it, too.
jajag 7y ago
Also referenced in this article posted a few days back: "War is still a racket" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21990298 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21990298
4gotunameagain 7y ago
I firmly believe that it is our responsibility (the ones with at least half a mind) to communicate and convince our fellow citizens that oversea wars should not be supported, and protested against. So many lives have been lost for profit of others. It's truly a shame of humanity.
- generalpass 7y ago
  I think this is most effectively done offline. Attempt anything online and suddenly the haters come out of the woodwork and shout you down.
lacker 7y ago
His statements seem clear but upon further reflection they are not clear. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. Okay, so this was written in 1933. The obvious question to me is, would the author have supported US involvement in World War 2? I guess with Pearl Harbor, the US was attacked. But the Japanese at the time might have said that the US really started the war because the trade embargo on Japan was destroying Japan's economic plans. So was World War 2 about protecting American homes? Or was it about enabling the US to enforce a trade embargo on Japan to reduce the size of the Japanese empire? I am not a history expert and I don't claim that these questions have simple answers. I am just saying, I don't think there is any clear-cut answer of when a war is really for self-defense or not.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  I don't think it's that difficult to extrapolate eventual difficulties for the Bill of Rights in a world dominated by Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan as the two super powers.
  - krapp 7y ago
    That assumes either Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan would have remained stable enough to matter as world powers. Either or both could just as well have collapsed from within.
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      That's entirely besides the point, though.
      - krapp 7y ago
        It's not entirely besides the point. If neither Japan nor Germany were likely to ever pose an existential threat to the United States, then there would be no "eventual difficulties to the Bill of Rights" to worry about.
tootie 7y ago
It's a lot of paragraphs that can be summed as "War is expensive and suppliers can earn a lot of money", but he doesn't really discuss the strategic or ethical value of war until the very end with this blurb: > Well, eighteen years after, the world has less of democracy than it had then. Besides, what business is it of ours whether Russia or Germany or England or France or Italy or Austria live under democracies or monarchies? Whether they are Fascists or Communists? Our problem is to preserve our own democracy. And very little, if anything, has been accomplished to assure us that the World War was really the war to end all wars. Which is a very dismissive viewpoint that America can simply wash its hands of everything outside its borders. Surely anyone who knew about the Holocaust saw our involvement in WWII as a moral imperative and more broadly John Donne put it very well that "No man is an island". Certainly a lot of wars have been fought on dubious grounds, but it's an overly cynical point of view to try to give such a pat answer to such a huge question. I'd also argue that there's a huge fallacy in his premise. Yes, war is profitable for many industries. I think it's inarguable that peace is vastly more profitable for even more industries. Friendly international relations, stable supply lines and prosperous consumers are far more valuable than anything else.
- ntsplnkv2 7y ago
  > Surely anyone who knew about the Holocaust saw our involvement in WWII as a moral imperative To be fair, we didn't go to war for this reason.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - tootie 7y ago
    Well, consider it a hypothetical red line. I can see how Butler would be salty about the US fighting to protect some arbitrary monarchical power structure, but surely there are things worth fighting for outside our borders.
- chcknsammich 7y ago
  > Which is a very dismissive viewpoint that America can simply wash its hands of everything outside its borders. Surely anyone who knew about the Holocaust saw our involvement in WWII as a moral This is nonsense we allied with one murderous dictator and fought another, our involvement in that war was in no way righteous. > I'd also argue that there's a huge fallacy in his premise. Yes, war is profitable for many industries. I think it's inarguable that peace is vastly more profitable for even more industries. Friendly international relations, stable supply lines and prosperous consumers are far more valuable than anything else. His point is that it is vastly profitable for a _few_ people, and also implicitly that what you are saying is true because he wants peace.
stared 7y ago
There is a poem by Julian Tuwim, "To a simple man" (pl. "Do prostego człowieka"), 1929. There are a few translations, but I like the most one by Marcel Weyland (https://www.antiwarsongs.org/canzone.php?lang=en&id=36782 https://www.antiwarsongs.org/canzone.php?lang=en&id=36782, see also ones into German and Italian). More on Tuwim in general: https://www.cjnews.com/perspectives/features/the-20th-centurys-greatest-jewish-poet https://www.cjnews.com/perspectives/features/the-20th-centur....
dang 7y ago
Two big threads from 2016, for the curious: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13068641 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13068641 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11236553 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11236553 A bit from 2010: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1897856 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1897856
1voodoochild 7y ago
Indeed. I've wondered if the 'great filter', and the reason why we don't see aliens is because evolution, with the inevitable struggle for power, is self destructive, because, uhh, war. "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." Jimi Or, it won't.
jeffdavis 7y ago
"One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket." What about your allies' homes? If an aggressor can pick off victims one at a time, you won't have any allies left when they come for your home. It also assumes that there is no form of dramatically assummetric attack that is hard to defend against. That may have been true when this was written, but nuclear weapons changed the game.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
bagacrap 7y ago
Laws are written and wars are waged to protect money.
jellicle 7y ago
The fact these these comment threads are only about WWII, ignoring the dozens of other wars the US started, should tell people something. The US military is killing people in, what, 7 or 8 countries right now, today? Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and Niger? I feel like I'm missing some.
Allower 7y ago
Wow so happy to see this on HN
turk73 7y ago
You won't do anything about it if you are making money off of it. The rest of us can't do anything about it except vote, which does nothing because both major parties are in bed with the MIC. So here we are. It's funny how everyone is all worried about this now that Trump is President and not when Obama was doing all those extra-judicial killings using drones for eight years.
nborwankar 7y ago
We seem to be discussing WW1 and 2 while looking past the drumbeat to war in the Middle East. Are we missing the relevance of the posted content to current times?
seagullz 7y ago
War is still a racket [0]. Interesting closing reflections from the article: ... not enough Americans know or care about what happens in other countries or what their government and military is doing in their name. Do many Americans know that there are at least 1000 American military bases around the world, or that there is a fast growing Africa Command branch of the military that is involved in almost every country in Africa? Certain politicians would like to cut “discretionary” spending for such unnecessary things as education, health care, infrastructure, and protecting the environment, but over $1 Trillion a year in allotted to the military, secret intelligence, and “homeland security” in order to continue such unholy activities we have seen for over 100 years. It is telling that such a high profile person like General Butler could give such influential speeches in the ’30’s, and that even a president (who was also a general, perhaps not coincidentally) could warn against the military-industrial complex in 1961. Such a thing has been unimaginable since the Carter presidency. With the possible exception of Bernie Sanders, there are no politicians today brave enough to take on this problem, and certainly none with as high a profile as president. Maybe it’s time for less money in the hands of arms producers and war profiteers. It’s time for less war and weapons in general. Sadly, this means that it must be time for new politicians. Only a citizenry which not only votes, but is also informed and involved, can do this. [0] https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/01/15/war-is-still-a-racket/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/01/15/war-is-still-a-racket/
dennis_jeeves 7y ago
History repeats. Teaching history does not help.
quantified 7y ago
Thank you for posting. I’ve read this before, but I feel like this deserves an annual reading.

336 points by rahuldottech 7y ago

Just in case you want a nice pdf printout read. https://github.com/frankMilde/interesting-reads/blob/master/ratville_smedley-butler_war-is-a-racket.pdf https://github.com/frankMilde/interesting-reads/blob/master/...

hpoe 7y ago

>War is just a racket. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket. I'd add one more, when a genocidal meglomanic is intent on wiping out an entire race of people that I would say qualifies as one more reason. War is terrible tragic and should be avoided at almost any cost, but there is also evil in the world that needs to be stopped. I think part of our problem in today's society is that the anyone born after 1990 has spent the majority of our lives with the country at war. If a war is worth fighting it is worth winning, if it isn't worth winning than it isn't worth fighting.

walru 7y ago
I think it's also crucial to ask who financed these endeavors.
soperj 7y ago
>I'd add one more, when a genocidal meglomanic is intent on wiping out an entire race of people that I would say qualifies as one more reason. Has the US ever gone to war for that reason? No. They've supported some of the worst dictators through out the world.
int_19h 7y ago
I would agree that it qualifies. The problem is that none of the Allied countries in WW2 got involved for that reason. That a full-fledged genocide was going on, much less the true scope for it, became known only fairly late in the war. And then you can look at events such as the Evian Conference before the war, where those same countries could have averted the worst of said genocide without firing a single bullet. But didn't, because they were hella racist themselves - as the famous quote from that conference went, "as we have no real racial problem, we are not desirous of importing one". Or you can look at the polls - one such in US in 1939 had 53% of the respondents saying that "Jews are different and should be restricted". I don't know if there are any stats on how many American soldiers in that war were KKK members, but it would be an interesting study. WW2 was a war over state interests, which themselves boil down to economic and political power of the elites. It was retconned into this glorious crusade of the Free World against the Evil Empire, and it was spectacularly successful because the Evil Empire turned out to be even more evil than the war propaganda painted it; but we should never forget that it is a post hoc justification! WW1 actually had very similar propaganda (https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/otheringatrocity_propaganda https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/otheringat...) - it just didn't hold up in retrospect, which is why our perception of it is so different today.

merpnderp 7y ago

I thought he was going somewhere besides conspiracy theory-ville until he said "The trend is to poison us against the Japanese." By 1933 Japan needed no one to make them look bad. The invasion of Asia was well underway, and only those not paying attention were shocked by the Rape of Nanking. If this guy was carrying water for the Imperial Japanese by 1933, he was making excuses for genocide, torture and horror on a scale impossible for a single person to take all in.

z3ncyberpunk 7y ago
So you just conveniently forget Japan has always had an immensely violent history, and only care that someone "made excuses" in the midst of war? Or the innumerable atrocities historically committed on behalf of the US MIC too much for your blind patriotism?
- merpnderp 7y ago
  Are you now making excuses for Japan invading Asia in 1931 and proceeding to average something like 180,000 innocent civilians murdered per month until the end of WWII? And your excuse is they were also bad some other times, and anyone who disagrees with you is a blind patriot?

praptak 7y ago

I wonder what on earth could have prompted this to raise to #1 just now :)

nostromo 7y ago

This is mostly about the WWI era, and WWI was indeed a racket, fought for elites at the expense of everyone else. I'm curious if he would write the same article after WWII.

Ididntdothis 7y ago
Iraq definitely was a racket. At the same time the war went on , defense companies reported record profits and upper incomes received big tax cuts. So for upper management of defense companies it was a huge win to go to war. I am always thinking we should make sure that when a country goes to war everybody suffers. In most wars young guys have to die for something they don’t understand, most population suffers, but upper class and leadership usually still lives in splendor.
modwest 7y ago
Yes. War is a racket ESPECIALLY in the post-WWII era, when America became both the world’s armory AND the world’s bank. Every single conflict that America has been in since has been a war of choice designed to pursue capitalist interest. Our wars are imperial wars designed to perpetuate American hegemony. That hegemony is designed to continue/enable the pilfering of global wealth by a relative handful of elites. It is all about centralizing power & wealth. When I was growing up in the 90s this was pretty fringe thinking. Now, though, 20-30 years later, multiple combat tours & a military career under my belt I realize we should have been listening to Butler all along. It’s painfully, agonizingly naive to think that WW2 of all things would somehow be a counterweight to Butler’s point.
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  I have exactly the same feelings you do here, but I struggle with one thing in particular. What is the real alternative to American hegemony? I believe it's likely Chinese hegemony. China, on the one hand, is an ethno-state which is rounding up the Muslim (Uyghurs) men, tossing them in concentration camps, and assigning rapists to live with their families to re-educate them into being good Communists. On the other hand, the Chinese are also committing mass murder to fulfill orders for human organs. That's just what they're willing to do to their own people. I wonder if it's possible to thread the needle such that we temper the US while not letting China take over. I think that will be difficult, and China is likely to win in the long run anyways. What are your thoughts on the real alternatives to American hegemony?

Bostonian 7y ago

"There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket." By that logic, six years later, were Britain and France wrong to declare war on Nazi Germany when it attacked Poland? Should the U.S. not have joined them in 1941 in declaring war in Germany, which had not attacked the U.S.? And even regarding our fighting Japan after Pearl Harbor, American homes in the continental U.S. were not under threat. So was Allied participation in WWII a "racket"? If not, why is this piece getting so many up votes?

KC8ZKF 7y ago
Germany declared war on the United States.
jackfoxy 7y ago
Germany declared war on U.S., not the other way around. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_declaration_of_war_against_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_declaration_of_war_agai...
- dragontamer 7y ago
  WWII would have been far easier if the USA actually attacked Japan first. If the USA declared war when Britain / France did in the late 30s, then France may have not been overrun by the Germans. Maybe we wouldn't have needed to land in Normandy Beach. I don't think anybody would look at the events of the next 10-years after 1933, and consider that war to be a "Racket". Nazis were evil. Imperial Japan, was evil. By delaying our entry into the war for years, France was wiped out, and Japan sunk many battleships in a surprise attack. USA got lucky that our carriers were out on a training mission: if we lost our Carriers at Pearl Harbor, Japan may have very well won the war. US had 3 carriers stationed there: USS Enterprise, USS Lexington, and USS Saratoga. All unharmed in Pearl Harbor, because they were elsewhere. And critical to the battles to come. USA won by the skin of its teeth, shear luck that our best ships were elsewhere during the surprise attack. --------- US Pacific Fleet was composed of ~200 ships, ~18 of which were lost in the Pearl Harbor attack. The singular attack wiped out 10% of the US Pacific Power, WWII would have been far easier if US Declared war on Japan. --------- If USA helped defend France in 1939, then the incredibly deadly Normandy Beach invasion would have been unnecessary. It was due to our failure to fight against the Nazis / Japan that France fell, and many more lives were needed to reclaim that territory.

nabla9 7y ago

According to CBO analysis the total cost of Afghan & Iraq wars is going to be something like $2.5 trillion for the US. Imagine if this sum would have been used mostly nonviolently for bribing and buying influence in the region. Depending how the money is distributed, it would have been: * $35k per each person in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you divide it into households maybe something like $100k - 150k per household. * 2.5 million millionaires, or * assuming you need to just bribe 20,000 most influential persons/families/groups in Iraq and 10,000 in Afghanistan that would be something like $80 million each. corruption >> war, almost every time.

dragontamer 7y ago
The CIA absolutely bribes local officials. The issue is you need to bribe the right people: 1. People who will change their opinion, reliably, when bribed. 2. People who won't backstab you (aka: take the money, and attack you anyway). Figuring this out is an intelligence problem. To get good intelligence, you need boots on the ground. To have boots on the ground, you need to protect them. Etc. etc. With regards to Afghanistan culture: they have a different way of thinking than us Americans. Sure, some can be bribed with money, but a history of being a warzone for... I think 200 years at least... has made their culture strange and alien to us. -------- IIRC, Afghanistan culture is about accepting and protecting of strangers, even when they are under attack. But as soon as the stranger leaves, you're allowed to shoot them or otherwise kill them again. So this makes #2 more difficult, you need to understand the local's religion, their culture, their legends and their stories. (I'm probably butchering the concept, but I read about the details a long time ago...) In the case of Afghanistan, if US Troops could take advantage of the "accepting of strangers" culture, then US Troops will be protected by the locals. Diplomacy leads to better war-fighters and safer people. Play your cards right, and you don't even need to bribe people. You'll be a good-guy in their culture and they'll protect you.
- nabla9 7y ago
  They do and they do have success and make allies. In fact CIA and SOF had pinned Taliban and Al-Qaeda combatants into Kunduz in November 2001. Then came the order to stand down let them fly into Pakistan unharmed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_airlift#Revelation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_airlift#Revelation

agumonkey 7y ago

Conclusion of the internet Era : information is not enough. Will to act is necessary. Just like club of rome report, this text is old news. Yet it pops up regularly and it means few.

vga805 7y ago

Smedley Butler is like a God figure to Marines, second only to Chesty Puller. I've often referenced this when arguing about the military-industrial complex with people who assume that if you criticize military spending you are somehow anti-military. I don't know if it has any effect. Some might think it's a fallacious argument from authority, but I don't think it is. Fortunately, or unfortunately?, the people I tend to argue with about this stuff likely don't know what that fallacy is.

daveslash 7y ago
I've had several Marine and ex-Marine friends mention Butler to me. How does "War is a Racket" align or jive (or not!) with the presumed reason that most young men and women sign up for the military, which is to valiantly protect and defend the country?
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  Same way people genuinely join the police to make things better. They think they can make a difference, even if the system is all fucked up. Sometimes they're right.
- hoorayimhelping 7y ago
  I almost joined the Marines (but failed to make it for OCS due to health reasons). My dad's side of the family is a military family, with my grandfather being a career officer in the Army and two uncles also serving. I think it's much deeper than "defend the country." For a lot of people, the military is the only ticket out of their bumfuck nowhere life. For some people, it's a chance to learn some self discipline and self confidence. For some people, it's a brotherhood of warriors they're part of. For some people, it's a way to get a college education. For some people, it's about defending their nation. Of course there are plenty of people who watch a Michael Bay movie and think they'll be some badass operator if they enlist. I think someone like Smedley Butler might have viewed the military as a place that turns boys into confident men, teaches them valuable skills, instills discipline and self respect into them, and hooks them into a network of lifelong brothers. War is not necessary for any of this, and he realized that when we go to war, he has to send his men to die so that people with contacts in Washington can get rich. He says in the linked paper that he suspected it when he was a Marine and finally realized it after he retired.

adaisadais 7y ago

Major General Smedley Butler was a 2X Congressional Medal of Honor recipient. In his literary magnum opus, “War Is a Racket” he argues just that. A true statesman, he informed FDR & Co of the Business Plot, the cartel of big businesses who plotted to overthrow the US government. An amazing American that time will not allow us to forget.

aazaa 7y ago

> Beautiful ideals were painted for our boys who were sent out to die. This was the "war to end all wars." This was the "war to make the world safe for democracy." No one mentioned to them, as they marched away, that their going and their dying would mean huge war profits. No one told these American soldiers that they might be shot down by bullets made by their own brothers here. No one told them that the ships on which they were going to cross might be torpedoed by submarines built with United States patents. They were just told it was to be a "glorious adventure." Very strange how WWI makes almost no sense from today's perspective. Every country was damaged either directly by the conflict, or indirectly through its protracted (and still ongoing) resolution. Had those young men simply decided to do nothing rather than join, the world would have been a better place. I'd be curious to know Butler's take on WWII (he died in 1940). That's the one that people seem most hung up on. It's the only war in living memory considered near universally "good" by those in the US. It's the war that's invoked by every administration trying to stir up popular support for a military adventure in a country most voters can't place on a map. I'm doubtful our current reverence for WWII will stand the test of time. Long after Hitler has been replaced by the next boogeyman, history students of the future will scratch their heads at what could have possibly motivated a young man to volunteer for such a fool's errand.

cheeko1234 7y ago
This radiolab podcast goes into detail of men deciding to do nothing on both sides in WWI, but it got complicated really fast: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/segments/104010-one-good-deed-deserves-another https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/segments/10401...
- commandlinefan 7y ago
  The whole “white feather” campaign during WWI (women would hand unenlisted young men a “white feather” which was understood to represent cowardice and shame men into enlisting) really contrasts with the unemployment that British soldiers faced after the war: “no former servicemen need apply” was a common warning on shops in the early 20’s. They were treated like garbage before the war, during the war, and after it, too.

jajag 7y ago

Also referenced in this article posted a few days back: "War is still a racket" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21990298 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21990298

4gotunameagain 7y ago

I firmly believe that it is our responsibility (the ones with at least half a mind) to communicate and convince our fellow citizens that oversea wars should not be supported, and protested against. So many lives have been lost for profit of others. It's truly a shame of humanity.

generalpass 7y ago
I think this is most effectively done offline. Attempt anything online and suddenly the haters come out of the woodwork and shout you down.

lacker 7y ago

His statements seem clear but upon further reflection they are not clear. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. Okay, so this was written in 1933. The obvious question to me is, would the author have supported US involvement in World War 2? I guess with Pearl Harbor, the US was attacked. But the Japanese at the time might have said that the US really started the war because the trade embargo on Japan was destroying Japan's economic plans. So was World War 2 about protecting American homes? Or was it about enabling the US to enforce a trade embargo on Japan to reduce the size of the Japanese empire? I am not a history expert and I don't claim that these questions have simple answers. I am just saying, I don't think there is any clear-cut answer of when a war is really for self-defense or not.

ceejayoz 7y ago
I don't think it's that difficult to extrapolate eventual difficulties for the Bill of Rights in a world dominated by Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan as the two super powers.
- krapp 7y ago
  That assumes either Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan would have remained stable enough to matter as world powers. Either or both could just as well have collapsed from within.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    That's entirely besides the point, though.
    - krapp 7y ago
      It's not entirely besides the point. If neither Japan nor Germany were likely to ever pose an existential threat to the United States, then there would be no "eventual difficulties to the Bill of Rights" to worry about.

tootie 7y ago

It's a lot of paragraphs that can be summed as "War is expensive and suppliers can earn a lot of money", but he doesn't really discuss the strategic or ethical value of war until the very end with this blurb: > Well, eighteen years after, the world has less of democracy than it had then. Besides, what business is it of ours whether Russia or Germany or England or France or Italy or Austria live under democracies or monarchies? Whether they are Fascists or Communists? Our problem is to preserve our own democracy. And very little, if anything, has been accomplished to assure us that the World War was really the war to end all wars. Which is a very dismissive viewpoint that America can simply wash its hands of everything outside its borders. Surely anyone who knew about the Holocaust saw our involvement in WWII as a moral imperative and more broadly John Donne put it very well that "No man is an island". Certainly a lot of wars have been fought on dubious grounds, but it's an overly cynical point of view to try to give such a pat answer to such a huge question. I'd also argue that there's a huge fallacy in his premise. Yes, war is profitable for many industries. I think it's inarguable that peace is vastly more profitable for even more industries. Friendly international relations, stable supply lines and prosperous consumers are far more valuable than anything else.

ntsplnkv2 7y ago
> Surely anyone who knew about the Holocaust saw our involvement in WWII as a moral imperative To be fair, we didn't go to war for this reason.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- tootie 7y ago
  Well, consider it a hypothetical red line. I can see how Butler would be salty about the US fighting to protect some arbitrary monarchical power structure, but surely there are things worth fighting for outside our borders.
chcknsammich 7y ago
> Which is a very dismissive viewpoint that America can simply wash its hands of everything outside its borders. Surely anyone who knew about the Holocaust saw our involvement in WWII as a moral This is nonsense we allied with one murderous dictator and fought another, our involvement in that war was in no way righteous. > I'd also argue that there's a huge fallacy in his premise. Yes, war is profitable for many industries. I think it's inarguable that peace is vastly more profitable for even more industries. Friendly international relations, stable supply lines and prosperous consumers are far more valuable than anything else. His point is that it is vastly profitable for a _few_ people, and also implicitly that what you are saying is true because he wants peace.

stared 7y ago

There is a poem by Julian Tuwim, "To a simple man" (pl. "Do prostego człowieka"), 1929. There are a few translations, but I like the most one by Marcel Weyland (https://www.antiwarsongs.org/canzone.php?lang=en&id=36782 https://www.antiwarsongs.org/canzone.php?lang=en&id=36782, see also ones into German and Italian). More on Tuwim in general: https://www.cjnews.com/perspectives/features/the-20th-centurys-greatest-jewish-poet https://www.cjnews.com/perspectives/features/the-20th-centur....

dang 7y ago

Two big threads from 2016, for the curious: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13068641 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13068641 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11236553 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11236553 A bit from 2010: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1897856 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1897856

1voodoochild 7y ago

Indeed. I've wondered if the 'great filter', and the reason why we don't see aliens is because evolution, with the inevitable struggle for power, is self destructive, because, uhh, war. "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." Jimi Or, it won't.

jeffdavis 7y ago

"One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket." What about your allies' homes? If an aggressor can pick off victims one at a time, you won't have any allies left when they come for your home. It also assumes that there is no form of dramatically assummetric attack that is hard to defend against. That may have been true when this was written, but nuclear weapons changed the game.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

bagacrap 7y ago

Laws are written and wars are waged to protect money.

jellicle 7y ago

The fact these these comment threads are only about WWII, ignoring the dozens of other wars the US started, should tell people something. The US military is killing people in, what, 7 or 8 countries right now, today? Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and Niger? I feel like I'm missing some.

Allower 7y ago

Wow so happy to see this on HN

turk73 7y ago

You won't do anything about it if you are making money off of it. The rest of us can't do anything about it except vote, which does nothing because both major parties are in bed with the MIC. So here we are. It's funny how everyone is all worried about this now that Trump is President and not when Obama was doing all those extra-judicial killings using drones for eight years.

nborwankar 7y ago

We seem to be discussing WW1 and 2 while looking past the drumbeat to war in the Middle East. Are we missing the relevance of the posted content to current times?

seagullz 7y ago

War is still a racket [0]. Interesting closing reflections from the article: ... not enough Americans know or care about what happens in other countries or what their government and military is doing in their name. Do many Americans know that there are at least 1000 American military bases around the world, or that there is a fast growing Africa Command branch of the military that is involved in almost every country in Africa? Certain politicians would like to cut “discretionary” spending for such unnecessary things as education, health care, infrastructure, and protecting the environment, but over $1 Trillion a year in allotted to the military, secret intelligence, and “homeland security” in order to continue such unholy activities we have seen for over 100 years. It is telling that such a high profile person like General Butler could give such influential speeches in the ’30’s, and that even a president (who was also a general, perhaps not coincidentally) could warn against the military-industrial complex in 1961. Such a thing has been unimaginable since the Carter presidency. With the possible exception of Bernie Sanders, there are no politicians today brave enough to take on this problem, and certainly none with as high a profile as president. Maybe it’s time for less money in the hands of arms producers and war profiteers. It’s time for less war and weapons in general. Sadly, this means that it must be time for new politicians. Only a citizenry which not only votes, but is also informed and involved, can do this. [0] https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/01/15/war-is-still-a-racket/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/01/15/war-is-still-a-racket/

dennis_jeeves 7y ago

History repeats. Teaching history does not help.

quantified 7y ago

Thank you for posting. I’ve read this before, but I feel like this deserves an annual reading.