6 ms·

Seems like an old issue. I used to know a WWII British navy officer who complained how the Americans were so wasteful because they would get equipment replaced

Seems like an old issue. I used to know a WWII British navy officer who complained how the Americans were so wasteful because they would get equipment replaced instead of repairing it themselves. I had assumed it was because their manufacturing capability was greater/cheaper but maybe it was this kind of war profiteering (is that the correct term?).

tehjoker 5y ago
Well, we don't fight wars for any reason other than war profiteering so it might as well be as blatant on the ground as the geopolitical calculations are.
- Robotbeat 5y ago
  Did the US fight in World War II only for war profiteering?
  - tehjoker 5y ago
    Mainly yes. WW2 is the only US war where I can identify some objectives that decent people can support. However, US war aims in WW2 were based on expanding US influence around the world. I think if you look in retrospect, the results of post-war planning are obvious. The US is the world hegemon after we turned on our Soviet ally, whom collapsed decades later leaving us a monopole. US business interests were very friendly to the Nazis, providing manufacturing knowledge, financing, and equipment for chemicals, tanks, and advanced computing equipment. Without IBM computing equipment, the holocaust would have been logistically impossible. They have never been brought to justice and are name brands today including what is now Monsanto, IBM, Ford, General Motors, and Chemours. After the war, the United States helped the former Nazis escape on the "rat line", seeding them inside US industries, around Europe (including NATO command), and South America. Nazis and their ideological descendents were used for US covert operations around the world to counter the communists and latin american governments that were a bit too independent. We live in this world now.
    - refurb 5y ago
      I think you need to take a break from the internet for a while. Too many conspiracy theories at once will fry your brain.
      - tehjoker 5y ago
        Look it up. I am fairly sure everything I said you can find on Wikipedia or even ordinary history websites. IBM: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/04/hitlers-willing-business-partners/303146/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/04/hitlers... Monsanto's Merger with IG Farben's Descendant: https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/bayer-monsanto-merger-cant-erase-nazi-chemists-past/ https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/bayer-monsanto-merger-c... https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/09/27/monsanto-bayer-and-two-wars/ https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/09/27/monsanto-bayer-and-t... Ford & GM deny responsibility for German subsidiaries: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/nov98/nazicars30.htm https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/nov98/n... DuPont Chemical: https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-researcher-dupont-helped-nazi-germany-out-of-ideology-1.7186636 https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-researcher-dupont-h... Ratlines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratlines_(World_War_II_aftermath) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratlines_(World_War_II_afterma... Example of a NATO officer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Heusinger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Heusinger Klaus Barbie: https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/02/26/how-real-nazis-came-to-the-americas-the-recruitment-of-klaus-barbie/ https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/02/26/how-real-nazis-came-...
      - tomcam 5y ago
        Which parts are untrue?
      - mafuy 5y ago
        I thought it was common knowledge that the US (esp. industry) for years collaborated with Nazi Germany? Near the time they entered the war, the US propaganda machine worked hard to erase the fact. They were successful, especially after winning the war. This is not meant as calling-out the US in particular. The nazis and soviets had large scale propaganda, too. It goes without saying that the latter still do, just like the US. There is an abundance of examples, but one that I personally really like is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_for_Death https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_for_Death . When I first saw it, I was certain it was fake.
  - thesuperbigfrog 5y ago
    >> Did the US fight in World War II only for war profiteering? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor was also a factor in the US entering the war.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  Everyone knew Korea and Vietnam would be a waste of money at the time but we did it anyway because we thought the alternative would be worse. It was more or less a purely ideological thing. Afghanistan was basically all spite. Latin America intervention, Gulf Wars you'd have a better argument.
  - tehjoker 5y ago
    Vietnam & Korea: I think you have to ask, all that money was spent... where did it go? In great part, the increased military spending went to contractors who don't care how many helicopters get shot down because they get to make more. The ideological part is about expanding global markets so US interests can extract natural resources and sell it back to them at increased prices. That's called imperialism, but it's also a kind of war profiteering (if you win). Afghanistan: They wanted to place US military bases within striking distance of Iran, China, and Russia -- the few countries in the world that aren't fully integrated into the US lead world order. Afghanistan is also sitting on trillions in mineral deposits that were mapped out by Soviet planners. Iraq has some other stuff going on too, but just look at what country sits between Afghanistan and Iraq. Not too hard to figure that one out.
    - fnord77 5y ago
      if you look at a map with all the military bases in the region, the US has (well had) Iran surrounded. Iraq and Afghanistan were the final two pieces. I don't understand why we're so antagonistic towards Iran? Some corps still mad that their assets there got seized during the Iran revolution? edit map: https://i.imgur.com/qw6dOWE.png https://i.imgur.com/qw6dOWE.png
      - hutzlibu 5y ago
        Well, US is aligned with Israel. And Israel and Iran are mortal enemies by tradition now. The iranian leadership has the US and Israel as the enemy as their core agenda that is thought in schools. Israelian hardliners brag how about they will wipe out iran (and do carry out attacks) It is hard to break out of that cycle. Plus, it is much more complicated, because the other Ally, Saudi Arabia is mutual enemy of iran, too. Not just geopolitics, also religious reasons. And .. a whole lot more. I think it is sad, because the iranian people I met, were very nice persons.
dylan604 5y ago
I would agree with profiteering being the right word. They would argue against it because it is a negative, and nobody likes being called a spade when they are the spade.
- Nasrudith 5y ago
  I would argue with profiteering as a concept because it is so ill-defined. There is no agreement on what is "excessive profit" for one it is a matter of opinion cast as ironclad fact. The mathematical implications also can get quite silly - if you get overpaid for manufacturing guns but are awful in efficiency and but well financed and don't break even you cannot be accused of profiteering.
ethbr0 5y ago
Well, the other side of the coin is legacy physical debt. Do you want to be the one overhauling a piece of gear duct-taped together for 10 years using undocumented procedures and materials? We've definitely slid too far down "end users can't be allowed to repair anything" and are overdue for a correction. But factory / manufacturer repairs have their merits too. It feels like the worst excesses could be curbed with right to repair minimums. Factory wants to get into the business? Fine, but they need competition instead of being the only option.
- exporectomy 5y ago
  I don't think it was duct-tape repairs. They had their own fitters and turners onboard who could make replacement parts, presumably of the same quality as the originals. I guess, back then, more stuff was just bits of metal that could be made by anybody.
  - mschuster91 5y ago
    > I guess, back then, more stuff was just bits of metal that could be made by anybody. There's a reason the good old AK-47 - a design from 1946! - is still used on battlefields and insurgencies worldwide: it is easy to manufacture (so easy that there have been a number of both legal and illegal clones), easy to repair and to find spare parts for, it can take a lot of abuse before it jams up or breaks so hard you need to do an extensive rework and your average rookie doesn't need much training other than "this is target, pull trigger until target dead". Modern weapons may be more accurate (e.g. G36) or have more firepower... a result of more strict tolerances and way more components, at the cost of reliability. Large weaponry, from your average car over tanks to capital ships, is even worse.
    - dingaling 5y ago
      > There's a reason the good old AK-47 - a design from 1946! Not a great example. After a number of tweaks to try to simplify production it was eventually accepted that the original design wasn't conducive to mass-scale manufacturing. So it was redesigned from scratch as the AKM, which entered service in 1959. It used simple metal stampings instead of a milled receiver. So the vast,vast majority of AK patterns you see on the news are actually AKM derivatives since very few countries ( Finland, Israel, Yugoslavia ) could justify using the original 47 design.
partiallypro 5y ago
My dad was stationed in Afghanistan and he told me a story about how an air conditioning unit stopped working and instead of fixing it the Army just got a new one. It wasn't a major problem apparently and could have easily been fixed.

tehjoker 5y ago

Well, we don't fight wars for any reason other than war profiteering so it might as well be as blatant on the ground as the geopolitical calculations are.

Robotbeat 5y ago
Did the US fight in World War II only for war profiteering?
- tehjoker 5y ago
  Mainly yes. WW2 is the only US war where I can identify some objectives that decent people can support. However, US war aims in WW2 were based on expanding US influence around the world. I think if you look in retrospect, the results of post-war planning are obvious. The US is the world hegemon after we turned on our Soviet ally, whom collapsed decades later leaving us a monopole. US business interests were very friendly to the Nazis, providing manufacturing knowledge, financing, and equipment for chemicals, tanks, and advanced computing equipment. Without IBM computing equipment, the holocaust would have been logistically impossible. They have never been brought to justice and are name brands today including what is now Monsanto, IBM, Ford, General Motors, and Chemours. After the war, the United States helped the former Nazis escape on the "rat line", seeding them inside US industries, around Europe (including NATO command), and South America. Nazis and their ideological descendents were used for US covert operations around the world to counter the communists and latin american governments that were a bit too independent. We live in this world now.
  - refurb 5y ago
    I think you need to take a break from the internet for a while. Too many conspiracy theories at once will fry your brain.
    - tehjoker 5y ago
      Look it up. I am fairly sure everything I said you can find on Wikipedia or even ordinary history websites. IBM: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/04/hitlers-willing-business-partners/303146/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/04/hitlers... Monsanto's Merger with IG Farben's Descendant: https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/bayer-monsanto-merger-cant-erase-nazi-chemists-past/ https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/bayer-monsanto-merger-c... https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/09/27/monsanto-bayer-and-two-wars/ https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/09/27/monsanto-bayer-and-t... Ford & GM deny responsibility for German subsidiaries: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/nov98/nazicars30.htm https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/nov98/n... DuPont Chemical: https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-researcher-dupont-helped-nazi-germany-out-of-ideology-1.7186636 https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-researcher-dupont-h... Ratlines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratlines_(World_War_II_aftermath) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratlines_(World_War_II_afterma... Example of a NATO officer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Heusinger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Heusinger Klaus Barbie: https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/02/26/how-real-nazis-came-to-the-americas-the-recruitment-of-klaus-barbie/ https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/02/26/how-real-nazis-came-...
    - tomcam 5y ago
      Which parts are untrue?
    - mafuy 5y ago
      I thought it was common knowledge that the US (esp. industry) for years collaborated with Nazi Germany? Near the time they entered the war, the US propaganda machine worked hard to erase the fact. They were successful, especially after winning the war. This is not meant as calling-out the US in particular. The nazis and soviets had large scale propaganda, too. It goes without saying that the latter still do, just like the US. There is an abundance of examples, but one that I personally really like is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_for_Death https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_for_Death . When I first saw it, I was certain it was fake.
- thesuperbigfrog 5y ago
  >> Did the US fight in World War II only for war profiteering? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor was also a factor in the US entering the war.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
Everyone knew Korea and Vietnam would be a waste of money at the time but we did it anyway because we thought the alternative would be worse. It was more or less a purely ideological thing. Afghanistan was basically all spite. Latin America intervention, Gulf Wars you'd have a better argument.
- tehjoker 5y ago
  Vietnam & Korea: I think you have to ask, all that money was spent... where did it go? In great part, the increased military spending went to contractors who don't care how many helicopters get shot down because they get to make more. The ideological part is about expanding global markets so US interests can extract natural resources and sell it back to them at increased prices. That's called imperialism, but it's also a kind of war profiteering (if you win). Afghanistan: They wanted to place US military bases within striking distance of Iran, China, and Russia -- the few countries in the world that aren't fully integrated into the US lead world order. Afghanistan is also sitting on trillions in mineral deposits that were mapped out by Soviet planners. Iraq has some other stuff going on too, but just look at what country sits between Afghanistan and Iraq. Not too hard to figure that one out.
  - fnord77 5y ago
    if you look at a map with all the military bases in the region, the US has (well had) Iran surrounded. Iraq and Afghanistan were the final two pieces. I don't understand why we're so antagonistic towards Iran? Some corps still mad that their assets there got seized during the Iran revolution? edit map: https://i.imgur.com/qw6dOWE.png https://i.imgur.com/qw6dOWE.png
    - hutzlibu 5y ago
      Well, US is aligned with Israel. And Israel and Iran are mortal enemies by tradition now. The iranian leadership has the US and Israel as the enemy as their core agenda that is thought in schools. Israelian hardliners brag how about they will wipe out iran (and do carry out attacks) It is hard to break out of that cycle. Plus, it is much more complicated, because the other Ally, Saudi Arabia is mutual enemy of iran, too. Not just geopolitics, also religious reasons. And .. a whole lot more. I think it is sad, because the iranian people I met, were very nice persons.

dylan604 5y ago

I would agree with profiteering being the right word. They would argue against it because it is a negative, and nobody likes being called a spade when they are the spade.

Nasrudith 5y ago
I would argue with profiteering as a concept because it is so ill-defined. There is no agreement on what is "excessive profit" for one it is a matter of opinion cast as ironclad fact. The mathematical implications also can get quite silly - if you get overpaid for manufacturing guns but are awful in efficiency and but well financed and don't break even you cannot be accused of profiteering.

ethbr0 5y ago

Well, the other side of the coin is legacy physical debt. Do you want to be the one overhauling a piece of gear duct-taped together for 10 years using undocumented procedures and materials? We've definitely slid too far down "end users can't be allowed to repair anything" and are overdue for a correction. But factory / manufacturer repairs have their merits too. It feels like the worst excesses could be curbed with right to repair minimums. Factory wants to get into the business? Fine, but they need competition instead of being the only option.

exporectomy 5y ago
I don't think it was duct-tape repairs. They had their own fitters and turners onboard who could make replacement parts, presumably of the same quality as the originals. I guess, back then, more stuff was just bits of metal that could be made by anybody.
- mschuster91 5y ago
  > I guess, back then, more stuff was just bits of metal that could be made by anybody. There's a reason the good old AK-47 - a design from 1946! - is still used on battlefields and insurgencies worldwide: it is easy to manufacture (so easy that there have been a number of both legal and illegal clones), easy to repair and to find spare parts for, it can take a lot of abuse before it jams up or breaks so hard you need to do an extensive rework and your average rookie doesn't need much training other than "this is target, pull trigger until target dead". Modern weapons may be more accurate (e.g. G36) or have more firepower... a result of more strict tolerances and way more components, at the cost of reliability. Large weaponry, from your average car over tanks to capital ships, is even worse.
  - dingaling 5y ago
    > There's a reason the good old AK-47 - a design from 1946! Not a great example. After a number of tweaks to try to simplify production it was eventually accepted that the original design wasn't conducive to mass-scale manufacturing. So it was redesigned from scratch as the AKM, which entered service in 1959. It used simple metal stampings instead of a milled receiver. So the vast,vast majority of AK patterns you see on the news are actually AKM derivatives since very few countries ( Finland, Israel, Yugoslavia ) could justify using the original 47 design.

partiallypro 5y ago

My dad was stationed in Afghanistan and he told me a story about how an air conditioning unit stopped working and instead of fixing it the Army just got a new one. It wasn't a major problem apparently and could have easily been fixed.