21 ms·

War Is a Racket (1933)

287 points by johnny313 5y ago

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
longone 5y ago
Had this been believed by decision makers in the US, we would probably be under Nazi regime right now, or at least most of Europe would be. Of course many aspects of war are profitable and it should be avoided at all cost. But to think that all war is nothing but a money maker for a small group is incorrect. American Isolationism, at least many decades ago, was bad for the rest of the world.
DenGorbachev 5y ago
People have always fought for resources.
sorokod 5y ago
Do check out the author, major general Smedley Butler USMC https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
- drekipus 5y ago
  This guy is amazing and it really speaks of the troubles of war. >The flag follows the dollar, the soldiers follow the flag. I find this "business plot"[0] to be fascinating as well. >Retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler asserted that wealthy businessmen were plotting to create a fascist veterans' organization with Butler as its leader and use it in a coup d'état to overthrow Roosevelt. >Early in the committee's gathering of testimony most major news media dismissed the plot, with a New York Times editorial falsely characterizing it as a "gigantic hoax". [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
  - arminiusreturns 5y ago
    Don't forget that congress redacted a ton of stuff from his testimony and the unredacted version wasnt discovered until the 1970s or something like that. Smedley Butler has always been my favorite Marine because he saw the bigger picture, and I like to give the Chesty lovers a talking to about the differences. From my experience I can confirm that war is indeed a racket.
    - pdonis 5y ago
      Chesty did have some good lines, though, like "We're surrounded. That simplifies things."
      - arminiusreturns 5y ago
        Each has their applications and uses for sure.
  - GeorgeTirebiter 5y ago
    Capitalists tend to dislike Democracy. In a Democracy, groups of people tax the Capitalists to pay for all sorts of frivolities like Health Care, Elder Care, poor folk care, and crazy useless stuff like Libraries, parks (aka future mining locations), policing, and community-sponsored housing. It's so much easier for the Capitalists if there is a fascist in charge, because then such nonsense as just mentioned is tamped down, and the people can fend for themselves. Things are just more tidy and predictable.
    - banannaise 5y ago
      Capitalists love policing. If the government doesn't spend money on police, they simply create their own police. Policing is a racket in exactly the same way war is. It protects business interests under the guise of "justice".
    - pirate787 5y ago
      The quality of the discourse on HN continues to hit new lows.
- DicIfTEx 5y ago
  The Intercept recently published a podcast featuring an interview with Jonathan M. Katz, author of a recent book on Butler: https://theintercept.com/2022/01/22/deconstructed-haiti-smedley-butler-marine-book/ https://theintercept.com/2022/01/22/deconstructed-haiti-smed... Fascinating guy.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  2 Marines 2 Medals. Dan Daley and Smedley Butler!
  - lucas_membrane 5y ago
    After his military days, Butler had tried to translate his military skills into a term as head of the Philadelphia police, so you can see why a group of tyrants-to-be might want him to join a group trying to bring civilians under an authoritarian regime. You might also see why it is better to give former high-ranking military officers medals and pensions than to give them police departments.
agumonkey 5y ago
I wonder how famous is this piece. It's often reposted but do higher-ups think the same ?
- hn8788 5y ago
  I think some of it is still relevant, like all the money being wasted buying unnecessary equipment during war time. From what I read in memoires written by generals that retired more recently, they probably wouldn't agree with the extreme isolationist policy that Smedley Butler advocates.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  What higher ups? Where and when the US military is used is not decided by the military. It's decided by politicians. This resonated strongly with me when I was a young US Marine but I don't feel the same now. It's one of those pure and simple ideas that's easy to say but the world is not pure and simple.
  - ahelwer 5y ago
    There’s a clear feedback loop between the military and the politicians, it is absolutely not a one-way street of control. This is the entire premise of the term military-industrial complex. Military will always advocate for itself to get more funding and more use (as in, bombing things). And it will continue to serve as a successful launching point for political careers. Not to mention all the companies, fat off of defense contracts, that heavily lobby the government same as any large corporation.
    - pdonis 5y ago
      > There’s a clear feedback loop between the military and the politicians. Definitely. I recommend H. R. McMaster's Dereliction Of Duty, which discusses how military leaders, many with political ambitions, helped to get the US into Vietnam.
    - hn8788 5y ago
      You should read some memoires from higher-ups in the military instead of trying to lecture people about something you have no experience with. Military leaders will say they don't need more equipment, but politicians will spend a ton on it anyway because the equipment is built in their district. Military advice is often ignored by politicians in order to score political points, like when Obama ignored advice to increase military presence in Afghanistan to regain control, and instead let it drag on with insufficient resources, ensuring it was a waste of time and life.
kerneloftruth 5y ago
Succinct and timely as we watch the US media and political class breathlessly try to rally us all to go to war with Russia. Even the Ukrainians aren't as eager and worked-up; NATO, in fact, has not stood up any forces so far. It's insane.
- adventured 5y ago
  Where is major media in the US commonly arguing in favor of a US war with Russia? They're certainly talking about Russia re Ukraine frequently. I've seen a lot of the headlines spilling out of NY Times, WaPo, Fox, MSNBC, et al. and they're not arguing in favor of the US going to war with Russia. That's a very rare argument. Almost exclusively the arguments are about how to respond after Russia invades Ukraine, in terms of the severity of sanctions. As well as if the US should be (or can) doing anything right now to dissuade Russia from invading. I'm also seeing no common arguments in the US media in favor of a NATO war with Russia more broadly. Go look at the home pages for CNN, Fox, MSNBC, CNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, Washington Post, NY Times, LA Times. Where are all the arguments in favor of war with Russia? All I'm seeing is a lot of discussion about the context of Russia being on Ukraine's border and the odds they'll invade or not, and what non-war response will be appropriate afterward (including eg moving more US forces into other eastern NATO nations as support to the security of those nations).
  - fguerraz 5y ago
    It's all about making the war seem unavoidable. Building a common frame of reference that will then be played by media and politics to position the US on the "right side". Do the US media talk about how the US (via NATO) is, and has been for years, provoking Russia? If you find the above outrageous, then the media has done a fine job, and the country is ready to go to war. No need to explicitly argue in favour of it.
    - emptysongglass 5y ago
      I would like to see the Ukrainians be able to determine their own fate: without war. All the numbers say the Ukrainians, by vast majority want their country for themselves, unmolested. What I hear from Western media is deep worry for the fates of these people who have become friends of the EU bloc. I work with Ukrainians daily. I am deeply worried they will be crushed beneath the tank treads of an authoritarian dictatorship. No one should have to suffer that fate. May they be free, happy and peaceful.
vgb2k18 5y ago
Jocko Podcast with the author is a great listen. https://jockopodcast.com/2021/09/22/300-war-is-a-racket/ https://jockopodcast.com/2021/09/22/300-war-is-a-racket/
- jrumbut 5y ago
  The author died in 1940, is this podcast an old recording or is it about a different author?
  - hn8788 5y ago
    It's not with the author. They might have been confused because the co-host was a Marine officer as well.
  - hinkley 5y ago
    Y'know, the internet is making it harder and harder to be a necromancer. Everybody knows everybody else's business.
teluride5 5y ago
This talk from 1933 aged poorly. America's initial lack of intervention in WW2 resulted in Pearl Harbor and German conquest of most of Europe. Smedley Butler can stay forgotten as a footnote in the dusty annals of history.
- it_does_follow 5y ago
  Except that this description of war seems to paint every US military intervention post WWII extremely well. There's also no point in positing counter-factual scenarios regarding WWII. If you want to imagine a world where the US rushed in and "saved" Europe early and prevents Pearl Harbor, you also have to imagine a world where US domestic support for Germany ultimately wins out and we end up supporting them.
  - jopsen 5y ago
    True, that said I think it's viable to argue that just defending America at coastline in WWII would likely have led to an undesirable outcome. But yes, colonial conflict before after WWII is probably more of a racket. That said, the cold war didn't stayed cold -- which was nice. Credit NATO (maybe), to be fair NATO is probably also a racket for the military industrial complex (by making countries buy more F35s for example).
    - CyanBird 5y ago
      I mean, there is certainly a reason why US has been upset for so long that EU countries haven't been spending enough money on military equipment, these Raytheon ceo and stock bonuses are not gonna appear out of thin air!
  - baud147258 5y ago
    > Except that this description of war seems to paint every US military intervention post WWII extremely well. Maybe except the intervention in Korea
    - kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
dang 5y ago
Past related threads: War Is a Racket (1933) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22012255 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22012255 - Jan 2020 (181 comments) War Is a Racket (1935) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19772136 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19772136 - April 2019 (1 comment) War Is a Racket by General Smedley D. Butler (1933) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13068641 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13068641 - Nov 2016 (152 comments) War Is a Racket (1935) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11236553 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11236553 - March 2016 (167 comments) War Is A Racket, Major General Smedley Butler (1935) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1897856 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1897856 - Nov 2010 (3 comments)
yob22 5y ago
the-dude 5y ago
We can clearly hear the drums beating from across the Atlantic. A new adventure was already expected with the change of administration.
- pirate787 5y ago
  It's worth noting Trump was the first US President to not start a war in half a century.
  - aplummer 5y ago
    - nxmnxm99 5y ago
      I don't think you're making quite the point you think you're making lol
      - aplummer 5y ago
        I’m just stating facts and providing references not making a point.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - reedjosh 5y ago
      What a trivial distinction. Either way you had to go back that far to find another president that didn't start a new war. It would be remarkable if it was 20 years.
      - aplummer 5y ago
        You only have to go back to Obama to find a president that didn’t “start a war”. As Obama only interceded in Libya and other ongoing conflicts.
raintrees 5y ago
If interested, for more data including names and dates, try Carroll Quigley's Anglo-American Establishment or his Tragedy and Hope. For a shorter version, try Joe Plummer's Tragedy and Hope 101. If true, not all is as it appears. But then, in the day and age of propaganda, when is it?
- GeorgeTirebiter 5y ago
  https://tragedyandhope.com/ https://tragedyandhope.com/ The text is available for download. "Tragedy and Hope" is the most important History / Political book of the 20th Century. If you want to know how the world Really Works, this is your guidebook.
  - kspacewalk2 5y ago
    The synopsis on Wikipedia[0] makes it sound like a fairly quaint, run of the mill cabal-style conspiracy theory. What makes it stand out among dozens of others, exactly? Like, say I didn't have time to humour them all, why should I invest effort into this one? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_and_Hope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_and_Hope
eezurr 5y ago
I read this book (or a good chunk of it) awhile ago and something was off about it. I didn't believe he knew what he was talking about. I dont recall any counter examples in his book, or him claiming he had direct experience with businesses matters. Perhaps he conflated correlation and causation. Some businesses are going to profit from war because demand for certain items will spike. But to claim WW I was pushed by business interests is a huge leap (with no other evidence than "hey look, people are profiting from this!!!")
- onepointsixC 5y ago
  WW1 was thought to have been impossible to happen ahead of time because of the losses in business and trade would have been too great. Claiming that it was pushed by business interests is an extraordinary claim which to my knowledge has never been substantiated with any extraordinary evidence.
  - StanislavPetrov 5y ago
    Business interest didn't start WW1, but they were certainly pushing hard for the the entry of the US into the war. Wall Street banks (especially JP Morgan) had loaned huge amounts of money to England and France. They stood to suffer masses losses if the war didn't turn out favorably for them. On April 24th, 1917, only 8 days after the US entered the war, congress passed the Emergency Loan Act which sent hundreds of millions of dollars to England and France. The lion's share of this money was used to immediately make interest payments to JP Morgan. >Morgan brokered a deal that positioned his company as the sole munitions and supplies purchaser during World War I for the British and French governments, bringing his company a 1% commission on $3 billion ($30 million). He was also a banking broker for financing to foreign governments both during and after the war. >Morgan played a prominent part in financing World War I. Following its outbreak, he made the first loan of $12,000,000 to Russia.[6] In 1915, a loan of $500,000,000 was made to France and Britain following negotiations by the Anglo-French Financial Commission.[7] The firm's involvement with British and French interests fueled charges the bank was conspiring to maneuver the United States into supporting the Allies in order to rescue its loans. By 1915, when it became apparent the war was not going to end quickly, the company decided to forge formal relationships with France. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._P._Morgan_Jr.#World_War_I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._P._Morgan_Jr.#World_War_I Then there were the manufacturers and the farmers. Demand for goods, foodstuffs and merchandise of all kinds was a large part of what helped pull the moribund US economy out of a long period of economic distress that stretched all the way back to The Panic of 1907. England and French (borrowed) money was flooding into the coffers and US companies and US workers. A poor outcome for England and France would leave an uncertain future (at best) for the prospect of future exports for many companies. There were other, non-economic factors to be sure, but much has been written about the influence that the banks and the business community had on pushing US entry into the war.
credit_guy 5y ago
War is a racket. But to imply that the little guy does not profit is disingenuous. 330 million Americans profit from the fact the US dollar is a reserve currency. Countries and people park their money in dollars, and as the world economy grows, there's a need for more dollars, and the US Government obliges by running mind blowing deficits. In the old times, vassals would pay tribute, today, they simply buy US Treasuries. Tribute (or if you prefer, protection money) is the very definition of racket. Putin and Xi don't like to pay protection money. In fact, they'd rather be racketeers themselves [1]. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/04/09/china-russia-announced-joint-pledge-push-back-against-dollar-hegemony/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/04/09/china-rus...
- onepointsixC 5y ago
  Having the dollar as the reserve currency resulted in at first the draining of American gold reserves, and now the draining of American manufacturing. So it hasn't been without a cost.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
spaetzleesser 5y ago
I started paying attention to this when I lived close to DC around 2002. Bush was cutting the top tax brackets while ramping up for the Iraq invasion, the defense contractors made record profits (I remember one CEO making around 30 million) and the DC metro was plastered with ads touting the patriotism of the defense contractors. I thought "these guys are making record money, are getting their taxes reduced, try to look like patriots and some clueless young guys have to go to war and die". Since then I honestly think there should be no profit in making weapons while a war is going. It's just not right that some people are raking in the big money without risk while some poor guys have to go and die.
- Diesel555 5y ago
  “War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice, — is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other.” - John Stuart Mill
  - orestarod 5y ago
    You must agree that, by the standards of this paragraph, most wars waged by people should first be against their own current leaders.
- landemva 5y ago
  USA loves armed conflict so much it pays the EU to run their junior league fighters NATO. Just can't get enough of it.
dav_Oz 5y ago
Beforehand [0] the author of this text, Butler, the most respected general in the US at that time was offered to lead a coup d'etat to overthrow FDR and then to become effectively a dictator. [0]https://bigthink.com/the-present/fdr-coup/ https://bigthink.com/the-present/fdr-coup/
- tempestn 5y ago
  Very interesting! You should submit that to HN too.
- mrjangles 5y ago
  >Remembering when bankers tried to overthrow FDR and install a fascist dictator Ironic considering that FDR's economic reforms were openly modeled on fascist Italy, and FDR was on good terms with Mussolini. He was also in the process of following Mussolini's lead and attempting to overthrow the American institutions that were in his way. He had already gone out of his way to install a KKK member on the Supreme Court, and was planning to double the size of the Supreme Court if they wouldn't accept his unconstitutional changes. The article even admits this by quoting articles written at the time that were calling for a fascist takeover of the country and supporting FDR's goals in this direction. Many were terrified that this was indeed what FDR was planning. This whole thing about Butler coming out and saying it was the other way around, and fascists were tying to overthrow FDR was just a political point scoring. This article even admits that if something like that even happened it was at best a “a cocktail putsch.” This is just the typical rewriting of history from people who refuse to face their ashamed past.
  - rixed 5y ago
    This just show that fascism means different things to different people. There are indeed several aspects to it: - suppression of labor unions and other political organisations that go against the interests of the ruling class, using mob violence - a nationalist/religious/wtv ideology portaying anyone discussing orders as a dangerous enemy (dividing the people in the name of unity) - the will to at least temporarily ignore the rules of normal, consensual arbitration within the society, to face dangerous times (for the ruling class, thus their initial approval/encouragements). - to various degrees, the new regime goes out of hands and also ends up terrorizing the ruling class. Many different movements/regimes in history matched with several of those points. Many military coups are called "fascist" despite they lack the "mob violence" aspect, relying instead on the support on some external army's paratroopers. And many exceptional regimes ignoring past laws temporarily to face a dire situation are also labeled as "fascist", despite they make little use of violence.
Atlas667 5y ago
This book is a great example of how wrong it is to think that the concept of the state is evil and oppressing. When in reality the state acts in favor of those in power, and i don't mean politicians or the president. It's the capitalists. The ones who control production control society. We don't have wars because of ideas or justice, we have war because of the hard economic incentives of the powerful. The states mass surveillance isn't based on a corrupt evil, they do it to secure the interests of the powerful. We don't pay taxes solely because 'the states' or politicians want to take from us, they do it to pay subsidies and bailouts to industries. This book is about capitalists, their state and how they use it to secure profit. To have capital is to have influence, so where are you when laws get written?
hilbert42 5y ago
The tragedy is that poor unfortunate grunts only get to know it's a racket after it's too late - when half of them are already dead. Unfortunately, it seems to be a chararistic of the human condition that learning about war is a slow prossess and that the horrors of experiencing it cannot passed down from one generation to the next. Experience gathered over millennia has demonstrated that it's essentially impossible to teach recruits before they enter the military that war is not only a racket but also it will be the most horrible and devastating experience of their lives. The fact is, it's impossible to put an old head onto young shoulders.
- tonetheman 5y ago
  In the Southern US the religious and the Republicans actively attempt to erase wars. Most recently in TN where they ban books about it. It would help if the US would actually teach history instead of pretend like it did not happen.
  - buzzard1 5y ago
    N
  - hilbert42 5y ago
    "Most recently in TN where they ban books about it." That's a worry. What kind? Those that put war in a negative light presumably. "It would help if the US would actually teach history..." The US isn't alone, many others do the same. The other worrying observation is that antiwar sentiment doesn't last more than a generation or so if that (the Vietnam generation was about as anti as it has gotten in my lifetime and come the 1980s/90s the feeling had almost totally dissipated).
- buzzard1 5y ago
  Do you believe that a just war has ever been waged?
  - hilbert42 5y ago
    Yes, but it ought to be absolutely the last resort. In that sense I'm not a pacifist (I once had a unform on but I was lucky to avoid major trouble). If you've ever experienced the system and mil training it's impossible to unlearn it.
solatic 5y ago
Please read your military history. Soldiers who have never fought are less capable in battle. It doesn't really matter how much they train or how many drills are run. Nothing really prepares you for the trauma of watching your friend of many years die by getting his head blown off next to you, or worse, bleeding out while crying for his mother. There are two kinds of people who witness that: those who curl up and pray for it all to stop, and those who pick up their weapons and keep fighting. Generals never know which kind of men they have unless battles weed out the first kind, by death or discharge. And militaries with too many of the first kind lose wars. Yes, it's horrible. It's gut-wrenching just to think about it. We'd all be better off if we could resolve our conflicts without war. But in the world we live in, there are too many military and paramilitary actors who are not guided by such Enlightened ideals. What will we do if we are not prepared and they come knocking on our door? Maybe you don't believe that the same irrational forces that first manifest as teenage graffiti, then grow into organized crime, could ever result in organizations the size of militaries. Maybe you don't believe that, in societies which have abolished all adventure, the only adventure left is to abolish that society. That's fine. I respect that. But what if you're wrong? Shouldn't society hedge that bet, considering the cost? Can no such hedge possibly justify its cost? There's a reasonable discussion to be had about where the line (i.e. cost) should be drawn, and what shape the line should take. But the opinion that it is worth it to pay some cost should be relatively uncontroversial. And if you understand that society should pay some cost to maintain an effective military, you ultimately understand that, until the diplomats can succeed at building a genuine global peace, war is inevitable.
- nickkell 5y ago
  What does this have to do with the linked essay? The author is claiming that America is the aggressor in these wars. You make it sound like it’s all for practice in case one day the tables are turned
- justatdotin 5y ago
  thankyou for illustrating the mentality behind usa's wars.
- einpoklum 5y ago
oriettaxx 5y ago
lovely!
forgotmypw17 5y ago
A much better paper, imo: https://www.google.com/search?q=charles+tilly+war+making https://www.google.com/search?q=charles+tilly+war+making Personally, I like the opinion I read once that it is an inevitable consequence of the existence of power itself, and as a result, the existence of those who seek it and compete for it. The best you can do is stay out of its way. (Credit goes to a Vietnamese tribal leader named Bear, whose tribe made it through the big war there despite all that happeend.)
labrador 5y ago
That makes war a Scheme as well
schwanky 5y ago
I believe this racket has only been growing and growing every decade since. It needs to be brought up more often, and people and organisations with large audiences must dare to speak openly about it.
edmcnulty101 5y ago
How do trust the govt to have our best interest in mind in regards to pandemic response but not in regards to war? It's the same driving force: medical and journalist corporations making record profits.
MrYellowP 5y ago
YYYYYYYYeeaap, but as long as politics and media prevent the people from thinking about the actually important things, nothing will ever change.
chiefalchemist 5y ago
A POTUS and military man (Eisenhower) called this out years ago. Aka, The Military Industrial Complex. No Virginia, it's not a conspiracy theory. https://m.youtube.com https://m.youtube.com /watch?v=OyBNmecVtdU Said POTUS Obama in his 2016 State of the Union: "The United States of America is the most powerful nation on Earth. Period. It's not even close. We spend more on our military than the next eight nations combined." 1) 7 of those 8 are allies 2) It might be the next 15 or 20 now, as the DoD budget has increased since. "Our troops are the finest fighting force in the history of the world. No nation dares to attack us or our allies because they know that's the path to ruin." 3) Worked out well. 20+ years in Afghanistan. The lives. The money. And that's The Best?
- onepointsixC 5y ago
  Except Eisenhower made those statements under the specific context of economic situation just after WW2, which revitalized the American economy after the great depression. At the height of WW2 the United States was spending over 40% of its GDP on defense. Given that WW2 did wonders for the American economy, it would be legitimately tempting for contemporaries to think that another war would be a good idea in an economic slump. That is what Eisenhower was warning against. >Obama in his 2016 State of the Union The Armed forces he spoke of were a result of decades of investments of previous administrations. Obama's oversaw one of the most draconian defunding of the DoD in decades. The sequestration of the DoD budget cuts was devastating to readiness and has left the United States vulnerable for the 2020s. The PLA has grown at truly incredible speed since then. It now outnumbering the USN in the number of vessels. At the same time, the USN is retiring more ships than it's building. The United States is on track to lose a Taiwan Flashpoint.

287 points by johnny313 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Had this been believed by decision makers in the US, we would probably be under Nazi regime right now, or at least most of Europe would be. Of course many aspects of war are profitable and it should be avoided at all cost. But to think that all war is nothing but a money maker for a small group is incorrect. American Isolationism, at least many decades ago, was bad for the rest of the world.

DenGorbachev 5y ago

People have always fought for resources.

sorokod 5y ago

Do check out the author, major general Smedley Butler USMC https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler

drekipus 5y ago
This guy is amazing and it really speaks of the troubles of war. >The flag follows the dollar, the soldiers follow the flag. I find this "business plot"[0] to be fascinating as well. >Retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler asserted that wealthy businessmen were plotting to create a fascist veterans' organization with Butler as its leader and use it in a coup d'état to overthrow Roosevelt. >Early in the committee's gathering of testimony most major news media dismissed the plot, with a New York Times editorial falsely characterizing it as a "gigantic hoax". [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
- arminiusreturns 5y ago
  Don't forget that congress redacted a ton of stuff from his testimony and the unredacted version wasnt discovered until the 1970s or something like that. Smedley Butler has always been my favorite Marine because he saw the bigger picture, and I like to give the Chesty lovers a talking to about the differences. From my experience I can confirm that war is indeed a racket.
  - pdonis 5y ago
    Chesty did have some good lines, though, like "We're surrounded. That simplifies things."
    - arminiusreturns 5y ago
      Each has their applications and uses for sure.
- GeorgeTirebiter 5y ago
  Capitalists tend to dislike Democracy. In a Democracy, groups of people tax the Capitalists to pay for all sorts of frivolities like Health Care, Elder Care, poor folk care, and crazy useless stuff like Libraries, parks (aka future mining locations), policing, and community-sponsored housing. It's so much easier for the Capitalists if there is a fascist in charge, because then such nonsense as just mentioned is tamped down, and the people can fend for themselves. Things are just more tidy and predictable.
  - banannaise 5y ago
    Capitalists love policing. If the government doesn't spend money on police, they simply create their own police. Policing is a racket in exactly the same way war is. It protects business interests under the guise of "justice".
  - pirate787 5y ago
    The quality of the discourse on HN continues to hit new lows.
DicIfTEx 5y ago
The Intercept recently published a podcast featuring an interview with Jonathan M. Katz, author of a recent book on Butler: https://theintercept.com/2022/01/22/deconstructed-haiti-smedley-butler-marine-book/ https://theintercept.com/2022/01/22/deconstructed-haiti-smed... Fascinating guy.
2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
2 Marines 2 Medals. Dan Daley and Smedley Butler!
- lucas_membrane 5y ago
  After his military days, Butler had tried to translate his military skills into a term as head of the Philadelphia police, so you can see why a group of tyrants-to-be might want him to join a group trying to bring civilians under an authoritarian regime. You might also see why it is better to give former high-ranking military officers medals and pensions than to give them police departments.

agumonkey 5y ago

I wonder how famous is this piece. It's often reposted but do higher-ups think the same ?

hn8788 5y ago
I think some of it is still relevant, like all the money being wasted buying unnecessary equipment during war time. From what I read in memoires written by generals that retired more recently, they probably wouldn't agree with the extreme isolationist policy that Smedley Butler advocates.
2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
What higher ups? Where and when the US military is used is not decided by the military. It's decided by politicians. This resonated strongly with me when I was a young US Marine but I don't feel the same now. It's one of those pure and simple ideas that's easy to say but the world is not pure and simple.
- ahelwer 5y ago
  There’s a clear feedback loop between the military and the politicians, it is absolutely not a one-way street of control. This is the entire premise of the term military-industrial complex. Military will always advocate for itself to get more funding and more use (as in, bombing things). And it will continue to serve as a successful launching point for political careers. Not to mention all the companies, fat off of defense contracts, that heavily lobby the government same as any large corporation.
  - pdonis 5y ago
    > There’s a clear feedback loop between the military and the politicians. Definitely. I recommend H. R. McMaster's Dereliction Of Duty, which discusses how military leaders, many with political ambitions, helped to get the US into Vietnam.
  - hn8788 5y ago
    You should read some memoires from higher-ups in the military instead of trying to lecture people about something you have no experience with. Military leaders will say they don't need more equipment, but politicians will spend a ton on it anyway because the equipment is built in their district. Military advice is often ignored by politicians in order to score political points, like when Obama ignored advice to increase military presence in Afghanistan to regain control, and instead let it drag on with insufficient resources, ensuring it was a waste of time and life.

kerneloftruth 5y ago

Succinct and timely as we watch the US media and political class breathlessly try to rally us all to go to war with Russia. Even the Ukrainians aren't as eager and worked-up; NATO, in fact, has not stood up any forces so far. It's insane.

adventured 5y ago
Where is major media in the US commonly arguing in favor of a US war with Russia? They're certainly talking about Russia re Ukraine frequently. I've seen a lot of the headlines spilling out of NY Times, WaPo, Fox, MSNBC, et al. and they're not arguing in favor of the US going to war with Russia. That's a very rare argument. Almost exclusively the arguments are about how to respond after Russia invades Ukraine, in terms of the severity of sanctions. As well as if the US should be (or can) doing anything right now to dissuade Russia from invading. I'm also seeing no common arguments in the US media in favor of a NATO war with Russia more broadly. Go look at the home pages for CNN, Fox, MSNBC, CNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, Washington Post, NY Times, LA Times. Where are all the arguments in favor of war with Russia? All I'm seeing is a lot of discussion about the context of Russia being on Ukraine's border and the odds they'll invade or not, and what non-war response will be appropriate afterward (including eg moving more US forces into other eastern NATO nations as support to the security of those nations).
- fguerraz 5y ago
  It's all about making the war seem unavoidable. Building a common frame of reference that will then be played by media and politics to position the US on the "right side". Do the US media talk about how the US (via NATO) is, and has been for years, provoking Russia? If you find the above outrageous, then the media has done a fine job, and the country is ready to go to war. No need to explicitly argue in favour of it.
  - emptysongglass 5y ago
    I would like to see the Ukrainians be able to determine their own fate: without war. All the numbers say the Ukrainians, by vast majority want their country for themselves, unmolested. What I hear from Western media is deep worry for the fates of these people who have become friends of the EU bloc. I work with Ukrainians daily. I am deeply worried they will be crushed beneath the tank treads of an authoritarian dictatorship. No one should have to suffer that fate. May they be free, happy and peaceful.

vgb2k18 5y ago

Jocko Podcast with the author is a great listen. https://jockopodcast.com/2021/09/22/300-war-is-a-racket/ https://jockopodcast.com/2021/09/22/300-war-is-a-racket/

jrumbut 5y ago
The author died in 1940, is this podcast an old recording or is it about a different author?
- hn8788 5y ago
  It's not with the author. They might have been confused because the co-host was a Marine officer as well.
- hinkley 5y ago
  Y'know, the internet is making it harder and harder to be a necromancer. Everybody knows everybody else's business.

teluride5 5y ago

This talk from 1933 aged poorly. America's initial lack of intervention in WW2 resulted in Pearl Harbor and German conquest of most of Europe. Smedley Butler can stay forgotten as a footnote in the dusty annals of history.

it_does_follow 5y ago
Except that this description of war seems to paint every US military intervention post WWII extremely well. There's also no point in positing counter-factual scenarios regarding WWII. If you want to imagine a world where the US rushed in and "saved" Europe early and prevents Pearl Harbor, you also have to imagine a world where US domestic support for Germany ultimately wins out and we end up supporting them.
- jopsen 5y ago
  True, that said I think it's viable to argue that just defending America at coastline in WWII would likely have led to an undesirable outcome. But yes, colonial conflict before after WWII is probably more of a racket. That said, the cold war didn't stayed cold -- which was nice. Credit NATO (maybe), to be fair NATO is probably also a racket for the military industrial complex (by making countries buy more F35s for example).
  - CyanBird 5y ago
    I mean, there is certainly a reason why US has been upset for so long that EU countries haven't been spending enough money on military equipment, these Raytheon ceo and stock bonuses are not gonna appear out of thin air!
- baud147258 5y ago
  > Except that this description of war seems to paint every US military intervention post WWII extremely well. Maybe except the intervention in Korea
  - kevin_thibedeau 5y ago

dang 5y ago

Past related threads: War Is a Racket (1933) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22012255 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22012255 - Jan 2020 (181 comments) War Is a Racket (1935) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19772136 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19772136 - April 2019 (1 comment) War Is a Racket by General Smedley D. Butler (1933) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13068641 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13068641 - Nov 2016 (152 comments) War Is a Racket (1935) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11236553 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11236553 - March 2016 (167 comments) War Is A Racket, Major General Smedley Butler (1935) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1897856 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1897856 - Nov 2010 (3 comments)

yob22 5y ago

the-dude 5y ago

We can clearly hear the drums beating from across the Atlantic. A new adventure was already expected with the change of administration.

pirate787 5y ago
It's worth noting Trump was the first US President to not start a war in half a century.
- aplummer 5y ago
  - nxmnxm99 5y ago
    I don't think you're making quite the point you think you're making lol
    - aplummer 5y ago
      I’m just stating facts and providing references not making a point.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - reedjosh 5y ago
    What a trivial distinction. Either way you had to go back that far to find another president that didn't start a new war. It would be remarkable if it was 20 years.
    - aplummer 5y ago
      You only have to go back to Obama to find a president that didn’t “start a war”. As Obama only interceded in Libya and other ongoing conflicts.

raintrees 5y ago

If interested, for more data including names and dates, try Carroll Quigley's Anglo-American Establishment or his Tragedy and Hope. For a shorter version, try Joe Plummer's Tragedy and Hope 101. If true, not all is as it appears. But then, in the day and age of propaganda, when is it?

GeorgeTirebiter 5y ago
https://tragedyandhope.com/ https://tragedyandhope.com/ The text is available for download. "Tragedy and Hope" is the most important History / Political book of the 20th Century. If you want to know how the world Really Works, this is your guidebook.
- kspacewalk2 5y ago
  The synopsis on Wikipedia[0] makes it sound like a fairly quaint, run of the mill cabal-style conspiracy theory. What makes it stand out among dozens of others, exactly? Like, say I didn't have time to humour them all, why should I invest effort into this one? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_and_Hope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_and_Hope

eezurr 5y ago

I read this book (or a good chunk of it) awhile ago and something was off about it. I didn't believe he knew what he was talking about. I dont recall any counter examples in his book, or him claiming he had direct experience with businesses matters. Perhaps he conflated correlation and causation. Some businesses are going to profit from war because demand for certain items will spike. But to claim WW I was pushed by business interests is a huge leap (with no other evidence than "hey look, people are profiting from this!!!")

onepointsixC 5y ago
WW1 was thought to have been impossible to happen ahead of time because of the losses in business and trade would have been too great. Claiming that it was pushed by business interests is an extraordinary claim which to my knowledge has never been substantiated with any extraordinary evidence.
- StanislavPetrov 5y ago
  Business interest didn't start WW1, but they were certainly pushing hard for the the entry of the US into the war. Wall Street banks (especially JP Morgan) had loaned huge amounts of money to England and France. They stood to suffer masses losses if the war didn't turn out favorably for them. On April 24th, 1917, only 8 days after the US entered the war, congress passed the Emergency Loan Act which sent hundreds of millions of dollars to England and France. The lion's share of this money was used to immediately make interest payments to JP Morgan. >Morgan brokered a deal that positioned his company as the sole munitions and supplies purchaser during World War I for the British and French governments, bringing his company a 1% commission on $3 billion ($30 million). He was also a banking broker for financing to foreign governments both during and after the war. >Morgan played a prominent part in financing World War I. Following its outbreak, he made the first loan of $12,000,000 to Russia.[6] In 1915, a loan of $500,000,000 was made to France and Britain following negotiations by the Anglo-French Financial Commission.[7] The firm's involvement with British and French interests fueled charges the bank was conspiring to maneuver the United States into supporting the Allies in order to rescue its loans. By 1915, when it became apparent the war was not going to end quickly, the company decided to forge formal relationships with France. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._P._Morgan_Jr.#World_War_I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._P._Morgan_Jr.#World_War_I Then there were the manufacturers and the farmers. Demand for goods, foodstuffs and merchandise of all kinds was a large part of what helped pull the moribund US economy out of a long period of economic distress that stretched all the way back to The Panic of 1907. England and French (borrowed) money was flooding into the coffers and US companies and US workers. A poor outcome for England and France would leave an uncertain future (at best) for the prospect of future exports for many companies. There were other, non-economic factors to be sure, but much has been written about the influence that the banks and the business community had on pushing US entry into the war.

credit_guy 5y ago

War is a racket. But to imply that the little guy does not profit is disingenuous. 330 million Americans profit from the fact the US dollar is a reserve currency. Countries and people park their money in dollars, and as the world economy grows, there's a need for more dollars, and the US Government obliges by running mind blowing deficits. In the old times, vassals would pay tribute, today, they simply buy US Treasuries. Tribute (or if you prefer, protection money) is the very definition of racket. Putin and Xi don't like to pay protection money. In fact, they'd rather be racketeers themselves [1]. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/04/09/china-russia-announced-joint-pledge-push-back-against-dollar-hegemony/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/04/09/china-rus...

onepointsixC 5y ago
Having the dollar as the reserve currency resulted in at first the draining of American gold reserves, and now the draining of American manufacturing. So it hasn't been without a cost.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

spaetzleesser 5y ago

I started paying attention to this when I lived close to DC around 2002. Bush was cutting the top tax brackets while ramping up for the Iraq invasion, the defense contractors made record profits (I remember one CEO making around 30 million) and the DC metro was plastered with ads touting the patriotism of the defense contractors. I thought "these guys are making record money, are getting their taxes reduced, try to look like patriots and some clueless young guys have to go to war and die". Since then I honestly think there should be no profit in making weapons while a war is going. It's just not right that some people are raking in the big money without risk while some poor guys have to go and die.

Diesel555 5y ago
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice, — is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other.” - John Stuart Mill
- orestarod 5y ago
  You must agree that, by the standards of this paragraph, most wars waged by people should first be against their own current leaders.
landemva 5y ago
USA loves armed conflict so much it pays the EU to run their junior league fighters NATO. Just can't get enough of it.

dav_Oz 5y ago

Beforehand [0] the author of this text, Butler, the most respected general in the US at that time was offered to lead a coup d'etat to overthrow FDR and then to become effectively a dictator. [0]https://bigthink.com/the-present/fdr-coup/ https://bigthink.com/the-present/fdr-coup/

tempestn 5y ago
Very interesting! You should submit that to HN too.
mrjangles 5y ago
>Remembering when bankers tried to overthrow FDR and install a fascist dictator Ironic considering that FDR's economic reforms were openly modeled on fascist Italy, and FDR was on good terms with Mussolini. He was also in the process of following Mussolini's lead and attempting to overthrow the American institutions that were in his way. He had already gone out of his way to install a KKK member on the Supreme Court, and was planning to double the size of the Supreme Court if they wouldn't accept his unconstitutional changes. The article even admits this by quoting articles written at the time that were calling for a fascist takeover of the country and supporting FDR's goals in this direction. Many were terrified that this was indeed what FDR was planning. This whole thing about Butler coming out and saying it was the other way around, and fascists were tying to overthrow FDR was just a political point scoring. This article even admits that if something like that even happened it was at best a “a cocktail putsch.” This is just the typical rewriting of history from people who refuse to face their ashamed past.
- rixed 5y ago
  This just show that fascism means different things to different people. There are indeed several aspects to it: - suppression of labor unions and other political organisations that go against the interests of the ruling class, using mob violence - a nationalist/religious/wtv ideology portaying anyone discussing orders as a dangerous enemy (dividing the people in the name of unity) - the will to at least temporarily ignore the rules of normal, consensual arbitration within the society, to face dangerous times (for the ruling class, thus their initial approval/encouragements). - to various degrees, the new regime goes out of hands and also ends up terrorizing the ruling class. Many different movements/regimes in history matched with several of those points. Many military coups are called "fascist" despite they lack the "mob violence" aspect, relying instead on the support on some external army's paratroopers. And many exceptional regimes ignoring past laws temporarily to face a dire situation are also labeled as "fascist", despite they make little use of violence.

Atlas667 5y ago

This book is a great example of how wrong it is to think that the concept of the state is evil and oppressing. When in reality the state acts in favor of those in power, and i don't mean politicians or the president. It's the capitalists. The ones who control production control society. We don't have wars because of ideas or justice, we have war because of the hard economic incentives of the powerful. The states mass surveillance isn't based on a corrupt evil, they do it to secure the interests of the powerful. We don't pay taxes solely because 'the states' or politicians want to take from us, they do it to pay subsidies and bailouts to industries. This book is about capitalists, their state and how they use it to secure profit. To have capital is to have influence, so where are you when laws get written?

hilbert42 5y ago

The tragedy is that poor unfortunate grunts only get to know it's a racket after it's too late - when half of them are already dead. Unfortunately, it seems to be a chararistic of the human condition that learning about war is a slow prossess and that the horrors of experiencing it cannot passed down from one generation to the next. Experience gathered over millennia has demonstrated that it's essentially impossible to teach recruits before they enter the military that war is not only a racket but also it will be the most horrible and devastating experience of their lives. The fact is, it's impossible to put an old head onto young shoulders.

tonetheman 5y ago
In the Southern US the religious and the Republicans actively attempt to erase wars. Most recently in TN where they ban books about it. It would help if the US would actually teach history instead of pretend like it did not happen.
- buzzard1 5y ago
  N
- hilbert42 5y ago
  "Most recently in TN where they ban books about it." That's a worry. What kind? Those that put war in a negative light presumably. "It would help if the US would actually teach history..." The US isn't alone, many others do the same. The other worrying observation is that antiwar sentiment doesn't last more than a generation or so if that (the Vietnam generation was about as anti as it has gotten in my lifetime and come the 1980s/90s the feeling had almost totally dissipated).
buzzard1 5y ago
Do you believe that a just war has ever been waged?
- hilbert42 5y ago
  Yes, but it ought to be absolutely the last resort. In that sense I'm not a pacifist (I once had a unform on but I was lucky to avoid major trouble). If you've ever experienced the system and mil training it's impossible to unlearn it.

solatic 5y ago

Please read your military history. Soldiers who have never fought are less capable in battle. It doesn't really matter how much they train or how many drills are run. Nothing really prepares you for the trauma of watching your friend of many years die by getting his head blown off next to you, or worse, bleeding out while crying for his mother. There are two kinds of people who witness that: those who curl up and pray for it all to stop, and those who pick up their weapons and keep fighting. Generals never know which kind of men they have unless battles weed out the first kind, by death or discharge. And militaries with too many of the first kind lose wars. Yes, it's horrible. It's gut-wrenching just to think about it. We'd all be better off if we could resolve our conflicts without war. But in the world we live in, there are too many military and paramilitary actors who are not guided by such Enlightened ideals. What will we do if we are not prepared and they come knocking on our door? Maybe you don't believe that the same irrational forces that first manifest as teenage graffiti, then grow into organized crime, could ever result in organizations the size of militaries. Maybe you don't believe that, in societies which have abolished all adventure, the only adventure left is to abolish that society. That's fine. I respect that. But what if you're wrong? Shouldn't society hedge that bet, considering the cost? Can no such hedge possibly justify its cost? There's a reasonable discussion to be had about where the line (i.e. cost) should be drawn, and what shape the line should take. But the opinion that it is worth it to pay some cost should be relatively uncontroversial. And if you understand that society should pay some cost to maintain an effective military, you ultimately understand that, until the diplomats can succeed at building a genuine global peace, war is inevitable.

nickkell 5y ago
What does this have to do with the linked essay? The author is claiming that America is the aggressor in these wars. You make it sound like it’s all for practice in case one day the tables are turned
justatdotin 5y ago
thankyou for illustrating the mentality behind usa's wars.
einpoklum 5y ago

oriettaxx 5y ago

lovely!

forgotmypw17 5y ago

A much better paper, imo: https://www.google.com/search?q=charles+tilly+war+making https://www.google.com/search?q=charles+tilly+war+making Personally, I like the opinion I read once that it is an inevitable consequence of the existence of power itself, and as a result, the existence of those who seek it and compete for it. The best you can do is stay out of its way. (Credit goes to a Vietnamese tribal leader named Bear, whose tribe made it through the big war there despite all that happeend.)

labrador 5y ago

That makes war a Scheme as well

schwanky 5y ago

I believe this racket has only been growing and growing every decade since. It needs to be brought up more often, and people and organisations with large audiences must dare to speak openly about it.

edmcnulty101 5y ago

How do trust the govt to have our best interest in mind in regards to pandemic response but not in regards to war? It's the same driving force: medical and journalist corporations making record profits.

MrYellowP 5y ago

YYYYYYYYeeaap, but as long as politics and media prevent the people from thinking about the actually important things, nothing will ever change.

chiefalchemist 5y ago

A POTUS and military man (Eisenhower) called this out years ago. Aka, The Military Industrial Complex. No Virginia, it's not a conspiracy theory. https://m.youtube.com https://m.youtube.com /watch?v=OyBNmecVtdU Said POTUS Obama in his 2016 State of the Union: "The United States of America is the most powerful nation on Earth. Period. It's not even close. We spend more on our military than the next eight nations combined." 1) 7 of those 8 are allies 2) It might be the next 15 or 20 now, as the DoD budget has increased since. "Our troops are the finest fighting force in the history of the world. No nation dares to attack us or our allies because they know that's the path to ruin." 3) Worked out well. 20+ years in Afghanistan. The lives. The money. And that's The Best?

onepointsixC 5y ago
Except Eisenhower made those statements under the specific context of economic situation just after WW2, which revitalized the American economy after the great depression. At the height of WW2 the United States was spending over 40% of its GDP on defense. Given that WW2 did wonders for the American economy, it would be legitimately tempting for contemporaries to think that another war would be a good idea in an economic slump. That is what Eisenhower was warning against. >Obama in his 2016 State of the Union The Armed forces he spoke of were a result of decades of investments of previous administrations. Obama's oversaw one of the most draconian defunding of the DoD in decades. The sequestration of the DoD budget cuts was devastating to readiness and has left the United States vulnerable for the 2020s. The PLA has grown at truly incredible speed since then. It now outnumbering the USN in the number of vessels. At the same time, the USN is retiring more ships than it's building. The United States is on track to lose a Taiwan Flashpoint.