5 ms·

I appreciate the brevity but what exactly are you saying? That WW2 wasn't a racket? Is that your thesis here?

dekhn 3y ago
I'd interpret the question as: "given the copious evidence that the US did not enter WWII intentionally to make money for industrialists, is Smedley's thesis that all war is a racket reasonable? To what extent are humanitarian or democratic concerns as important as war profits in the decision to go to war?" (with the unstated assumption that the US was just in its choice to fight the Axis) I actually don't think Smedley would have changed his message at all; I think he started from a false premise that he was 100% convinced of, and would have pointed at the enormous profits made by war industrialists in the US during WWII. He might not also notice that post-war US was the most economically productive country of all time, that it opened up huge options of African Americans, or even really recognize quite what motivated Hitler and the Nazis.
- mythrwy 3y ago
  Maybe the US didn't enter WWII with the idea of making a profit. I don't know. But what is undeniable is the US exited WWII in a very good position and lots of profits were made.
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    What does that matter though? Should we have bombed ourselves because germany and japan couldn't do it?
- swayvil 3y ago
  So, yes. You are saying "nuh uh smedly, ww2 was a proper justified fight"
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - dekhn 3y ago
    Actually, the only thing I said above was that I think he started from false premises.
- lagolinguini 3y ago
  > given the copious evidence that the US did not enter WWII intentionally to make money for industrialists The USA started selling weapons to the allies long before it entered the war.
  - dekhn 3y ago
    I'm referring to our entry into the war. That the US is an arms merchant is well understood- and didn't have the costs (to Americans) that Smedley describes.
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    The USA sold weapons to the allies largely because the president genuinely believe hitler would invade everything if not stopped. Congress wouldn't let him enter the war, because the US has a strong Isolationist vibe, but the President believed if we didn't go stop hitler in europe, hitler would eventually find his way to coming after the US and by that point we wouldn't have any allies left. This is AFTER the allies attempted appeasement. If a foreign country wants to war, you can't not war. The only alternative is to roll over and accept new ownership, but usually new ownership disagrees with the people on how things should be done, so that "solution" largely isn't. There was a period were Germany seemed unstoppable remember.
- lubesGordi 3y ago
  Just because it's a racket, doesn't mean its unjustified?
pfdietz 3y ago
WW2 was a fight against evils of an absolute and appalling nature.
- krapp 3y ago
  A lesser evil against a greater evil. And then the lesser evil became the greater evil.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    The US has death camps? The US was prepared to have 70 million citizens commit glorious smashed-jewel suicide rather than surrender? Your facile equivalence is rejected with prejudice.
    - krapp 3y ago
      >Your facile equivalence is rejected with prejudice. It's your facile equivalence, that because these specific things don't apply to the US, American imperialism was morally justified. You could just read the Wikipedia article on American war crimes, or learn about how much of the Nazi's ideology was based on American eugenics and racial segregation, or take even a glance at the last several decades of American militarism throughout the Middle East, but I guess you won't.
      - goatlover 3y ago
        And how do European countries view America's role in defeating Nazis Germany, or supporting NATO against Russia?
        krapp 3y ago
        How would I know? Opinions are bound to be all over the map over that large a population.
    - mrguyorama 3y ago
      The US absolutely had a purposeful genocide of native americans, and directly implemented prison camps and some property confiscation of japanese immigrants and citizens. This is explicitly not a support of the parent's comment. The US was not great, and even had explicit segregation, but was not trying to spread it's own abysmal ideals to all of europe. Hitler was clearly trying to spread facism through all of europe, and eventually the world. His desire to do so was broadly popular in Nazi Germany, so the country's people were never going to stop him. Going to war to grind Nazi Germany into the dust was the only option. It is justified. We also didn't preempt anything. We sacrificed two sovereign countries hoping to avoid that war, which should be clearly not acceptable.

I'd interpret the question as: "given the copious evidence that the US did not enter WWII intentionally to make money for industrialists, is Smedley's thesis that all war is a racket reasonable? To what extent are humanitarian or democratic concerns as important as war profits in the decision to go to war?" (with the unstated assumption that the US was just in its choice to fight the Axis) I actually don't think Smedley would have changed his message at all; I think he started from a false premise that he was 100% convinced of, and would have pointed at the enormous profits made by war industrialists in the US during WWII. He might not also notice that post-war US was the most economically productive country of all time, that it opened up huge options of African Americans, or even really recognize quite what motivated Hitler and the Nazis.

mythrwy 3y ago
Maybe the US didn't enter WWII with the idea of making a profit. I don't know. But what is undeniable is the US exited WWII in a very good position and lots of profits were made.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  What does that matter though? Should we have bombed ourselves because germany and japan couldn't do it?
swayvil 3y ago
So, yes. You are saying "nuh uh smedly, ww2 was a proper justified fight"
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- dekhn 3y ago
  Actually, the only thing I said above was that I think he started from false premises.
lagolinguini 3y ago
> given the copious evidence that the US did not enter WWII intentionally to make money for industrialists The USA started selling weapons to the allies long before it entered the war.
- dekhn 3y ago
  I'm referring to our entry into the war. That the US is an arms merchant is well understood- and didn't have the costs (to Americans) that Smedley describes.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  The USA sold weapons to the allies largely because the president genuinely believe hitler would invade everything if not stopped. Congress wouldn't let him enter the war, because the US has a strong Isolationist vibe, but the President believed if we didn't go stop hitler in europe, hitler would eventually find his way to coming after the US and by that point we wouldn't have any allies left. This is AFTER the allies attempted appeasement. If a foreign country wants to war, you can't not war. The only alternative is to roll over and accept new ownership, but usually new ownership disagrees with the people on how things should be done, so that "solution" largely isn't. There was a period were Germany seemed unstoppable remember.
lubesGordi 3y ago
Just because it's a racket, doesn't mean its unjustified?

pfdietz 3y ago

WW2 was a fight against evils of an absolute and appalling nature.

krapp 3y ago
A lesser evil against a greater evil. And then the lesser evil became the greater evil.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  The US has death camps? The US was prepared to have 70 million citizens commit glorious smashed-jewel suicide rather than surrender? Your facile equivalence is rejected with prejudice.
  - krapp 3y ago
    >Your facile equivalence is rejected with prejudice. It's your facile equivalence, that because these specific things don't apply to the US, American imperialism was morally justified. You could just read the Wikipedia article on American war crimes, or learn about how much of the Nazi's ideology was based on American eugenics and racial segregation, or take even a glance at the last several decades of American militarism throughout the Middle East, but I guess you won't.
    - goatlover 3y ago
      And how do European countries view America's role in defeating Nazis Germany, or supporting NATO against Russia?
      - krapp 3y ago
        How would I know? Opinions are bound to be all over the map over that large a population.
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    The US absolutely had a purposeful genocide of native americans, and directly implemented prison camps and some property confiscation of japanese immigrants and citizens. This is explicitly not a support of the parent's comment. The US was not great, and even had explicit segregation, but was not trying to spread it's own abysmal ideals to all of europe. Hitler was clearly trying to spread facism through all of europe, and eventually the world. His desire to do so was broadly popular in Nazi Germany, so the country's people were never going to stop him. Going to war to grind Nazi Germany into the dust was the only option. It is justified. We also didn't preempt anything. We sacrificed two sovereign countries hoping to avoid that war, which should be clearly not acceptable.