Monday, August 27, 2012

World War Two: The Good War?

I have commented previously that I believe (at least given my current understanding) the main purpose for U.S. entry into the war was two-fold: 1) to take the place of an increasingly ailing Britain as the primary tool for the elite to expand global control, and 2) to ensure a new, long term enemy can be made out of the Soviet Union and communism.  I will add a third to this list – actually it is a subset of the first: to bring the productive populations of Germany and Japan under the control of the elite.

Before I expand on this further, I would like to revisit some of the factors regarding the war and why it is not just improper, but inconceivable to refer to this was as a good war.

1)      Roosevelt lied to the country regarding his intentions of entering the war.

2)      Roosevelt took great strides to get first Germany, and after failing this, Japan, to strike the first blow.

3)      Roosevelt ignored and otherwise did not take advantage of the many proposals by Japan that, if acted upon, could have avoided the upcoming armed conflict.

4)      Roosevelt entered the war well before any declaration by Congress.

5)      Roosevelt encouraged Britain and France to provide a guarantee to Poland, a guarantee known to the Western powers to have no teeth.

6)      Roosevelt chose to side with Stalin, who at the beginning of the war had more blood on his hands than all the other leaders of belligerent countries combined.

7)      Roosevelt did not extend U.S. support for Jews attempting to emigrate from Central Europe and immigrate into the United States until 1944.

8)      Roosevelt knew of the impending attack by Japan somewhere in the Pacific, and very likely specifically that it would come at Pearl Harbor.

9)      Roosevelt avoided taking action to properly alert and otherwise protect the troops.

10)   Roosevelt made unconditional surrender a requirement of the axis combatants, prolonging the war in both Europe and the Pacific.

11)   Roosevelt cut Poland loose to the communists after the war.

12)   Truman had many opportunities to end the war in the Pacific in the Spring of 1945, instead choosing to delay the end in order to give time for development of the bomb.

13)   Truman continued Roosevelt’s policy of demanding unconditional surrender, despite protests from many military and other advisors.

14)   Truman chose to drop two bombs on Japan after months of Japan signaling its willingness to meeting all terms of the allies with the exception of removal of the Emperor (an exception also desired by allied commanders, and an exception granted immediately after the surrender in any case).

15)   Truman afforded many diplomatic victories to Russia in Asia, despite the lack of contribution or need of the Russian forces in this victory.

16)   Truman backed away from the Chinese Nationalists in favor of the Communists – this despite one purported reason for U.S. animosity toward Japan being U.S. support for the Nationalists.

17)   The allies both acquiesced and aided in the forced transfer of up to 14 million Germans to Germany from various locations in Central Europe.

18)   The allies both acquiesced and aided in the forced transfer of perhaps several million captured Russian soldiers and other refugees fleeing the communists to Russia against their will, resulting in their imprisonment or execution upon return.

Lies, deception, treachery, genocide, and potentially treason.  Can anything associated with such actions be called “good”?  Can a government be called representative if it acts with deception towards its citizens?  Can a democracy (or a republic) be considered acting based on the will of the people when such actions are taken via lies?  Except for the fact of winning the war, can these actions be distinguished from many of the crimes on the side of the axis – for which countless were tried, imprisoned, or executed?

There is nothing “good” about this track record.

Now, as to the purpose and reasons for the U.S. entry into the war, let me first summarize again the outcomes of the war: first, the United States replaced Britain as the global presence and power of the West.  Second, the Soviet Union specifically, and communism generally, gained significant footing as a world power.  Finally, the populations of Germany and Japan both came under the domination of western elite power.

Now, just because these were outcomes does not necessarily mean that these were objectives from the beginning, or that these were reasons for U.S. entry.  However, I can find no other reasonable explanation for many of the actions taken by the U.S. in the period before, during, and after the war – many of which are identified in my list at the beginning of this post. 

I do not accept that these were just blunders or mistakes of Roosevelt (and later, Truman) and his advisors – they were far too experienced to make this many disastrous and “wrong” decisions.  I do not accept that Hitler was prepared to take over the world and had to be stopped.  He had neither the military for it nor the economy.  Mostly, he did not have the intent.  Conversely, supporters of communism were quite transparent in describing their goals for world conquest – why not fight against the communists, as Germany and Japan both seemed intent on doing? 

When I try to find a rational explanation for these decisions and actions – and I follow the thread backwards from the outcome – the decisions make perfect sense only if these outcomes were the objectives all along.

First, I suggest that the U.S. entered the war in order to replace the ailing British Empire as the primary tool of the elite looking to expand global domination.  For those who believe politicians serve their people and the national interest, and are not serving individuals and entities with even higher power, you may feel free to skip this section.  For the rest of you….

Historically, Britain proved to be a good tool for extending global control.  However, a far better tool was on the western horizon, that of the United States.  The United States had almost unlimited potential in terms of geography, resources, and people – certainly as compared to Britain.  The United States still had much to exploit; as was becoming more and more obvious in the first years of the 20th century, Britain had likely reached its limits.

Britain was losing on all fronts – it could not fight a war in Europe without U.S. support.  It lost much of the Middle East shortly after the end of the Second War, as it also lost India.  These weaknesses, especially when compared to the obvious superiority of the U.S. as the primary tool for control, were certainly obvious to the elite well before the actual events.

I should clarify – this transition did not occur only in the immediate build-up and aftermath of World War Two.  The establishment of central banking in 1913 was the key to ensuring the United States would be in position to take over this role – without this, there is little possibility that enough resources could have been taken from the private sector to the degree necessary for establishment of a global military power. 

While imperialism was present in the U.S. from the beginning, overseas expansion began at the end of the 19th century.  Even with this, much of the population had to be dragged into fighting in a European War in the second decade of the 20th century – the people had no appetite for fighting overseas, yet Wilson found a way to maneuver the country into the battle.

This desire to keep out of European troubles was still in the population in the 1930s.  The people wanted to stay out – all the time their president was secretly working to get in.  If the objective was to avoid war, Roosevelt had countless opportunities to do so.  If the objective was to get into the war despite a people and Congress that desired to stay out, Roosevelt’s actions make perfect sense.

Roosevelt served with purpose toward this end – clearly against the will of the people he purportedly served.  Why would he do this?  I suggest it was because he was serving a different master – a master who knew that riding the British horse was now turning into a loser’s proposition.  That horse had been ridden hard, and had nothing left to give.  A new horse needed to be found, and no other horse fit the bill better than the United States.

The elite needed the United States to take center stage, and they found political leaders willing to lead the nation toward that end.

The second reason for U.S. entry into the war was to set the stage for the Cold War.  War is the health of the state, and perpetual war offers perpetual health.  Today, the United States continues this perpetual war by conjuring an enemy out of a tactic – terrorism.  One purpose of U.S. entry into World War Two was to make an enemy out of an idea – communism.  In order for the enemy to seem real, it had to be (or at least seem to be) powerful. 

Had the U.S. stayed out of the war, Hitler and Stalin likely would have crippled each other significantly, such that neither would be a menace to anyone outside of the forsaken ground between them (the poor residents of Central Europe were doomed once trapped between these two tyrants, almost regardless of any decisions taken in the West).  Japan hated the communists in China as much as Germany hated the communists in Russia.  Japan and Germany would have at least kept in check any ideas of communist expansion, minimizing the possibility of healthy, perpetual war for the west.

Had the U.S. stayed out of the war, communism would never have grown into the “threat” needed for perpetual war.  There would be no long-term, believable enemy – it certainly would not have been National Socialism, a very un-exportable ideology.  While wealth extraction can occur absent war, nothing moves the needle toward government and the elite and away from freedom like war does.  What better than a Cold War, one that that offers long term fighting without intense casualties?

Now to the third reason: for wealth extraction, which populations would offer a better harvest, Germany / Japan, or Russia / China?  The former offered two of the most productive economies on earth.  The latter were still quite agrarian and relatively undeveloped.  The former occupied a limited, manageable territory, the latter – large, and in many cases relatively unreachable regions.

The U.S. did not have to choose Russia over Germany – at the beginning of the war Stalin was known to have far more blood on his hands than did Hitler.  Certainly from the perspective of the United States, if the desire was simply to get into the fight (to distract from depression, to enhance the state, whatever), fighting the Russians through German territory would have been much easier than fighting the Germans directly.  Stalin could have been made the devil just as easily as Hitler was.

Once these two productive peoples were subdued, wealth extraction became much easier.  And these were the two non-Anglo populations that offered the most capacity for wealth to extract.  What was likely not possible through peace, trade, and negotiation was certainly possible once these lands were conquered.

The U.S. replaced Britain as the tool for the elite to work through for continued global domination; the communists were strengthened, creating a credible enemy for perpetual war; the wealth of two productive nations was made accessible to the elite.  These three outcomes were realized.  If these were the objectives, the actions taken by Roosevelt and Truman seem quite rational towards these ends. 

I conclude these were the objectives from the beginning.


  1. Fantastic post, an excellent synopsis of the purpose and scope of the US war machine.

  2. Even early in the war the Roosevelt administration was actively helping the British and failing to act in a neutral way even though Roosevelt himself proclaimed the US to be neutral and US laws required neutrality

    A example in Dec 1939 was the USN following the German passenger ship Columbus which left Mexico to head back to Germany. Over the next 5 days 10 USN destroyers were involved in following and broadcasting the location over the open radio of the German ship Columbus, the USS Benham, USS Lang, USS Jouett, USS Schenck, USS Philip, USS Lea, USS Elis, USS Cole, USS Grear, USS Upshur.

    Finally on Dec 19 the British destroyer HMS Hyperion using the location broadcast by the USN found the German ship Columbus and the ship was scuttled. The survivors were picked up by the USN cruiser Tuscaloosa and taken to NYC.

    Link to official chronology of the USN for 1939

  3. I remember reading somewhere, but cannot remember the source, that Roosevelt actually diverted military equipment to the Russians to the detriment of US soldiers in the Pacific Theater. I think the book is "Roosevelt, Churchill, and the WWII Opposition. A Revisionist History." By George Eggleston.
    This is an excellent book, something right up your alley.
    The subject matter concerns the US's vigorous opposition to entry into WWII, prior to Pearl Harbor.

  4. Thank you for writing this post. In this and in previous posts you have given me much to think about. You have added detail and brought a different perspective to what I thought I knew about WWII and its origins through decades of serious reading. So my question here is not critical of your ideas at all, but is instead a tangential, perhaps unimportant, question inspired by your reports. To wit:

    Who are "the elite"?

    I've seen references to the elite many times by many authors who do not tell us anything more specific about just who belongs to the elite. They're just presented as some nameless and shadowy group of I-don't-know-whats.

    Others name names -- the Rosthchilds, the Bilderbergers, the Davos Forum, the Illuminati, the Freemasons -- and are usually derided as loony conspiracy theorists. (But they would be so marginalized, wouldn't they, if they were correct? So derision along cannot be taken as evidence that they are wrong.) Others point to progressivism, the Frankfurt School (which brought us cultural Marxism and critical theory), Gramsci, and Alinsky -- but surely these are mere tools and methods that work to advance the objectives of the elite.

    What I want to know is, who are these all-powerful people whose influence extends across decades, if not centuries, and who can command global events and outcomes? If we can identify them, can we defeat them? By what means would they be defeated? Mere exposure of their devious designs would surely not be sufficient to weaken the effectiveness of their plans. We see their handmaidens in action right here in the heart of America, infesting every root and branch of our government and our society, yet few people seem to be alarmed by their clear intent. The elite doesn't seem to feel any need to hide their objectives.

    I would name the United Nations as the chief operating tool of the elites, but that still doesn't tell us _who_ is really in charge of global affairs. Are the elite so powerful that we should just accept their supremacy and make the best of it? If so, then it really makes no difference if we are aware of their role in history or of their plans for our future. Or are they an identifiable group that can be fought and defeated? We can barely get Obama out of the White House. How can we hope to defeat an unknown and all-powerful elite?

    1. I have never concerned myself with naming names. I suspect the glimpses we have of the people and structures are just that - glimpses.

      I do not believe they are gods, nor are they omniscient or omnipotent. I believe there is not one uniform agenda, although it is possible it is all a game to them - like they have cocktails when talking about the latest shenanigans. I think of the two brothers in "Trading Places", betting a dollar on the toying of Dan Akroyd and Eddie Murphy (their characters).

      I don't suspect the same families have been on the top through centuries. However, they build tools, one on top of the other, to be used by whoever comes next. Like democrats and republicans, it doesn't really matter who wins or loses: just keep adding to centralized power.

      Can they be beaten? The Daily Bell, whose Raison D'Etre is power elite analysis, suggests that at best they will have to take a step back, given the spreading of knowledge via the internet. I cannot disagree.

      However, if you are a Bible believer, God says he has turned over the world to such evil for a time. He also says they will lose in the end.

    2. Nice call out to The Daily Bell...TDB is the King of relevance when pertaining to the Elite me-me' the site!

    3. I very much like and agree with what you have written

  5. Thank you for a thoughtful response. I am a Bible believer, and your words are reassuring.

  6. Coming late to the party here, because of first time of hearing of this blog via LRC. This post was just reprinted at the LRC on this very date, and thus why I am present here.

    First thing I wish to comment on. "God says he has turned over the world to such evil for a time." Oh how so true! If anyone here has yet to read (dare I say -- devour) "Rulers of Evil: Useful Knowledge About Governing Bodies" by F. Tupper Saussy, then please do so. After the first edition was printed in 1999, a reader reminded Saussy of a quote attributed to Martin Luther that goes thusly:

    "The reasonable question has been put whether it is better to have a good but imprudent ruler or a prudent but personally bad one. Moses here certainly calls for both: a good and a prudent ruler.

    However, if both qualifications cannot be had, good is better than a good one who is not prudent, because a good one rules nothing but is only ruled—and only by the worst of people.

    Even though a prudent but personally bad ruler may harm the good people, he nevertheless rules the evil ones at the same time; and this is more necessary and proper for the world, since the world is nothing but a mass of evil people."

    Saussy responded in such way that Luther inspired him to his work, not even knowing about such attribution. Not withstanding credit given to Luther from Madison (directly) and Jefferson (indirectly) on the founding of this nation (interesting enough, that Luther probably would have opposed on biblical grounds).

    Anyways, enough of one kind of history, and on to the other. We talk of things leading up to WWII. I might add, that the ground for the Pentagon was broke on September 11, 1941. I dare say, that the ground was broke for the world's largest office building to date, and thus the present M.I.S.C. ("S" for Security and Safety) before the very first bomb was dropped on Ford Island. Is it any coincidence that 60 years later to the date, marks another landmark in history?

    Perhaps what occurred in 1945, with its beginnings a decade beforehand, might just explain events occurring on that infamous date of 9/11 to the sub-prime mortgage scandal, to the fabricated virtual economy of this very present nanosecond.

    Golden Lily Treasure, Black Eagle Trust, and Project Hammer

  7. Your conclusions seem like conjecture to me so I'll limit my comment to commentating on your 18 points only.

    First of all I should say you fail to mention the single biggest and by far the most obvious argument as to why WWII was not a "good war" for the Western Allies. The fact 500,000 German and Japanese and many other civilians were murdered in the terror bombing. Britain and America possessed the world's largest armada's of heavy bombers and used them extensively, to kill the most people in this way of any other belligerent. It is strange that you should remember to mention for example the expulsions of the Germans, which was primarily a crime of the Soviets and other nations in the east and where the Western Allies played only a very indirect role, but not the terror bombings which was directly a crime of the Americans and the British.

    You write: "Truman afforded many diplomatic victories to Russia in Asia, despite the lack of contribution or need of the Russian forces in this victory."

    This is by all means true. The Soviet contribution was not needed to force Japan's capitulation. However, the question is what could have Truman done that would have produced a result more to the liking of us libertarians? Soviet diplomatic victories came about on the heels of the Red Army crossing over into Manchuria and Korea with a force of 1.7 million soldiers. Short of capturing these territories before the Soviets did and involving himself in a confrontation with the Soviets on their border in the Far East, I do not see what Truman could have done to limit the Soviet victories, do you? Of course if United States actually did so (provided it was capable of such, which it was not) and occupied Manchuria before the Red Army's nose the outcome would have only been that much worse from a libertarian stand point, as the subsequent Cold War would have been that much more dangerous (look what later happened in Korea for which the Americans did race the Soviets).

    I have basically the same critique for your point that "Roosevelt cut Poland loose to the communists after the war". Yes OK, but what could he have done differently? The Soviets had a 2:1 superiority over the Western Allies in the number of troops in Europe. Poland was going to end up under Soviet domination whatever the Western Allies did. A confrontation over Poland's future could have only served to make sure the subsequent Cold War was going to be even more dangerous without doing anything tangible for the Poles at all.

    It is strange, but you seem to be critiquing the US government policy on the one hand because of its confrontational and interventionist policies (eg provoking Japan), but seemingly when it comes to the Soviets also for its lack of belligerence and appeasement policies, as if you were proposing a more belligerent stance toward the Soviets by the United States' government would have been better, as if a more explosive superpower confrontation was something welcome by pro-peace libertarianism.

    1. Hero

      My conclusions ARE conjecture, as I cannot interview FDR or any other key figure, and they likely wouldn't be open with me anyway – I have no way to test these other than through continued reading and open dialogue. If someone has written documentation, it is not yet publicly available to my knowledge. I am open to other conjecture on this – but please, no version of “these actions of FDR/Truman were just mistakes, or not well thought out.”

      As to the carpet bombing by the west, there are doubtless many actions taken during the war that could also be added to my list above. Thank you for adding a significant point that adds further foundation to my critique.

      Regarding the expulsions of Germans being a crime of the Soviets and nations in the east: this just isn’t true. Read “Orderly and Humane.” I have posted regarding this book several times. Do a search on my blog.

      For those trapped between Hitler and Stalin: I mention several times in many of my posts regarding WWII that the peoples of central and eastern Europe were doomed regardless of any decision taken by the west regarding this war. Even in this post, (I quote):

      "Had the U.S. stayed out of the war, Hitler and Stalin likely would have crippled each other significantly, such that neither would be a menace to anyone outside of the forsaken ground between them (the poor residents of Central Europe were doomed once trapped between these two tyrants, almost regardless of any decisions taken in the West)."

      Therefore, I believe you have just overlooked this fact.

      Next, regarding the western stance toward the Soviets: I do question why, once entering the war, the US was so appeasing to the Soviets when there was no reason to do so.

      Finally, as to the Soviets and China - Truman could have ended the war in Asia in the spring; Japan sent many signals it was willing to surrender, with only one condition…the Emperor. This was well before the Soviets made any significant gain in China. Granted, they might very well have continued anyway – however this would clearly have been seen as Soviet aggression against an ally after the end of formal hostilities.

      My question here revolves around why the US treated the nationalists as they did – especially in the years after Japan’s surrender. It was as if Truman wanted the nationalists to lose and the communists to win.

  8. Just to try to add my two cents to this great article and its very interesting comments. I first heard of these things readin Tragedy and Hope, a book I find very useful and very strange, since it looks like the author is giving a lot of information against his own views.

  9. It was the "good war" if money was to be made and power accumulated. Everything else was violent theatrics.

  10. Also keep in mind the truly massive amount of aid the US gave the USSR:

    7000 tanks! 400,000 jeeps/trucks! If at any point American leaders thought the Soviets were getting too powerful, they could have simply scaled back on the supplies we were giving them. Such a simple action could have saved Eastern Europe from Soviet domination, as the two dictatorships would have exhausted themselves.

    But no, they didn't, and Patton was considered crazy for being antagonistic towards the Reds. If WWII was a victory for any faction, it was for the communists, both here and abroad.

  11. I think you've got about half of it right; however, you make no mention of the Holocaust, which leaves a gaping hole in your narrative and discredits your theory. Your theory has much relevance, but does not finish. You portray the entire effort as in the control of the US. Could there not have been some doubt? Did the other side (communism) even have a fighting chance to turn the tables?

    Yes Stalin was more genocidal than Hitler at the outset of the war, but was Russia actively invading other countries? Did not Germany have U-boats patrolling our coastal waters? Could there have been an eventual catalyst even if the US had tried to stay out of the war? Hitler made no secret of his intention of world domination and superiority of the Aryan race. Hitler was not all this innocent angel that you portray.

    1. Perhaps you missed this:

      As to Hitler being an "innocent angel," please point to specific comments I have made that support your accusation.

  12. I’ve just finished reading Icebreaker – inspired to do so by your good self, BM.
    How the academic cartel has suppressed wider knowledge of this important piece of history beggars belief.
    The socialists have won it; here, there and everywhere.
    On the plus side, we still get a fraction of a millionth of a say on which slave master whips us…hurrah!
    J Cuttance

  13. Only just now read this and very much enjoyed it and some of the very good comments after it. We are still like mushrooms....kept in the dark and fed on sh-t....but let`s hope someone somewhere somehow can prevent WW3 from making toast of all of us !!!