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 20^th 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 19^th century.  Even with this, much of the population had to be dragged into fighting in a European War in the second decade of the 20^th 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.