Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

War Is a Racket (1933)

wanttoknow.info

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 192 posts

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#121

Post by enriquepablo »

jcranmer wrote: post #104
daveslash wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've had several Marine and ex-Marine friends mention Butler to me. How does "War is a Racket" align or jive (or not!) with the presumed reason that most young men and women sign up for the military, which is to valiantly protect and defend the country?

It is worth pointing out that Butler served at the time when the US foreign policy was pretty explicitly based on aggressive interest in foreign trade: if another country wouldn't let Americans in for commerce, than send in the Marines to force them to do so. As a result, it's worth cautioning people that just because a fact of foreign policy efforts was true 100 years ago does not mean that it is true today.

> As a result, it's worth cautioning people that just because a fact of foreign policy efforts was true 100 years ago does not mean that it is true today.

Perhaps we might say something contrarian to this: if it was something true 100 years ago, the burden of proof is on the side of proving it is no longer so. And I think you will have a hard time at it.

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#122

Post by tootie »

ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #45
tootie wrote: post #39

It's a lot of paragraphs that can be summed as "War is expensive and suppliers can earn a lot of money", but he doesn't really discuss the strategic or ethical value of war until the very end with this blurb: > Well, eighteen years after, the world has less of democracy than it had then. Besides, what business is it of ours whether Russia or Germany or England or France or Italy or Austria live under democracies or m…

> Surely anyone who knew about the Holocaust saw our involvement in WWII as a moral imperative To be fair, we didn't go to war for this reason.

Well, consider it a hypothetical red line. I can see how Butler would be salty about the US fighting to protect some arbitrary monarchical power structure, but surely there are things worth fighting for outside our borders.

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#123

Post by commandlinefan »

Apocryphon wrote: post #119
TurkishPoptart wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why were they discriminated against after the war? In the US, former servicemen got the world handed to them on a silver platter.

Not after the Vietnam War, so it seems like the near-veneration of veterans in the modern world didn't happen until fairly recently.

That matches my father’s experience - he said he had to leave Virginia because nobody was hiring former sailors after Vietnam.

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#124

Post by positivejam »

krapp wrote: post #70
Ididntdothis wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“How does "War is a Racket" align or jive (or not!) with the presumed reason that most young men and women sign up for the military, which is to valiantly protect and defend the country?” It aligns with the fact that the warmongers are putting out a lot of propaganda that makes it a virtue to go to war and die for the warmongers.

We're no longer living in the 19th century, most people no longer believe in the nobility and glory of war. Much of the modern recruitment efforts I've seen focus on benefits like paying for student loan debts, workforce training and healthcare. I would bet that most people who join the military today (at least in the US) do so hoping to avoid ever having to see action, rather than looking forward to killing for thei…

> I would bet that most people who join the military today (at least in the US) do so hoping to avoid ever having to see action, rather than looking forward to killing for their country.

Most of the guys I went to basic with or deployed with could. Not. Wait. To see action.

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#125

Post by roenxi »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #114
aazaa wrote: post #17

> Beautiful ideals were painted for our boys who were sent out to die. This was the "war to end all wars." This was the "war to make the world safe for democracy." No one mentioned to them, as they marched away, that their going and their dying would mean huge war profits. No one told these American soldiers that they might be shot down by bullets made by their own brothers here. No one told them that the ships on wh…

> Long after Hitler has been replaced by the next boogeyman I don't envy the people living in those times. Hitler is one hell of a boogeyman to top.

It depends how you measure it as there were worse people in the same era as Hitler. If I recall the stats correctly it is a much better bet to be led by someone like Hitler over Stalin or Mao.

The ethnically targeted nature of the holocaust is the main claim to 'worst of the worst' status, but honestly it isn't obvious to me that a dead Jew is more horrific than a dead anyone else. They are both pretty bad.

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#126

Post by tootie »

chcknsammich wrote: post #47
tootie wrote: post #39

It's a lot of paragraphs that can be summed as "War is expensive and suppliers can earn a lot of money", but he doesn't really discuss the strategic or ethical value of war until the very end with this blurb: > Well, eighteen years after, the world has less of democracy than it had then. Besides, what business is it of ours whether Russia or Germany or England or France or Italy or Austria live under democracies or m…

> Which is a very dismissive viewpoint that America can simply wash its hands of everything outside its borders. Surely anyone who knew about the Holocaust saw our involvement in WWII as a moral This is nonsense we allied with one murderous dictator and fought another, our involvement in that war was in no way righteous. > I'd also argue that there's a huge fallacy in his premise. Yes, war is profitable for many indu…

That's pretty cynical. Yes we had to enlist Stalin but I don't think anyone foresaw how bad he would be. Only that the current situation was dire. And we probably saved more people than we condemned.

And my point isn't that he wants peace. My point is the wealthy industrialists and plutocrats also want peace. Some of them make money off of war and would lobby for more war, but 100X as many make money off of peace and would oppose war.

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#127

Post by 8note »

dragontamer wrote: post #33
jackfoxy wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany declared war on U.S., not the other way around. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_declaration_of_war_agai...

WWII would have been far easier if the USA actually attacked Japan first. If the USA declared war when Britain / France did in the late 30s, then France may have not been overrun by the Germans. Maybe we wouldn't have needed to land in Normandy Beach. I don't think anybody would look at the events of the next 10-years after 1933, and consider that war to be a "Racket". Nazis were evil. Imperial Japan, was evil. By de…

This misses the part where the US had split opinions about the war. If entering early, the US could have instead joined the fight with the Nazis rather than against them.

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#128

Post by dragontamer »

jcranmer wrote: post #110
dragontamer wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WWII would have been far easier if the USA actually attacked Japan first. If the USA declared war when Britain / France did in the late 30s, then France may have not been overrun by the Germans. Maybe we wouldn't have needed to land in Normandy Beach. I don't think anybody would look at the events of the next 10-years after 1933, and consider that war to be a "Racket". Nazis were evil. Imperial Japan, was evil. By de…

> If the USA declared war when Britain / France did in the late 30s, then France may have not been overrun by the Germans. Uh, no. The US wasn't capable of getting its troops to Europe fast enough in 1939, let alone supplying its troops. The Liberty Ship program only started in 1941. Hitler was already extremely dismissive of the capabilities that the Americans can provide, so any potential future threat the US might…

> Furthermore, how could Japan have turned even a decisive naval advantage into victory against the US?

Erm, by conquering the Philippines, China, and Korea. Japan had no reason to invade the US proper, its only goal was conquest of the Asian continent. Japan did conquer the Philippines for a short time, before the US counter-attacked to recapture it.

Japan had no reason to conquer the USA. Japan wanted to build the Greater East Asia Co-Propserity Sphere: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_East_Asia_Co-Prosperit...

Japan absolutely had a crushing victory vs United States Asiatic Fleet, and WON in Philippines. It was the pesky Pacific Fleet (and its carriers) that came in later and saved the day. Atlantic-fleet was busy with the German front.

If Japan won the Battle of Midway and finished off the US Pacific Fleet, Japan probably would have created its imperialist dream. US would have retreated from the Pacific, lost the Philippines, and focused on fighting Germany (winning at least in the Atlantic). Allied efforts would have been on defending Australia from the imminent Japanese threat (but Australia was far outside the scope of Japanese imperialism, and probably safe from attack).

Of course, in real history, Japan lost the Battle of Midway in a crushing defeat. Japan lost important ships (all four carriers committed to the battle) and its most experienced admirals. From there, the USA was able to stall out the war, win in Europe, and then swing to the Pacific for a finishing blow.

-----------

EDIT: Consider how a "reverse Midway" timeline would have occurred. Instead of losing 4-carriers in the Pacific, Japan would have destroyed nearly all remaining US Pacific Carriers. (!!)

The USA would have to enter 1942 with ONE carrier remaining in the pacific. It would have lost Midway, Australia would be threatened (but likely not taken, as it wasn't part of Japanese imperialism plans). Britain / Dutch / America would have pooled resources into defending Australia while retreating from the greater Pacific.

The Pacific Theater was extremely close. USA would have done far better, and had far less risk if we just attacked Japan first.

------------

With only one or two capital ships left in the Pacific, why would the USA even decide to attack Japan anymore? Especially when the Allies were pursuing "Europe First" strategy? It was far more likely for the USA to give up in the Pacific and let Japan keep its new empire.

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#129

Post by chipotle_coyote »

krapp wrote: post #70
Ididntdothis wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“How does "War is a Racket" align or jive (or not!) with the presumed reason that most young men and women sign up for the military, which is to valiantly protect and defend the country?” It aligns with the fact that the warmongers are putting out a lot of propaganda that makes it a virtue to go to war and die for the warmongers.

We're no longer living in the 19th century, most people no longer believe in the nobility and glory of war. Much of the modern recruitment efforts I've seen focus on benefits like paying for student loan debts, workforce training and healthcare. I would bet that most people who join the military today (at least in the US) do so hoping to avoid ever having to see action, rather than looking forward to killing for thei…

I'm a Gen X-er, and people at my high school were joining the military almost entirely for the touted financial and education benefits. I had multiple friends who went into various branches and I don't recall a single one joining with the expectation that they wanted to go out and kill people.

Having said that, though, do you remember people in that age bracked signing up in the aftermath of 9/11? They were doing so explicitly because they wanted to go out and "fight back." And we've been at war in those areas ever since. I don't think it's particularly plausible that, after nearly two decades of constant deployment to war zones in the Middle East, anyone would sign up for the Marines with the expectation that they would not be required to go kill for their country.

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#130

Post by m463 »

vga805 wrote: post #11

Smedley Butler is like a God figure to Marines, second only to Chesty Puller. I've often referenced this when arguing about the military-industrial complex with people who assume that if you criticize military spending you are somehow anti-military. I don't know if it has any effect. Some might think it's a fallacious argument from authority, but I don't think it is. Fortunately, or unfortunately?, the people I tend…

> arguing about the military-industrial complex

Although it was almost 30 years later, you could also quote Eisenhower's parting words:

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex."

Post reply on HN