(world) war (II) - what is it good for?

today, some folks will be commemorating the attack on pearl harbor. i figured i could take this opportunity to briefly make some points about world war 2 in general and why it was a typical war of aggression for the imperial united states.

as the propaganda goes (to which no critical thought should ever be applied!), the united states was the victim of an unprovoked attack by the japanese at pearl harbor. foremost, the japanese didn't attack pearl harbor. the japanese government did. those are two very different things. there were in japan, like there are here in the states, two groups of people - 1) those of us who are simply going about our lives peacefully trying to make it from day to day the best way we can and 2) those accomplices of the state who make a living off of violence against others. in 1940s japan, the group 1 victimized the group 2 in order to attack the united states' group 1. secondly, the idea that attack was unprovoked is downright laughable. at the time, japan, like the u.s., had a nasty imperial government, so it was easy for FDR to provoke them to attack by moving u.s. naval warships inside japanese waters and engaging britain in a coordinated embargo against japan in an attempt to crush their economy. roosevelt had intelligence before the attack that it would occur, but did nothing to inform commanders in hawaii in order to have an event take place that would get americans behind the war effort. as secretary of war, henry stimson quipped, "the question was how we would maneuver them (the japanese) into firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves". it was all part of the evil FDR's plan to get the u.s. into war after his "new deal" had failed.

as for the war in europe, my question is, why the hell was the u.s. government involved in that at all? most folks will tell you that "we" had to do it to stop hitler. i've been told countless times that if it weren't for u.s. involvement in europe, i'd be speaking german right now! seriously? the german government was crumbling under its own weight half way through france and had been routed in russia. so, somehow, they were going to find a way to continue through france, take over spain, britain and portugal, then, after all that, magically come up with the resources to load up troops (where they would have come from, i don't know) on boats, float them over to the u.s., make a landing and them march to the pacific? all the while controlling by force all of western europe? the idea is beyond ridiculous. it's downright moronic. but what about the jews!? a few points: 1) two wrongs don't make a right. stealing from americans in order to fund intervention is wrong as is enslaving americans through the draft in order to staff an intervention is wrong. sending over 400K americans to their deaths in support of u.s. intervention is wrong. 2) even after all that, 78% of jews in german controlled europe still lost their lives. 78%! so how much good did that do considering the same results could have been achieved by simply letting germany crumble?
u.s. involvement in WW2 was just the same imperial aggression as it has been in virtually every war since the revolution. the u.s. state has always been an imperial power (remember the louisiana purchase under jefferson, of all people?) and it is dying by the same sword it has lived by. we're seeing that now. i say good riddance!


Anonymous said…
Dude! Why we entered the war in Europe is an easy one!
It was because of the fact that Germany was crumbling that we had to get involved. We were more afraid of the Reds in Russia taking over Europe than we were of Hitler. We entered the war in Europe when it became clear that Russia was going to get Germany and then perhaps Poland and France and...
The monied power structure in England and the U.S. could handle the idea of Hitler in Europe, heck it might have been good for industry, but not Stalin.
zrated said…
the soviet union had no history of imperialism and had never attempted to expand beyond its traditional borders.

i don't doubt that ultimately, the fascists, churchill and roosevelt, would have had a problem with hitler if he had somehow won, their motives were more imperial and less defensive.

Popular Posts