World War Two: The Good War?
by Jonathan Goodwin
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.
lied to the country regarding his intentions of entering the war.
took great strides to get first Germany, and after failing this,
Japan, to strike the first blow.
ignored and otherwise did not take advantage of the many proposals
by Japan that, if acted upon, could have avoided the upcoming armed
entered the war well before any declaration by Congress.
encouraged Britain and France to provide a guarantee to Poland,
a guarantee known to the Western powers to have no teeth.
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.
did not extend U.S. support for Jews
attempting to emigrate from Central Europe and immigrate into the
United States until 1944.
knew of the impending
attack by Japan somewhere in the Pacific, and very likely specifically
that it would come at Pearl Harbor.
avoided taking action to properly alert and otherwise protect the
surrender a requirement of the axis combatants, prolonging the
war in both Europe and the Pacific.
cut Poland loose to the communists after the war.
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.
continued Roosevelt’s policy of demanding unconditional surrender,
despite protests from many military and other advisors.
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
afforded many diplomatic victories to Russia in Asia, despite the
lack of contribution or need of the Russian forces in this victory.
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.
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
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
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….
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
needed the United States to take center stage, and they found political
leaders willing to lead the nation toward that end.
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.
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.
these were the objectives from the beginning.
with permission from the Bionic
© 2012 Bionic