Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"America certainly deserves credit for its important contribution to the hard-fought victory that was ultimately achieved by the Allies. But the role of corporate America in the war is hardly synthesized by President Roosevelt's claim that the US was the "arsenal of democracy." When Americans landed in Normandy in June 1944 and captured their first German trucks, they discovered that these vehicles were powered by engines produced by American firms such as Ford and General Motors. "
It was a wonderful war indeed, and the longer it lasted, the better — from a corporate point of view. Corporate America neither wanted Hitler to lose this war nor to win it; instead they wanted this war to go on as long as possible"
"Lewis H. Lapham, author and for years editor of Harper's magazine, put it this way:
"I personally find it hard to develop a very emphatic preference for Stalinist Russia over Hitlerite Germany ... In cold-blooded realist terms, Nazism as an ideology was almost certainly less dangerous to the United States than is Communism."
"The Second World War is often called “the good war.” But was it?
After all, this “good war” brought mass destruction; death to tens of millions of men, women, and children; and enormous suffering to many more. How can such a horrible event be called “good?”
If you read the history that led up to WWII it becomes apparent the certain elements of the wealthy in Europe and the US either directly or indirectly backed Hitler and his quest to conquer Europe. Their goal was as it is today, to have a united Europe with a single currency and free trade between nations. That is not to say they were Nazi's, I think they just saw Hitler as a tool and a means to an end. When things went horribly wrong these backers quickly switched sides, but they almost ended up with what they wanted.
There was an interested document that was circulating in the 80s that was supposedly drawn up in 1942 between the allies. It was basically a plan to divide the world in to three spheres of influence and control. The US was to take the entire western hemisphere, the UK took Africa, the Pacific, and Western Europe, and the Soviet Union taking Asia and parts of eastern Europe. Not sure if it was authentic or not, and I've never been able to find a copy of it on-line. If anyone knows of the documents I'm referring to please post a link.
Last edited by Velvet Jones; 05-20-2014 at 12:28 PM..
If you read the history that led up to WWII it becomes apparent the certain elements of the wealthy in Europe and the US either directly or indirectly backed Hitler and his quest to conquer Europe. Their goal was as it is today, to have a united Europe with a single currency and free trade between nations. That is not to say they were Nazi's, I think they just saw Hitler as a tool and a means to an end. When things went horribly wrong these backers quickly switched sides, but they almost ended up with what they wanted.
There was an interested document that was circulating in the 80s that was supposedly drawn up in 1942 between the allies. It was basically a plan to divide the world in to three spheres of influence and control. The US was to take the entire western hemisphere, the UK took Africa, the Pacific, and Western Europe, and the Soviet Union taking Asia and parts of eastern Europe. Not sure if it was authentic or not, and I've never been able to find a copy of it on-line. If anyone know the documents I'm referring to please post a link.
That would mean re-shifting the British Empire, which do not think would be feasible. In 1945 the British Empire was still intact looking like it would remain so, the USSR had all of eastern Europe and the US was trying to impose influence by financial tempters an financial control, which it still does today. So that spheres of influence came about.
Those who favoured Hitler saw an opportunity to trade and make money with them. They saw Natizism as a better alternative to Communism, they feared the world, in the depression, may fall under any time.
The USA made a profit on WW2. British and French armaments buying pre 1940 got rid of US soup lines. The British owned a substantial parts of US industry - about 1/5 to 1/4. This had to be sold to US interests before material, finished or raw, would flow.
Opel Trucks (GM) used engines with matching parts to US engines. Opel were far more efficient than German companies using "Fordism".
Nazism was very dangerous to the USA. Hitler's prime enemies were the USSR and the USA. The British he wanted peace with admiring them. He wanted the USSR's territory and resources. He wanted the USA away from being a financial power and detested most of the USA's culture.
Nazism was based on a few corporations, so you can see why corporation heads like it.
That would mean re-shifting the British Empire, which do not think would be feasible. In 1945 the British Empire was still intact looking like it would remain so, the USSR had all of eastern Europe and the US was trying to impose influence by financial tempters an financial control, which it still does today. So that spheres of influence came about.
Those who favoured Hitler saw an opportunity to trade and make money with them. They saw Natizism as a better alternative to Communism, they feared the world, in the depression, may fall under any time.
It wasn't really a major re-shifting, as the UK had already controlled a good chunk of Africa and on the map I saw they still would have retained India(though lost Indo-china). They were basically taking over territories that had belonged to France and Belgium. I guess as payment for the loss of the the Orient. Again, I have no idea if this was a real plan or not, but what I saw looked authentic. Despite the political rhetoric of the era I think the main goal of the war was to reshape the world economy with power being consolidated to just a few nations and the elites that ran them. Ultimately that is what happened to a large extent.
"America certainly deserves credit for its important contribution to the hard-fought victory that was ultimately achieved by the Allies. But the role of corporate America in the war is hardly synthesized by President Roosevelt's claim that the US was the "arsenal of democracy." When Americans landed in Normandy in June 1944 and captured their first German trucks, they discovered that these vehicles were powered by engines produced by American firms such as Ford and General Motors. "
Well, yes - in the late 20s GM acquired Opel and Ford began assembling a large production facility in Germany. The fact that private companies did business in pre-war Germany, and that their facilities were later used by Nazi Germany to German military ends, or even for the fact that Henry Ford (a private citizen) was far too cozy with the German fascists doesn't change the fact that the American government made it a point to supply nations fighting Germany (most notably the UK but also the USSR) with war materiel - that was what FDR's "Arsenal of Democracy" term described.
Quote:
It was a wonderful war indeed, and the longer it lasted, the better — from a corporate point of view. Corporate America neither wanted Hitler to lose this war nor to win it; instead they wanted this war to go on as long as possible"
That war profiteering occurred (and it always does) has no bearing on whether or not the war should have been prosecuted.
"Lewis H. Lapham, author and for years editor of Harper's magazine, put it this way:
"I personally find it hard to develop a very emphatic preference for Stalinist Russia over Hitlerite Germany ... In cold-blooded realist terms, Nazism as an ideology was almost certainly less dangerous to the United States than is Communism."
Who cares about ideology? The issue at hand was that it was literally impossible to live with Hitler, while with Stalin established international norms of deterrence worked.
There was no deterring Hitler. He was bound and determined to become the dominant power of continental Europe through force, or else go down fighting. To that end, he attacked almost every continental power, including attacking beyond the continent itself (the UK, North Africa, the United States). The only way to live with Hitler was to destroy his military machine, which cost tens of millions of lives and many trillions of dollars.
On the other hand, Stalin was a cautious individual. He took what he could when he judged he had overwhelming odds (the Baltic states, portions of Finland, etc.) and when he judged the West would not intervene (Poland, 1939) and he happily took what fell into his lap as a consequence of defeating Hitler (most of the rest of Eastern Europe). But he readily responded to the big stick of deterrence. That was what mattered, not what was written in Mein Kampf and Das Kapital.
As costly as the Cold War was, it was vastly cheaper in both blood and treasure than dealing with Hitler.
"The Second World War is often called “the good war.” But was it?
After all, this “good war” brought mass destruction; death to tens of millions of men, women, and children; and enormous suffering to many more. How can such a horrible event be called “good?”
Obviously, many of these articles can be biased. Historically speaking, Do you consider WWII a good war? Thank you.
I have no idea what sort of question that is. The relevant point to me, and American, is this:
How should we have responded to the December 11 declaration of war by Germany on the United States? And not just to the declaration but to the subsequent attacks - Germany U-boats spent the first half of 1942 mauling American merchant shipping on our side of the Atlantic, including within sight of the East Coast and in the Gulf of Mexico. I would argue that American interests as a whole were far better served by our participation in the war than otherwise - and the same holds for much of Europe, which without American intervention would have found itself under either the German of Soviet heel (I do not speak of the UK, which I believe would have held out even in the absence of direct American involvement, as neither Germany nor the USSR had the means to cross the Channel in force enough to defeat the Brits).
It wasn't really a major re-shifting, as the UK had already controlled a good chunk of Africa and on the map I saw they still would have retained India(though lost Indo-china). They were basically taking over territories that had belonged to France and Belgium. I guess as payment for the loss of the the Orient. Again, I have no idea if this was a real plan or not, but what I saw looked authentic. Despite the political rhetoric of the era I think the main goal of the war was to reshape the world economy with power being consolidated to just a few nations and the elites that ran them. Ultimately that is what happened to a large extent.
WWII was the bloodiest conflict in human history. Thirty-five to 60 million people lost their lives on three continents. Conscientious objectors were outcasts in a world convinced of the necessity, the inevitability and the glory of war.
That is why WWII is considered and known as "good war".
The USA made a profit on WW2. British and French armaments buying pre 1940 got rid of US soup lines. The British owned a substantial parts of US industry - about 1/5 to 1/4. This had to be sold to US interests before material, finished or raw, would flow.
Opel Trucks (GM) used engines with matching parts to US engines. Opel were far more efficient than German companies using "Fordism".
Nazism was very dangerous to the USA. Hitler's prime enemies were the USSR and the USA. The British he wanted peace with admiring them. He wanted the USSR's territory and resources. He wanted the USA away from being a financial power and detested most of the USA's culture.
Nazism was based on a few corporations, so you can see why corporation heads like it.
WWII was considered the "good war" due to the facts that there were VERY clear objectives and the moral reason for the conflict. The whole country, every last one of us, mobilized and contributed with absolutely no question if we were doing the right thing. There was a very clearcut victory over the enemy showcasing the might of the American will and military. This is exactly why many historians use the term "good war" to describe WWII.
Although the articles that I cited are interesting reads, I do believe they are biased.
WWII was the bloodiest conflict in human history. Thirty-five to 60 million people lost their lives on three continents. Conscientious objectors were outcasts in a world convinced of the necessity, the inevitability and the glory of war.
That is why WWII is considered and known as "good war".
That is a naive view of the conflict. Don't forget that the majority of the people that died in the war were between two factions that started it. This view that the UK and the US were the "good guys" coming to save the world was nothing more than propaganda to sell the conflict and war bonds. Truth is it was battle for land and resources, just like every war before and after. If the UK had signed a peace treaty with Germany and the US sided with them, then the war would have been sold as an epic battle against communism.
That is a naive view of the conflict. Don't forget that the majority of the people that died in the war were between two factions that started it. This view that the UK and the US were the "good guys" coming to save the world was nothing more than propaganda to sell the conflict and war bonds. Truth is it was battle for land and resources, just like every war before and after. If the UK had signed a peace treaty with Germany and the US sided with them, then the war would have been sold as an epic battle against communism.
I think you should refrain from using naive. Everybody is entitled to his or her opinion.
Having said that, I am not very sure that I agree with the bolded. It was for a good and noble cause. I am not very sure it was battle for land and resources.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
