The biggest mistake of World War II was this: The Communists won the War. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a Communist sympathizer, with numerous Communists in his Administration. As a defender of big government, FDR fooled Americans into allowing him to commit U.S. troops to the war.
Many people believe that World War II was necessary to protect the world from Big Government National Socialism, but these people didn't notice that the War made the world safe for Big Government International Socialism.
The Vine & Fig Tree vision defended in this campaign has been called "pacifism." Many have asked whether pacifism is "realistic" in the face of evil like Hitler. Here is a representative email:
If America had not come to the defense of Europe, at what point would God have killed Hitler and stopped the slaughter of untold millions of human beings?
Thanks for your time,
Jim
In 1968, the prestigious Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace at Stanford University began publishing a multi-volume analysis (Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, by Antony Sutton) of declassified State Dept documents which showed that the Soviet Union ("Communism," or "International Socialism") was created and sustained by global corporations headquartered mainly in the U.S., U.K., France and Italy ("the West") . (In the past, "the West" ["the first world"] has been portrayed as being at odds with International Socialism ["the second world"]. The "second world" was in fact the
creation of "the first world." President Roosevelt referred to Stalin the tyrannical butcher as "Uncle Joe." As the "second world" has grown in independence and hegemony, it has rebelled against its "first world" parents and come into competition with the "first world" for the resources of "the third world.")
These corporations saw the Soviet Union as a vast repository of natural resources, which would require slave labor and government central planning to exploit. (Most people think of corporations and "big business" as defenders of "the Free Market" or "Free Enterprise" system. This is a myth. Freedom cannot be easily controlled. Big Business favors Big Government, not freedom.)
Adolph Hitler and the Nazis ("National Socialism") threatened the International Socialism of the Soviet Union. Wall Street placed FDR in the White House to protect corporate interests in the Soviet Union. Violating his campaign promises, FDR sent G.I.s to Europe to protect Stalinism (and to the "Pacific Theater" to make China safe for the Communist Mao Tse Tung). Senator Joe McCarthy was right: the White House and the State Department were riddled with communists. Some actually believed the lofty rhetoric of communism; others were pragmatists who knew which corporations buttered their bread.
Communists won World War II. As many as 90 million human beings were casualties of a war to make sure Poland and Czechoslovakia were controlled by Communists rather than by Nazis. Americans fought for the Communists, whether the soldiers knew this or not. This does not mean U.S. soldiers who fought in WWII were not brave or "patriotic." It just means they were needlessly exploited.
Many people object to or question the philosophy of "Liberty Under God" or Vine & Fig Tree with regard to war and the military. The Vine & Fig Tree vision would have prevented both World Wars. There are two questions that need to be asked:
If the whole range of political options advocated by the Bible's Vine & Fig Tree vision (including -- but not limited to -- pacifism) had been practiced, would more or fewer lives have been lost?
Which was greater: the costs of military intervention, or the benefits?
The total cost of World War II was approximately 50 million deaths, including civilians. Details.
In 1892, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that America was a Christian nation. The court's opinion was a conservative attempt to slow the accelerating secularism that had become noticeable, especially after the publication in 1859 of Darwin's famous book with the not-as-famous full title: The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection; or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. During the early part of the 20th century, Darwin's work became quite popular among certain political leaders who blamed the economic stagnation of their socialistic and anti-capitalist economies on certain un-favored races. These dictators called their policies "scientific socialism."
Many people are asking about libertarians, "Would Ron Paul Have Stopped the Holocaust?" The United States did not stop the Holocaust. The Holocaust happened. Not only was Auschwitz "liberated" by the Soviet Union, but all of the other Nazi concentration camps in Poland, Latvia, Ukraine, and elsewhere fell under Communist rule. Why is the U.S. Federal Government held up as the standard by which libertarian non-interventionists are supposedly judged?
Embarrassingly, many powerful people in America, the once-Christian nation, admired the ideas and policies of "scientific socialism," and helped advocates of that position come into power, notably including Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini. Other notable advocates of "scientific socialism" -- though not flying that banner by name -- were Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
In 1925, the "Scope's Trial" sent many Christians ducking for cover, and Christians have been in cultural and political retreat ever since. They are no longer the salt of the earth and a light unto the world, a City upon a Hill.
If America had followed Biblical blueprints, we would not have entered World War I. Winston Churchill is reported to have said:
America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the World War. If you hadn't entered the war the Allies would have made peace with Germany in the Spring of 1917. Had we made peace then there would have been no collapse in Russia followed by Communism, and Germany would not have signed the Versailles Treaty, which has enthroned Nazism in Germany. If America had stayed out of the war, all these 'isms' wouldn't today be sweeping the continent in Europe and breaking down parliamentary government, and if England had made peace early in 1917, it would have saved over one million British, French, and American and other lives.
If America had followed Biblical blueprints, the Great Depression would not have occurred. The economic policies that brought about the Great Depression in America were emulated in other nations, which also suffered during the Great Depression. "The Roaring 20's" were not just culturally, but in terms of banking and other economic policies, a repudiation of Biblical Law.
Departures from God's economic laws in the opening decades of the 20th century led to America's Great Depression, which had world-wide impact, including Germany, and directly set the stage for World War II.
If America had been a Christian pacifist nation, following the "Vine & Fig Tree" blueprints in the Bible, she would not have given military and financial support to Hitler and other dictators during the 1920's and 30's.
The prestigious (and conservative) think-tank at Stanford University, the Hoover Institute, published a multi-volume study of de-classified State Department documents and other government records which proved beyond question that the Soviet Union would not have lasted more than a few years without technological and financial aid from the so-called "capitalist" West. Socialism does not work. It must be propped up by capitalism.
The purpose of World War II -- which was determined not by the brave men and women who fought in it, but by the communists in the State Department and throughout the federal government -- was to extend communism, which was at least 10 times as lethal as Hitler. America only entered the war against German National Socialism in order to further International Socialism under Stalin.
The same is true for America's entry into the Pacific Theater against Japan: the goal was to eliminate a threat to international socialism in the Far East.
FDR and his communist advisors were planning to enter WWII even as they promised to keep our boys out of war, and in Asia they opened the door to Mao Tse Tung, keeping Douglas McArthur from closing it.
Is there more liberty in the world after World War II, or is there less liberty?
But even if the U.S. put an end to Hitler's national socialism, is there really any important difference between national socialism ("fascism") and international socialism ("communism")? Tyranny is tyranny.
Japanese atrocities have gone nearly completely unpunished. Japanese leaders remained in power. Japanese fascism remains in power to this day.
Many of the Philippine islands on which American soldiers gave their lives are now Muslim. The federal government has long given financial aid to and maintained ties with Muslim governments which America's Christian Founding Fathers would have opposed.
Germany
Some researchers on the far left have argued that German fascists actually won WWII and we are under that fascism today:
On the other hand, researchers on the far right are quick to point out that Bush's "neo-conservative" inner circle are devotees of Leon Trotsky.
The total economic destruction wrought by World War II is undoubtedly close to a trillion dollars in 1990 dollars, but the total loss is incalculable, because so many artistic and historic masterworks were lost, including centuries-old architecture filled with historic treasures. Many of these priceless creations were of a distinctly Christian character.
Ask the same question about every war: "Was it worth the cost?" The "cost" is easy to determine, in lives lost and property destroyed. But when we ask "Was it worth the cost," the "it" is usually harder to define. Was it "a war to end all wars?" Was it "to make the world safe for democracy?" Usually none of the stated goals of the war actually were achieved. So what were the actual results of the war, and were these results worth the cost? Not once, I would argue. Not a single time. Click
here for a list of all U.S. wars since 1776, compiled by the U.S. Naval Historical Center. Not one of them was worth the cost. Jesus would not have commanded His followers to kill human beings in order to achieve the promised results of these wars, much less the actual resultsof these wars. And we shouldn't honor those who refuse to follow Christ.
If Hitler killed six million, Stalin killed 60 million.
American intervention against Hitler [and in defense of Stalin] arguably made matters worse.
If you've never seen that website, give it a visit. Beginning with the IEEE text on the left, on the right are the questions Christians should be asking:
WWII: What was all the Fighting About?
World War II (1939 to 1945) was the largest and costliest war ever, both in terms of lives and money. In about six short years an estimated 50,000,000 people died as a result of battles, concentration camps, bombings, starvation, and disease. Millions more were displaced and left as refugees. Billions of dollars in property were also destroyed, as were artistic and architectural masterpieces. The war involved nearly every country, but essentially there were only two sides,
the Allies which included the United States, Great Britain and the Commonwealth, and the Soviet Union;
and the Axis
which included Germany, Japan, and Italy.
Although this exhibit will primarily focus on the technology developed by both sides during the conflict, a basic understanding of the issues surrounding the war is essential.
In a battle between atheistic communism and pagan Naziism, or in a battle between atheistic communism and Japanese fascism, which side do you want to be on? For which side are you willing to give your life?
Why would you want to be on either side?
The causes of World War II were complex. A major one was the global depression of the 1930s, which generated worldwide political unrest and encouraged radical political reforms. In Germany, the demand for reform brought the National Socialist Party (the Nazis) to power. Their leader, Adolf Hitler, promised and delivered both a better economy and the revitalization of German pride, which had been badly damaged by the country's humiliating defeat in World War I and the change in national borders in Europe. This pride reached a fanatical pitch with a call to unify ethnically German people living in nearby nations and to "purify" the German "race." "Purification" culminated in the Holocaust, the wholesale roundup and execution of Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies, and political dissidents.
"Unification" led to expansion outside of Germany's borders with the annexation of Austria in 1938 and the occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1939. This aggression was met with negotiation by other European nations who hoped appeasing Hitler in the short term would prevent war in the long term. When Germany invaded Poland in September 1939, however, Britain and France declared war.
What were the causes of the Great Depression? In the early decades of the 20th century, America made a decisive conversion from Christian Republic to Secular Empire. In 1931 America officially repudiated its Christian heritage, but this repudiation had been taking place for decades. "The Roaring 20's" were not just culturally, but in terms of banking and other economic policies, a repudiation of Biblical Law.
Departures from God's economic laws in the opening decades of the 20th century led to America's Great Depression, which had world-wide impact, including Germany, and directly set the stage for World War II.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, a very different war was brewing. Thousands of miles away, Japan became an ally of the Germans, even though they shared few military or political goals. The Japanese invaded China, seeking to gain territories there and in Southeast Asia. Feeling threatened when the U.S imposed severe trade sanctions in response to this aggression, Japan attacked the naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii on 7 December 1941. Within weeks of the attack the U.S was at war with both Japan and Germany. The USSR, which had seen their nonaggression pact with Germany violated just six months earlier, joined the Allies.
Do "severe trade sanctions" work? Did they actually accelerate conflict with Japan and U.S. entry into World War II in "the pacific theater?"
British and American forces began their counteroffensive by attacking German forces in Africa in 1942, virtually driving the Axis armies from the continent. This was followed by American successes in the Pacific and the Russian defeat of the invading German army. The Allies finally entered German-held France in the famous Normandy (D-Day) invasion in June 1944 and gradually worked their way through France and into Germany before joining the Soviets in taking the capital city of Berlin in the spring of 1945.
With Hitler defeated, the Allies turned their full attention to the Japanese. Following brutal fighting on numerous small Pacific islands, the Japanese were beaten back toward their homeland. Believing that an invasion of Japan would entail too many casualties, President Truman ordered the dropping of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan on 6 August 1945. Despite the horrible effects of the bomb, the Japanese did not surrender, and the Americans dropped a second bomb on the city of Nagasaki three days later. The Japanese then surrendered on 14 August, ending World War II.
A major cause of the unprecedented scale and destruction of World War II was improved military technology. Although submarines, tanks, and aircraft had limited use in previous wars, by World War II they were advanced enough to play a determining factor in the outcome. Submarines were made larger, faster, and deadlier and their torpedoes took a heavy toll on ships all through the war.
Aircraft and tanks, which had seen limited use in World War I, now became two of the most important types of weapons. Aerial bombing became especially important, as both sides developed bigger bombers capable of delivering more bombs (to see some, flip through the slideshow at right). This improved technology, however, was abetted by new technologies that debuted in World War II and would change war and the world forever.
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers does not necessarily agree with the views expressed on this website. Its purposes are not political, certainly not pacifistic, anarchistic, or Christian, but solely for "furthering the understanding of the history of electrical and information technologies."
When the federal government had a chance before 1945 to rescue Jews, it refused to do so. One example: a boat full of Jews escaping Hitler came to the U.S., but Roosevelt prohibited the ship to dock on U.S. soil. The story | The details | More about WWII.
The issue with “saving Jews” is perhaps even more clear-cut than the other two. Many American and British leaders looked positively upon the Nazis in 1933 as a bulwark against Communist influences. When the Nazis came into power they immediately began implementing anti-Jewish policies. As the violence toward Jews increased, humanitarian voices were raised to offer aid for the beleaguered Jews. Mostly, the humanitarian efforts were thwarted by U.S. and British political leaders. When the War actually began and the genocidal violence increased, these leaders continued to resist efforts to offer help. The western Allies simply were not motivated by a desire directly to save Jewish lives.[15] In fact, the War’s
expansion likely had the impact of making the lot of Europe’s Jews even worse.[16]
[15] See Theodore S. Hamerow, Why We Watched: Europe, America, and the Holocaust (New York: Norton, 2008). Hamerow writes in support of the Allied leaders in face of charges they were anti-Semitic. However, in arguing that these leaders were constrained by circumstances from effectively saving Jewish lives, he also confirms that saving Jewish lives was not part of the purpose of the War for Americans.
[16] Doris L. Bergen, War and Genocide: A Concise History of the Holocaust, 2ndedition (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2009): “War provided killers with both a cover and an excuse for murder; in wartime, killing was normalized, and extreme, even genocidal measures could be justified with familiar arguments about the need to defend the homeland. Without the war, the Holocaust would not—and could not—have happened” (vii).
Ted Grimsrud (see below) has thoughtfully and with too much restraint commented on the terrible effects of World War II, specifically with regard to the creation of the "Military-Industrial Complex":
In time, it became clear that the United States would benefit greatly from this war and that the forces within the United States who would benefit the most were the military and business elites. The War was an opportunity for the military to move into an unprecedented place of power and influence within the federal government, and it was an opportunity for American corporations to profit immensely from the U.S. becoming the one global economic superpower.
I've never seen evidence that leaders of America's defense industry met with the communists in the Roosevelt White House to lead America into war so that defense corporations could rise to such unprecedented power in America. (There may be such evidence, but I've never seen it.) It seems more plausible to believe that because Americans did not have a principled objection to all war, and in practice had made government their god (through a patriotic trust in government as the savior and preserver of our "Personal Peace and Affluence),") defense corporations looked around them after World War II and saw surprising opportunities.
Government and industry sort of bumbled into "the military-industrial complex" rather than self-consciously designing and creating it. A Consensus of worldviews.
THE “GOOD” WAR THAT WASN’T—AND WHY IT MATTERS: WORLD WAR II’S MORAL LEGACY (these are rough drafts of the chapters of a book due published in November 2014 with Cascade Books—here’s the book’s website)
“The Military Industrial Complex and the Moral Legacy of World War II”—Paper presented at the Military Industrial Complex at Fifty Conference at Guilford College, Greensboro, NC, January 14, 2011. [This is a slightly updated version of the 9/29/10 and 10/5/1o lectures taking into account the legacy of President Eisenhower’s “farewell address” in 1961.]
“The Moral Legacy of World War II”—Lecture given at Eastern Mennonite University, September 29, 2010, and at Goshen College, October 5, 2010.
As late as 1936, Germany bought more arms from American companies than from sources in any other country but two.
Poland, like Germany, was ruled by a militaristic, right-wing dictatorship.
Unlike Poland, Czechoslovakia, which capitulated to the Germans, came through the war relatively unscathed.
The Soviet Union would have defeated Germany even without much involvement from the United States and Britain.
Hitler took initiative after initiative toward the British in hopes of ending the war in the West.
American involvement in the war had virtually nothing to do with “saving Jews.”
Chiang Kai-shek was far from a supporter of democracy.
Japan’s expansionistic policies in the Far East threatened America’s own imperialistic interests in the region.
Britain’s conflict with Japan stemmed from Japan’s threat to its colonial possessions in the Far East.
The United States had clearly initiated actions on both fronts that made full-scale involvement in the war inevitable at some point.
U.S. tension with Japan can be traced back to the 1850s, when American warships visited Japan with the demand that Japanese isolation from the Western world end.
U.S. national borders were never under threat of an invasion from Germany or Japan.
And perhaps the most damning: “When the U.S. aligned itself with the Soviet Union and Nationalist China, American leaders made it clear that their war effort simply was not animated by principled opposition to tyranny — no matter what the purpose statements declared.”
Grimsrud sees America’s conduct in the war as anything but just. He bases that on the two central elements for considering just conduct in war: proportionality and noncombatant immunity. The author believes “that actions that result in the violent deaths of millions of people
(perhaps three-fourths of whom were noncombatants) could be anything but at best ‘morally ambiguous’ seems obvious if the termmoralityis to have meaning.” Although Grimsrud mentions the immorality of the bombing of Dresden, Roosevelt’s policy of unconditional surrender, the firebombing of Tokyo and other Japanese major cities, and the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, he finds the U.S. alliance with the tyrannical Soviet Union to be especially “morally problematic.” He sees Nazism and Stalinism as kindred spirits. The conduct of the war by America’s ally, Great Britain, was no better: “From the very start, the British strategy for defeating Germany relied at is core on directly targeting noncombatants in search of victory through killing,
terrorizing, and dispossessing countless millions.”
Conduct a thought experiment, to evaluate how World War Two might have gone differently had the U.S. replaced taxation with voluntary funding.
The results achieved by past U.S. wars
I’ve shown that no U.S. foreign wars had good net outcomes. Yes, some good things were achieved, but the bad outweighed the good. In short, no U.S. foreign war protected America, defended freedom, or made the world a better place.
I’ve also demonstrated that even U.S achievements in World War Two are both misunderstood and overrated. I’ve provided evidence both that Hitler would have lost to the Soviet Union, whether the United States was involved or not, and that U.S. intervention had primarily negative consequences. Specifically, U.S. politicians…
Created communist North Korea
Paved the way for Red China
Helped Stalin conquer Eastern Europe
Arguably, the only positive gain from U.S. involvement in World War Two was…
Saving Western Europe from Soviet conquest
Would Stalin have stopped in Germany once he defeated Hitler? It seems doubtful. He probably would have kept on rolling all the way to the English Channel. This means that the U.S. presence in Germany and France saved Western Europe from Soviet conquest. That’s an impressive achievement. But I’ll show you that much more was possible. I think U.S. politicians could have avoided…
The four big failures of World War Two
I’ve already shown in other articles, or will show you below, how different policies could have…
The U.S. could have achieved all of this with less expense and loss of life. Only one main reform was needed…
Replace taxation with voluntary funding!
Your brain is probably screaming now…
“Impossible!” Government can’t exist without taxation! And you can’t fight a war with voluntary funding either! Hitler and Japan would have conquered the world!
Well, the first thing you need to know is that 3/4ths of the war was funded through borrowing. In other words, people bought bonds that they would later pay taxes to redeem. This amounted to Americans taking money out of one of their pockets and putting it in another. So the funding for World War Two was already quasi-voluntary. But I want to examine the following questions…
Could the funding have been made completely voluntary?
Would that have improved the result?
And if you still think this idea is outrageous, please consider…
Many possible things were once thought impossible
Once upon a time, people were absolutely certain that…
Crop growth required human sacrifice!
God (or the gods) would be angry unless we slaughtered small animals on an altar!
Civilization couldn’t function without slaves. People thought slavery was the price that humans had to pay for civilization!
Women belonged in the home. Patriarchy was fundamental to a functioning society!
The Berlin Wall would never come down in our lifetimes!
All those “certainties” were wrong. The fact is…
We humans are terrible at predicting what’s possible!
We also wrongly assume that the current system is the best we can do. Please realize…
Anatomically modern humans have been on the planet for at least 40,000 years, but our industrial-scientific civilization is only 200 years old. That means we’re barely out of the crib! There must surely be new things to try and to learn. And one way to explore the possibilities is by conducting thought experiments like this one…
What if voluntary funding had replaced taxation after World War One?
As you read my proposed answer to this thought experiment, please realize…
The main point is NOT that things would have happened in exactly the way I describe below. The main point is that replacing taxation with voluntary funding would have forced politicians like FDR to be more creative.
You will save yourself the time of writing me an indignant email, and me of reading it, if you re-read those two sentences closely.
I think voluntary funding would have forced politicians to be creative. This pressure to be creative would have led to better results. All humans perform better when they have to earn their income. I think the same is true for politicians and government. My point can be stated simply…
Voluntary funding would’ve led to better outcomes in World War Two!
Imagine that Americans had the power to fill out a form directing specific amounts to various functions of the federal government. Imagine how that would have changed the behavior of both citizens and politicians.
What would FDR have done about Japan if government funding had been voluntary?
In our world, Roosevelt imposed sanctions on Japan for invading China. He had no constitutional authority to do this, but he did it anyway. Those sanctions eventually led to the attack on Pearl Harbor, and the resulting war caused the creation of North Korea, and perhaps even the rise of Red China.But...
Voluntary funding for the government would have made things more difficult for FDR. He still could have imposed his sanctions, but Americans who favored neutrality would have reduced their funding as a vote against his policies. As a practical matter, rule by decree would have no longer been possible for FDR. Every action would have carried a cost. So what would he have done instead, given the changed incentives?
Perhaps nothing. Trying to persuade the public to fund an intervention to protect China against Japan might have gone poorly. After all, China was ruled by Chaing Kai Shek, a murderous dictator who actually killed more Chinese people than the Japanese did. Some Americans in the missionary movement might have donated to defend Chiang, but their donations would have been countered by reduced contributions from Americans who favored neutrality. Under those circumstances, FDR might have decided to adopt neutrality himself.
Would U.S. neutrality in the Sino-Japanese war have made the world a worse place?
It’s hard to see how. In our world Mao ended up ruling China after the U.S. defeated Japan. Mao killed more than 50 million people. Would it really have been worse if Japan had prevailed in China instead of Mao?
Or what if stalemate had resulted, with neither Chaing, Mao, nor Japan winning the upper hand? That too would likely have been better than what happened in our world.
The worst-case scenario would still have been a Mao victory, with all the murder that followed, but without the loss of U.S. lives and treasure. I think all of these outcomes are better than what happened in our history.
Korea
What if Japan had been able to retain Korea as a colony, because the U.S. didn’t intervene in Asia? That would have been worse for the people who now live in South Korea, but better for those who live in North Korea. In the long run, Japan probably would have relinquished Korea, as happened with all other empires and their colonies. I think a few decades as a Japanese colony would have been better than nearly one hundred years of communist rule in North Korea.
Japan
In our world, Japan became a democracy after the U.S. defeated them. But Japan already had elements of a democracy before the war, and maintained many democratic institutions during the war, even though the military dominated. A Japan ruled by the military was a bad thing, but so was destroying every Japanese city, and the thousands of U.S. deaths that happened in our world. It isn’t clear that adjusting the nature of the Japanese government, a decade or two earlier, was worth that price.
All in all, it’s hard to see how things could have gone much worse or much better in the Pacific, except for one consideration…
No Americans would have died at Pearl Harbor or on remote island beaches if voluntary funding of the government had compelled FDR to remain neutral. Plus, all that money, weapons, and soldiers would have then been available for potential use in Europe. So…
What would FDR have done in Europe?
Voluntary funding would have constrained FDR in Europe just like it did in the Pacific. Every move he made to aid the British, or harm Hitler, would have been punished by neutral Americans withdrawing funding.
Does this mean that voluntary funding would have helped Hitler prevail? Of course not. It must be repeatedly stressed that Hitler was already doomed by the time the first U.S. soldiers landed at Normandy. For instance…
Please remember that the big German guns had already been stripped from the bunkers overlooking Utah beach, by the time D-Day happened. The Germans sent those guns to the Russian front. That’s because the Germans were losing to the Soviets. They feared what the Soviets could do in the East more than what the Allies could do in the West. So the real question we want to answer doesn’t concern how to defeat Hitler, but rather…
How could FDR have achieved a better outcome under voluntary funding than happened under taxation?
This is what I would have done in Europe had I been FDR
I would NOT have tried to persuade the American people to fund an armed intervention in Europe. Instead, I would have looked for opportunities to turn the German military against the Nazi regime. Please understand…
If I had been FDR, I would have looked for ways to foster a German military coup
So long as Hitler was winning he was popular with the German people. This made a coup unlikely or impossible. But the situation changed once the Germans began to struggle on the Eastern front.
I would have told the German generals to end their war in the West so as to better defend themselves in the East. What was the price for peace in the West? Three things. The generals would have to…
Remove the Nazi regime.
End and expose the Holocaust.
Withdraw from all the countries they had conquered in the West.
I would also have used Hitler’s Jewish genocide as extra leverage
I would have talked about the genocide every day. I would have made the subject a source of global embarrassment for every decent German, in uniform or out. I would have taken every opportunity to publicly urge the German generals and the German people to stop the genocide by removing the Nazi regime.
I would have publicly urged the British to drop leaflets all over Germany, to expose the genocide, and ask the German people to support a military coup against Hitler.
I would have solicited voluntary funding to expand the U.S. military, in anticipation that U.S. troops might be useful for garrison duty in France once the Nazi regime was toppled. Please be clear – I would do this to provide a garrison force, NOT combat troops. My fundraising efforts would have met with some resistance from those Americans who still favored non-involvement, but I think there would have been enough support for my narrowly focused goals.
I think my campaign would have fostered paranoia and sleepless nights among the Nazi leaders. That would have been worth it, all by itself.
I would have pressed the negotiations with the German generals that were already underway in Switzerland. I would have offered to support Germany in its own borders against Soviet encroachment, so long as the Nazi regime was eliminated and all conquests relinquished. I think such an agreement would have been very popular with Americans. I think donations would have poured in to support it.
The result?
It’s possible, even probable, that my strategy would have resulted in no coup during 1942. But the tide would have turned by February 1943 when the Germans surrendered at Stalingrad. Worldwide humiliation over Hitler’s genocide, combined with looming defeat by the Soviet hordes, would have created the conditions for the German generals to act.
Hitler’s last day on Earth
I believe the German generals would have taken Hitler and Himmler and the whole Nazi gang out of their beds in the dead of night, stood them up against walls, and shot them. There would have been no chance for grand orations, scapegoating, or excuse-making at a trial. That’s not the American way, but it’s probably what the German generals would have done.
No Soviet hordes in Middle Europe
I think the German generals would then have removed their troops from France, Belgium, etc., and sent them to shore up a more defensive position on the Eastern front.
No more Holocaust
The German generals would have turned the Nazi concentration camps over to the care of the Red Cross and other international relief agencies. Hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved. Perhaps millions. And something of German honor would have been salvaged too.
No D-Day
British, French, Canadian, and Polish troops would have landed in France, without opposition. Voluntarily funded American soldiers would have been there with them. There would have been no need for a bloody invasion of Normandy, and no sea-of-graves along the French coastline.
The war in the east
I believe that negotiations to end the war in the East would have begun the instant the Nazis were overthrown. The likely outcome would have been the restoration of the old Soviet borders and the recreation of all the states that had been conquered by the combined efforts of the Nazis and the Soviets.
Would paranoid Stalin have risked his regime against a united Europe and America, or would he have made peace? With millions of German soldiers still on Soviet soil, more on the way, and the prospect of having to also face British, French, and perhaps even American troops, Stalin would have accepted peace.
There would have been no Soviet conquest of Eastern Europe, no Iron Curtain, no Warsaw Pact, and probably no Cold War.
What FDR did in real life
We did not get any of the benefits described above. Instead…
FDR allied the U.S. with the evil Stalin, placing a moral stain on the entire war effort.
FDR then declared a policy of unconditional surrender. He did this without consulting Congress or his allies. This action removed all hope of a negotiated settlement with the German generals, who now had little incentive to topple the Nazi regime. The result was more months of unrelenting murder, and the loss of Eastern Europe to communist tyranny.
Roosevelt had the power to pursue his boneheaded strategy because taxation made him largely immune from public opinion. His policies would be funded no matter how bad they were! By comparison, voluntary funding would have incentivized creativity and better results.
What would have been true then is also true now. Voluntary funding would give us consumer- controlled government, leading to less tyranny and better results. It’s even possible that a regime of voluntary funding could actually make foreign intervention work in some instances. May we someday achieve this. In the meantime, please understand…
The tax-funded approach achieved a bad outcome in World War Two. There were better possibilities.
Future installments in this series will focus primarily on the Cold War.