SMITH@SLACVM.BITNET (10/01/86)
In commenting on the article "Who pays?" by Keith in poli-sci V6 #63
CWM says:
**********************
"How would an army-less libertarian France, lets say, defend itself
from Nazi Germany in 1940? Consider that voluntary contributions are
tied to perceived danger, so that in 1936 (or so) the contributions
would have had to have been very high indeed (when danger was
perceived to be low) to be able to build the factories to build the
tanks, artillery, ships, and so on and hire the men to be trained in
them. Remember, we cannot use hindsight and say "they could have seen
it coming". What everyone saw up until late 1939 was a war all right-
between Germany and Russia."
**********************
This is interesting! The largest army in Europe until the late
1930s was in France! And they knew trouble was coming their way. They
built the Maginot line. You should read "Perpetual War for Perpetual
Peace" edited by H.E. Barnes (Caxton press 1953), especially the
contributions by Charles Tansill and Frederic Sanborn about the role
of US foreign policy during the period before and up to WWII. Do you
know that Roosevelt put the pressure on Chamberlain to approach the
Munich conference (1938) in a pacifist manner and not to threaten
Germany with the superior armies of France and England? There is more
to history than war propaganda and the official party line--or will we
ever learn that? The question that no one seems to ask in analyizing
terrible catastophies like WWII is: "Who Benifits?". I am not
suggesting that the average person (cannon fodder) benifits by the
actions of various governments, the average person (you and me) seldom
does. However, it would be foolish to assume that no one does. In
regards to this point recall Roosevelt's words "In politics nothing
ever happens by chance. If it happens, it was planned that way"
John R. Smith
[ Well, the big beneficiary of WWII was of course the USA (as a world
political unit)- we came out of the war with the most vital economy,
with unmatched political prestige.
I think that Roosevelt saw that the only way he could mold world
order like he wanted was with direct US involvment in the European
war - I suspect his motives for holding back Chamberlain would be to
give him time to maneuver at home to get the US directly involved
before Hitler (or Stalin) ran over everybody. I think its clear he
wanted a war, but the strain of it killed him (and many others, of
course - usually in more direct manners). Its might be interesting to
consider what might have happened to the world if Roosevelt had
survived to finish his 4th term. He never did have a chance to work
with an economy that was healthy and not at war. Would he have tried
to dismantle some of his socializing methods of his earlier years?
- CWM]
-------