This one's for Smedley

Smedley Butler Explains the Latest Excuse for American Intervention in Ukraine

1935 speech and later a book by Major General Smedley D. Butler (USMC), includes “… A racket is best described, I believe, something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make large fortunes. … If we put them to work making poison gas and more and more fiendish mechanical and explosive instruments of destructions, they will have no time for the constructive job of building a greater prosperity for all peoples. By putting them to this useful job, we can all make more money out of peace than we can out of war – even the munition makers. So … I say, TO HELL WITH WAR.”

Finally, there is the fact that war spending simply is not "good for the economy." This is an old well-worn myth, but is based on nothing. Consider the process: war spending (especially spending on weapons) requires taxing productive Americans and then turning their taxpayer money into devices that will be consumed in war. Had the taxpayers been allowed to spend this money, much of that money would have been spent on things like education, capital goods, saving, and investment. Instead, that money is taxed, and then, after the bureaucrats take their cut, it is transformed into artillery shells, etc. that blow up some stuff in Ukraine for no benefit to Americans. To imagine that this is a boon for Americans requires the most out-of-touch beltway type of thinking imaginable.

smedley's remarks about taxes and spending may have made some kind of sense in 1935, but they have no connection to reality today, since taxes are not used for spending at the federal level.

in fact, though it may not be the most efficient or best way to spend, defense spending is a vital part of the economy.

terp said:

Smedley Butler Explains the Latest Excuse for American Intervention in Ukraine

1935 speech and later a book by Major General Smedley D. Butler (USMC), includes “… A racket is best described, I believe, something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make large fortunes. … If we put them to work making poison gas and more and more fiendish mechanical and explosive instruments of destructions, they will have no time for the constructive job of building a greater prosperity for all peoples. By putting them to this useful job, we can all make more money out of peace than we can out of war – even the munition makers. So … I say, TO HELL WITH WAR.”

Finally, there is the fact that war spending simply is not "good for the economy." This is an old well-worn myth, but is based on nothing. Consider the process: war spending (especially spending on weapons) requires taxing productive Americans and then turning their taxpayer money into devices that will be consumed in war. Had the taxpayers been allowed to spend this money, much of that money would have been spent on things like education, capital goods, saving, and investment. Instead, that money is taxed, and then, after the bureaucrats take their cut, it is transformed into artillery shells, etc. that blow up some stuff in Ukraine for no benefit to Americans. To imagine that this is a boon for Americans requires the most out-of-touch beltway type of thinking imaginable.

terp said:

Smedley Butler Explains the Latest Excuse for American Intervention in Ukraine

1935 speech and later a book by Major General Smedley D. Butler (USMC), includes “… A racket is best described, I believe, something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make large fortunes. … If we put them to work making poison gas and more and more fiendish mechanical and explosive instruments of destructions, they will have no time for the constructive job of building a greater prosperity for all peoples. By putting them to this useful job, we can all make more money out of peace than we can out of war – even the munition makers. So … I say, TO HELL WITH WAR.”

Finally, there is the fact that war spending simply is not "good for the economy." This is an old well-worn myth, but is based on nothing. Consider the process: war spending (especially spending on weapons) requires taxing productive Americans and then turning their taxpayer money into devices that will be consumed in war. Had the taxpayers been allowed to spend this money, much of that money would have been spent on things like education, capital goods, saving, and investment. Instead, that money is taxed, and then, after the bureaucrats take their cut, it is transformed into artillery shells, etc. that blow up some stuff in Ukraine for no benefit to Americans. To imagine that this is a boon for Americans requires the most out-of-touch beltway type of thinking imaginable.

Too bad we can't ask Smedley Butler if he considers resisting the unjustified Russian invasion of a sovereign nation to be the equivalent of the types of wars (WW I excepted) in which he was asked to fight.

I am in the midst of re-reading The Guns of August for probably the 4th time.  The arms buildup preceding WW I undoubtedly made more than a few industrialists rich, but they weren't the cause of the buildup.

terp said:

However, in our system, the Intelligence community works with the politicians and the media to propagandize the war "oh no! another Hitler! If we don't stop him now he'll be in our doorstep in Millburn before you know it!" We then borrow/print the $$ to fund the war and we get things like inflation.

terp said:

Smedley Butler Explains the Latest Excuse for American Intervention in Ukraine

1935 speech and later a book by Major General Smedley D. Butler (USMC), includes “… A racket is best described, I believe, something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make large fortunes. … If we put them to work making poison gas and more and more fiendish mechanical and explosive instruments of destructions, they will have no time for the constructive job of building a greater prosperity for all peoples. By putting them to this useful job, we can all make more money out of peace than we can out of war – even the munition makers. So … I say, TO HELL WITH WAR.”

In which terp shows that, even in the case of the actual Hitler, he would have opposed the US doing anything.

Well, the Nazis never said they wanted Millburn.

tjohn said:

Too bad we can't ask Smedley Butler if he considers resisting the unjustified Russian invasion of a sovereign nation to be the equivalent of the types of wars (WW I excepted) in which he was asked to fight.

Nothing in what he wrote suggests he would oppose resisting an invasion like that. To the contrary, imperialist/fascist militarism like Putin's is what he was warning against:

"Undoubtedly Mussolini means exactly what he says. His well-trained army, his great fleet of planes, and even his navy are ready for war -- anxious for it, apparently. His recent stand at the side of Hungary in the latter's dispute with Jugoslavia showed that. And the hurried mobilization of his troops on the Austrian border after the assassination of Dollfuss showed it too. There are others in Europe too whose sabre rattling presages war, sooner or later.

"Herr Hitler, with his rearming Germany and his constant demands for more and more arms, is an equal if not greater menace to peace."

War Is A Racket, page 6.

tjohn said:

Well, the Nazis never said they wanted Millburn.

Are you sure? Just swap in Millburn for Minehead and this is exactly what would have happened

.

More on Smedley Butler:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

nohero said:

tjohn said:

Too bad we can't ask Smedley Butler if he considers resisting the unjustified Russian invasion of a sovereign nation to be the equivalent of the types of wars (WW I excepted) in which he was asked to fight.

Nothing in what he wrote suggests he would oppose resisting an invasion like that. To the contrary, imperialist/fascist militarism like Putin's is what he was warning against:

"Undoubtedly Mussolini means exactly what he says. His well-trained army, his great fleet of planes, and even his navy are ready for war -- anxious for it, apparently. His recent stand at the side of Hungary in the latter's dispute with Jugoslavia showed that. And the hurried mobilization of his troops on the Austrian border after the assassination of Dollfuss showed it too. There are others in Europe too whose sabre rattling presages war, sooner or later.

"Herr Hitler, with his rearming Germany and his constant demands for more and more arms, is an equal if not greater menace to peace."

War Is A Racket, page 6.

Look, Nohero.  We do snippets and sound bytes here.  When somebody comes along who has actually read the entire book... well, it's just not fair.

Thank you for confirming my suspicion that Butler knew the difference between wars for national security and imperialist adventures.

tjohn said:

nohero said:

Nothing in what he wrote suggests he would oppose resisting an invasion like that. To the contrary, imperialist/fascist militarism like Putin’s is what he was warning against:

Look, Nohero. We do snippets and sound bytes here. When somebody comes along who has actually read the entire book... well, it's just not fair.

Thank you for confirming my suspicion that Butler knew the difference between wars for national security and imperialist adventures.

Along with nohero’s snippet, Smedley Butler’s entire book includes this one. The third step may shed additional light on how the retired general would have viewed U.S. support for Ukraine.

To summarize: Three steps must be taken to smash the war racket.

We must take the profit out of war.

We must permit the youth of the land who would bear arms to decide whether or not there should be war.

We must limit our military forces to home defense purposes.

PVW said:

In which terp shows that, even in the case of the actual Hitler, he would have opposed the US doing anything.

Butler’s Step No. 2 above suggests it depends on a vote of Americans with skin in the game.

So, to smash the war racket, we have to consign ourselves to a state of affairs where we enter wars too late and underequipped.  I feel like we have tried that approach before, but I can't put my finger on it.

I think perhaps the trick is to maintain a military sufficient for protecting important national interests while resisting the temptation to view problems as military problems.

I do think that maintaining NATO is a very important if not vital national interest.

Taiwan, less so. 

DaveSchmidt said:

Butler’s Step No. 2 above suggests it depends on a vote of Americans with skin in the game.

A different definition than terp's, as merely having your life on the line doesn't make you a "regular person," only paying more in taxes than you receive back in benefits.

But, I was more reacting to the idea of an anti-war argument being made at the time that Mussolini and Hitler were on the rise.

PVW said:

But, I was more reacting to the idea of an anti-war argument being made at the time that Mussolini and Hitler were on the rise.

I piggybacked on your comment only to note another way in which it was understandable that the OP would cite Butler.

What about young men with bone spurs? Did they have skin in the game?

It's all interesting speculation.  Too bad Butler didn't live another 10 or 20 years.  It would have been interesting to see how WW II influenced his thinking.

Our involvement in WW I was more of a money thing although the Germans at that time had quite a knack for making neutrals or highly-biased neutrals into opposing combatants.

WW II, was much more of a direct threat to our national interests.

There are two wars I feel comfortable saying the US was justified in fighting:

- The war against the Confederacy

- The war against Nazi Germany

And even while seeing those wars as justified, they were terrible, and many actions of the U.S in them I do not think were justified -- for instance, the nuclear bombing campaign against Japan.

I'm on the fence regarding the Revolutionary War.

If we talk about foreign involvements more generally (and not just actual wars), I don't have as clear a list. In general, I don't think highly of the majority of our involvements in Latin America, especially those that attempted or succeeded at forcing a change in government.

Aiding Ukraine is an easy call for me -- Ukraine clearly has the moral high ground in its war against Russia's invasion, and giving Ukraine aid aligns with U.S. national interests. I think we should be giving Ukraine a lot more aid, because right now I think we're only helping enough to help support what's close to a stalemate, which is sort of a worst-case scenario for both Ukrainians and the Russians Putin is sending into the meatgrinder.

The Revolutionary War was a case of the wealthy (the people with skin in the game as Terp might say) not wanting to take orders from England combined with some heavy-handedness on the part of the British.  

Jaytee said:

What about young men with bone spurs? Did they have skin in the game?

If you want Smedley Butler’s answer, you can read nohero’s link to War Is a Racket.

PVW said:

... only paying more in taxes than you receive back in benefits.

tjohn said:

WW II, was much more of a direct threat to our national interests.

Which the U.S. didn’t enter until Japan created Butler’s condition of home defense.

drummerboy said:

is that actually one of terp's criteria? to be honest, when I start reading those poll tax posts, my eyes just glaze over so I might be missing details.

terp said:

Voters should have skin in the game. That is, the people who pay taxes should be voting. Those who are net receivers of tax $$ could maintain eligibility by paying a fee. Let's say, they would pay a fee to make them at least neutral.

DaveSchmidt said:

tjohn said:

WW II, was much more of a direct threat to our national interests.

Which the U.S. didn’t enter until Japan created Butler’s condition of home defense.

I have noticed that the U.S. Government tends to not rush into wars except when they think they will be easy.  Roosevelt could have had war with Japan following the Panay incident but chose a less bellicose approach.

The surprise of Pearl Harbor also led to the resolve to never be surprised again.

And the behavior of Nazi Germany made it much more acceptable for nations to stick their noses into the internal affairs of other countries.

Moe the pity that Butler died in 1940 and not 1960.

Doesn't all this poll tax stuff run up against the 24th Amendment?

ridski said:

Doesn't all this poll tax stuff run up against the 24th Amendment?

meh, I'm sure today's SCOTUS would have no trouble calling it a fee and not a tax.

Wow.  Some of us have really drunk the kool-aid on war propaganda. BTW: You can read the pamphlet in less than an hour easy. 

DaveSchmidt said:

tjohn said:

WW II, was much more of a direct threat to our national interests.

Which the U.S. didn’t enter until Japan created Butler’s condition of home defense.

Interestingly, Butler seems to predict that our naval operations in the Pacific would anger the Japanese.

From Chapter 4;

At each session of Congress the question of further naval appropriations comes up. The swivel-chair admirals of Washington (and there are always a lot of them) are very adroit lobbyists. And they are smart. They don't shout that "We need a lot of battleships to war on this nation or that nation." Oh no. First of all, they let it be known that America is menaced by a great naval power. Almost any day, these admirals will tell you, the great fleet of this supposed enemy will strike suddenly and annihilate 125,000,000 people. Just like that. Then they begin to cry for a larger navy. For what? To fight the enemy? Oh my, no. Oh, no. For defense purposes only.

Then, incidentally, they announce maneuvers in the Pacific. For defense. Uh, huh.

The Pacific is a great big ocean. We have a tremendous coastline on the Pacific. Will the maneuvers be off the coast, two or three hundred miles? Oh, no. The maneuvers will be two thousand, yes, perhaps even thirty-five hundred miles, off the coast.

The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the united States fleet so close to Nippon's shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles.

TJohn, if you like reading history. I highly recommend Human Smoke by Nicholas Baker.  It has no real narrative, but is basically a series of news clippings and news stories leading up to the war.  It makes one question the narratives we are taught over the years.  I found myself finding NY Times Front pages saying to myself "No Friggin way" as I read the book.  I've never read another book quite like it.  

Also, you would probably enjoy Dan Carlin's Hardcore History series on WWI called Blueprint for Armageddon.   Quite a few of his HH series are mind blowingly good. 

ridski said:

Doesn't all this poll tax stuff run up against the 24th Amendment?

terp said:

I am on the record as saying I don't think democracy works. We are on the primrose path. We've gotten here with voting rights being what they are.

Pretty sure the 24th would be on the chopping block. Probably all of these:

https://www.encyclopedia.com/international/legal-and-political-magazines/voting-rights-amendments-constitution-united-states

terp said:

Wow.  Some of us have really drunk the kool-aid on war propaganda. BTW: You can read the pamphlet in less than an hour easy. 

DaveSchmidt said:

tjohn said:

WW II, was much more of a direct threat to our national interests.

Which the U.S. didn’t enter until Japan created Butler’s condition of home defense.

Interestingly, Butler seems to predict that our naval operations in the Pacific would anger the Japanese.

From Chapter 4;

At each session of Congress the question of further naval appropriations comes up. The swivel-chair admirals of Washington (and there are always a lot of them) are very adroit lobbyists. And they are smart. They don't shout that "We need a lot of battleships to war on this nation or that nation." Oh no. First of all, they let it be known that America is menaced by a great naval power. Almost any day, these admirals will tell you, the great fleet of this supposed enemy will strike suddenly and annihilate 125,000,000 people. Just like that. Then they begin to cry for a larger navy. For what? To fight the enemy? Oh my, no. Oh, no. For defense purposes only.

Then, incidentally, they announce maneuvers in the Pacific. For defense. Uh, huh.

The Pacific is a great big ocean. We have a tremendous coastline on the Pacific. Will the maneuvers be off the coast, two or three hundred miles? Oh, no. The maneuvers will be two thousand, yes, perhaps even thirty-five hundred miles, off the coast.

The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the united States fleet so close to Nippon's shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles.

TJohn, if you like reading history. I highly recommend Human Smoke by Nicholas Baker.  It has no real narrative, but is basically a series of news clippings and news stories leading up to the war.  It makes one question the narratives we are taught over the years.  I found myself finding NY Times Front pages saying to myself "No Friggin way" as I read the book.  I've never read another book quite like it.  

Also, you would probably enjoy Dan Carlin's Hardcore History series on WWI called Blueprint for Armageddon.   Quite a few of his HH series are mind blowingly good. 

So, if only we had stayed behind our moats, Japan would never have become militaristic.

I have heard similar arguments that Great Britain so cornered Germany that Germany had no recourse but to lash out in 1914.

Which is, of course, complete ****.  Even if we had behaved well for all of the 20th Century, Germany and Japan would still have been problematic.

terp said:

I highly recommend Human Smoke by Nicholas Baker.

His name is Nicholson Baker. He’s a famous writer. Ask any humanities major.

DaveSchmidt said:

terp said:

I highly recommend Human Smoke by Nicholas Baker.

His name is Nicholson Baker. He’s a famous writer. Ask any humanities major.

6 figures of debt are good for something.