What are the general thoughts on WWII here on Mises.org?
Were the Allies justified in fighting WWII?
What would have happened if the US wouldn't have gotten involved in the European theatre? Should they have?
I have always been interested in this time period, so I was curious what you guys thought on the issue. Any articles or books discussing the war from a Libertarian standpoint are very welcome.
Knight_of_BAAWA: They haven't chosen the Austrolibertarian way because governments have tended to cow the populace with various means, such as bread and circuses or the midnight knock at the door.
They haven't chosen the Austrolibertarian way because governments have tended to cow the populace with various means, such as bread and circuses or the midnight knock at the door.
So they're just all just total fools and no one has a brain in their head besides your team?
Jacob Bloom:Try it, start your own private army. And then go fight the US army. We shall see who wins.
Do please grow up. "My daddy can beat up your daddy" retorts have no place here.
Jacob Bloom:So they're just all just total fools and no one has a brain in their head besides your team?
Jacob Bloom: Do national militaries count as nationalist beasts? If so, then I've got nothing. That's what I'm trying to tell you guys: You gotta have someone to protect you. And the people who protect you need to have a bigger stick than the people protecting the other regions.
Do national militaries count as nationalist beasts? If so, then I've got nothing. That's what I'm trying to tell you guys: You gotta have someone to protect you. And the people who protect you need to have a bigger stick than the people protecting the other regions.
I can protect myself, thank you. I'll put in my own work. You can keep your military though.
existence is elsewhere
http://antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025
Everybody here should buy the book Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace edited by Henry Elmer Barnes. The chapters are each done by some great Revisionist proffessors.
Jacob Bloom: Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:I'm sure there are other ways, but I'll bet you money they won't work as well as a massive tax funded military.Yeah, because government is soooooooo efficient at whatever it does other than generally being inefficient. *facepalm* Try it, start your own private army. And then go fight the US army. We shall see who wins.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:I'm sure there are other ways, but I'll bet you money they won't work as well as a massive tax funded military.Yeah, because government is soooooooo efficient at whatever it does other than generally being inefficient. *facepalm*
Jacob Bloom:I'm sure there are other ways, but I'll bet you money they won't work as well as a massive tax funded military.
*facepalm*
Try it, start your own private army. And then go fight the US army. We shall see who wins.
This isn't a measure of effiency, it is a measure of who can afford the largest gun.
http://libregamewiki.org - The world's only encyclopedia on free(as in freedom) gaming.
Jacob Bloom:And I think you're getting a friendly fire accident confused with an actual intent to harm the US. Obviously, the attack was a mistake.
Seriously? Where did you get that conclusion from? Obviously not from the facts of the situation.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/margolis12.html
Stephen Forde:Btw, the U.S. should've never went to war against Hitler.
Lord Shore-Twilly: Stephen Forde:Btw, the U.S. should've never went to war against Hitler. Actually, Germany brought the US into the European theatre by declaring war on the US. Pearl Harbour brought the US into the Pacific war, but the US did not use that as an impetuous to declare war on Germany and Italy. Furthermore once Germany brought the US into the war, US shipping became an obvious target for German U-Boats. So the US was not, as you seem to believe, able to sit back and ignore the fact that it was in the conflict.
Because supplying German enemies unconditionally with subsidies and weaponry was not entering the war.
OK. Officially, the US declared war on Germany after Germany declared war on the US, but official isn't always reality. It's similar to Lincoln putting his federal troops in the sovereign state of South Carolina while not "technically" declaring war.
Read this book.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:Try it, start your own private army. And then go fight the US army. We shall see who wins.*facepalm* Do please grow up. "My daddy can beat up your daddy" retorts have no place here.
My friend, it's a simple question of effectiveness. If we are all to have our own private armies, shouldn't we want to know how well they stand up to public armies first?
kiba: This isn't a measure of effiency, it is a measure of who can afford the largest gun.
Which army wins is a clear test of effectiveness. If the armies were of the same size, it might even become a test of efficiency.
Stephen Forde:Because supplying German enemies unconditionally with subsidies and weaponry was not entering the war.
A stupid argument for two reasons. Firstly yes, supplying one side of a conflict, but not actually joining the conflict hardly constitutes 'entering the war'. Secondly, the US prior to Pearl harbour, had also invested hundreds of millions of dollars into Nazi Germany as well. In was only in June 1941 that the Nazis actually froze US assets in Germany. Companies such as Ford Werke, which produced tens of thousands of military vehicles for the Nazi war machine only came under complete German control (even though US assets had been frozen) after the US had entered the war.
Stephen Forde: OK. Officially, the US declared war on Germany after Germany declared war on the US, but official isn't always reality.
What, American had declared war on Germany and just not told anybody?
And why would a read a Pearl Harbour conspiricy theory book when I know the conspiricy theory has been debunked? Indeed I personally know a couple of guys who have played a role in debunking the military intelligence side of the myth.
Jacob Bloom:My friend, it's a simple question of effectiveness.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:My friend, it's a simple question of effectiveness.I'm not your friend, and what you're proposing is might makes right. You think that stealing is ok for the government because it's got more weapons and can have a big army. How disgusting.
You should ponder what you are actually saying. In this case, where the quality of the armed forces is entirely qualified by 'might', 'might' manifestly is what determines 'right'. What other way do you determine the effectiveness of an armed force than attempting to analyse its 'might'?
I guess you didn't think this through.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap