Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Ayn Rand on World War II

Rate this topic


woschei

Recommended Posts

Not only were the Axis powers a threat to the U.S. but it was the Axis that declared war on America - first the bombing of Pearl Harbour and shortly afterwards Germany's declaration of war.

Unless Rand was a pure pacifist, and we know she was not, she could not have opposed a war in which America was attacked.

Regarding WWII, about the only negative I can remember Ayn Rand mentioning is that she did oppose America allying itself with Russia to defeat the Nazis.

Edited by Yes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This may be a little off-topic, but I didn't want to start a brand new one for just a simple matter.

I've always viewed The Roots of War to be a critique of Kant's Democratic Peace Theory. She is, in essense, claiming quite correctly that a system banning the initiation of force would be the only anti-war system. Kant is the genesis of the idea that democratic states (never defined until the 20th century) don't go to war with other democratic states (Thomas Friedman had something similar that a country with a McDonalds has never bombed another with a McDs, but this was voided when NATO attacked Serbia in the late 90s). I don't know if Ayn Rand knowingly critiques Kant in TROW, and I think it's an interesting question to bring up.

I think it's important to critique DPT today because the neo-conservatives and President Bush certainly hold on to this idealism of "spreading freedom". For anyone doubting Kant's influence, one only has to point to the Bush Administration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the following excerpts from "The Roots of War" make it clear enough what Ayn Rand thought of U.S. intervention in both world wars:

"Just as [Woodrow] Wilson, a 'liberal' reformer, led the United States into World War I 'to make the world safe for democracy' -- so Franklin D. Roosevelt, another 'liberal' reformer, led it into World War II, in the name of the 'Four Freedoms.' In both cases the 'conservatives' -- and the big business interests -- were overwhelmingly opposed to war but were silenced. In the case of World War II they were smeared as 'isolationists,' 'reactionaries,' and 'America-First'ers.'

"World War I led, not to 'democracy,' but to the creation of three dictatorships: Soviet Russia, Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany. World War II led, not to 'Four Freedoms,' but to the surrender of one-third of the world's population into communist slavery."

(published in THE OBJECTIVIST magazine, June 1966):

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Toolboxnj, I agree - George W Bush certainly appears to be an advocate of DPT. Check out transcipt or video of this post-relection conference with UK Primeminister Tony Blair:

whitehouse.gov

to quote some of the press questions dialogue:

PRESIDENT BUSH: Let's see here. Cochran. John?

Q I'm totally shocked. (Laughter.)

PRESIDENT BUSH: That's why I called on you. (Laughter.)

Q You know, you talk about democracy being so necessary. There are those who would say there is sometimes a harsh peace of a dictator. What if the Palestinian state comes up with somebody who is not a democrat, but is willing to have peace with the Israelis? And let me transfer that to the Iraqis, as well. What if the Iraqis come up with somebody who's not friendly to the United States, is not a democrat, but it's peaceful, is this something you can live with?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, first of all, if there's an election, the Iraqis will have come up with somebody who is duly-elected. In other words, democracy will have spoken. And that person is going to have to listen to the people, not to the whims of a dictator, not to their own desires -- personal desires. The great thing about democracy is you actually go out and ask the people for a vote, as you might have noticed recently. And the people get to decide, and they get to decide the course of their future. And so it's a contradiction in terms to say a dictator gets elected. The person who gets elected is chosen by the people. And so I don't -- I'm not --

Q You can be elected and be a tyrant.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, you can be elected and then be a strong man, and then you get voted out, so long as you end up honoring democracy. But if you're true to democracy, you'll listen to the people, not to your own desires. If you're true to democracy, you'll do what the people want you to do. That's the difference between democracy and a tyrant..........And the reason why I'm so strong on democracy is democracies don't go to war with each other.

-----

(Anybody remember Adolf Hitler? Elected leader of the Weimar republic 1933. Proprietor of WW2.)

(edited to capitalize Weimar!)

Edited by Charles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q You can be elected and be a tyrant.

PRESIDENT BUSH: And the reason why I'm so strong on democracy is democracies don't go to war with each other.

-----

(Anybody remember Adolf Hitler? Elected leader of the Weimar republic 1933. Proprietor of WW2.)

Yes, that's exactly what I was shooting for.

Today we have the neo-conservatives in power, or as Charles Krauthammer calls "democratic realism" - a merging of the realist and idealist theories on foreign policy.

It gravates to the Kantian "principle" of sorts that democracies don't go to war with democracies, which was revised in the 1950s. Although we have empirical evidence that this isn't true, it's accepted by the neo-conservatives and why they are so focused on "spreading democracy", even with force if needed.

Democracy doesn't being peace, capitalism does. When wealth is privatly owned, the initiation of force is banned and the nation protects/respects individual rights, that nation has no incentive to go to war except in self-defense. What Bush should have done, if the "sacrifice" of our soldiers was not in vain, was to mandate a system of government in Iraq that protects individual rights. But, what kind of examples can a neo-conservative give that he is in favor of protecting individual rights at home in America?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

freecaptialist, lol

What strange conclusions you draw.

What about the fact that Germany had invaded (with 80% of her forces) Russia (underestimating that army to be 25% of it's actual size) and was already being beaten out of Russia and into German territory before the US troops even got to Europe? Do you seriously believe Germany would have taken over all of Eurasia? Do you seriously believe that the war was close, or the outcome unforeseeable by 1943?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freecapitalist,

You know, I would have to say that your position does rather contradict a few things that I know about the war. Are you familiar with the production numbers for the T-34 versus German panzers? It was over 20:1, as I recall. And as you probably know, the T-34 was the superior of German panzers until the advent of the (mechanically unreliable) Panther, which was only produced in severely limited numbers.

(Yes, yes, the Tiger had superior armor and firepower, but it was SLOW. This applies even moreso to the "king tiger," which might have been an okay siege weapon, but was hardly a weapon of mobile warfare...)

Now, of course you could make the case that the T-34 was based on American technology, and may not have been able to have been produced in those numbers without American industrial aid. (I do know that aid was essential, but I don't have any solid figures on just how much we gave them relative to their regular output figures)

And of course, the jet planes are a factor, but as I recall they were never able to get the exotic materials needed to produce them in numbers. Ah, but was this due to our bombing efforts? Does anyone have any more solid info on that one?

Also, David and Goliath? I don't know about that one... I was under the impression that the USA of that time was quite competitive industrially with the rest of the world. What makes you think that this theoretical Nazi state could have outproduced the USA? Are you counting the historical Soviet production to make that claim? How much intact industry would you think the Nazis would have had? What efficiency rate was there for captured nations producing under Nazi rule? Why do you credit Hitler with the organizational structure of the Wermact, when from what I hear its strengths had nothing to do with him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t remember where, but I remember reading it as well.

I think that U.S. involvement in WWII was a mistake because Soviet Russia was a bigger threat to the US than Hitler.  Neither Hitler nor Japan wanted a war,

I disagree, Hitler very much wanted war. And the Japanese Navy was going to turn on the United States eventually because it considered it the only thing standing in its way.

And you speak as though Soviet Russia, Germany and Japan would've fought each other and destroyed one another -- what of the semi-free nations of Britain, Australia, the Philippines and, yes, even France?

To the other suggestion that we somehow provoked the Japanese, this is a gross misunderstanding. The Roosevelt administration only pursued actions against the Japanese, like the oil embargo, after the Japanese invaded Indochina, or committed other atrocities in China, notably their entirely malicious invasion of Manchuria and subsequent takeover of the Chinese coastal plane (the rape of Nanking occured during this phase).

Furthermore, the embargo on Japan was in our own interests and morally right. It was not only done to protect China, but to keep Japan from attacking the Soviets and possibly drawing them out of the war, or British territory in Asia or India, and allowing a speedy German take-over of Europe.

There is no doubt you can criticize the outcomes of WWII on many levels -- the sacrifice of many nations to the Soviet Union, for example -- but it was a very dangerous situation no matter which side we took. The most pressing threat was Germany, as they were the ones actively goosestepping through Europe, in both unfree & (more importantly) semi-free nations.

(Anybody remember Adolf Hitler? Elected leader of the Weimar republic 1933. Proprietor of WW2.)

(edited to capitalize Weimar!)

Hitler, by the time we went to war with him, was no longer the leader of a free nation and it is arguable he never was since he used force to intimidate his way into power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Nate, why not let him and Stalin murder each other, instead of making an insane alliance with a thug? 

You speak as though this was truly a viable option. It wasn't. France was occupied, other free nations of Europe were occupied or on their way to being occupied, and Britain was under attack. It would only be a matter of time before ONE of those two thugs won, and attacked us directly or continued attacking and defeating our allies and working against our interests.

The truth is that FDR and Stalin were both despots, and they needed this.

FDR might have been a bad President, but he wasn't a despot. Not on the level of Stalin or Hitler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, but a despot nevertheless. He was a power-lusting SOB, who tried to rig the Supreme Court so that he could run agian, and again, and again...

Sure, the winner would've attacked the US eventually, but joining just to protect England is nonsense. She did nothing and appeased Hitler and Stalin while they grew. They brought it upon themselves on the continent, we should've let them reaped what they sowed. Once one of the thugs won, we take what's left. I personally think whoever would've been left would've rolled over.

The fact is that Hitler and Stalin would've destroyed each other, and perhaps all the free nations on the continent, by the time they felt like attacking us. Sure, I think we should've dealt with Japan after the attack, but certainly not go in and waste lives "saving" France and the "free" Europe that did nothing to stop Hitler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, but a despot nevertheless.  He was a power-lusting SOB, who tried to rig the Supreme Court so that he could run agian, and again, and again...

FDR didn't need to rig the Supreme Court in order to run again. There was no limit to how many times he could have run/won.

On my blog you've commented positively about the Iraq occupation, and now here on WWII. If I'm not mistaken, it appears that you are either a war-monger or an altruist when it comes to using our military.

And it seems to me you're a "cookie cutter objectivist" who seemingly won't accept any foreign policy beyond nuking every nation we confront.

Edited by Captain Nate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct, I was mistaken on why he needed to jam the supreme court with his own judges. It was because SCOTUS declared the new deal unconstitutional, and he wasn't pleased with this, so he wanted his own guys in there, and tried to do so with unconstitutional presidential power.

I won't accept a foreign policy of self-sacrifice, nor one that entails waging war for war's sake. Both the Iraq occupation and our involvement in Europe during WWII are irrational, and to be supportive of such war policy is irrational. The rest of your comments don't merit a response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't accept a foreign policy of self-sacrifice, nor one that entails waging war for war's sake.  Both the Iraq occupation and our involvement in Europe during WWII are irrational, and to be supportive of such war policy is irrational.  The rest of your comments don't merit a response.

Well, when most of our trading partners, and semi-free allies are being swallowed up by unfree dictatorships such as the Axis Powers, I would argue our interests were being threatened! Not to mention it would only be a matter of time before we ourselves were attacked (and it was, as we were in December of 1941).

In Rand's own critiques of the Vietnam war, she argued we should be using our resources to better secure actual free nations (like Taiwan) and to protect our interests. Clearly, Rand did not see fighting a war in order to defend other free or semi-free nations from being conquered and opposing, rather than appeasing, aggression as being self-sacrifice, or war for war's sake.

Edited by Captain Nate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going down this route of arguing costs and benefits, because it is crystal clear that trading hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of tax dollars in order to "maintain trade relations with nations that assisted in their own demise" is ludicrous. Further, doing something similar in order to establish a "republic among Muslim Arabs" is equally as ludicrous.

The fact is that if one properly weighs the costs and benefits, the best strategy would've been to let Hitler and Stalin destroy themselves and take the winner, also to depose Saddam and all the other virulent dictators without occupying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact is that if one properly weighs the costs and benefits, the best strategy would've been to let Hitler and Stalin destroy themselves and take the winner, also to depose Saddam and all the other virulent dictators without occupying.

If you wish to believe were a viable options, feel right ahead. However, I am forced to disagree with you. Those were/are not options in the real world in which we are forced to live.

Edited by Captain Nate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, so because the type of men that would advocate and carry out a proper foreign policy don't exist in politics today we are to support and advocate the foreign policy of the men that do exist in politics today? You mean that we are to refrain from judging on principle based on the "realities" of the moment? You mean the choices made by man are the metaphysically given? Do you see the metaphysical view you are expressing?--a primacy of consciousness one.

There is no "feeling" in my assessment, and that you accuse me of this is puzzling. I will not engage in ad hominems, rather I will point to the facts of reality and judge accordingly. Objectivism doesn't advocate the view you are propounding, so please stop expressing it here in a forum for those of us who wish to learn and apply it. I agree with Ayn Rand that our engagement in the European theater of WWII via an alliance with the USSR was irrational and I do no support it, I also agree with ARI's position that our activity in the Iraq occupation is irrational and I also don't support this. I refuse to subjugate my judgement to the "realities of the moment."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, so because the type of men that would advocate and carry out a proper foreign policy don't exist in politics today we are to support and advocate the foreign policy of the men that do exist in politics today?

No, but I think it's the height of irrationally to develop a cost/benefit analysis without the context of the international system we exist in and have to live with today. That's like ignoring reality, throwing away our true interests for a haze of vague principles which won't do us any good if our enemies are goose stepping over the border.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand what you mean by "international system" and how carrying out a cost/benefit analysis is contingent on the range fo the moment. In the end, either an action is for a country or against it. Look at what leaving one of the European thugs to roam got us in exchange for the hundreds of thousands of lives and perhaps trillions of dollars spent. All of Eastern Europe suffered under the plague of communism, millions died, we continued to spend on the fake Cold War, etc. Look at what the occupation in Iraq is likely to get us. Iraq will be anything but a Republic, we will not have a permanent military base there. All for the blood and gold that was spent on keeping the country stable enough so that they might implement Sharia law in the constitution.

Let me give you instance of foreign policy that is worth looking up to. Look at Washington and his signing of Jay's treaty, which was supposed to be an expression of America's neutrality when France and England were fighting each other for world dominance. It actually was a series of conensions to England in exchange for some minor consessions to us on their part. Either way, this was totally against the rough for many in the Union, for they saw it as a complete repudiation of the Spirit of '76.

Washington, on the other hand, rose above the emotionally-charged mentality and forsaw that inevidably England would win its conflict with France, and further saw the French for what Jefferson and his people refused to see them as: blood-thirsty anarchists. So even within the context of a nation that just won its independence from England, Washingon had the courage to sign a treaty that substantially favored England. If one "immerses oneself in the international scene" at the time, one can hardly not conclude that Washington had gone senile, as Jefferson claimed. In the end, however, he took in the facts of reality and acted accordingly--and history has redeemed him for it.

Similarly, Bush today shrugged off international opinion and attacked Iraq regardless. For this I was eminantly pleased, for he acted on principle and on the facts of reality. But it was all for not, for afterward he justified the occupation of Iraq on selfless grounds, something that is common on the "international scene."

I guess I don't understand what you are advocating. Are we to support the Iraq occupation and the alliance with a thug like Stalin, or are we to shrug our shoulders and withhold judgement? Or, are we to say "considering the context of today's and history's politicos, at least we did somthing in Iraq and at least we took on one of the thugs in Europe?," while not condeming those actions for the irrationality they are based upon? What are you advocating?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of Eastern Europe suffered under the plague of communism, millions died, we continued to spend on the fake Cold War, etc.

I don't see why you care about the millions of people dead and living under communism. The Germans had people being thrown into ovens, killing millions and invading other nations and killing even more millions. Why are the millions killed under communism a criticism against us acting to stop the millions killed under Nazism?

Look at what the occupation in Iraq is likely to get us.  Iraq will be anything but a Republic, we will not have a permanent military base there.  All for the blood and gold that was spent on keeping the country stable enough so that they might implement Sharia law in the constitution. 
For them to impliment a system where, yes, there is a mixture of church and state may look like a step backwards to us, but for them it's a huge step forward.

Let me give you instance of foreign policy that is worth looking up to.  Look at Washington and his signing of Jay's treaty, which was supposed to be an expression of America's neutrality when France and England were fighting each other for world dominance.  It actually was a series of conensions to England in exchange for some minor consessions to us on their part.  Either way, this was totally against the rough for many in the Union, for they saw it as a complete repudiation of the Spirit of '76. 

This is a misreading of the problems with the Jay treaty. It didn't address the biggest issues America had with Britain dealing with the blockades and impressment..

Washington, on the other hand, rose above the emotionally-charged mentality and forsaw that inevidably England would win its conflict with France, and further saw  the French for what Jefferson and his people refused to see them as: blood-thirsty anarchists.  So even within the context of a nation that just won its independence from England, Washingon had the courage to sign a treaty that substantially favored England.  If one "immerses oneself in the international scene" at the time, one can hardly not conclude that Washington had gone senile, as Jefferson claimed.  In the end, however, he took in the facts of reality and acted accordingly--and history has redeemed him for it. 
Washington submitted the treaty to the Senate because it kept the United States out of a war he didn't think they were strong enough to fight. It was an almost pragmatic move.

I guess I don't understand what you are advocating.  Are we to support the Iraq occupation and the alliance with a thug like Stalin, or are we to shrug our shoulders and withhold judgement?

We're supposed to act to the best of our ability to secure our interests. Not every foreign policy decision should involve going to war against everyone, and utterly destroying the nation. Sometimes a different policy is called for and necessary to protect the nation. Sometimes in order to carry out what is best for us at the moment, we need to deal with people or nations who are not the most respect-worthy states. Sometimes we don't go far enough, or go to far, but that's not just cause to say that what action was taken was a mistake, or shouldn't have been done (as is some of your arguments against WWII).

Edited by Captain Nate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do I care about the millions of innocents dying under communism? Simply because we gave it a moral sanction by allying with a thug like Stalin, that's why. The death of those millions had our stamp of approval on it.

So we are to consider beneficial a system of government in the middle east that progresses from an Islamic dictatorship to an Islamic democracy? And how does this match what it has cost us?

No, it isn't a misreading of the problems with Jays treaty. "A repudiation of the spirit of 76'" means aquiescing to England, giving in to the King. Yes, it didn't fix impressment and blockades, and this is precisely what I meant be repudiating the spirit of 76', but it did open up trade again and get the economy going again. Washington weighed his options based on very real facts of reality--namely that the US didn't have the man power nor the capability to wage a war against England or France at the time, but that most likely England would win. It staved off a war the US could not fight at present for at least another generation. It was a practical decision.

Today, on the other hand, we should not fear the nations of the middle east. Today, we have the man power and technology to bring them down in the span of a week. No the ideological base in the people and in the politicos isn't there for a proper foreign policy, but this doesn't mean that those of us who know what a proper foreign policy should be should be supporting or aquiescing to the one currently being implemented.

I think the heart of the matter is this: there is a proper foreign policy and there is a foreign policy that is attainable considering the context of today's culture. Sure I can judge within a proper context, just like I judged Bush's decision to go to war as major considering today's context, just as I judge the nuclear bombing of Japan as one of the most profoundly moral acts of this century. Similarly, given today's context, the selfless occupation in Iraq is unsurprising and the selfless saving of Western Europe from Hitler at the cost hundreds of thousands of Americans and trillians in dollars at the risk all out nuclear war with the Soviets is expected -- these are the kinds of actions that I expect in the times those actions were carried out. However, this doesn't mean that I can't judge those actions from a proper philosophic perspective, and this doesn't mean I'll go out of my way to defend those actions or refuse to condemn them as they should be.

I guess I'm still puzzled even though you tried explaining yourself in the last paragraph. Who's advocating the destruction of everyone? I'm merely putting forth what a selfish foreign policy should look like, namely a kind that gets the most benefit for the least cost to us. It seems as though you are averse to the death of innocents in war, are you not? Is that what's driving this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live in Germany and right now I fear a new breakout of facism here.

We have a socialist party here which reaches 12% by now. It will reach majority next time. I live in a country which is overloaded with debt. Therefore we have a high unemployment rate. And it's rising. The state can no longer finance the 'social system' it has established. The problem, as it is said in the media is, of course capitalist pigs and their greed, closing down German factories to build ones in other states. No one understands that this is utter nonsense down here.

I fear an outbreak in the next 10 years from now.

This is - by the way - how Hitler attained power. The state goes bankrupt, because he has too much debt and the people vote anticapitalist extremists whose theories cannot stand thirty seconds of rational analysis. History repeats itself if we don't learn our lessons. I wonder where I should move once I have my engineering degree.

I don't just fear this development for Germany only, but for world capitalism.

I wonder what your opinion is on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live in Germany and right now I fear a new breakout of facism here.

We have a socialist party here which reaches 12% by now. It will reach majority next time. I live in a country which is overloaded with debt. Therefore we have a high unemployment rate. And it's rising. The state can no longer finance the 'social system' it has established. The problem, as it is said in the media is, of course capitalist pigs and their greed, closing down German factories to build ones in other states. No one understands that this is utter nonsense down here.

I fear an outbreak in the next 10 years from now.

This is - by the way - how Hitler attained power. The state goes bankrupt, because he has too much debt and the people vote anticapitalist extremists whose theories cannot stand thirty seconds of rational analysis. History repeats itself if we don't learn our lessons. I wonder where I should move once I have my engineering degree.

I don't just fear this development for Germany only, but for world capitalism.

I wonder what your opinion is on that.

This is worth a whole new thread! Moderators?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...