Was ww2 a capitalistic scheme?

[BurnedFlagz]

I have been reading the ABC of (communist) Anarchism by Alexander Berkman and he proved to me that ww1 and many other wars are fought for profit only. I know ww2 obviously was for profit making.. but did the U.S legitimately want to stop hitler for his methods and actions?

[Blake's Baby]

Germany declared war on the US, after the US declared war on Japan (which was allied to Germany) in 1941, not the other way around.

The US could have declared war on the Nazis at any time after 1933, had there been reason to (ie had it been in the interests of the US bourgeoisie to do so). There doesn't seem to have been any reason to.

[goalkeeper]

To say the war was fought by the US with the noble intention of "stopping Hitler" is silly, but I think its also a bit reductionist to simply say it was just a scheme for profit. Different actors pushed for war (while some opposed it) for a variety of different reasons; industrialists set to profit is certainly one, but not the only.

[#FF0000]

Wars aren't "schemes" planned by capitalists behind closed doors as some kind of huge conspiracy or anything, but capitalism being what it is makes war necessary, be it for resources, to open new markets, or to protect the business interests of a country or group of countries.

[Art Vandelay]

It wasn't so much a 'scheme' as it was necessitated by global capital to sustain itself.

[Brutus]

It was just a big imperialistic land grab for hitler. Britain reluctantly agreed to help Poland after sacrificing various other countries. Hitler declared war on America, following the lead of it's ally. America would have stayed out of it if it wasn't for pearl harbour
On a less serious note, google little hitler

[JAC0BIN]

In the early 20th century, unlike today, most economists still believed in virtues of industrialization/economic growth WITHOUT trade. In other words, most still believed in developing in isolation. Nowadays, saying such is heresy among economists. But back then, many economists still had national considerations, and thus a German europe bothered the whole global respective bourgeoisie. Hitler was just before his time really.

Also note that Hitler was not as antagonistic towards the West as he was to those he considered inferior, mainly those in Eastern Europe. Hitler vouched for peace as bombs rained down on Warsaw in 39, its true. I believe national socialists believed that it could co-exist with other advanced capitalist countries, so long as they were seen as equals, England, USA come to mind.

and also, the international bourgeoisie at the time was more concerned about the rapid industrialization that was taking place in the Soviet union. To be honest, had hitler played his cards right, its not hard to see a coalition of western militaries taking on the Soviets.

[Red Commissar]

There is always an economic factor behind any war. Berkman points this out to go against the patriotic wank that occurs in the build up to war.

When a country goes to war the factors behind it can be varied and isn't simply the result of a bunch of businessmen deciding the best way to make profit though it does provide a means to make profit. The US, among other factors, was probably aware that a Nazi dominated Europe would not bode well for its long-term interests on the continent. The US, like its close allies in Europe, had been hoping that Mussolini and Hitler turn their attention towards the Soviet Union and enter into a long, drawn out war with it, killing two birds with one stone and removing a source of uncertainty for its interests there. Disruption to markets isn't good for the economy, much less a war that could reshape the balance of power on the continent. Of course things didn't go as they had anticipated.

World War I was a bit more open about the businessman factor. There's often been differing reasons for the US's gradual shift from non-intervention to intervention, one of which goes around the role of J.P. Morgan Jr. and his role in the war. Like some other industrialists, JP Morgan was cashing off the arms industry and involved in some loans to Entente nations. At some point JP Morgan got nervous about the prospects of the war (and thus nonpayment on his loans) which led to him being more vocal about intervention.

Whether his input there actually influenced the US's ultimate decision is up for debate, according to some sources not everyone in the Wilson White House was particularly pleased with Morgan's involvement in the war. What is known though is once the US was in the war, JP Morgan quickly assumed a position working with the government (including a position on the New York Federal Reserve) on loaning money to their new allies. It ensured a source of profit for JP Morgan.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

No.

WWII was the result of Britain (the major imperialist power, at the time) not allowing Germany to continue its imperialist ambitions. What followed was a clusterfuck of epic proportions.

[feeLtheLove]

It was more of a bunch of Fascists trying to spread their border and build what they see as a "dominant race." No doubt Capitalists did gain from it though.

[Blake's Baby]

Fascists are capitalists.

Britain was defending its imperialist interests. It has nothing to do with racism per se. The British and French didn't go to war with Germany to punish them for being racist.

[Invader Zim]

The US, among other factors, was probably aware that a Nazi dominated Europe would not bode well for its long-term interests on the continent. The US, like its close allies in Europe, had been hoping that Mussolini and Hitler turn their attention towards the Soviet Union and enter into a long, drawn out war with it, killing two birds with one stone and removing a source of uncertainty for its interests there.

These two points are mutually exclusive. If the USSR and Nazi Germany went to war then, inevitably, one would gain the upper hand over the other, leaving a power, hostile to US interests with a position of enormous military and economic power in a dominant position within Europe.

And the argument is totally, utterly and contemptuously wrong headed. The fact is that the western powers were desperate to prevent Nazi expansionism, and at each point along the appeasement road they thought that with this final concession Hitler would be appeased. And, in the final analysis, the French and British made guarantees to Poland, and went to War to prevent further Nazi eastward aggression, and the US backed them economically and - after 1941 - militarily.

Furthermore, when the Third Reich did invade the Soviet Union, the British, in particular sent key, highly sensitive, information to the Soviets in a bid to alleviate the worst of the Nazi onslaught - which Stalin promptly ignored because he was a paranoid idiot. Similarly, when the Nazis launched Operation Blue in June 1942, the western Allies again informed Stalin of the coming danger, which they did not have to do, and again, he ignored them.

If we take your claim at face value, that the aim of the British and Americans was to allow the Axis powers and the Soviets to embroil themselves in a bitter and mutually destructive war, then their actual actions were extremely counter-productive.

[The Idler]

Unpatriotic History of the 2nd World War - World Socialist Movement (http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/audio/unpatriotic-history-2nd-world-war)

[Invader Zim]

Unpatriotic History of the 2nd World War - World Socialist Movement (http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/audio/unpatriotic-history-2nd-world-war)

This book, if the seminar is anything to go by, was written in ignorance of the historiography. There isn't an original idea in it as far as I can see.