
War Is a Racket (1933) - rahuldottech
https://www.wanttoknow.info/warisaracket
======
aazaa
> Beautiful ideals were painted for our boys who were sent out to die. This
> was the "war to end all wars." This was the "war to make the world safe for
> democracy." No one mentioned to them, as they marched away, that their going
> and their dying would mean huge war profits. No one told these American
> soldiers that they might be shot down by bullets made by their own brothers
> here. No one told them that the ships on which they were going to cross
> might be torpedoed by submarines built with United States patents. They were
> just told it was to be a "glorious adventure."

Very strange how WWI makes almost no sense from today's perspective. Every
country was damaged either directly by the conflict, or indirectly through its
protracted (and still ongoing) resolution.

Had those young men simply decided to do nothing rather than join, the world
would have been a better place.

I'd be curious to know Butler's take on WWII (he died in 1940). That's the one
that people seem most hung up on. It's the only war in living memory
considered near universally "good" by those in the US. It's the war that's
invoked by every administration trying to stir up popular support for a
military adventure in a country most voters can't place on a map.

I'm doubtful our current reverence for WWII will stand the test of time. Long
after Hitler has been replaced by the next boogeyman, history students of the
future will scratch their heads at what could have possibly motivated a young
man to volunteer for such a fool's errand.

~~~
socialdemocrat
I know it is not a popular view but I think WWII was a major mistake. We could
of course not have stopped Hitler's initial actions, but it was the West's
choice to wage war against Hitler. I think that was a mistake.

The rational was to keep Poland and the Czech republic free. However at the
end of the war neither country was free. They had fallen under the Soviet
sphere of influence. The goals they set hence failed.

They KNEW Hitler planned to attack Russia. He had spoken for years about that.
That meant they would go through Poland. The sneaky but rational solution
would have been to sacrifice Poland temporary and let Hitler attack Russia.
Russia and Germany would have worn each other out.

At the end a heavily built up allied military could have marched in and
cleaned up.

~~~
SergeAx
History doesn't tolerate what-ifs, but just in case. Soviet Union wouldn't
stand war with Germany without Allies. Hitler would get access to all the
Soviet's resources: cheap slaves' workforce, food, oil, coal, steel, Arctic
and Far East seaports. Then attack on the US together with Japan, both East
and West coast. The US would not have a chance. Game over.

~~~
the_af
As far as I know, current consensus is that the Soviet Union would have
defeated Nazi Germany regardless of Western intervention, it just would have
taken more time (and a lot more casualties) to get to Berlin.

It really is a case where the Nazis picked a fight they just couldn't win.

~~~
SergeAx
Current consensus where? I live in Russia, we currently have a state-induced
wave of unhealthy "patriotic" hype here, mostly based on WW2 events. But even
in these circumstances I rather got an opinions like "without West we wouldn't
make it against Hitler" in my circles.

The keyword is "lend-lease" [0]. About 5% of weapons for 1942 Soviet offensive
operations, decisive for the final outcome, were US-made. And 80% of cars and
trucks. And lots of raw material.

[0] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-
Lease](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease)

~~~
the_af
Consensus in the West, by historians not trying to score a political point
about _current_ world affairs.

Lend-lease, while critical help, is often overplayed in the West as a way to
diminish the Soviet contribution to the war -- this is in itself the legacy of
historical views shaped by the Cold War and (unsurprisingly) by ex Wehrmacht
officers who collaborared with the West after WW2. There's no credible
mainstream analysis that has Germany winning against the Soviet Union. In
fact, it is often argued that by starting Barbarossa, Hitler effectively lost
the war. Germany didn't have the manpower, logistics capabilities _or_
equipment to take on the Soviet Union.

That's not to say it wouldn't have cost the Soviets a lot more time, effort
and bloodshed to defeat the Nazi war machine without the help of the Western
Allies.

I'm not Russian and I'm completely uninterested in how current Russia and
Putin are spinning this, by the way.

------
adaisadais
Major General Smedley Butler was a 2X Congressional Medal of Honor recipient.
In his literary magnum opus, “War Is a Racket” he argues just that. A true
statesman, he informed FDR & Co of the Business Plot, the cartel of big
businesses who plotted to overthrow the US government. An amazing American
that time will not allow us to forget.

------
vga805
Smedley Butler is like a God figure to Marines, second only to Chesty Puller.
I've often referenced this when arguing about the military-industrial complex
with people who assume that if you criticize military spending you are somehow
anti-military. I don't know if it has any effect.

Some might think it's a fallacious argument from authority, but I don't think
it is. Fortunately, or unfortunately?, the people I tend to argue with about
this stuff likely don't know what that fallacy is.

~~~
daveslash
I've had several Marine and ex-Marine friends mention Butler to me. How does
"War is a Racket" align or jive (or not!) with the _presumed_ reason that most
young men and women sign up for the military, which is to valiantly protect
and defend the country?

~~~
Ididntdothis
“How does "War is a Racket" align or jive (or not!) with the presumed reason
that most young men and women sign up for the military, which is to valiantly
protect and defend the country?”

It aligns with the fact that the warmongers are putting out a lot of
propaganda that makes it a virtue to go to war and die for the warmongers.

~~~
krapp
We're no longer living in the 19th century, most people no longer believe in
the nobility and glory of war.

Much of the modern recruitment efforts I've seen focus on benefits like paying
for student loan debts, workforce training and healthcare.

I would bet that most people who join the military today (at least in the US)
do so hoping to avoid ever having to see action, rather than looking forward
to killing for their country.

~~~
chipotle_coyote
I'm a Gen X-er, and people at my high school were joining the military almost
entirely for the touted financial and education benefits. I had multiple
friends who went into various branches and I don't recall a single one joining
with the expectation that they wanted to go out and kill people.

Having said that, though, do you remember people in that age bracked signing
up in the aftermath of 9/11? They were doing so explicitly because they wanted
to go out and "fight back." And we've been at war in those areas ever since. I
don't think it's particularly plausible that, after nearly two decades of
constant deployment to war zones in the Middle East, anyone would sign up for
the Marines with the expectation that they would _not_ be required to go kill
for their country.

------
seagullz
War is still a racket [0]. Interesting closing reflections from the article:

... not enough Americans know or care about what happens in other countries or
what their government and military is doing in their name. Do many Americans
know that there are at least 1000 American military bases around the world, or
that there is a fast growing Africa Command branch of the military that is
involved in almost every country in Africa? Certain politicians would like to
cut “discretionary” spending for such unnecessary things as education, health
care, infrastructure, and protecting the environment, but over $1 Trillion a
year in allotted to the military, secret intelligence, and “homeland security”
in order to continue such unholy activities we have seen for over 100 years.

It is telling that such a high profile person like General Butler could give
such influential speeches in the ’30’s, and that even a president (who was
also a general, perhaps not coincidentally) could warn against the military-
industrial complex in 1961. Such a thing has been unimaginable since the
Carter presidency. With the possible exception of Bernie Sanders, there are no
politicians today brave enough to take on this problem, and certainly none
with as high a profile as president. Maybe it’s time for less money in the
hands of arms producers and war profiteers. It’s time for less war and weapons
in general. Sadly, this means that it must be time for new politicians. Only a
citizenry which not only votes, but is also informed and involved, can do
this.

[0] [https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/01/15/war-is-still-a-
racket/](https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/01/15/war-is-still-a-racket/)

------
4gotunameagain
I firmly believe that it is our responsibility (the ones with at least half a
mind) to communicate and convince our fellow citizens that oversea wars should
not be supported, and protested against. So many lives have been lost for
profit of others. It's truly a shame of humanity.

~~~
generalpass
I think this is most effectively done offline. Attempt anything online and
suddenly the haters come out of the woodwork and shout you down.

------
nabla9
According to CBO analysis the total cost of Afghan & Iraq wars is going to be
something like $2.5 trillion for the US.

Imagine if this sum would have been used mostly nonviolently for bribing and
buying influence in the region. Depending how the money is distributed, it
would have been:

* $35k per each person in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you divide it into households maybe something like $100k - 150k per household.

* 2.5 million millionaires, or

* assuming you need to just bribe 20,000 most influential persons/families/groups in Iraq and 10,000 in Afghanistan that would be something like $80 million each.

corruption >> war, almost every time.

~~~
nostromo
Much of the money for war flows right back into the American economy.

You pay American soldiers and contractor salaries. You buy weapons and
technology from American companies.

Bribes don't have the same economic effect.

For these large dollar amounts, how you spend it matters as much as how much
you spend.

~~~
lukifer
> You pay American soldiers and contractor salaries. You buy weapons and
> technology from American companies.

While there are wealthy individuals who profit from the military-industrial
complex, it's hard to shake the impression that the majority of our bloated
military budget is a federal make-work jobs program (with deaths of American
troops and foreign civilians as a negative externality).

~~~
bakuninsbart
It is, and you have whole communities being completely reliant on it for
survival. But listen to Eisenhowers speech about the military-industrial
complex. This reliance is created by design, and it is making some people
extremely rich.

~~~
lukifer
I think it's something of an open secret how much public policy (military and
otherwise) is manipulated by wealthy donors and corporate lobbyists. What
perhaps goes underexamined, is the extent to which Congress members (even
those who grandstand on "fiscal conservatism") are extremely reluctant to cut
any federal expenses that would result in a loss of jobs in their
state/district (be it a closed military base, or a reduced contract with
Lockheed Martin).

Middle-class voters may not actively be lobbying for the perpetual
[Military/Prison/etc]-Industrial Complex; but the mere fact of who writes the
checks for those voters' salaries and benefits makes the racket extremely
difficult to unentrench, above and beyond the already problematic influence of
the 0.001% who are shamelessly fleecing the taxpayer. It's a truly wicked
problem.

------
stared
There is a poem by Julian Tuwim, "To a simple man" (pl. "Do prostego
człowieka"), 1929.

There are a few translations, but I like the most one by Marcel Weyland
([https://www.antiwarsongs.org/canzone.php?lang=en&id=36782](https://www.antiwarsongs.org/canzone.php?lang=en&id=36782),
see also ones into German and Italian).

More on Tuwim in general:
[https://www.cjnews.com/perspectives/features/the-20th-
centur...](https://www.cjnews.com/perspectives/features/the-20th-centurys-
greatest-jewish-poet).

------
dang
Two big threads from 2016, for the curious:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13068641](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13068641)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11236553](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11236553)

A bit from 2010:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1897856](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1897856)

------
lacker
His statements seem clear but upon further reflection they are not clear.

 _There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our
homes and the other is the Bill of Rights._

Okay, so this was written in 1933. The obvious question to me is, would the
author have supported US involvement in World War 2?

I guess with Pearl Harbor, the US was attacked. But the Japanese at the time
might have said that the US really started the war because the trade embargo
on Japan was destroying Japan's economic plans.

So was World War 2 about protecting American homes? Or was it about enabling
the US to enforce a trade embargo on Japan to reduce the size of the Japanese
empire?

I am not a history expert and I don't claim that these questions have simple
answers. I am just saying, I don't think there is any clear-cut answer of when
a war is really for self-defense or not.

~~~
rayhendricks
The United States should not have embargoed Japan. The United stars should not
have been involved in any of the world wars. Sweden has been neutral in all
conflicts since 1814 and that has worked out quite well for them.

~~~
throwmamatrain
You are correct in that there were no soldiers fighting from Sweden for either
side, but in Sweden it is also known:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_of_German_troops_throu...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_of_German_troops_through_Finland_and_Sweden)

------
splittingTimes
Just in case you want a nice pdf printout read.

[https://github.com/frankMilde/interesting-
reads/blob/master/...](https://github.com/frankMilde/interesting-
reads/blob/master/ratville_smedley-butler_war-is-a-racket.pdf)

------
jeffdavis
"One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for
any other reason is simply a racket."

What about your allies' homes? If an aggressor can pick off victims one at a
time, you won't have any allies left when they come for your home.

It also assumes that there is no form of dramatically assummetric attack that
is hard to defend against. That may have been true when this was written, but
nuclear weapons changed the game.

------
jellicle
The fact these these comment threads are only about WWII, ignoring the dozens
of other wars the US started, should tell people something.

The US military is killing people in, what, 7 or 8 countries right now, today?
Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and Niger? I feel like I'm
missing some.

------
nborwankar
We seem to be discussing WW1 and 2 while looking past the drumbeat to war in
the Middle East. Are we missing the relevance of the posted content to current
times?

------
jajag
Also referenced in this article posted a few days back: "War is still a
racket"
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21990298](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21990298)

------
nostromo
This is mostly about the WWI era, and WWI was indeed a racket, fought for
elites at the expense of everyone else.

I'm curious if he would write the same article after WWII.

~~~
modwest
Yes. War is a racket ESPECIALLY in the post-WWII era, when America became both
the world’s armory AND the world’s bank. Every single conflict that America
has been in since has been a war of choice designed to pursue capitalist
interest. Our wars are imperial wars designed to perpetuate American hegemony.
That hegemony is designed to continue/enable the pilfering of global wealth by
a relative handful of elites. It is all about centralizing power & wealth.

When I was growing up in the 90s this was pretty fringe thinking. Now, though,
20-30 years later, multiple combat tours & a military career under my belt I
realize we should have been listening to Butler all along. It’s painfully,
agonizingly naive to think that WW2 of all things would somehow be a
counterweight to Butler’s point.

~~~
Consultant32452
I have exactly the same feelings you do here, but I struggle with one thing in
particular. What is the real alternative to American hegemony? I believe it's
likely Chinese hegemony. China, on the one hand, is an ethno-state which is
rounding up the Muslim (Uyghurs) men, tossing them in concentration camps, and
assigning rapists to live with their families to re-educate them into being
good Communists. On the other hand, the Chinese are also committing mass
murder to fulfill orders for human organs. That's just what they're willing to
do to their own people. I wonder if it's possible to thread the needle such
that we temper the US while not letting China take over. I think that will be
difficult, and China is likely to win in the long run anyways. What are your
thoughts on the real alternatives to American hegemony?

~~~
modwest
That question is essentially impossible to answer, IMO.

The world we live in, our perceptions of it, the language we use to describe
it, is deeply anchored in the technocapitalist empire America was empowered to
establish in the unsettled world order left in the aftermath of WW2.

So, what are the alternatives to American hegemony? I don't know. What are the
alternatives to capitalism? What are the alternatives to accumulating and
hoarding wealth? Not doing that, I guess, right? So, the only answer I'm
equipped to provide is that the alternative to American hegemony would be
_not_ American hegemony.

(Note: I could definitely articulate a market socialist position here that
might reflect my political views but that could and would be picked apart in
an Internet forum. The point is that we are all so institutionalized to this
hegemonic world that any alternative will be seen as inferior. It will take
revolution.)

~~~
Consultant32452
I would like to draw an important distinction between what we might like to
happen vs what we think will actually happen. Particularly in a world where
the two other world powers are annexing territory and/or colonizing Africa.
Just imagine that we unilaterally stop. What do you think will happen next?

~~~
modwest
Aliens land? Monsters emerge out of the ocean? :P

There'd be a big war and after that who knows what the world would look like.
The fact you still see the world as necessarily dipole, a tension between
great powers vying for control over "the little people" kind of makes my
point.

There is no difference between an American and a Chinese hegemony. The problem
isn't that the hegemony we have is American. The problem is hegemony.

------
1voodoochild
Indeed. I've wondered if the 'great filter', and the reason why we don't see
aliens is because evolution, with the inevitable struggle for power, is self
destructive, because, uhh, war.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know
peace." Jimi

Or, it won't.

------
praptak
I wonder what on earth could have prompted this to raise to #1 just now :)

------
tootie
It's a lot of paragraphs that can be summed as "War is expensive and suppliers
can earn a lot of money", but he doesn't really discuss the strategic or
ethical value of war until the very end with this blurb:

> Well, eighteen years after, the world has less of democracy than it had
> then. Besides, what business is it of ours whether Russia or Germany or
> England or France or Italy or Austria live under democracies or monarchies?
> Whether they are Fascists or Communists? Our problem is to preserve our own
> democracy. And very little, if anything, has been accomplished to assure us
> that the World War was really the war to end all wars.

Which is a very dismissive viewpoint that America can simply wash its hands of
everything outside its borders. Surely anyone who knew about the Holocaust saw
our involvement in WWII as a moral imperative and more broadly John Donne put
it very well that "No man is an island". Certainly a lot of wars have been
fought on dubious grounds, but it's an overly cynical point of view to try to
give such a pat answer to such a huge question.

I'd also argue that there's a huge fallacy in his premise. Yes, war is
profitable for many industries. I think it's inarguable that peace is vastly
more profitable for even more industries. Friendly international relations,
stable supply lines and prosperous consumers are far more valuable than
anything else.

~~~
ntsplnkv2
> Surely anyone who knew about the Holocaust saw our involvement in WWII as a
> moral imperative

To be fair, we didn't go to war for this reason.

~~~
tootie
Well, consider it a hypothetical red line. I can see how Butler would be salty
about the US fighting to protect some arbitrary monarchical power structure,
but surely there are things worth fighting for outside our borders.

------
quantified
Thank you for posting. I’ve read this before, but I feel like this deserves an
annual reading.

------
bagacrap
Laws are written and wars are waged to protect money.

------
dennis_jeeves
History repeats. Teaching history does not help.

------
agumonkey
Conclusion of the internet Era : information is not enough. Will to act is
necessary.

Just like club of rome report, this text is old news. Yet it pops up regularly
and it means few.

------
merpnderp
I thought he was going somewhere besides conspiracy theory-ville until he said
"The trend is to poison us against the Japanese." By 1933 Japan needed no one
to make them look bad. The invasion of Asia was well underway, and only those
not paying attention were shocked by the Rape of Nanking.

If this guy was carrying water for the Imperial Japanese by 1933, he was
making excuses for genocide, torture and horror on a scale impossible for a
single person to take all in.

~~~
z3ncyberpunk
So you just conveniently forget Japan has always had an immensely violent
history, and only care that someone "made excuses" in the midst of war? Or the
innumerable atrocities historically committed on behalf of the US MIC too much
for your blind patriotism?

~~~
merpnderp
Are you now making excuses for Japan invading Asia in 1931 and proceeding to
average something like 180,000 innocent civilians murdered per month until the
end of WWII? And your excuse is they were also bad some other times, and
anyone who disagrees with you is a blind patriot?

------
hpoe
>War is just a racket. There are only two things we should fight for. One is
the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any
other reason is simply a racket.

I'd add one more, when a genocidal meglomanic is intent on wiping out an
entire race of people that I would say qualifies as one more reason.

War is terrible tragic and should be avoided at almost any cost, but there is
also evil in the world that needs to be stopped.

I think part of our problem in today's society is that the anyone born after
1990 has spent the majority of our lives with the country at war. If a war is
worth fighting it is worth winning, if it isn't worth winning than it isn't
worth fighting.

~~~
int_19h
I would agree that it qualifies. The problem is that none of the Allied
countries in WW2 got involved for that reason. That a full-fledged genocide
was going on, much less the true scope for it, became known only fairly late
in the war.

And then you can look at events such as the Evian Conference before the war,
where those same countries could have averted the worst of said genocide
without firing a single bullet. But didn't, because they were hella racist
themselves - as the famous quote from that conference went, "as we have no
real racial problem, we are not desirous of importing one". Or you can look at
the polls - one such in US in 1939 had 53% of the respondents saying that
"Jews are different and should be restricted". I don't know if there are any
stats on how many American soldiers in that war were KKK members, but it would
be an interesting study.

WW2 was a war over state interests, which themselves boil down to economic and
political power of the elites. It was retconned into this glorious crusade of
the Free World against the Evil Empire, and it was spectacularly successful
because the Evil Empire turned out to be even more evil than the war
propaganda painted it; but we should never forget that it is a post hoc
justification! WW1 actually had very similar propaganda
([https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/otheringat...](https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/otheringatrocity_propaganda))
- it just didn't hold up in retrospect, which is why our perception of it is
so different today.

------
Bostonian
"There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our
homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply
a racket."

By that logic, six years later, were Britain and France wrong to declare war
on Nazi Germany when it attacked Poland? Should the U.S. not have joined them
in 1941 in declaring war in Germany, which had not attacked the U.S.? And even
regarding our fighting Japan after Pearl Harbor, American homes in the
continental U.S. were not under threat. So was Allied participation in WWII a
"racket"? If not, why is this piece getting so many up votes?

~~~
jackfoxy
Germany declared war on U.S., not the other way around.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_declaration_of_war_agai...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_declaration_of_war_against_the_United_States)

~~~
dragontamer
WWII would have been far easier if the USA actually attacked Japan first. If
the USA declared war when Britain / France did in the late 30s, then France
may have not been overrun by the Germans. Maybe we wouldn't have needed to
land in Normandy Beach.

I don't think anybody would look at the events of the next 10-years after
1933, and consider that war to be a "Racket". Nazis were evil. Imperial Japan,
was evil.

By delaying our entry into the war for years, France was wiped out, and Japan
sunk many battleships in a surprise attack. USA got lucky that our carriers
were out on a training mission: if we lost our Carriers at Pearl Harbor, Japan
may have very well won the war.

US had 3 carriers stationed there: USS Enterprise, USS Lexington, and USS
Saratoga. All unharmed in Pearl Harbor, because they were elsewhere. And
critical to the battles to come. USA won by the skin of its teeth, shear luck
that our best ships were elsewhere during the surprise attack.

\---------

US Pacific Fleet was composed of ~200 ships, ~18 of which were lost in the
Pearl Harbor attack. The singular attack wiped out 10% of the US Pacific
Power, WWII would have been far easier if US Declared war on Japan.

\---------

If USA helped defend France in 1939, then the incredibly deadly Normandy Beach
invasion would have been unnecessary. It was due to our failure to fight
against the Nazis / Japan that France fell, and many more lives were needed to
reclaim that territory.

~~~
jcranmer
> If the USA declared war when Britain / France did in the late 30s, then
> France may have not been overrun by the Germans.

Uh, no. The US wasn't capable of getting its troops to Europe fast enough in
1939, let alone supplying its troops. The Liberty Ship program only started in
1941. Hitler was already extremely dismissive of the capabilities that the
Americans can provide, so any potential future threat the US might bring to
bear would have been ignored in his plans.

> if we lost our Carriers at Pearl Harbor, Japan may have very well won the
> war.

If the Japanese had sunk the entire US Navy (Pacific and Atlantic) on December
7, 1941, and magically completed every vessel that they planned to construct
for the remainder of the war on that date, and never lost another ship, and
the US did not attempt to refloat or salvage any ship it lost in the magic
death of the navy, by 1943, the US would have a larger navy than Japan.

Furthermore, how could Japan have turned even a decisive naval advantage into
victory against the US? It lacked sufficient logistical capacity to
contemplate holding Hawaii, let alone the US west coast.

> shear luck that our best ships were elsewhere during the surprise attack.

Yeah... no. In 1941, even the most enthusiastic carrier advocates would not
have argued for carriers being the backbone of the navy (it's really not until
the Battle of the Coral Sea that the value of carrier task forces over
battleships is demonstrated). The Lexington and Saratoga were converted
battlecruisers (admittedly, the best conversions, in large part because they
were _terrible_ battlecruisers), and were rather outdated by 1941.

~~~
dragontamer
> Furthermore, how could Japan have turned even a decisive naval advantage
> into victory against the US?

Erm, by conquering the Philippines, China, and Korea. Japan had no reason to
invade the US proper, its only goal was conquest of the Asian continent. Japan
did conquer the Philippines for a short time, before the US counter-attacked
to recapture it.

Japan had no reason to conquer the USA. Japan wanted to build the Greater East
Asia Co-Propserity Sphere:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_East_Asia_Co-
Prosperit...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_East_Asia_Co-
Prosperity_Sphere)

Japan absolutely had a crushing victory vs United States Asiatic Fleet, and
WON in Philippines. It was the pesky Pacific Fleet (and its carriers) that
came in later and saved the day. Atlantic-fleet was busy with the German
front.

If Japan won the Battle of Midway and finished off the US Pacific Fleet, Japan
probably would have created its imperialist dream. US would have retreated
from the Pacific, lost the Philippines, and focused on fighting Germany
(winning at least in the Atlantic). Allied efforts would have been on
defending Australia from the imminent Japanese threat (but Australia was far
outside the scope of Japanese imperialism, and probably safe from attack).

Of course, in real history, Japan lost the Battle of Midway in a crushing
defeat. Japan lost important ships (all four carriers committed to the battle)
and its most experienced admirals. From there, the USA was able to stall out
the war, win in Europe, and then swing to the Pacific for a finishing blow.

\-----------

EDIT: Consider how a "reverse Midway" timeline would have occurred. Instead of
losing 4-carriers in the Pacific, Japan would have destroyed nearly all
remaining US Pacific Carriers. (!!)

The USA would have to enter 1942 with ONE carrier remaining in the pacific. It
would have lost Midway, Australia would be threatened (but likely not taken,
as it wasn't part of Japanese imperialism plans). Britain / Dutch / America
would have pooled resources into defending Australia while retreating from the
greater Pacific.

The Pacific Theater was extremely close. USA would have done far better, and
had far less risk if we just attacked Japan first.

\------------

With only one or two capital ships left in the Pacific, why would the USA even
decide to attack Japan anymore? Especially when the Allies were pursuing
"Europe First" strategy? It was far more likely for the USA to give up in the
Pacific and let Japan keep its new empire.

~~~
jcranmer
> If Japan won the Battle of Midway and finished off the US Pacific Fleet,
> Japan probably would have created its imperialist dream. US would have
> retreated from the Pacific, lost the Philippines, and focused on fighting
> Germany (winning at least in the Atlantic).

You're making the same mistake the Japanese made in 1941. The Japanese assumed
that they could kick the US really hard enough, steal a few things, and the US
would just go "oh, guess I can't do anything." But in reality, as long as the
US had the capability to continue the war against Japan, it would. Even if it
had to delay the war with Japan until after Germany was defeated--which was
the _actual_ war plans of the US in the 1940s, it just turned out that the US
had such insane capacity that it could fight both Japan and Germany--the US
still would have brought its inexorable military capacity to bear on Japan.

Wars don't end because the victor has achieved its objectives and want nothing
more; they end because the loser has decided not to continue the fight (or,
more often, because it finally realizes that it has lost). Britain continued
fighting its war against Germany, even when it had no prospects of defeating
it (during the Battle of Britain), and it was suffering greatly by continuing
the war. Why would the US have decided to quit the Pacific merely from losing
its carriers, especially since it would have gained as many carriers as it
lost within a few months?

Another point to make: the other two US carriers at Midway were damaged, and
the US had four operational carriers in total in the Pacific, even after the
Wasp was transferred to bolster the Pacific fleet. Two of these carriers (Wasp
and Hornet) would be sunk before the year was out and Essex commissioned. It
wasn't until the US started churning out an Essex-class carrier (or two) every
month in 1943 that the US had a decisive advantage in the Pacific.

Midway (rather like Gettysburg) is vastly overrated as a crucial turning point
in war. It marked the first decisive victory for the winning side, and the
start of a seemingly inexorable march to war. But the losing side in both
engagements was already dangerously overstretched and would have been unable
to actually press its advantage even had it won.

~~~
dragontamer
A well reasoned post. I think that's a fair argument.

