U.S. Soldiers Mercenaries?

[Arba_Sicula]

wabrams:

I don’t see how anyone could ever think of the Marines as mercs, but apparently our government at the time tried to USE them like mercenaries.

Thank you for your clarification. The Marines were never, ever mercenaries, but the Administrations of the time did use them as such.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Arba Sicula:

Here’s the opinion of one man connected with the disgraceful and dishonorable acts of our Marines in the Caribbean:

Smedley Darlington Butler, one of the most decorated soldiers in the history of the Marine Corps and recipient of two Medals of Honor and the Distinguished Service Medal, became unspeakably disillusioned with his accomplishments.

Smedley D. Butler did indeed go off the deep end. He had a political squabble with the President, and lashed out – you will note his comment:

“Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”

Three continents? He was equating his service in WWI with his service in China and Latin America.

That ought to be a clue as to what the squabble was all about – the Nye Committee and later “America First.”

 

[Arba_Sicula]

No link?

War is a Racket (1935) by Major General Smedley Darlington Butler

 

[Arba_Sicula]

To be sure, lest anyone think that a reflection of our modern Marine Corps, the US Marines never acted that way again.

 

[wabrams]

vern humphrey:

Three continents? He was equating his service in WWI with his service in China and Latin America.

That ought to be a clue as to what the squabble was all about – the Nye Committee and later “America First.”

Unless you count parts of the Carribean as North America.

 

[vern_humphrey]

wabrams:

Unless you count parts of the Carribean as North America.

He didn’t. Butler was involved in a political squabble. He was taken up with those who supported the Nye Committee and would later support “America First.”

 

[wabrams]

vern humphrey:

He didn’t. Butler was involved in a political squabble. He was taken up with those who supported the Nye Committee and would later support “America First.”

But this isn’t what he meant when he referred to fighitng on 3 continents. After doing some more research, he probably meant Europe.

 

[vern_humphrey]

wabrams:

But this isn’t what he meant when he referred to fighitng on 3 continents. After doing some more research, he probably meant Europe.

Of course he meant Europe! The Nye Committee is the committee that “discovered” the First World War was all a plot, cooked up by the munitions manufacturers (the “Merchants of Death”) to sell their wares.

 

[wabrams]

vern humphrey:

Of course he meant Europe! The Nye Committee is the committee that “discovered” the First World War was all a plot, cooked up by the munitions manufacturers (the “Merchants of Death”) to sell their wares.

A little far fetched, but it did show the ridiculous profits made off the war.

 

[Arba_Sicula]

General Butler’s political squabbles, however, don’t diminish the misuse of the Marines in the Caribbean in the interwar period and the truth of what he said, howsoever angrily.

 

[Arba_Sicula]

wabrams:

A little far fetched, but it did show the ridiculous profits made off the war.

And made a “hero” of at least one war profiteer: “Daddy Warbucks,” of Little Orphan Annie fame.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Arba Sicula:

General Butler’s political squabbles, however, don’t diminish the misuse of the Marines in the Caribbean in the interwar period and the truth of what he said, howsoever angrily.

Butler, like the Nye Committee itself, was not beyond suppressing that which did not fit his argument, and exaggerating that which did.

 

[wabrams]

Arba Sicula:

General Butler’s political squabbles, however, don’t diminish the misuse of the Marines in the Caribbean in the interwar period and the truth of what he said, howsoever angrily.

I agree whole heartedlty. One also has to remember that when he wrote War Is A Racket, he was travelling around the country to veteran hospitals visiting men who had fought in WW1. I’m sure in his mind he couldn’t get over the fac that these men had given all they had for their country, with nothing but permanent physical and psychological damage to show for it, while the industriolist became filthy rich by not even sacrificing their profit margins for the war effort.

 

[wabrams]

vern humphrey:

Butler, like the Nye Committee itself, was not beyond suppressing that which did not fit his argument, and exaggerating that which did.

Example? For Bultler, not the Nye Committee.

 

[vern_humphrey]

wabrams:

Example? For Bultler, not the Nye Committee.

Take a look at his use of wounded and disabled veterans to promote his point.

 

[wabrams]

vern humphrey:

Take a look at his use of wounded and disabled veterans to promote his point.

That would be exploiting, not suppressing; and I wouldn’t even go as far to say he was exploiting.

 

[vern_humphrey]

wabrams:

That would be exploiting, not suppressing; and I wouldn’t even go as far to say he was exploiting.

He did indeed exploit them – to stress the point that the war was somehow started by the “merchants of death” and these men were the “victims.”

When and where did he mention the REAL causes of WWI?

And then how about this:

"Then, to save that China trade of about $90,000,000, or to protect these private investments of less than $200,000,000 in the Philippines, we would be all stirred up to hate Japan and go to war – a war that might well cost us tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives of Americans, and many more hundreds of thousands of physically maimed and mentally unbalanced men."

Not one word about the Japanese seizure of Manchuria in 1931, or the annexation of Jehol Province in 1933. Japan, as we all know, was embarked on a ruthless war of conquest in China even as Butler wrote – but that doesn’t get any mention at all.

Somehow, the whole thing is due to our China trade – a peaceful trade – and our “investments in the Philippines.” And Butler knew that in only 11 years, we would grant the Philippines indpendence! But does he mention that?

 

[wabrams]

vern humphrey:

He did indeed exploit them – to stress the point that the war was somehow started by the “merchants of death” and these men were the “victims.”

When and where did he mention the REAL causes of WWI?

I hear what you’re saying, but I don’t think he was too concerned with why the war in general started, but why WE got involved.
vern humphrey:

And then how about this:

Not one word about the Japanese seizure of Manchuria in 1931, or the annexation of Jehol Province in 1933. Japan, as we all know, was embarked on a ruthless war of conquest in China even as Butler wrote – but that doesn’t get any mention at all.

i don’t believe too many people thought back then that if we went to war with Japan it would have been because they attacked us at home first.
vern humphrey:

Somehow, the whole thing is due to our China trade – a peaceful trade – and our “investments in the Philippines.” And Butler knew that in only 11 years, we would grant the Philippines indpendence! But does he mention that?

How would he have known that we would grant the Phillipines independece when he wrote his book?

 

[vern_humphrey]

wabrams:

I hear what you’re saying, but I don’t think he was too concerned with why the war in general started, but why WE got involved.

We got involved because the Germans were sinking our bloody ships!

And because the Allies were losing the war, and we did not want to face a victorious Germany alone.

wabrams:

i don’t believe too many people thought back then that if we went to war with Japan it would have been because they attacked us at home first.

No knowledgeable person could fail to understand that the Japanese were aggressively expanding at the expense of China and other smaller nations. For someone to say we opposed Japan because of US investments borders on the ludicrous – they had already taken Manchuria and annexed Jehol.

wabrams:

How would he have known that we would grant the Phillipines independece when he wrote his book?

Because we had an agreement to grant them independence in '46, of course!!

When MacAuthur returned to Corregidor he made a point of saying the flag should be raised and no ENEMY would take it down – because he knew in less than two years the Phillippinos would take it down when they became independent. He mentioned in his memoirs that we granted the Phillippines independence on schedule.

And Butler knew that – just like he knew about the Japanese aggression in China.

So when we address the initial comment I made,

Butler, like the Nye Committee itself, was not beyond suppressing that which did not fit his argument, and exaggerating that which did.

I think I can fairly say, QED.

 

[wabrams]

vern humphrey:

We got involved because the Germans were sinking our bloody ships!

We all know that.
vern humphrey:

And because the Allies were losing the war, and we did not want to face a victorious Germany alone.

From what I’ve read, Butler’s mindset was more along the line of why did we even send supplies to help if not for us to make bigger profits? Was it right? Not really, but I do respect his point of view.
vern humphrey:

No knowledgeable person could fail to understand that the Japanese were aggressively expanding at the expense of China and other smaller nations. For someone to say we opposed Japan because of US investments borders on the ludicrous – they had already taken Manchuria and annexed Jehol.

I don’t believe too many Americans thought anyone had the audacity to attack American soil. War with Japan was inevitable, but again I believe the American mindset was that we would pick and choose the time of our involvement.
vern humphrey:

Because we had an agreement to grant them independence in '46, of course!!

When MacAuthur returned to Corregidor he made a point of saying the flag should be raised and no ENEMY would take it down – because he knew in less than two years the Phillippinos would take it down when they became independent. He mentioned in his memoirs that we granted the Phillippines independence on schedule.

And Butler knew that – just like he knew about the Japanese aggression in China.

Based on our history in the early part of the 20th century, I would say Butler was in the right to question whether we would really give the Phillipine’s independece or just set up another puppet government.

With regards to China, I think it was fair to ponder whether we would fight Japan becuase they might encroach on our foreign investments or our soil.
vern humphrey:

So when we address the initial comment I made,

I think I can fairly say, QED.

What do you mean by “QED?”