B. U. G. S.

Peter wrote a comment for the blog which was a careful, excellent statement. The only thin I object to is his calling it a “rant:”

“Bob, CL is right. I think you seemed to be saying that not making a Declaration of War is a clever ploy which increases the stronger power’s likelihood of success, as if it would be required to fight the war with an arm tied behind its back. Following is a long rant.”

“Basically this means that if the weaker side simply does not do one small thing, then the stronger side will throw down its arms and refuse to wage war. In the US, this sort of thinking dates to the WbtS, that there would have been no war if SC had simply not taken back Fort Sumter.”

“The thinking continued in WWI, and had the Germans just ignored the armaments on Lusitania, had not taken out full page ads in the NY Times to warn everyone not to board the ship, and had not sunk it, then they would have won the war (clearly and with no armistice).”

“The thinking continued in WWII, when FDR was waging war on Europe with all but US troops and had declared war on the Axis partner Japan. Somehow, if Germany had not countered the declaration with the statement that “a state of war has existed between the US and Germany,” then Germany would have won WWII! However, FDR had found an illegal way around every other restriction of US participation in WWII, so what would hold him back from sending troops now that he had gotten a Declaration of War on an Axis partner? The Germans of the era were known for ridiculous thoroughness and horrible pains-taking. It would be odd if they made this important decision if they saw another option. Further, the Germans believed they would lose the war with the US. However, FDR wanted war against Germany, and was in fact already waging war against Germany, and was escalating that war by turns. Germany was scarcely fighting back (the Communists had their full attention). If Hitler had not made his speech saying that “a state of war existed” there is no reason to believe that FDR would have thrown down his arms. The speech was made to publicize to Germany and the international community just how FDR had been waging war against Europe since 1939. The speech did not give FDR an excuse to wage war against Germany. FDR was already doing that. The speech did not give FDR an excuse to escalate the war. He was already escalating the war. ”

“Had Hitler not made his speech, FDR would have sent troops against Europe anyway under a different excuse, and you would be writing here that Hitler should have declared war right after Pearl Harbor so he could have taken precautions at the earliest possible moment and brought the greatest publicity to FDR’s war by publicizing an account of it right after Pearl Harbor, while the world was watching. ”

“A formal Declaration of War is often only for internal politics. It ensures that war is undertaken legally by a country’s own rules. In the US, it means that the Commander in Chief has the legal right to wage war. Calling a war a “police action” and authorizing troops for the war is just a ruse admitting that the CoC is illegally waging war. If two countries are at peace, then a Declaration can be an eleventh hour tool to encourage an enemy to submit. But if hostilities are already underway, then the enemy does not need the enemy’s Declaration of War. If you are already fighting, a Declaration of War is a little late. If a stronger party wants war, it does not matter if the weaker country declares war or not. Not declaring war would be a feckless defense.”

“Bob’s argument may work in the rare case that a weaker country wants to harm a stronger. A weaker country that wants to harm a stronger country without a full-scale war will not declare war. For example, Mexico is harming the US right now knowing that it has the cooperation of our leaders. Tom Tancredo says that the Mexican army escorts drug shipments and illegal aliens invading the US. On occasion, they have fired upon and threatened to fire upon the undermanned US Border Patrol. These are acts of war. But if Mexico actually declared war, it would draw publicity to the border, and US leaders would be forced to ask Mexico to take a low profile for a while.”

“All the same, the thinking that if a weaker side simply neglects to do one small thing then it will win a war a stronger party wants is not thinking at all. Neglecting certain actions, like issuing an official Declaration of War, or taking back Fort Sumter, or sinking the Lusitania with all its armaments, or allowing enemy weapons inspectors to spy on anything they want only helps the enemy. ”

When a psychopath wants to kill someone, his demands to the victim are made to make the killing easier for him. Thinking that a small country can neglect one small act and so cancel a stronger party’s plans for war is not thinking at all. It is WORDISM.

MY REPLY:

This addition to the seminar is going to make me do some thinking.

In the meantime, you might want to read over what Peter said again.

IN MY OPINION it’s good stuff.