The Libertarian Capitalists are trying to twist US WWII economic activity into something that did not lift the remaining unemployed (from about 25% to 10% via New Deal efforts) out of near starvation and did not set up the post-war economy for a continuation of that fact.
My comment about the paper (PDF) "The Reality of the Wartime Economy: More Historical Evidence on Whether World War II Ended the Great Depression," by Steven Horwitz and Michael J. McPhillips:
We don't need violent war to put the same level of people to work this time producing what the people really need and want and per the people's actual choices via voting with their local, grassroots ballots rather than simply with their unequal wallets (unequal mostly through no fault of their own unless not being a huge bankster or other cheat is a fault).
The question as posed by the paper is, frankly, stupid or "cleverly" tricky. Steven Horwitz and Michael J. McPhillips completely and I should think, deliberately dodge the salient issue -- the one that matters.
Of course there was deprivation because of the violent-war effort. However, the point is that the same degree of effort put forth toward a non-violent war on poverty would not result in deprivation but the exact opposite.
Regardless, the people who were completely unemployed pre-war who were then employed in the war effort where materially better off. It is true that during the war people who had been materially better off where often worse off though. If there were a non-violent war on poverty with as much effort put forth in that as there was in fighting the violent WWII, those who are now materially better off would not be then worse off. That's the point that matters. That fact renders the paper ("The Reality of the Wartime Economy: More Historical Evidence on Whether World War II Ended the Great Depression") an interesting read solely for the facts that don't support the real motives of its authors.
The shift to the peace-time economy was necessary to move the economy from production for weapons, ammunition, etc., to non-militaristic production, even though the Military Industrial Complex continued. Nevertheless, WWII set things up for that to happen as it did.
What the authors of this paper want is something they can't do. They want people to misbelieve that public efforts in peace-time can't end recessions and depressions.
Of course, Greenbacks (tax- debt- and usury-free United States Notes v. taxed- debt-based- usury/interest-bearing- Federal Reserve Notes) created and handled correctly would preclude recessions and depressions barring natural catastrophes that would sink any economy for a time.
Look, if the point is to argue against war, I'm totally with that. That though does not appear to be the point of the paper but rather to support the false position that public efforts, cooperative efforts, collective efforts, cannot result in a higher quality of life.
What Libertarian Capitalist always appear to ignore is the public effort that is the opposite of central planning, as if central planning is the only "socialism." It isn't. The problem with Anarcho-Capitalists (anarchists) is that they appeal to selfishness, which is their own self-fulfilling prophecy. Why accept a lower spirit rather than ask people to rise to the higher one?
Do you really believe Jesus Christ taught selfishness? Why do you Libertarian Capitalists preach anti-Christ ideology and philosophy and economics? Why do you call people to fall rather than rise?