It is arguable that an element of America's financial investment in Britain and France was faute de mieux because the effectiveness of the Allied blockade of Germany had made trade relations pretty much impossible.

I mean, let's see. So America was just waiting around for the golden opportunity presented by two blatantly imperialist powers, Germany and Japan, taking over the world, so's they could finally start their own empire? Is that it?

no. The american govt had to sit around until they provoked the japanese into attacking them in order to get into the war because the american people had absolutely no interest in going to war anywhere at any time and had insisted that the government run down the army and navy.

Also America only declared war on japan. It would have been interesting to see if they would have become involved in the war in Europe if the Germans hadn't declared war on them

The country that defeats Germany (with the help of another would-be empire, the USSR) and Japan (pretty much all by itself) - two countries that literally threatened to take over the world - is a comparable culprit because it enjoyed the spoils of victory? Or something like that? Aren't there cleverer, less destructive ways of extending one's influence?

you're completely missing the point. I'm not arguing that america behaving in this way is either good or bad, just that most americans don't see things this way. They see themselves as people who were dragged against their will into two world wars, and have just tried to make the world a better place, even though their governments have used each of these incidents to build up their countries power. This is interestingly enough, how the romans built up their empire.

In school we were taught that the US got into the first world war because so many wealthy Americans were creditors to the British and French. We wanted to protect our investment. And fly cool bi-planes.

There was something about a telegram to the government in mexico offering assistance to invade america, and the sinking of a lot of ships by submarines as well. I would be interested to see how much money america had lent british and french clients. Either way, it was they that tore apart all of those empires at the versailles conference.

That's not right. The Spanish empire was falling apart on it's own with help from Britain and France long before the US had any power to do anything. As I recall, France sold us the Louisiana purchase partially to keep the Spanish out.

perhaps, but after the spanish empire so evilly blew up the worst and oldest ship in the american navy, America captured Cuba and the phillipines, and completely ended whatever influence spain had in south and central america.

I won't defend everything the U.S. did in Asia, but the Japanese Empire was due for a good kicking. The world would not be better off with the latter-day samurai class running over all of East Asia. I mean, look at what they did to China.

Again I'm not arguing that the japanese empire wasn't a deeply evil thing. To be honest, The longer the american boot stays on the japanese neck the better. Just that the US built itself quite a little collection of client states for a country that was dragged into the war against their will.

Also, as part of the Marshall plan, the US supported Britain and France's interests in Southeast Asia. That's one of the things that got is into Vietnam in the beginning, in fact. Also, as I recall, we helped Britain overthrow the democratically elected government in Iran that was going to nationalize their oil supply. They're still pretty sore at us for that, btw.

The US cancelled all lines of credit to the Uk and started treating them as a vassal on VJ day. They forced the UK into bankruptcy more or less insisting that they dismantle their empire and abandon their socialism. the marshall plan only became possible after it became clear what an absolute cunt stalin was. Even then American financial assistance to britain was tied to (a) allowing american companies full access to the empire countries (b) allowing those companies to trade with the colonies in Dollars, not sterling thereby supplanting Sterling with the dollar as the global currency, and destroying the british economy. The US gutted the UK like a fish between 1945-7. America fucked britain after the war, and brushed their empire out of the way.

America didn't really support france in Vietnam, they replaced them. i think there's a subtle difference there.

Ginger Yellow wrote:

QUOTE:
It's things like this (just the most convenient example from today, by no means the only or strongest example) that make it hard for me to accept that American nationalism is as harmless and as "meaningless" as some here make out. I realise it's different for politicians, but it wouldn't be so if it didn't have wider resonance. McCain is running on a slogan of "Country First" while simultaneously attacking Obama for not being "one of us" (nudge, wink) and uppity. Even if Obama were white it would be pretty offensive, yet hardly anyone in the media thinks it's remarkable and it seems to be working pretty well for him. As it is McCain is able to claim that what is pretty obvious coded racism is really virtuous patriotism..

That's a fair expression of everyone's worst fears but I think the reality of the situation is somewhat (well, a lot) different. First, I doubt these coded messages penetrate into the general consciousness above the sub-subliminal level. They see an ad for McCain and the message they get is either "McCain, Good" or "Obama, baaad" and they figure, well, they have to say that. (Most are in fact fed up with negative campaigning but feel powerless to stop it.) So allowing for the true crazies, who will vote against Obama for all the wrong reasons no matter what, the vast majority of people (remembering that half the country, which must include a disproportionate number of the true crazies, don't vote) pick their president on personality slash impression of leadership ability, and on political leanings. Not patriotism, or ethnicity, or lack of treasonous inclinations. So people will hear these messages, but most will substantially conclude they're designed to cast the candidate in a negative light and nothing more. I further imagine the people running the McCain campaign are cynical folk who aren't under the impression they'll be able to bring out people's inner racist simply with a few coded messages, but who knows. One thing they're not cynical enough about, I'll warrant, is the estimation of their own influence over public opinion. This shit flies out the door, gets magnified by the media and blogs for a day. At the end of that day, though, what changes. The same number of people still like Obama, the same number still dislike him, and the same number aren't going to make up their minds until November, when they'll vote on, you know, the economy.

QUOTE:
you're completely missing the point. I'm not arguing that america behaving in this way is either good or bad, just that most americans don't see things this way. They see themselves as people who were dragged against their will into two world wars, and have just tried to make the world a better place, even though their governments have used each of these incidents to build up their countries power. This is interestingly enough, how the romans built up their empire.

I for one never called the United States "reluctant saviors of the human race" or any such. And I haven't suggested that the U.S./Allied involvement in either war was a matter of lily-white virtue either. But an important point to make is that America started neither war, and that both became multinational conflicts well before our involvement. It would have been impossible for the United States to avoid either war forever, so how they got involved is less important than who they fought for and that they prevailed.

America may not have started either war, but they bloody well ended them on their terms.

Again my issue isn't with how america behaved in each of these instances, rather with how the citizens of those countries see self-interested, largely cynical actions by the government as being selfless acts of generosity by the american people.

QUOTE:
So allowing for the true crazies, who will vote against Obama for all the wrong reasons no matter what, the vast majority of people (remembering that half the country, which must include a disproportionate number of the true crazies, don't vote) pick their president on personality slash impression of leadership ability, and on political leanings. Not patriotism, or ethnicity, or lack of treasonous inclinations. So people will hear these messages, but most will substantially conclude they're designed to cast the candidate in a negative light and nothing more.

But that's the thing, it isn't necessarily about what people actively conclude about the ads. That is indeed the beauty of them. Put out a coded racist message and the avowed racists (who of course wouldn't vote for Obama anyway, but might not have voted for McCain either) get the message, while for other people it just plays on their unconscious prejudices and reinforces the idea that something isn't right about the candidate. Then when people complain about the racism, these voters resent being told they are racist for feeling there's something not right about him. And I don't see how you can argue that McCain's campaign isn't running on white resentment. As usual, see Digby for a far better explanation of the idea.

And I am the Life wrote:

QUOTE:
America may not have started either war, but they bloody well ended them on their terms.

As does every victor.

QUOTE:
Again my issue isn't with how america behaved in each of these instances, rather with how the citizens of those countries see self-interested, largely cynical actions by the government as being selfless acts of generosity by the american people.

American patriotism, it may interest you to hear, does not tend to be directed toward "the government." Americans are quite cynical about their government; they're patriotic about "Americans" or "the American people" as well as about "American ideals and values." Whatever cynical actions "the government" committed before during and after the two wars, the fact remains that American ideals, and the American people themselves, were considered by all involved to be facing down a grave existential threat by the time of WWII (little as that threat can be compared to the horrors already being experienced in Europe itself). And so many selfless acts of generosity by ordinary Americans, in the name of American ideals (it of course literally was for the soldiers involved a war to defend freedom from extinction) were both required and freely given. Yes there was a draft, but the public support for the "just war" was overwhelming and a draft dodger would've been a pariah. A Hitler victory was greatly feared by all, and given the magnitude of the threat and very real likelihood that Hitler was about to use a totally conquered Europe as a base to attack the homeland, I think Americans had every right to consider they were fighting for their way of life.

Ginger Yellow wrote:

QUOTE:
But that's the thing, it isn't necessarily about what people actively conclude about the ads. That is indeed the beauty of them. Put out a coded racist message and the avowed racists (who of course wouldn't vote for Obama anyway, but might not have voted for McCain either) get the message,

Not sure I buy it - I don't see these ads changing people's minds or setting off light bulbs. Just a hunch.

QUOTE:
while for other people it just plays on their unconscious prejudices and reinforces the idea that something isn't right about the candidate. Then when people complain about the racism, these voters resent being told they are racist for feeling there's something not right about him.

I think this overstates the supposed sheeplike quality of the American voter. Voters may be ill-informed but they by and large are able to express what they don't like about a candidate beyond "something just not right about him."

QUOTE:
And I don't see how you can argue that McCain's campaign isn't running on white resentment. As usual, see Digby for a far better explanation of the idea.

I think they're flirting with it, which is different from running on it, but I'm not saying it's entirely absent. I just don't think it's likely to change many people's minds. Political campaigns like to fancy themselves barometers of public opinion; they aren't.

QUOTE:
Also America only declared war on japan. It would have been interesting to see if they would have become involved in the war in Europe if the Germans hadn't declared war on them

I think the general consensus is that Roosevelt wanted to get into it in Europe and didn't have the support until Pearl Harbor and the subsequent declaration from Germany, but that he knew that as soon as Japan attacked (which we provoked) that he would have that support.

QUOTE:
There was something about a telegram to the government in mexico offering assistance to invade america, and the sinking of a lot of ships by submarines as well.

My understand is that the telegram business was a bit overblown. And they were sinking our ships because those ships were supporting Britain, so that's part of the investment theory. The Lusitania helped whip up support for intervention but wasn't really the cause.


The US wanted everyone to dismantle empires after WWI because look how that turned out! Also Wilson wanted the League of Nations and all of that, so it wasn't like nobody had a better vision, but he failed to win enough support. And there was the business of France wanting to stick it to Germany, which didn't help.

I don't know much about the 1945-47 era, but I don't know what you mean about us cancelling credit to the UK. Lend-Lease was replaced witht he Anglo-American Loan, which seems like a pretty good deal except for the part about it being in dollars. Sorry about that. I swear, it wasn't up to me.

Once the Cold War got going. The US was hell bent on helping the UK and France (and as much of Europe as possible). We did support France in South East asia and there was something about supporting British rubber interests in Malyasia but I forget. I know I read it in my course on Vietnam. I wish I could recall the name of the book. But when the shit came down at Dien Bien Phu, neither the US or Britain had the will to send troops to that clusterfuck. As I recall, the British said to the US "if you're not going, we're not going" and we said to them "well, if you're not going, we're not going." I wish I could find that book.

And I'm sure about that Iran thing.

I'm not saying that the US doesn't act in it's own selfish interests. But I do believe, based on what I've read, that even while the US was pushing for the end of the age of Empire in the immediate post-WWII period, we also supported a fair amount of Empirical behavior from our allies in order to further the Marshall Plan which was, of course, an important part of the Cold War effort.

As does every victor.

Absolutely not. The english didn't have a whole heap of say in what happened in 1945.

I think that your second paragraph neatly encapsulates the problem.

American patriotism, it may interest you to hear, does not tend to be directed toward "the government." Americans are quite cynical about their government; they're patriotic about "Americans" or "the American people" as well as about "American ideals and values."

it would have been easier to say this with a straight face before september 11th 2001.

Whatever cynical actions "the government" committed before during and after the two wars, the fact remains that American ideals, and the American people themselves, were considered by all involved to be facing down a grave existential threat by the time of WWII

eh? really?

A Hitler victory was greatly feared by all, and given the magnitude of the threat and very real likelihood that Hitler was about to use a totally conquered Europe as a base to attack the homeland, I think Americans had every right to consider they were fighting for their way of life.

I wonder how widely held this opinion was on 6th december 1941

Is the idea that patriotism as an ideology is in general justified, or that this is only so in the case of America and possibly a few others? Both claims seem absurd.

And I am the Life wrote:

QUOTE:
American patriotism, it may interest you to hear, does not tend to be directed toward "the government." Americans are quite cynical about their government; they're patriotic about "Americans" or "the American people" as well as about "American ideals and values."

it would have been easier to say this with a straight face before september 11th 2001.

I'm going to give you the opportunity to complete this point before I venture to make any comment about it.

QUOTE:
Whatever cynical actions "the government" committed before during and after the two wars, the fact remains that American ideals, and the American people themselves, were considered by all involved to be facing down a grave existential threat by the time of WWII

eh? really?

Yes, really. The U.S. felt threatened to its core. I'm not making it up!

QUOTE:
A Hitler victory was greatly feared by all, and given the magnitude of the threat and very real likelihood that Hitler was about to use a totally conquered Europe as a base to attack the homeland, I think Americans had every right to consider they were fighting for their way of life.

I wonder how widely held this opinion was on 6th december 1941

That wasn't the point, though it was indeed a growing fear long before Pearl Harbor. Few were exactly oblivious to the fact that Britain, the last bastion in Europe, was only holding out because the Americans were arming them. It wasn't exactly very difficult to pin down Hitler's designs on the American continent either. There was a large Nazi spying operation found in the U.S. before the war.

"America has its grandeur and its follies, but most of all, it's where all our stuff is." - Lisa Simpson.

That pretty much summarizes it for me.

Reed of the Valley People wrote:

QUOTE:
"America has its grandeur and its follies, but most of all, it's where all our stuff is." - Lisa Simpson.

That pretty much summarizes it for me.

Perfect.