LLR -

There, there.

the average american was a hell of a lot more ambivalent to goings on in europe before pearl harbour than you would suggest.

My understand is that the telegram business was a bit overblown.

You'd better believe it. these people were the inventors of modern public relations

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.

The US got everyone who lost to dismantle their empire, started the league of nations, and then fucked off home because the american population wanted to have nothing to do with the outside world. It then went home and basically dismantled it's army. It still replaced a lot of it's large empire rivals, with a lot of smaller, more malleable countries though.

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,

The anglo american loan didn't come into effect until well after vj day, and to be honest was about as much help as a brick to the face. the claims on the wikipedia page that it was not the intention of convertibility clause to damage the british economy is wildly inaccurate. That documentary that is mentioned at the bottom of that page is a fascinating programme, that I flagged up on the old board. Britain had to crawl to america for that loan, and the US fucked britain.

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

let me join the dots. It would be a lot easier to have faith in the american publics cynicism about its government's motives if the government didn't use this patriotism and love of values to play the american public like a violin in the post september 11th period, just like on every occasion before. It's just the way that empires behave when they like to pretend to themselves and their publics that they are more ethical than they really are.

Wyatt Earp wrote:

QUOTE:
Well, liking stuff about your country can be justified, but patriotism as a principle can't be, as far as I can see.

Not as an unbending principle anyway. I don't think of it as an imposed principle as much as a reaction to a narrative. And there's nothing saying that no narrative can contain some truth.

QUOTE:
Ah, right. No, I would never do anything out of national "loyalty". I'd have signed up to fight in 1939 (I hope), but not out of "loyalty". That's what all my great uncles did in 1914, and it got two of the poor cunts blown to bits for fuck all.

You say that, but you'd have felt a damn sight more loyal to a Britain run by British than by Nazis.

La Lanterne Rouge wrote:

QUOTE:
Which is something, you know, as a Brit and all, I find a bit mendacious as a claim. Because for 3 years you lot sat on your arses doing feck all about this threat whilst we stayed as the last (western) bastion losing lives and resisting and everything, so, effectively, saving your sorry arses whilst you were too chickenshit or lazy to help out. And then, three years in, you still don't join to help out or stop this terrible threat, but because the Japanese attacked and the Germans therefore declared war on you leaving you no choice, really.

That's also a very skewed reading of history.

I would say that the idea that Hitler was "Europe's problem" makes little sense when voiced by a cosignatory of the Treaty of Versailles (albeit, to be fair, the least vindictive of the three Western Powers). Hitler was everyone's problem.

Wyatt Earp wrote:

QUOTE:
That's also a very skewed reading of history.

Oh yes, I know. But if we're playing the "My country's exceptional and saved your sorry arses from Hitler" card on this thread, I don't see why Bruno can do it and I can't.

BrunoMaggiore wrote:

QUOTE:
You say that, but you'd have felt a damn sight more loyal to a Britain run by British than by Nazis.

The two weren't mutually exclusive. Britain would almost certainly have been run by British Nazis.

Which shows, I think, how vacuous the idea of "loyalty" is in this context, compared to political judgement.

La Lanterne Rouge wrote:

QUOTE:
Wyatt Earp wrote:

QUOTE:
That's also a very skewed reading of history.

Oh yes, I know. But if we're playing the "My country's exceptional and saved your sorry arses from Hitler" card on this thread, I don't see why Bruno can do it and I can't.

Two wrongs, right, that sort of thing. Not really cricket.

And I am the Life wrote:

QUOTE:
let me join the dots. It would be a lot easier to have faith in the american publics cynicism about its government's motives if the government didn't use this patriotism and love of values to play the american public like a violin in the post september 11th period, just like on every occasion before. It's just the way that empires behave when they like to pretend to themselves and their publics that they are more ethical than they really are.

Well, actually, they didn't really use "patriotism" as the guiding justification for the war. Of course any time a war is on there's incentive to "show patriotism" by "supporting the troops." But the war was sold on anti-terror and humanitarian grounds. Almost entirely on the WMD argument. People sort of forgot their cynicism temporarily in the wake of 9.11, but it's back in spades.

BrunoMaggiore wrote:

QUOTE:
You say that, but you'd have felt a damn sight more loyal to a Britain run by British than by Nazis.

Which is a good an explanation as any of why patriotism is a pile of old cock.

the not actually joining in until the germans declared war does rather make the whole defeniding europe from the nazi menace and for freedom bit ring a little hollow though doesn't it?

You say that, but you'd have felt a damn sight more loyal to a Britain run by British than by Nazis.

Are you saying that "you may not be patriotic at all but you'd be less patriotic towards the nazis"?

Wyatt Earp wrote:

QUOTE:
The two weren't mutually exclusive. Britain would almost certainly have been run by British Nazis.

To be sure.

QUOTE:
Which shows, I think, how vacuous the idea of "loyalty" is in this context, compared to political judgement.

No one said the one should automatically trump the other.

And I am the Life wrote:

QUOTE:
the not actually joining in until the germans declared war does rather make the whole defeniding europe from the nazi menace and for freedom bit ring a little hollow though doesn't it?

You're right, we weren't exactly Captain America but we got the job done once we set about it.

QUOTE:
Are you saying that "you may not be patriotic at all but you'd be less patriotic towards the nazis"?

Hey, I think I am!

Wyatt Earp wrote:

QUOTE:
La Lanterne Rouge wrote:

QUOTE:
Wyatt Earp wrote:

QUOTE:
That's also a very skewed reading of history.

Oh yes, I know. But if we're playing the "My country's exceptional and saved your sorry arses from Hitler" card on this thread, I don't see why Bruno can do it and I can't.

Two wrongs, right, that sort of thing. Not really cricket.

While we did in fact save your sorry "arses" from Hitler, I don't think we're all that superior to the United Kingdom of Great Britain.

Well, actually, they didn't really use "patriotism" as the guiding justification for the war. Of course any time a war is on there's incentive to "show patriotism" by "supporting the troops." But the war was sold on anti-terror and humanitarian grounds. Almost entirely on the WMD argument. People sort of forgot their cynicism temporarily in the wake of 9.11, but it's back in spades.

you see that's the whole thing right there. You weren't actually at war. Someone carried out a terrorist attack on your country. The government said america was at war, and before you know it, America was marching into Iraq because iraq supported the terrorists and Iraq had WMD's which it was going to give the Terrorists or something equally utterly implausible.

Once again someone Attacks america, and america winds up expanding it's military and strategic power somewhere. It's worth reading about reluctantly the Romans were dragged into capturing and subjugating greece.

You're right, we weren't exactly Captain America but we got the job done once we set about it.

It doesn't matter what you did, what we're talking about is the post hoc rationalisations for your behaviour. That has always been the point. If you go to war to protect global freedom, do you really need to have war declared on you to do so?

I think Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington and that lot in general were a bunch of geniuses and men of The Enlightenment who had a ton of really good ideas (and some bad ones too). I'm very glad they came up witht the Declaration if Independence and U.S. Constitution. And we've had some other good ideas along the way too, but when people talk about "our ideals" that's usually what we look to.

Just because Americans pioneered a really great new way to run a government doesn't give us the right to rest on our laurels and think that it makes us all so fucking special 200+ years later. Jefferson and his lot would be absolutely appalled at how much we wallow in self-congratulations these days.

From the very beginning, the ambitious ideas about freedom and democracy that the framers put into the Bill of Rights have been under constant threat from within our country. For example, John Adams, the second president, signed the Alien and Sedition Acts and a lot of Americans in those days thought it was a good idea. Indeed, we've only relatively recently begun to properly realize what the First Ammendment (especially the bit about religion) is really supposed to be about and it's still under threat.

Besides it was 200 years ago. In the meantime, many other countries have adopted and improved upon those Enlightenment ideas. There's no shame in borrowing good ideas from abroad.

So instead of shouting AMERICA, FUCK YEAH! and being so proud of our great Constitution, we have to recognize that it is not an end, but a beginning. The beginning of a project that we should be humbly working to advance each and every day.

We're a lot like - no exactly like - England fans (I don't know if there are any people like this left, but if there were, like) who think that because football was invented in England that somehow that means that England is going to be a contender in every World Cup and ought to be respected and feared as a great footballing power and that anyone with a British accent is automatically a good soccer coach (see JV on this topic).

QUOTE:
the claims on the wikipedia page that it was not the intention of convertibility clause to damage the british economy is wildly inaccurate.

Absolutely. I spotted that as well.

But I think that loan was in 1946. VJ day was in 1945. So not too much of a gap, I wouldn't think.