Liberate, loot and rape.

[buffnut453]

I think we're saying about the same thing from different angles: this would not be a good thing for America, but it wouldn't be an existential crisis, either. Is that a fair statement in your eyes?

For the most part yes. It wouldn't be an existential crisis that threatened America's immediate survival...but being surrounded by 3 or 4 autocratic powers with no strong Allies does mean there are multiple threats which, if combined, might overwhelm America over time.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

For the most part yes. It wouldn't be an existential crisis that threatened America's immediate survival...but being surrounded by 3 or 4 autocratic powers with no strong Allies does mean there are multiple threats which, if combined, might overwhelm America over time.

True -- but another consideration would be the economic vying for market share that I think would see Americans gaining an advantage.

Given that America's domestic market was so big, manufacturers could practice the economies of scale without going through the expense of militarily subjugating this or that market first. Thus, their exports to the remaining markets (namely, South America) would be more likely to solidify what would indeed be a tenuous American position, I think, due to American goods being cheaper and probably more readily available.

I think that would result in American goods and agricultural exports being cheaper, unless the autocratic powers embraced protectionism a la Napoleon or the British favoritism of the 1930s, which is still going to result in military outlays for keeping the natives they've conquered quiescent. Such affordability would go a ways towards protecting American market shares in the unconquered countries -- and would probably come with fewer strings attached politically, further appealing to neutrals seeking to shield themselves from autocratic aggressions.

 

[buffnut453]

True -- but another consideration would be the economic vying for market share that I think would see Americans gaining an advantage.

Given that America's domestic market was so big, manufacturers could practice the economies of scale without going through the expense of militarily subjugating this or that market first. Thus, their exports to the remaining markets (namely, South America) would be more likely to solidify what would indeed be a tenuous American position, I think, due to American goods being cheaper and probably more readily available.

I think that would result in American goods and agricultural exports being cheaper, unless the autocratic powers embraced protectionism a la Napoleon or the British favoritism of the 1930s, which is still going to result in military outlays for keeping the natives they've conquered quiescent. Such affordability would go a ways towards protecting American market shares in the unconquered countries -- and would probably come with fewer strings attached politically, further appealing to neutrals seeking to shield themselves from autocratic aggressions.

All true...although if Britain was to retain its Empire, then there aren't many neutrals out there.

That said, we're a long way off-topic so I'll probably shut up now.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

All true...although if Britain was to retain its Empire, then there aren't many neutrals out there.

That said, we're a long way off-topic so I'll probably shut up now.

Oh, it's been a great and thought-provoking discussion, and much appreciated. It's certainly more complex than can be resolved on an internet forum, fo sho.

 

[special ed]

The discussions above are very plausible. Add to this , the U.S. is a nation of immigrants, many of whose home countries are now severe dictatorships. Once stories from those ancestral countries come to those living here, attitudes may slowly change about getting involved. Remember, your theories include no Pearl Harbor attack, so the Japanese U.S. citizens will not be put in camps, nor will those Germans and Italians living here. We cannot assume they will be pleased with what is happening worldwide.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The discussions above are very plausible. Add to this , the U.S. is a nation of immigrants, many of whose home countries are now severe dictatorships. Once stories from those ancestral countries come to those living here, attitudes may slowly change about getting involved. Remember, your theories include no Pearl Harbor attack, so the Japanese U.S. citizens will not be put in camps, nor will those Germans and Italians living here. We cannot assume they will be pleased with what is happening worldwide.

My grandfather's uncle -- so I guess he's my great-great-uncle -- Georg Wolff stepped off the boat in Galveston, TX in 1905, from I guess Hamburg, a German immigrant. Twelve years later, we entered WWI and Uncle George (as anglicized) enlisted in the Army, and a year later was again back on a ship crossing the Atlantic, this time the other way and for a different and deadlier purpose.

Think too about the 442nd Regiment, one of if not the highest-decorated US Army unit in WWII, composed of Nisei who fought for our country even as we encamped their families. How much more would they have bought into American ideals absent Pearl Harbor and the scare that saw their families rounded up, stripped of property, and sent to Utah, fer chrissakes. Without those injustices I'd think they would even more be willing to fight and die ... but as it was they carved their place in history all the same, even as their families suffered the injustices we foisted upon them.

 

[Peter Gunn]

Apropos of nothing (like many of my posts) I remember a time travel novel back in the eighties I think, where WWII wrapped up pretty much in about 1942 with no Pacific war which allowed Imperial Japan to stretch almost to Midway and Europe dominated by Nazi Germany/USSR. The novel takes place in the late 1970's I think with this exact scenario, the American republic basically surrounded and under more and more pressure from three oppressive dictatorships.

Can't remember the name or author though, wasn't exactly "Stranger in a Strange Land" quality if you get my meaning.

 

[yosimitesam]

My Great Grandmother was Cherokee. That means the Great Grandpa was a squaw man.

My maternal great-grandmother was Chickasaw. As kids, my cousins and I used to marvel at my maternal grandfather's jet black hair and dark skin. "Cause I'm an injun'", he used to laugh and tease us, which we thought hillarious at the time. There is only one known photograph of my great-grandmother, sitting on a chair in front of a log cabin. Of course, she was wearing "Euorpean" clothing and married to an Irish farmer, my great-grandfather. She was in her 90's when the photo was taken, or so my grandmother told my mother. The photo is very blurry and small and believed to have been taken around 1890-1900, not long before she died. Family history lost in the mists of time.

 

[peiper]

...humans will be ----------------- ''human''.....lots of rape, molestation, abuse, etc goes on today---in peacetime ....more males would commit it if they thought they would not get into trouble.....
1. was culture partly to blame? the Japanese were very cruel, murderous, etc also
a. Russia [ Russians ] had been through ''hell''--for decades!! :
--pre 1930-1930s = starvation, political murders, political violence, etc
--then, in the 41, etc = WAR! = starvation, more murders, genocide, etc
---first the Germans came through with devastation, etc
--then the Germans came through again during the retreat -more devastation, etc
--then the Russians came through after the Germans
the Russians had been through HELL compared to the Brits, Americans, etc....their culture, life, was much, much different.....
--so, with the '''human'' element -plus all this ''hell'', it's no wonder that they did what they did

 

[peiper]

Were the German's a real threat to the US? Europe, yes, but the US? I doubt it. How would they have ever attacked the US in a manner that would threaten its security or existence?

the US was energy independent, agriculturally independent, etc... Germany was not much of a threat to the US..there is no way they could have threatened the US....

 

[peiper]

Don't give North American tribes any ideas.

the Native Americans:
stole land
displaced
decimated
warred on
TORTURED per culture, even the kids participated
etc
so, it wasn't there land in the first place

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

 

[RichardSuhkoi]

A Lady who was my neighbor where I grew up was aged 3 in Berlin, gang raped by Russians and left under a bathtub with her insides prolapsed. All her family were killed. A Red Cross worker found her still alive and a doctor saved her life. Years later, a doctor in Canada was able to perform surgery to remove scar tissue and she was able, barely, to have a child but the doctor explained no possibility existed to have a second. My mom told me the story when I was 17 and I asked her why she always trembled.
Next time you see a small child, ask yourself what kind of men would penetrate a small girl's explused organs? Not good men.

 

[nuuumannn]

"He might be a sonofabitch, but he's our sonofabitch" was the attitude in American leadership circles, I think.

Hey Thump, or anyone, in fact, does anyone know the origins of this quote? I've heard of it being used in various circles pertaining to different people and so when was its first airing and by whom? I've heard it in reference to Marshall Tito and Ngo Dinh Diem of the Republic of South Vietnam. This is admittedly the first time I've heard it in use about Stalin, though.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Hey Thump, or anyone, in fact, does anyone know the origins of this quote? I've heard of it being used in various circles pertaining to different people and so when was its first airing and by whom? I've heard it in reference to Marshall Tito and Ngo Dinh Diem of the Republic of South Vietnam. This is admittedly the first time I've heard it in use about Stalin, though.

I don't know the origins of the phrase. I suspect it's from LBJ regarding Diem, as you allude to -- but that's only because where I read it first, really. That means nothing in actual provenance.

The Quotations Page ascribes it to FDR talking about Anastasio Somoza of Nicaragua:

He [Somoza] may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch.

Franklin D. Roosevelt, About Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza
32nd president of US (1882 - 1945)

Sorry the answer is so unsatisfying, but I don't know, and honestly, I doubt anyone does.

 

[nuuumannn]

Sorry the answer is so unsatisfying, but I don't know, and honestly, I doubt anyone does.

Actually, yes, I've heard of it in use regarding Somoza, now you've mentioned it. Thanks, nonetheless. It's certainly got a bit of mileage.

 

[SaparotRob]

I read decades ago somewhere it was FDR who said it as well.

 

[nuuumannn]

I read decades ago somewhere it was FDR who said it as well.

That's two for FDR... Sounds like we're onto something...

 

[GrauGeist]

Over time, mis-attributions can take on a life of their own.

Lincoln is often quoted as saying "if you wish to test a man's character, give him power", but he did not say that. It was written by his biographer (I don't recall his name at the moment) in his memoirs.

 

[pbehn]

Not always the same. After D-Day a hungry young French girl saw a soldier eating a sandwich. He saw her and she looked hungry so he gave her a sandwich. She returned with some milk and left it with a photo and a message, which he kept. They have just been reunited, after all these years. WW2 veteran is reunited with girl he gave a jam sandwich to in 1944