syscom3
Pacific Historian
I will have to agree that this was the end of colonialism.
This had a direct impact on many countries and regions of the world.
This had a direct impact on many countries and regions of the world.
What exactly did WW2 in Europe Accomplish?
- Thread starter carbonlifeform
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #22
carbonlifeform
Airman
At the expense of the other half of Europe.
And certainly Colin 1, the technological advances that the war fostered are numerous and still benefiting us today, but I would hardly consider the cost of all those millions of lives to be a reasonable price to pay for those advances.
The UN didn't come about as a result of WW2, it was just a revamped version of the League of Nations that was formed after WW1. And while it's certainly been more effective than the League was, and has been instrumental in the Human Rights movement, it's still a lion that has no teeth and been de-clawed. A relatively recent look at the idea the UN came up with about having a World Court set up in The Hague and Bush's vehement opposition to it shows a fine example of what I mean. Without the support of the US, the UN loses a good portion of its muscle.
Please don't let my responses discourage you all from giving ideas and suggestions. I've just really been struggling to find some real meaning to the futility of it. I also wasn't trying to pick on you when I quoted you Marcel. It's just you put down in nice concise terms the gist of what people are responding with in this thread.
Ferdinand Foch
Staff Sergeant
Well, least we got rid of one evil dictator out of two, and that's better than nothing. I can say a lot more, but it looks like everyone else beat me to it. 
syscom3
Pacific Historian
carbonlifeform, are you equating the USA with the USSR?
michaelmaltby
Colonel
More to the point, Carbon, you are equating the achievements of capitalism/free market democracy with communism/totalitarianism. These just aren't "words" ... they represent values and the comparison isn't "academic".
MM
MM
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
I find it sort of odd that people are talking about the Warsaw Pact nations as if they are still under the control of the Soviet Union. They happen to be thier own soverign nations due to the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 90's.
It's too bad that "Uncle Joe" gobbled them up when the Axis fell, but like it's been stated, the Allies just didn't have the will to challenge Stalin at war's end. Fortunately, the U.S. was able to wear down the Soviet system after a protracted "cold war" and that eventually led to the freedom of the former Soviet States.
I think the UN is about as effective as the old League of Nations and should be either restructured, or flushed down the commode to make room for something that would actually work.
As far as two super-powers go, would you have preferred the U.S. to revert to it's pre-war isolationism and leave only one super-power out there? I'm sure "Uncle Joe" would have liked that...
I think the term Imperialism is going to be a flash-point phrase here, because usually, the only people I hear calling the U.S. an Imperialist nation are bleeding-heart liberals and U.S. bashers. The Phillipines are a soverign nation now, they were a crown colony of Spain previously. Let's not forget other nations had colonies...some far more than others...
And how can the U.S. be accused of Imperialism in the support of Israel?And if the U.S. doesn't support them, who will?
It's too bad that "Uncle Joe" gobbled them up when the Axis fell, but like it's been stated, the Allies just didn't have the will to challenge Stalin at war's end. Fortunately, the U.S. was able to wear down the Soviet system after a protracted "cold war" and that eventually led to the freedom of the former Soviet States.
I think the UN is about as effective as the old League of Nations and should be either restructured, or flushed down the commode to make room for something that would actually work.
As far as two super-powers go, would you have preferred the U.S. to revert to it's pre-war isolationism and leave only one super-power out there? I'm sure "Uncle Joe" would have liked that...
I think the term Imperialism is going to be a flash-point phrase here, because usually, the only people I hear calling the U.S. an Imperialist nation are bleeding-heart liberals and U.S. bashers. The Phillipines are a soverign nation now, they were a crown colony of Spain previously. Let's not forget other nations had colonies...some far more than others...
And how can the U.S. be accused of Imperialism in the support of Israel?And if the U.S. doesn't support them, who will?
- Thread starter
- #27
carbonlifeform
Airman
Certainly not, and I thank goodness I lived next door to the former before the 90's hit, and I'm still glad I do. But like it or not, the US practices it's own brand of imperialism.
"More to the point, Carbon, you are equating the achievements of capitalism/free market democracy with communism/totalitarianism. These just aren't "words" ... they represent values and the comparison isn't "academic".
MM"
I'm not comparing the achievements of the two, never have. What I was getting at was, the ability to destroy the majority of life on Earth can hardly be considered a positive achievement, regardless of one's ideology.
Grau Geist: The reason it may seem I'm referring to Warsaw pact nations as still being under Soviet control may be because I'm trying to get people to understand that there are people who have spent far more of their lives under Soviet control, than they have as free people. For the West, the war was over and they were free. For those in the East, the jack boot of oppression continued for 50 more years.
As far as being a bleeding heart liberal, I'm far from it. I'm certainly not an America basher either. If it hadn't have been for the US, world history would be much, MUCH different today.
"Let's not forget other nations had colonies...some far more than others"
Yep, and they were more or less forced to give 'em up too. No dispute there.
As for US/Israel. Israel exists only because of the US. Not to take anything away from the Israeli's combat abilities, but the majority of their hardware is American issue. Is that Imperialist? Hmmm having a friendly presence that owes its existence to you, near allll that oil, when yer the largest consumer of it. Nope, nothing imperialistic there.
America just exercises a kindler, gentler brand of imperialism, nowAs for the Phillipines, the US kicked Spain out in 1898, then replaced them with with a regime that was just as oppressive. However yes, the Phillipines gained its independence in 1946. Oddly enough it was on July 4th.
No worries, didn't see it that way, lifeform. I was BTW just summing up some results of WWII, not necessary good ones.
I have a different view on imperialism of Europe and that of the USA. I think the European "imperialism" was a lot worse than the US version.
For the futility of the war, you can blame Hitler and the Japanese government. Starting the war was indeed futile. I believe the Allieds couldn't have responded otherwise, hence WWII. For what it's worth: It removed Hitler and his bunch of criminals. Otherwise we would have had the whole of Europe under dictatorship and not just half.
Maybe interesting variant on your question: What would the world look like if WWII hadn't taken place? Any thoughts?
Last edited:
trackend
Chief Master Sergeant
What did ww2 in europe accomplish? It stopped the killing all the rest by comparison is superfluous, as for eastern europe if Adolf had not been beaten would the cold war have ensued and would the eastern block nations have eventually had a chance of being democratic somehow I doubt it, I also doubt if anyone on this site would be entertaining the current levels of freedom that they are enjoying.
parsifal
Colonel
Amen to that trackend. Freedom is something so etherial that we often discount it, or take it for granted. It wont feed us, or shelter us, or make us rich. Yet without it our lives arent worth living.
Just because WWII did not eliminate all of the evil in the world does not make it a meaningless effort. It was a job half done, but it was still a job worth doing. Getting rid of the Nazis (and in the Pacific, the Japanese militarists) got rid of the most malevolent regimes in history. People try to compare the Russians to the Nazis, and there is no denying they were bad, but they were not hell bent on genocide in quite the same way as the Nazis were. They would rob you of your freedom, and kill you if you crossed them, or were just plain unlucky, but the Nazis would just kill you, because you were you, no other reason.
Just because WWII did not eliminate all of the evil in the world does not make it a meaningless effort. It was a job half done, but it was still a job worth doing. Getting rid of the Nazis (and in the Pacific, the Japanese militarists) got rid of the most malevolent regimes in history. People try to compare the Russians to the Nazis, and there is no denying they were bad, but they were not hell bent on genocide in quite the same way as the Nazis were. They would rob you of your freedom, and kill you if you crossed them, or were just plain unlucky, but the Nazis would just kill you, because you were you, no other reason.
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
Your statement would be valid
if technological advance was the driver for the war. Unfortunately, the same technological advances were only an (albeit positive) by-product of it. The driver(s) for the war can be found elsewhere and are well documented.
michaelmaltby
Colonel
"... Hmmm having a friendly presence that owes its existence to you, near allll that oil, when yer the largest consumer of it. Nope, nothing imperialistic there..."
Carbon .. by the same argument the Iraq War(s) were about oil.
I guess it's only a minor coincidence that the birthplace of Judaism, Islam and Christianity are all in the same geographic area.
Imperialism is about EMPIRE .... that's what the word means ... much loved word by marxist economic-determinist historians.
Capitalism is about capital and the free movement of money and markets.
The US is a global advocate of capitalism but that isn't the same as being an Imperialist. The US departs freely from the spots in the world where it goes .... Panama, Iraq, etc. ...when it can. Unlike say France in Indo China, Belgium in Africa or Portugal.
This is a Forum about War, Carbon, why muse over the futility of war on a forum devoted primarily to war?
War is a condition (sadly) of nature. If humans didn't elevate themselves above all other life forms and if humans accepted their place in nature more honestly then we wouldn't be continually involved in territorial struggles over ideas and resources. Wolves don't wage war with wolves ... they fight for territory but police ( ie control) their population ... same for most apex predators. And prey such as rabbits and deer - their populations explode and crash, explode and crash. Humans don't want to accept either restraint. My opinion ...
MM
Carbon .. by the same argument the Iraq War(s) were about oil.
I guess it's only a minor coincidence that the birthplace of Judaism, Islam and Christianity are all in the same geographic area.
Imperialism is about EMPIRE .... that's what the word means ... much loved word by marxist economic-determinist historians.
Capitalism is about capital and the free movement of money and markets.
The US is a global advocate of capitalism but that isn't the same as being an Imperialist. The US departs freely from the spots in the world where it goes .... Panama, Iraq, etc. ...when it can. Unlike say France in Indo China, Belgium in Africa or Portugal.
This is a Forum about War, Carbon, why muse over the futility of war on a forum devoted primarily to war?
War is a condition (sadly) of nature. If humans didn't elevate themselves above all other life forms and if humans accepted their place in nature more honestly then we wouldn't be continually involved in territorial struggles over ideas and resources. Wolves don't wage war with wolves ... they fight for territory but police ( ie control) their population ... same for most apex predators. And prey such as rabbits and deer - their populations explode and crash, explode and crash. Humans don't want to accept either restraint. My opinion ...
MM
Last edited:
parsifal
Colonel
Clausewitz remains the greatest theorest on war in the modern times. He said "war is an extension of policy", which means it is a tool, subservient to the matters of policy. It does not necessarily require the slaughter of ones opponents to win wars. Casualties are a necessary by product of war, not necessarily its object. Usually the object is to bring ones opponent to a relaizaation that allows your own policy and intersts to prevail
For Clausewitz, one requirement for clear thinking was an unflinching respect for war's physical, psychological, and historical reality. He disdained bold strategizing that took no account of how difficult the simplest action becomes in the 'resistant medium' of war. He recognized the impact of fear, danger, confusion, and fatigue on men in battle, and wrote about them with unusual candour. He also rejected the idea that contemporary military methods represented a normative standard against which past practices could be judged. If wars in the past rarely achieved the scale and violence of Napoleon's greatest campaigns, it did not mean that previous generations had somehow failed to grasp a science whose true principles had now been revealed. For Clausewitz, the goal of theory was not to transpose reality into a system of abstractions, but to illuminate it with as little intellectual distortion as possible. No theory could be adequate that did not account for the full range of military experience captured in the historical record. That record suggested that war at all times possessed what Clausewitz called a 'dual nature'. Few wars were ever intended to overthrow the enemy completely. Most sought limited goals, and were accordingly fought by limited means.
So I see danger when I hear statements like "war is inevitable" or the object of war is to kill ones opponents. That is the object of malevolent regimes like the Nazis, and it is what sets civilized people apart from barbarians like Osama Bin Laden to the US army. The US army is there to win, which probably means they will inflict caulaties on an opponent. The terrorists of this world the object of their war is to inflict murder and death on an opponent. Thats the difference between the terrorists and the US Army (and its allies). If you forsake that difference, and start to engage in war simply to kill your opponent, you have become a criminal and a barbarian just like them.
Finally I dont believe the US went to war in Iraq over oil, so much as to push freedoms fight into the terrorists backyard. Controlling the oil was a by product not the main reason for the US invasion
For Clausewitz, one requirement for clear thinking was an unflinching respect for war's physical, psychological, and historical reality. He disdained bold strategizing that took no account of how difficult the simplest action becomes in the 'resistant medium' of war. He recognized the impact of fear, danger, confusion, and fatigue on men in battle, and wrote about them with unusual candour. He also rejected the idea that contemporary military methods represented a normative standard against which past practices could be judged. If wars in the past rarely achieved the scale and violence of Napoleon's greatest campaigns, it did not mean that previous generations had somehow failed to grasp a science whose true principles had now been revealed. For Clausewitz, the goal of theory was not to transpose reality into a system of abstractions, but to illuminate it with as little intellectual distortion as possible. No theory could be adequate that did not account for the full range of military experience captured in the historical record. That record suggested that war at all times possessed what Clausewitz called a 'dual nature'. Few wars were ever intended to overthrow the enemy completely. Most sought limited goals, and were accordingly fought by limited means.
So I see danger when I hear statements like "war is inevitable" or the object of war is to kill ones opponents. That is the object of malevolent regimes like the Nazis, and it is what sets civilized people apart from barbarians like Osama Bin Laden to the US army. The US army is there to win, which probably means they will inflict caulaties on an opponent. The terrorists of this world the object of their war is to inflict murder and death on an opponent. Thats the difference between the terrorists and the US Army (and its allies). If you forsake that difference, and start to engage in war simply to kill your opponent, you have become a criminal and a barbarian just like them.
Finally I dont believe the US went to war in Iraq over oil, so much as to push freedoms fight into the terrorists backyard. Controlling the oil was a by product not the main reason for the US invasion
Last edited:
river
Airman
Hi,
The formation of a Jewish state was perhaps the most near-sighted, pointless and reckless decision of the 20th century. Why do the Jews need their own state? Why don't we get all the Muslims, take them to the USA and tell the people of the USA that they are going to lose half their country because the Muslims need their own country?
And while we are at it, lets put all the Catholics in the UK... the Lutherians in New Zealand.
No country should be formed at the expense of another country and its inhabitants, and especially for religous purposes.
The Jewish state, and what has resulted from it, is a tragedy and a festering sore in the Middle East.
While there were technological gains from the war, we, as a species, have learnt nothing from it. All we have learned is we now have nukes that can wipe out our wonderful planet, and that's why there are no major wars, and any fighting is done with conventional weapons.
We are, at times, a stupid species.
river
The formation of a Jewish state was perhaps the most near-sighted, pointless and reckless decision of the 20th century. Why do the Jews need their own state? Why don't we get all the Muslims, take them to the USA and tell the people of the USA that they are going to lose half their country because the Muslims need their own country?
And while we are at it, lets put all the Catholics in the UK... the Lutherians in New Zealand.
No country should be formed at the expense of another country and its inhabitants, and especially for religous purposes.
The Jewish state, and what has resulted from it, is a tragedy and a festering sore in the Middle East.
While there were technological gains from the war, we, as a species, have learnt nothing from it. All we have learned is we now have nukes that can wipe out our wonderful planet, and that's why there are no major wars, and any fighting is done with conventional weapons.
We are, at times, a stupid species.
river
river
Airman
Hi,
I think that if Uganda had oil and was in a suitable geographic position then the US would be there.
Iraq has oil and it gives the US a foot in the door to base itself in the Middle East. I doubt that the only reason to spend so much money and manpower going halfway around the world was more than to slap about some terrorists in their own backyard.
river
I think that if Uganda had oil and was in a suitable geographic position then the US would be there.
Iraq has oil and it gives the US a foot in the door to base itself in the Middle East. I doubt that the only reason to spend so much money and manpower going halfway around the world was more than to slap about some terrorists in their own backyard.
river
I would like someone to define US imperialism. I just can not view the US as an imperialist nation. If we are talking the historical view of Imperialism, then the US does not qualify as one. What Empire has the US formed by taking over other nations?
So lets define US Imperialism...
Then why are we letting the oil fields be destroyed over there. I had a pipeline running right near my camp. I used to watch the oil fires from in front of my tent. Not once did we go out and try and stop them from blowing them up.
Not once did we have a mission that had anything to do with pipelines or oil fields.
Oh and we are pulling out of Iraq, so that kind throws that theory out the door as well.
I disagree with that as well. The Jews have as much right to that particular region as the Muslims do. That area includes there holy land. It would be different if the nation of Israel had been formed let say out of a piece of India that has nothing to do with them.
So lets define US Imperialism...
Then why are we letting the oil fields be destroyed over there. I had a pipeline running right near my camp. I used to watch the oil fires from in front of my tent. Not once did we go out and try and stop them from blowing them up.
Not once did we have a mission that had anything to do with pipelines or oil fields.
Oh and we are pulling out of Iraq, so that kind throws that theory out the door as well.
I disagree with that as well. The Jews have as much right to that particular region as the Muslims do. That area includes there holy land. It would be different if the nation of Israel had been formed let say out of a piece of India that has nothing to do with them.
Last edited:
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
Incredibly naive and cynical
you can fight the terrorists in their own back yard
or wait 5 to 10 years and they'll fight you in yours
The former is a proactive stance and give you the initiative, the latter is reactive and you'll find yourself waiting, wondering where they're going to strike next, wondering (almost certainly in vain) if you've covered everything.
Practically the whole civilised world recognises the Middle East for the unstable hotbed of terrorism that it is, bringing peace, stability and democracy to the region will have huge ramifications for the entire world. Some are prepared to make the sacrifices to make sure that happens.
Excellent point and something that has bothered me through the thread. What's the definiition of US imperialism as defined by the posters of the phrase in this thread?
When answering, keep in mind that economic power is not a good answer to the question. The US is a nation of huge economic power and that is going to affect other nations, intended or not.Even the most benign countries in History (and I am not saying the US is that country, leaving it an open question) will have extensive affects outside it's borders without neccesarily intending it.
An example is the currency. Plenty of countries simply tie their currency to the US Dollar. It gives their currency stability. Some don't even bother printing much of their own and just use the dollar as the defacto currency. Is that US imperialism or parasitic opportunism by the country in question?
Condora
Airman 1st Class
The need? In short:
Hebrews always wanted to go back to the place they consider their homeland.
And they did. Although the British - which controled Palestine in the beginning of the XXth century -, didn't provide much protection against arab animosity, it was almost better than nothing.
The concept of creating a united hebrew AND arab Palestine never was considered, because the arabs had acquired a taste for the pogrom form of entertainment. Besides, when the end of the british mandate was near, the arab celebrations included "throwing the jews to the sea".
So, it was decided to split Palestine in two countries, which suited hebrews just fine.
On independence day, the war started, and the arabs had a big surprise: not only did Israel hold, but it also gained some ground.
And Lebanon, Egypt, and first and foremost, Jordania, were stuck with lots of palestinians which they had told to leave the area, because they were going to whipe out everybody to get read of the jews.
Later, palestinians were such a nuisance that Jordania almost had a civil war to get read of them.
The focus on Israel is a false issue. Forget Israel, and look around - everyone is kiling everybody else, or trying to:
Iraq is a mess;
Lebanon is a bigger mess;
Afghanistan is the biggest mess;
Iran is brewing trouble;
Jordania managed some stability after throwing palestinians out, but it's population is dying to get into trouble;
Egipt tries to keep some stability, but if you go there, there are armed guards everywhere;
If the Syrian regime weakens, all hell will break loose;
Middle East looks like a classroom where everybody is up to no good, but when the teacher asks "who did this", everybody points to the same guy (who also is no angel, but blame him just for HIS mischief)
parsifal
Colonel
Well the online dictionary defines imperialism as:
1. The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
2. The system, policies, or practices of such a government.
On that basis US imperialism does exist, but it is a different kind of imperialism to the old empires of the 19th century. The US form of imperialism is not into geographical control, but it does seek mainly economic control. There are numerous examples of this.
Iraq does not fit this mould, which is why I am extremely doubtful that the war in Iraq is being fought for the sake of US Imperialsm. It has a by product that the US may get favourable treatment from the oil states because of what they are doing, but this is not the main reason for their involvement and does not qualify for imperial control anyway. I think the reasons are simple, and noble....they are fighting terrorism in the terrorists own backyard.
The fact that the european nations hate the US so much that they are prepared to prostitute their freedoms and decency in the name of scoring cheap political points over the US should go down in history as one of the most shameful episodes in post war history
Now, that is all I am going to say on this topic. We are off thread and heading into very dangerous territory, so thats it from me.....
1. The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
2. The system, policies, or practices of such a government.
On that basis US imperialism does exist, but it is a different kind of imperialism to the old empires of the 19th century. The US form of imperialism is not into geographical control, but it does seek mainly economic control. There are numerous examples of this.
Iraq does not fit this mould, which is why I am extremely doubtful that the war in Iraq is being fought for the sake of US Imperialsm. It has a by product that the US may get favourable treatment from the oil states because of what they are doing, but this is not the main reason for their involvement and does not qualify for imperial control anyway. I think the reasons are simple, and noble....they are fighting terrorism in the terrorists own backyard.
The fact that the european nations hate the US so much that they are prepared to prostitute their freedoms and decency in the name of scoring cheap political points over the US should go down in history as one of the most shameful episodes in post war history
Now, that is all I am going to say on this topic. We are off thread and heading into very dangerous territory, so thats it from me.....
