| Welcome to NationStates Texas Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Are the United States Isolationist?; A response to Palcon's Question | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 22 2004, 07:43 PM (281 Views) | |
| El Pat | Oct 22 2004, 07:43 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Texas Commander
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Palcon's original question was:
However, it did not belong in the thread it was in. Therefore, this thread has been started to answer that question without hijacking the other thread. Feel free to add on if I left anything out or to disagree. I don't think that the United States are isolationist at all. We are more multilateral in our trade agreements than ever before. We have invested heavily in some countries, while many other countries have invested heavily in us (Germany especially). In the "old days," all the cars over here were made here. We had Ford, General Motors, Chrysler, Packard, and at least a dozen more. All television sets sold here were made here. We used to be a nearly self sufficient nation and could therefore afford to be isolationist. With the New Market and the Global Economy, the United States cannot afford to be isolationist. Being isolationist means losing out on business, and the business of the United States is business. It is possible to view every single move the United States makes as being a business move. Hopefully we will oust our CEO this year and give him a new makeup to the Board of Advisors as well. Now, why did we take this path? In simple terms, the world has become smaller, and it continues to do so today. By opening up a simple website, I can become the chief consultant for an airline looking to revise it's fleet in Nepal. If we did not take a leading role in the condensing world, we would be left out in the cold. The reason that we are the only world superpower today is because of the dominance of American products in the world: Starbucks in the Forbidden City in Beijing; Wal-Mart near the Teotihuacan temple ruins outside of Mexico City; Hilton Hotels on small Caribbean islands; Coca Cola being the most recognized brand in the world. The businessmen and Congressmen of the United States began realizing this at the conclusion of World War II: the old systems of alliances died in 1945, with market alliances being formed afterward. We were in the limited pile of countries that were the "haves." Because of the war, we were able to start mass production lines of basically any product. We had the ability to make the products and we had the equipment to ship the products. Other countries needed supplies, and we were the only ones able to meet the demands. Isolationist America has been dead since then, maybe for the good, maybe for the bad. Any way one looks at it, the world has changed dramatically since the last time we were isolationist, which was until we entered World War I. We were the most agile country; we adjusted before any other country. Britain, France, Germany, and Russia all realized the latency of the American Economic Machine starting in the late 1910s. Now, as for the "when Europe needed you" part. As you will learn in pretty much any economics class that is worth a darn, there are different "machines" that drive the economy. The main machines are Production and Political. The Production Machine was discussed above. The Political Machine is often slower to move, but can be more important. Franklin Roosevelt viewed Hitler as a legitimate threat beginning in the early 1930s; he was very hawkish on the idea of a European war. However, the politcal machinery was not there. Entering World War I had drained our manpower and spirits. Sure we won, but what exactly did we win? We entered a war that had no clear "bad guy," were told to expect few casualties, were poorly led by Anglo/French forces who looked on Americans as merely extra bodies to throw into the teeth of the enemy, while they replenished their stocks to make the eventual push to rid the world of Germany and Austria-Hungary. American public opinion was split nearly evenly in World War I: both sides were viewed as agressors, and both sides were agressors. The Anglo/French Alliance lied to us and used us as cows sent to slaughterhouses. Fortunately General "Black Jack" Pershing decided that he would not be under Anglo/French command and led his fighting band to victory. The American point of view was basically ignored while the "Allies" were drafting the Versailles treaty. Top that off with the failed Allied invasion of Russia after the Communist takeover in 1918/1919 (if you want to learn more about that lemme know, my history thesis was on British economic interests in Russia during the Allied invasion of Russia in 1918-9), which cost Americans lives and lots of money, and you are looking at a people who are angry at the world and do not trust the world. And we had many good reasons not to trust the rest of the world. Fast forward to World War II. Britain and France want us in the war. They lied to us in WWI and this is fresh on Americans' minds. They want to lead our troops into battle when they cannot even lead their own troops to victory. American public opinion is almost unanimously against us entering another European conflict. The political ramifications at home for entering the war under Britain's conditions were unacceptable. Once we were attacked by Japan it was a different story. Still, the American people did not want to be involved in a European war: Germany had not harmed nor threatened to harm us. Japan had attacked us on our own soil. Thankfully for Europe, Hitler screwed up: Germany declared war on the United States. With this justification, Franklin Roosevelt was able to focus American attention on winning the European War first and the Pacific War second. Moreover, we were now able to do so on our terms: our troops were to be led by our generals, and the overseer of the European Theater of Operations was to be an American (future President Dwight D. Eisenhower from Denison, Texas). Of course if you bring up the "Where were the US when Europe needed them," the same thing could be asked in reverse. After Germany surrendered and hostilities in the ETO ceased, where were our Allies in the Pacific Theater of Operations? We came to help them, why didn't they come to help us? Russia, it is true, had a crummy transportation system and had completely decrypted our coding systems. France had no fleet, little army, and was too preoccupied with flushing out Nazi sympathizers at home to give a damn. many French, in fact, believe that they alone won the war thanks to General De Gaulle and the Free French, who did next to nothing. We would have been willing to allow the French soldiers to ride on our brand new, state of the art troop transports, but they refused. With friends like these who needs enemies? However, this helped us in the long run. By showing that we were capable of single handedly winning both the ETO and PTO, we became a world military superpower. And with the highest industrial capacity in the known world, we became the world's largest economic superpower. We now controlled or had freed more than half the world from evil tyrants and elected, we were not forced, we elected to help turn the other countries around both politically and economically by investing our funds but allowing change to occur near its natural rate in every country. This gave us market capitalization in these countries and has allowed us to continue to basically rule the world and act unilaterally. There is no country or conglomeration of countries that can pack the unified military and economic power of the United States. That may change in the future, but it is a fact. And it is a major reason that many countries and groups of people hate us. They are either 1) envious of our market postion; or 2) angry at their inability to affect the market with their products. And that should answer your question Pat |
![]() |
|
| Palcon | Oct 25 2004, 03:43 AM Post #2 |
![]()
Palcon
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well as for this reverse question of "where were the Us", we did try to help you but what you have got to realise is that after WW2 Britains empire was in decline. I think we tried to help but simply didn't have the resources after WW2. Wouldn't you say that that was the case, Pat? |
![]() |
|
| El Pat | Oct 26 2004, 10:14 PM Post #3 |
![]()
Texas Commander
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I largely agree with that statement. And it is one of my points as to why the US was not back then and cannot now be isolationist: our production levels are very high. And one of the main reasons for the decline of the British Empire was their misuse of aviation during the conflicts with Mesopotamia, India, and their East African protectorates, especially Somaliland! Had they effectively realized the power and importance of aviation, Britain could have retained military control over the Empire, as Winston Churchill wished. Empire of the Air by Viscount Templewood is an excellent source on the development and lack thereof of aviation in Britain during this time. Anyhoo, if you're interested in the actual role aviation had to play in maintaining the British Empire from the 1910s-1930s, lemme know and I can send you a nice, in depth review of it, but I'll leave it be for now Pat |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Texas News Center · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z1.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)





12:46 AM Jul 13