Blowback

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
There were a couple interesting war-related articles in the New Yorker last week. One described the long, long history of Europeans resenting America (back to the 1830's). Particularly cute was the famous German writer who, after living here for several years, decided he couldn't stand the place because "there were no songbirds". The other article was a short piece about why international opinion matters, which ended with a statement saying that, as noble as nation-building is, since WWII most such US-led missions have increasingly been definied by the "blowback" they produced.



Which got me thinking.



Why start with post-WWII? Isn't what we're experiencing right now the "blowback" from our involvement in WWI and WWII. Even at the time (especially immediately after WWI) many western Europeans resented our involvement in those conflicts. Maybe they were right. Maybe we were wrong to unilaterally involve ourselves on the side of the Allies. Maybe we were wrong to support England and France after they unilaterally declared war on Germany.



After all, what would have happened? Hitler was always obsessed with conquering Russia. US or no, he would have turned East, and likely been defeated all the same. So there would have been a USSR dominant in Europe. We all saw just how well USSR-led economies prospered after WWII. The net result today would be an economically prostrate Europe, as badly off as Kazakhistan. Certainly with no significant military, economic, or diplomatic power. Heck, we could have let the USSR conquer Japan, too - that would've taken care of another major economic competitor. People think the US is powerful now? Imagine the US with no Europe or Japan to compete with it.



Blowback? We should have minded our own damn business back then.



[/satire] If I have a point, it's that installing democratic governments has been the most selfless and self-defeating application of American power. No wonder the beneficiaries of our generosity can never bring themselves to understand or appreciate it.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 33
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    Very interesting hypothesis. Very cool stuff.

    . . . Of course I at first thought that this thread was about the gasoline combustion fumes blowing back into the oil reservoir. Particularly a problem in older rotary engine designs.







    Anyway, the europeans have always had a culture clash with us, that's true.



    [ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: Splinemodel ]</p>
  • Reply 2 of 33
    stoostoo Posts: 1,490member
    [quote]Maybe we were wrong to support England and France after they unilaterally declared war on Germany.<hr></blockquote>



    That'd be the UK and France .



    And stop abusing the word "unilateral": a nation can't really act unilaterally when its chosen side already has members. (I've only just noticed the [/satire]; a [satire] would have been useful. )



    [quote]We all saw just how well USSR-led economies prospered after WWII.<hr></blockquote>



    [quote]Certainly with no significant military, economic, or diplomatic power. <hr></blockquote>



    You weren't alive in the sixties, were you? The USSR certainly had some significant military power: it was one of the "superpowers" (when there were two). Anyway, I doubt that a Europe-wide USSR would be very stable.



    Has the USA really built any democratic nations since WWII (liberating occupied ones doesn't count)? I can't think of any examples offhand (but I am one of those European types ).



    [ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: Stoo ]</p>
  • Reply 3 of 33
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    Not any real ones. We had (hopefully that verb tense is correct) generally done our dirty work and left them behind, save Western Europe and Japan after WWII and of course Korea which was a whole 'nother story (when the UN and US saw eye to eye more or less among other things).
  • Reply 4 of 33
    toweltowel Posts: 1,479member
    [quote]liberating occupied ones doesn't count<hr></blockquote>



    That's an odd sentiment. We don't even get brownie points for letting the French restore an anti-American democratic government after WWII? We could have just kept the "neutral" Vichy's around, you know.



    More seriously, Japan, Germany and South Korea are clearly successes. Phillipines and Taiwan, too. Italy had no democratic tradition before WWII; ditto Greece, Austria and (I think) the Benelux nations. The trick is that the US doesn't generally go around occupying nations. Most of those above don't really count. In fact, I could only name four nations/regions that were occupied and ruled by the US military for significant periods of time, and all were indisputibly better off for it: West Germany, Austria, Japan, and the US South.



    But essentially every democratic nation in the world today, with the notable exception of India, owes its government's existence to the direct or indirect efforts of the United States to protect and promote democracy. That point just can't be argued, which is why the "US is the greatest threat to world peace" rhetoric is so wrongheaded and insulting.
  • Reply 5 of 33
    fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    [quote]Originally posted by Towel:

    <strong>



    That's an odd sentiment. We don't even get brownie points for letting the French restore an anti-American democratic government after WWII? We could have just kept the "neutral" Vichy's around, you know.



    More seriously, Japan, Germany and South Korea are clearly successes. Phillipines and Taiwan, too. Italy had no democratic tradition before WWII; ditto Greece, Austria and (I think) the Benelux nations. The trick is that the US doesn't generally go around occupying nations. Most of those above don't really count. In fact, I could only name four nations/regions that were occupied and ruled by the US military for significant periods of time, and all were indisputibly better off for it: West Germany, Austria, Japan, and the US South.



    But essentially every democratic nation in the world today, with the notable exception of India, owes its government's existence to the direct or indirect efforts of the United States to protect and promote democracy. That point just can't be argued, which is why the "US is the greatest threat to world peace" rhetoric is so wrongheaded and insulting.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Towel watch out your intelligent words will draw insults and attacks from those who simply can not face the reality you expose.



    You must be a right wing nut



    a white male imperialist etc. etc. etc.



    You must be the head of a greedy US corporation that only seeks to exploit other people.



    Towel I too am sick of the wimps out there. I am no tough guy I am very moderate and balanced but to see the lack of logic some spew here is old and tired.



    Fellowship



    [ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: FellowshipChurch iBook ]</p>
  • Reply 6 of 33
    airslufairsluf Posts: 1,861member
  • Reply 7 of 33
    serranoserrano Posts: 1,806member
    Please, please, take some history courses.
  • Reply 8 of 33
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    Don't dismiss an opinion just because you don't like it. The New Yorker is usually a fairly left-leaning, cultured magazine that sees european pomp as fine traditon. The fact that articles in it, and in most American magazines have become quite cold to "europeanism" is promising to us libertarians. Most liberal media in America used to paint European policy makers as sages, pushing the "compassion" of socialism. Now they just see the elitist nature come out. I hope Americans will come to support greater capitalism from this little spat, and if Western Europe stops trading with us, it's their loss.



    Secondly, nothing I've read here is historically incorrect. Going back to the history books won't change anything except the wording.
  • Reply 9 of 33
    toweltowel Posts: 1,479member
    [quote]I think someone needs to read a little history to get basic facts straight before making judgements on world politics between 1915 and 1948.<hr></blockquote>



    I suspect you stopped reading before you got to the [/satire] part. But if not, trust me....nothing would delight me more than to get into a debate on the historical facts of international relations. It could be nothing but enlightening for the vast majority of posters on these boards.



    Your choice of dates is intriguing. 1915 was most notable for Italy entering WWI, 1948 for the Berlin Blockade. You don't often see them used to define an historical period. 1948 is often cited as the "start" of the Cold War, but I prefer how Paul Kennedy talks of a bipolar world emerging five years earlier. 1915...?



    Unless you meant 1918-1945?



    In any event, please....fire away!
  • Reply 10 of 33
    [quote]Originally posted by Towel:

    <strong>

    ... More seriously, Japan, Germany and South Korea are clearly successes. Phillipines and Taiwan, too. Italy had no democratic tradition before WWII; ditto Greece...</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Ditto Greece? Sorry, no.
  • Reply 11 of 33
    toweltowel Posts: 1,479member
    [quote]Ditto Greece? Sorry, no.<hr></blockquote>



    First, I'll presume you aren't refering to Classical Athens...



    Having checked it out, though, fair enough: although, as I recalled, Modern Greece has been ruled by a monarchy for most of its existence, Greece had (sort of) a Republic from 1924-1935. The Republic was marked by "great political instability", "coups and counter-coups", and finally ended with the restoration of the monarchy. A succession of monarchists and military rulers followed until the 1970s brought the beginnings of democracy.



    Still, eleven years of tottering republicanism is hardly the stuff to base a democratic tradition on. I'd put the Greek Republic in the same category as the Weimer Republic, i.e. hardly evidence for democracy taking root prior to the US extending its security blanket.



    Did you want to add anything besides, "no"?



    <a href="http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/countryfacts/greece.html"; target="_blank">Reference1</a>

    <a href="http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/greece_history.asp"; target="_blank">Reference2</a>



    [ 03-11-2003: Message edited by: Towel ]</p>
  • Reply 12 of 33
    [quote]Originally posted by Towel:

    <strong>

    First, I'll presume you aren't refering to Classical Athens...</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I wasn't only referring to Classical Athens but I don't see any reason why that history needs to be excluded when discussing Greek aspirations for democracy.



    [quote]<strong>... Having checked it out, though, fair enough: although, as I recalled, Modern Greece has been ruled by a monarchy for most of its existence, Greece had (sort of) a Republic from 1924-1935. The Republic was marked by "great political instability", "coups and counter-coups", and finally ended with the restoration of the monarchy. A succession of monarchists and military rulers followed until the 1970s brought the beginnings of democracy.



    Still, eleven years of tottering republicanism is hardly the stuff to base a democratic tradition on. I'd put the Greek Republic in the same category as the Weimer Republic, i.e. hardly evidence for democracy taking root prior to the US extending its security blanket.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Part of that security blanket included our tacit support of the Junta that took power (displacing a democratic regime) in 1967.



    [ 03-11-2003: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
  • Reply 13 of 33
    According to *my* history class, post-war West Germany wasn't ruled by the US.



    Also satire (with or without tags) does not mean just making shit up. Your alternative history seems based on absurdly ill-informed caricatures.



    Believing the US to be a martyr to it's peace-loving, democracy-spreading ways is certainly a novel interpretation, I'll give you that.



    I'd say the fundemental flaw in your reasoning is that America has thrived by trading with, and to some extent exploiting other countries. To think that America could thrive within it's own borders while the USSR engulfed the globe (even if unstable and inefficient) is simply wrong.
  • Reply 14 of 33
    stoostoo Posts: 1,490member
    Liberation doesn't count because the topic is nation building, i.e. installing a radically different government from what was originally there. Therefore France doesn't count.
  • Reply 15 of 33
    [quote]Originally posted by Stoo:

    <strong>Liberation doesn't count because the topic is nation building, i.e. installing a radically different government from what was originally there. Therefore France doesn't count.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    The Fourth Republic wasn't radically different from the Vichy government? That explains a lot.
  • Reply 16 of 33
    So all countries suck. This has been true since... well, at least 1994. Maybe even earlier.



    However, I did find a nice country to live in. The pictures on the brochures look nice.



    As soon as my stint here in Germany is up, I'm packing up the family and moving to this Utopia place, where the Airport WANs roam; where the Macs and the Pentiums play; where seldom is heard, a discordant word, and the dial-ups aren't busy all day.
  • Reply 17 of 33
    The Fourth Republic was mostly a return to the very parliamentary Third Republic, which was very different from the Vichy Regime.

    In Vichy, Marshall Henri Philippe Pétain assumed the mantle of supreme authority, with full executive, legislative, and, judiciary powers. He began he radio allocutions by the royale �we�, as in: �Nous, Philippe, Maréchal de France, etc��.

    The republic itself was abrogated, the terms Â?République FrançaiseÂ? disappeared from all official texts and inscriptions, replaced by Â?Ã?tat FrançaisÂ?; the national anthem was no longer La Marseillaise, whose chanting incuured prosecution; it was Maréchal nous voilÃ*!Â? if I recall correctly.

    The Vichy regime contained elements of old-time monarchists, clericalists, traditionalists, and other notalgics of the old artictocratic order; all those were abhorrent of the democratic nature of the republic, of the cultural openness characteristic of it, of the social changes, and of the capitalist bourgeoisie, which they saw as guilty of leading France to defeat. Frustrated since the advent of the democratic republic in the late 19th c., angered by the triumph of the democratic and pulralist values after the Dreyfus Affair, and by the process of secularisation of the republic culminating in the separation between church and state; these ultra-conservatives, of whose background Pétain himself had come, were numerous among French officers, and were the pillar of the regime and its main inspiration.

    However, you could find among the Vichy technocrats and ideologues, many characters who were notoriously part of the far-right Â?avant-gardeÂ? of the 20s and 30s, in whom even the Italian Fascists and German Nazis sometimes found inspiration. Some were even ex-communists who crossed over to the other side, like Doriot.

    The abolition of the republic made evoident the rupture with the republican traditions going back to 1789 and broke

    the continuity of the republic, which therefore goes from the Third to the Fourth Republic, the Vichy regime being an aberration.



    Other than that, isolationism was a bad choice for the U.S. in the 40s, even more so with today's hindsight, as much as pacifis manifesting itself in Europe today, was a bad choice for it in the 30s.

    Both attitudes are as bad choices today as they were back then, if you ask me.



    [ 03-11-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
  • Reply 18 of 33
    [quote]Originally posted by Towel:

    <strong>





    But essentially every democratic nation in the world today, with the notable exception of India, owes its government's existence to the direct or indirect efforts of the United States to protect and promote democracy. That point just can't be argued, which is why the "US is the greatest threat to world peace" rhetoric is so wrongheaded and insulting.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Hello. I'd like to argue this point, as would many of the citizens of Chile, Argentina, Nicuragua, Angola and Mocambique, for starters. You didn't exactly 'help' their democracies. It would rather seem you don't object to overturning elections, funding opposition guerillas and supporting tyrants too.



    Not saying this is the law, of course, God forbid. Only that your backslapping that got Dale so stoked is a load of shite.



  • Reply 19 of 33
    stoostoo Posts: 1,490member
    [quote]The Fourth Republic wasn't radically different from the Vichy government? That explains a lot. <hr></blockquote>



    Installing, not reinstalling/liberating after occupation, is what I mean:



    [quote]The Fourth Republic was mostly a return to the very parliamentary Third Republic, which was very different from the Vichy Regime.<hr></blockquote>
  • Reply 20 of 33
    toweltowel Posts: 1,479member
    [quote]According to *my* history class, post-war West Germany wasn't ruled by the US.<hr></blockquote>



    *Your* history class taught you that West Germany wasn't under the military occupation of the Western Allies fom 1945-1955? I find that difficult to believe. The FRG didn't even formally come into existence until 1949 - before that Germany was under purely military rule. Between 1949 and 1955 the FRG government was "under probabtion", so to speak. It wasn't under 1951 that the state of war formally ended, and not until 1955 that the Occupation Statue was offically revoked and the FRG became sovereign.
Sign In or Register to comment.