Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...we must discuss the incredibly important distinction between hard (military) and soft (economic, diplomatic) power. Your argument is fundamentally flawed due to the fact that you only evaluate hard power.
Wrong. Reread my posts. I was talking about both economic and military strength.
I also mentioned America's role at Versailles.
Quote:
Based on the logic of your argument, it seems simply possessing one atomic weapon makes you more powerful than an economic titan
You obviously haven't been following the logic of my argument.
Quote:
Your argument rests upon your conceptualization that the US was in sole possession of power in WWI. The Soviet Union had yet to rise to power. Germany and France lay in ruins. Britain (despite not being bombed or directly attacked lay in shambles).
Well, now it seems that you are the one who is only evaluating hard power. Britain was broke.
As for the rest of your long post, well, it's an awful lot of words to try to refute my straightforward claim that America was at its strongest right after WW I.
That means right after, it doesn't mean 15 years after.
Did it use that opportunity wisely? Did the balance of power in the world change over time? Those questions are the subject for another discussion. They have nothing to do with what I said.
After WW II, America had a huge war debt to pay.
It faced a powerful Soviet rival.
It was about to lose its exclusive possession of the atom bomb.
It faced the cost of rebuilding Europe (Marshall Plan.)
By 1950, China fell to the Communists and soon thereafter had the bomb.
Next, the Korean War quagmire.
All of this within ten years of the end of WW II.
Then the Berlin Wall and the expensive necessity of keeping troops in Germany, Japan and South Korea
Then the Vietnam War.
And of course, the long term effect of Britain and France losing their colonies in North Africa and the Middle East...
All very expensive and demoralizing.
Now we have an $18 trillion debt and collapsing infrastructure, high illiteracy and social division and instability.
It's funny how you and others here seem to think my claim only has to do with hard power. From the very beginning it has been based on both economic and military power, not just military power. To claim otherwise is to commit the straw man fallacy.
Last edited by dechatelet; 07-28-2015 at 10:05 AM..
I wasn't talking about North Korea or Iran. I was talking about the Soviet Union and China, which became major nuclear powers and a major threat to the U.S. after WW II.
The Russians still have thousands of nuclear weapons that are much more powerful than the two atomic bombs we dropped on Japan.
You suggested that Britain and France were strong because of those empires. They were not.
The U.S. was the only major nation not devastated by WW I.
England, France, Germany and the Soviet Union were devastated.
Japan and China were no threat.
At the same time, our allies had not yet lost their empires.
If you call that not being a global power, so be it.
At that time, the U.S. was in its strongest position economically and militarily. It had no serious economic or military rivals.
Perhaps you're so fixated on nuclear and these rivalries because of when you grew up. I don't know, but "world power" involves more than lacking rivals. In fact the rivalry with Russia pushed us to invest public money into innovation, defense, and research that sent us to the moon and fostered many of the products that catapulted our economy into the digital age. Silicon Valley was first built by those government contracts
Undeniably, the American empire period began after WWII. That is the consensus of historians.
Honestly, the entire premise of your argument is horrendously flawed. Even if it was true, it only serves to undermine your overall point.
First and foremost, we must discuss the incredibly important distinction between hard (military) and soft (economic, diplomatic) power. Your argument is fundamentally flawed due to the fact that you only evaluate hard power. Based on the logic of your argument, it seems simply possessing one atomic weapon makes your more powerful than an economic titan. Ergo, using you conditions Apartheid South Africa was more powerful than say Australia at that time. This would be patently false, as Apartheid South Africa was pariah state shunned on the diplomatic stage. While it retained regional power over the dysfunctional states around it, it can not be said to be a strong global power.
So let's evaluate your argument. Your argument rests upon your conceptualization that the US was in sole possession of power in WWI. The Soviet Union had yet to rise to power. Germany and France lay in ruins. Britain (despite not being bombed or directly attacked lay in shambles). China was not a power. Nor was Japan.
For argument to be true, however, one would have to assume that the strongest remaining power automatically becomes the de facto world leader. You do not, however, consider the possibility that in fact the destruction of Germany and France combined with the fall of Tsarist Russia to the Bolsheviks created a vacuum in which no one was truly dominant. This allowed for Germany to rise back to power, not to mention Japan, who quickly took advantage of Russia departure from Pacific affairs.
While the US emerged out of WWI relatively unscathed, it still did not have the same ability to globally project power as it did after WWII. Wilson's League of Nations proposal was an abject failure. While the American economy did indeed take off and emerge as a global leader in the 1920's, wealth was not spread evenly amongst the population and standard of living did not uniformly rise. Furthermore, though set back by war Britain was still arguably the world's preeminent power at this time, given its ability to exercise both hard and soft power on a global scale, an ability the United States lacked at this time. In addition, the laissez faire policies of conservative politicians set America and the world on the road to economic ruin during the "Roaring Twenties".
The Great Depression further repudiates your claim. Even at best case America would remain a world power for only 11 years. The Great Depression destroyed America. In 1939, there is no doubt that Germany was the world's most dominant power in terms of both hard (military) and soft (economic) power. It would take the combined might of the USSR and USA to take down Hitler's Third Reich.
Let's evaluate WWII. Sure the Soviet Union existed and competed with the United States on a global sphere. Simply, because there is competition, however, does not mean the US was not at the peak of its global power. This argument is tantamount to saying that Barcelona is not at the peak of the footballing world simply because Real Madrid exists.
The US, due to be involved in two theaters, finally had the infrastructure to globally project hard power as Victorian Britain did in the 19th century. Due in part to FDR's brilliant work programs and war mobilization, American industry was the envy of world in both efficiency and gross production. The polarization of the world between 1st and 2nd world allowed the US to rise to economic dominance in the 1st world.
Most importantly, it was during this time the United States achieved a standard of living yet before seen in the modern world. Unions assured high wages across the income spectrum and high tax rates allowed for program such as the GI Bill, a bill that pushed the US public education system to become the world's best. The US became a center for science research thanks to ample funding from the government via taxes. Unlike the USSR, which in reality could only project hard power, the US dominated with its projection of hard and soft power.
In fact, it could be argued that having a rival such as the USSR only served to increase the US power. The "Red Fear" spurred the US to become industrial masters and heavily fund the sciences and universities.
There were, however, many issues in America's underbelly that would be exposed following 1960.
This Great Depression
I hadn't read your post before I responded, but you captured it perfectly. Hard power versus soft. He may have come of age when there was much focus on nuclear arms and hard power, so perhaps that skews his perception. Either way, this debate has been won.
When liberal millenials stop being super-impressed by Jon Stewart, Colbert and Bill Maher (his comments on Islam notwithstanding), I'll take the criticisms of the "Mitt Romney girl" more seriously.
Claiming she 'eviscerates' the left would be a claim of her greatness. Several others have said she did good.
People like Stewart and Colbert because they're funny. They're comedians. They sometimes make decent points and they are exposing more people to politics, which is important. I haven't noticed millennials having a great interesting in Maher. Some do, but they're usually either extremely liberal or not that liberal at all.
"The U.S. was the only major nation not devastated by WW I.
...
At that time, the U.S. was in its strongest position economically and militarily. It had no serious economic or military rivals."
Nonsense. The U.S. had neither the best army nor the best navy. Following WWII, the U.S. arguably had both (the Red Army being the closest competitor), and accounted for 50% of the world GDP to boot.
"In 1939, there is no doubt that Germany was the world's most dominant power in terms of both hard (military) and soft (economic) power. It would take the combined might of the USSR and USA to take down Hitler's Third Reich."
No, no it wouldn't. Germany would've lost WWII without American involvement, and the U.S. would've destroyed Germany one-on-one. Look at the economic output figures -- it isn't even close. And while Germany had arguably the strongest land army at the outset of the war, its navy was second-rate. Which meant it couldn't project power or draw on resources from the wider world.
Note that @ @ 11:32 she mentions "our friend Ted Cruz."
Job opening!
Young, hot blonde needed to draw in viewers.
Intelligence not required. Actually, preferred if you don't have it. We cannot allow viewers to think too hard these days, or they'll change the channel.
** Sitting here actually watching it and 5 minutes in...
I can feel my brain cells dying...
Last edited by LordSquidworth; 07-29-2015 at 06:45 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
).
