If the "American Empire" goes down, who will take over?

[Redshadowz]

Originally Posted by Brave New World

The USSR might have had a different economic system, however it had a mighty conventional and nuclear capabilities, and the main NATO scenario in terms of Soviets was not one infiltration, subversion, and destabilisation, it was one that involved Soviet tanks crossing the German plains.

In response to this section. Industrial warfare in the age of nationalism makes it almost impossible for countries to simply invade other countries in some kind of sneak attack. They always develop an excuse for an intervention. Usually it is the government is illegitimate(IE a dictatorship, a puppet, etc) and that they're coming to liberate the people.

In the case of Germany, there had been a failed communist revolution after WWI. When the Nazis came to power, their primary opposition wasthe communists. The enabling acts after the Reichstag fire were about stopping communism.

The Soviets didn't need to invade Germany. All they had to do was support the communists in German and help them seize power, recognize them as the legitimate government, and move troops in to support them. Which is exactly how the Soviet-Afghan War began.

American troops were there, not to stop a full-scale Russian invasion, but to make sure the Russians didn't attempt to destabilize Western Europe as an excuse for an intervention.

Without America, all of Europe would have fallen to communism, and it wouldn't necessarily have required a single Russian soldier. The United States can overthrow most governments through the actions of the CIA alone.

[UrbanQuest]

All these choices are made by powerful elites. That’s why things always go bad.

[Brave New World]

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

The point is, if Europe had had to defend itself without American security guarantees, half of its GDP would have gone to defense. The American presence in Europe absolutely subsidized Europe, and still subsidizes Europe. It isn't even debatable. Moreover, the presence of US military bases in Europe subsidizes the local economies there. And the fact that Europe has favorable trade deals with the United States, which is the world's reserve currency and thus has far more buying power than it should otherwise have, has also subsidized European economies relative to the rest of the world.

In terms of the Cold War, most of Europe didn't belong to NATO, with many countries not joining NATO until after the end of the so called Cold War.

NATO really only covered a few European countries during the start of the Cold War, and even countries such as France left NATO's central command in the 1960's, and closed all US bases in France.

The bulk of US land forces were in Germany, however there were some US forces elsewhere including the USAF in the UK, and forces in the Mediterranean, where the Spanish and Italians allowed the US use of bases, and there were some US bases in Northern Italy and the Netherlands.

In terms of Denmark it's constitution didn't allow foreign bases, although it did allow the US to use Greenland, and the US also had bases on Iceland, which became part of NATO.

In terms of Norway, the UK played a major role, with 3 Commando Brigade and the Norwegian and Dutch forces working closely together.

The British also contributed to forces in Germany, in terms of the British Army of the Rhine, as did other countries.

High GDP Defence Spending and Conscription was the norm in Europe at the time, and the main NATO doctrine of the time involved tank warfare in relation to the German plains, which is why so much force and armour was centred on Germany by both NATO and the Warsaw Pact.

In terms of Vietnam and other such pointless US Wars, I have already expressed my views, and US post WW2 Foreign policy has been a messy business which has sadly often come back to haunt the US.

[chrish78]

People saying China have no clue..