I guess my question is who gave the Americans the right? I say this as an American. But would not the world be a better place if we just minded our own business and quit nation building and stoking non existant fires?
Wars in foreign countries are incredibly profitable for the elite. America is effectively just a tool for transferring money and power from hoi polloi to hoi oligoi; it’s not interested in improving conditions for those who can’t generate wealth
After world war two, Europe was busy putting itself back together. It left an opening that the US stepped into. And who wouldn’t like to be the big dog in the yard.
They (the USA) got to be the big dog, protecting us in europe, and we let them the hard & soft power. Everyone was happy (in the US and Europe) until americans started to believe their own hype that thay are in fact better than other people, and thus the breakup began.
It’s not over just yet with the usa supremacy but trump fucked things up so bad that IMO ten years from now the world will be a different place.
protecting us in europe
Protecting Europe from what exactly? What military threat did the US fight against in Europe? There hasn’t been an attack to western Europe since WW2 until the US bombing of Yugoslavia.
You can’t be this dense right?
Against the URSS 🙄
Against the ones who saved Europe from Nazism?
Lol nice try
What on Earth are you talking about? My country, Spain, only received weapons and military aid against fascism from the USSR years before WW2 started, during the Spanish civil war. The Soviet Union was the most antifascist state in Europe, and I wish my country would have been next to the Soviets so that we wouldn’t have endured almost 40 years of fascist regime.
Sure, just forget about Lithuania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, and so on and on and on.
The soviet union teamed up with the nazis and started the second world war, check out the molotov ribentrop act.
Also: why chose between two bad things, Franco and the USSR when you can aim for the free world? Are you unhappy i the EU?
Pretty much this. Up to that point, it was Britain and a few other European nations that were doing all the management* in various places in the world. After WWII, they realised: “You know what, we’re tired and worn out and everyone wants us out anyway. We’re going low energy to rebuild at home. Someone else can step in if they want.”
* a.k.a. “Colonialism”. Management is an odd choice of synonym I grant you, but once you’ve got a colony, it’s in your interests to run things in good order. Until the locals rightfully kick you out, that is.
After WWII, they realised: “You know what, we’re tired and worn out and everyone wants us out anyway
This is a very naive understanding of the history of decolonisation. Decolonisation wasn’t a western initiative, it was done because the colonies were literally rebelling against their European oppressors, great part of that through Soviet funding and arming.
Someone else can step in if they want.
…unless they oppose western control of the region like Patrice Lumumba, Fidel Castro or Mosaddeq.
This is also an oversimplification.
Colonies were always rebelling. The main issue that led to decolonisation was that there was no longer the resources required to maintain these big empires.
Coal was more expensive, troops were more expensive, everything now cost too much to maintain.
It’s the end phase of every empire.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis
Took 10 years until 1956
I have an answer different from the others.
US economy depends on the US intellectual property system, a few US monopolist companies and the US dollar, and the financial system.
Especially the intellectual property system. However different laws can be in various countries, in fact everybody tries to follow US law.
It means that a lot of things produces elsewhere mean royalties to US companies, and a lot of things can’t be produced without permission, control of markets, planned development of microelectronics and tech in particular, yadda-yadda.
So - if, in some hypothetical situation, that IP system is undone, with some countries having similar laws, some more like USSR’s “public domain by default with some fixed payment to patent holders”, and all the intermediate variants, then you’ll just have a second depression. Because a huge part of the economy will shrink.
US foreign debt is a meme subject, but honestly, if USD stops being the world’s most reliable currency, you’ll also probably have a default.
US actual industrial production (what doesn’t shrink as easily) is not so impressive when looking at its size. A lot about US level of life doesn’t really match the efficiency of the economy. Say, if you look at Germany, life there is very different. In some ways better, maybe, but many things normal in the US are not achievable there.
My point is - the American IP laws were spread around by pressure. Not just that, but sometimes the monopoly roles of American companies. Part of that pressure is the military guarantor role.
If that stops being relevant, a lot of things which were a given for your economy for many years will stop existing. And for a few other economies too. It might not look as bad as the USSR’s collapse, but it will probably look as ruined and unpredictable as the 1960s world.
I’m curious what is normal in the US and not achievable in Germany.
Get your bullshit startup valued in the billions by Wall Street
German here: just creating and selling something is one thing that jumps to my mind.
The concept of “I have an idea and a bit of money so I’ll just found a company” is … Tiresome. Possible, yes, but the legal hurdles both good and bad are ridiculous. You need way more time than in the US just for the formal overhead and even then you are way more in it with your own private existence.
As founder “beschränkte Haftung” is not as limited as it sounds at first if you’re not firm in legalese for example.
Food delivery as something normal, I’d think. Plumber coming soon after being called. Appointment with doctor to a close enough date.
Those things affected by actually having labor rights and less dependence on colonial mechanisms.
No one, powerful countries just assume that they are needed everywhere in the world so they start acting like narcissistic bitch like US.
We’re taught to compete with each other basically at birth cos that’s what benefits capitalism and no one will break the cycle of this evil shit
You could argue that the US was pretty much bullied into that role by Nazi Germany and later on the CCCP.
I don’t think “Americans” is a good term considering a little over half of Americans prefer non-interventionist policies. Ironically, interventionist policies are bipartisan, with a large portion of both democrats and republicans taking neo-isolationist approaches to American foreign policy. Intervention can be one of four major fields referred to in politics as DIME (diplomatic, informational, military, and economic). Examples would include UN for diplomatic (we intervene via power held in the UN), 5 eyes for informational (we allow NSA to spy on allies, as long as those allies provide us with material about our own citizens), military (republicans prefer big bombs and boots on ground, Obama loved his drone strikes), and economic like NAFTA.
I feel you may be viewing this solely from a military perspective which is why I wanted to highlight these other means. Liberal IR theory actually encourages DIME, via rule of law and consensus via other democratic nation states, I.e. if Canada, and the EU want us to intervene in the Middle East, should we mind our own business? Liberal IR theory would suggest not, and that we are not being a world player. The main hypothesis in Liberal IR theory is actually the same as its more aggressive big brother called Realism or more commonly known form as “Realpolitik”. Both posit that the international order exists in a form of anarchy and it is the responsibility (whether hegemonic or multipolar) to control this anarchy via law ( for liberalism) or via power (for realism).
Generally, more of the academics you will read on this topic whether liberal or realists will claim that Americans were pulled in via a vacuum and didn’t force its way in. There are also deeper theories in this about Bipolar and regional hegemony that better explain the post WWII world. Pre-Soviet collapse, the first world appreciated the aggressive American approach as it lent a balance against the aggressive USSR. If it weren’t for the USSR, America would have returned to the western hemisphere and not intervened unless asked to by Western Europe
We were unspoiled by WW2. This gave us an unnatural ability to pull ahead economically while other nations rebuilt. We taught our citizens that this was deserved and the propaganda has stood until pretty recently. This unfair advantage is slowly then quickly unwinding.
“America is the best! Nobody could match our manufacturing!”
Well no, you were just the only hevay industrial country that wasn’t bombed in the 40s. America didn’t rocket ahead through the 60s, they just helped kneecap the competition.
And for the god damn 10th time, Mexico and China didn’t take the manufacturing. They didn’t raid the US and deport Ford to them. Ford walked it all over very politely.
US manufacturing was dominant through the thirties and forties. It really shone in the 40s under a war time economy. It was a sleeping giant and the world knew it. Pennsylvania outputted more steel than Japan and Germany combined. Audacious goals set by President Roosevelt were mocked by Hitler as audacious Hollywood goals. The US easily surpassed these goals.
It was an amazing display of competence. The only other countries to match the intensity of growth would the USSR during the five year plan and the PRC during the eighties. But both of them were starting from an agricultural economy. The USSR never reached the American manufacturing peak and China has surpassed.
The unprecendent dominance is due in no small part because the rivals needed to rebuild. But under representing America’s position with regards to labor, capital, resources and state coordinated mobilization would be a serious error.
America was the standard for a Democratic Republic after WW2.
after the war we helped most of Europe return to normal and even improved quality of life and living standards. part of that help came with stipulations on how the US had control within those countries that had help.
Had the US not stepped in at the time to stabilize Europe, another war would have likely happened and another, and another.
My guess, most of Europe would have fallen under Russian rule, or at the very least heavily influenced by, if the US didn’t step up.
I suppose European’s don’t look at how bad the war left Europe and often just want to forget the atrocities, but that’s not an excuse for blaming the hand that helped you in your time of need.
People turned to Russia specifically because they disapproved US imperialism and wanted to counter its power, while avoiding being doomed by capitalism. I’m not saying this was the ideal solution, but at least if they succeeded we wouldn’t be in the position we are today
US imperialism didn’t happen until the 1950s, well after the war.
this was, in part, due to the private investments from large American companies at the time. in-fact, the American economy was booming for three reasons
- war was over and people were desperate to find stability and peace
- Americans at home got through the war mostly unscathed and now had an abundance of work which in-turn made an abundance of money to spend
- Europe desperately needed materials and products to rebuild their own economy, this only further boosted American GDP from a previously untouched market. private investment took place from American companies within Europe to increase profits further.
in a sense, because Europe was so weak after the war it only fed US corporate imperialism. Had Europe been able to stand on its own the United States might not have had such an industrial boon and similarities between Europe and the US might have not been so significant.
one might even draw the strong correlation between American corporate interests and total subservience of government alliances at that time. our government had, up until then, mostly stayed neutral to concerns between corporations and citizens. this changed though because of the newly created military industrial complex that was created to feed the war. afterwards you had defense contractors that saw dollar signs, and the tradition still goes to this day.
speculation on my part, the political climate of the current day is the fruit bore from that union of corporate and state all those years ago and this has been the agenda of the American elite all along and they are currently in the final seconds of the “game of thrones”.
US imperialism didn’t happen until the 1950s, well after the war.
Absolute whitewashing of the USian crimes against humanity all over the first half of the 20th century. Examples: big stick ideology
The US also constantly did shit like this in the Americas all over the 19th century, see United Fruit Company or Military Government of Cuba.
The US didn’t step in with the Marshall plan to stabilize Europe against war, the US did so in order to prevent socialist uprisings all over Western Europe, and to create ties between European capital and US capital so that Western Europe would support the US in its imperialism.
Just like America itself England can be blamed. Since there are already a bunch of WW2 answers, I’ll go back to post WW1 where England and France decided to carve up the middle east in their own interests. This created a bunch of countries with boarders that made little sense, mainly so one big influencal leader could give countries to his family members. Then jump ahead to an Australian showing up in Iran agreeing to look for oil and if he finds any he keeps 90% of the profits for 60 years. Once he found oil and made a bunch of money England said that is too good of a deal and just took over the company and changing its name to BP. Iran said this deal sucks and demanded a better deal, England said fuck you and went and asked America to step in and help them keep their deal. America sent the CIA in to cause problems, and the CIA was successful. The new leader still forced England to accept a more fair deal, but pissed off the people of Iran. So when the dictator was overthrown the new leadership was founded on a very popular policy of death to America because the CIA did what England asked them to do.
Nobody gave ‘murica any right, they just imposed themselves. The simple answer is imperialism. USA was always a power and money hungry bitch and has been putting nations, populations and markets under their boots (not always thru military force) for profit since the late 1800s. Yes, they’ve been an evil empire for that long. Latin America as a whole has suffered many hells so uncle sam could keep commodities’ prices super low.
I think you’re setting the timeline about a century and a half too late. The people that would become the first US citizens were genociding the Native Americans as early as 1750
The USA was securing international trade lines. After WW2, they started doing it to counter communism and build friendships. (Cannot attack your trading partners.)
This was not entirely popular with Americans, see “Team America: World Police”.
Another country or coalition could step up. Just build a navy that rivals the USA one to secure shipping lanes.
Eisenhower warned us.
I’m German and went to the US for a year as a high school student.
My US history teacher literally told us that the US is the world police. Because of that I believe that many Americans think that way.
Kinda how they were “last man standing” in WW2. Everybody else got severely fucked and they won them over by with the Marshall aid program which got us to a bi-polar world with NATO in which the US was the hegemony.
After the fall of the Soviet Union and before the rise of China there was only one superpower that could act as such militarily and then US continued their power trip.
