what do we know II

[Vander]

Quite simply it was our lack of involvement in Europe's affairs that let Hitler run amok. Try and tell me if we were as involved with world affairs as we were after WW2 was over that Germany would of been as war hungry.

I can't tell you that, but then neither can you. Who's to say what our involvement would've been? Who's to say what the result would've been? If you want to rewrite 100 years of history, go ahead, but it's ultimately just fiction that conveniently supports your contention.

We chose neutrality. Democracy happened. Right or wrong, that's how our country is set up. America is an experiment in self government, not an experiment in global dominance and world policing. The more we deform ourselves to serve the latter, the more we destroy the former.

[Will Robinson]

America is an experiment in self government, not an experiment in global dominance and world policing. The more we deform ourselves to serve the latter, the more we destroy the former.

Why did you need to manufacture a false characterization of what we are in order to juxtapose it against an extreme alternative that we haven't undertaken as if only those two extreme ends of the spectrum are where we are/have been?

The pilgrims didn't land on a test tube shoreline.
We took this nation from its inhabitants/insurgents.

We didn't ever try to dominate the world yet we have always undertaken foriegn relations/manipulations in the interest of preserving our claim to this land going back to pre Constitution days.

And self governance wasn't a classroom project to explore systems of democracy. It was about increasing our chances of survivability as a nation free from foriegn oppression and violent attack. That endeavor has always had many facets that are across the full spectrum.

[woodchip]

Quite simply it was our lack of involvement in Europe's affairs that let Hitler run amok. Try and tell me if we were as involved with world affairs as we were after WW2 was over that Germany would of been as war hungry.

I can't tell you that, but then neither can you. Who's to say what our involvement would've been? Who's to say what the result would've been? If you want to rewrite 100 years of history, go ahead, but it's ultimately just fiction that conveniently supports your contention.

We chose neutrality. Democracy happened. Right or wrong, that's how our country is set up. America is an experiment in self government, not an experiment in global dominance and world policing. The more we deform ourselves to serve the latter, the more we destroy the former.

And yet, judging by the lack of world war 3, world policing by us did take place and fairly successfully. There was no real deformation to ourselves, just a way to keep the world at piece...regional flair-ups not withstanding. So my supposition (yes it was a supposition) that WW2 might not have taken place if we were the worlds policeman (as we were after WW2) cannot so easily be discounted. The only deformation that may occur is if the left succeeds with their mantra of our constitution being a "living breathing document".

[Tunnelcat]

You do realize woody that some of the blame for Hitler's rise to power can be placed on the U.S. after WWI. Germany was so beaten, so destitute and so destroyed as a nation that the stage was set for someone like Hitler to rise to power from the embers of destruction. All he had to do was take advantage of the situation and manipulate an already depressed and impoverished people. The German manufacturing infrastructure was gone and unemployment was rampant. No one in Europe or the U.S. even thought of lifting a finger or spending a dime to help rebuild Germany once the war was over. In fact, we essentially walled them off from the rest of the world. Why should we have helped them anyway, we hated Germany.

Out of that nation's miasma of depression and failure, all Hitler had to do was foment a little resentment towards those who did have money at the time, the business owners, who were mostly Jewish Germans back then. It was easy. Target those with money, then attack them with some heated, twisted and focused propaganda that was just close enough to the truth to become fact. The people liked what they heard and rose to the occasion. Why not? Someone was actually doing something about their horrible situation. When Hitler got results, which helped his nation get back on the road to prosperity, the people willingly gave him even more power. Hitler then used his propaganda machine to focus on new enemies to further his machinations. Those enemies were Europe and the U.S. because we had "won" the war and were the hated conquerors.

So given the situation back then, I don't think any U.S. military policing would have worked beforehand, just as isolationism would have ultimately failed. In fact, policing probably would have backfired like it already has in modern times. Once you create an enemy, they tend to multiply when you keep attacking them because you're feeding their propaganda machine. But maybe, if we had originally helped that conquered and beleaguered nation to get back on it's feet, we would have made us a friend, long before some madman took power and became a destroyer and the murderer of millions in the first place.

[Vander]

Why did you need to manufacture a false characterization

To show dichotomy by extrapolating to extremes. Liberty and self determination are the defining characteristics of our form of government, and it was constructed in reverence to the concepts. We accept our governance because we have representation. Applying that governance to the world, without representation, is in opposition to these concepts.

And yet, judging by the lack of world war 3, world policing by us did take place and fairly successfully.

While the lack of full out hot war is obviously a good thing, I think you're defining success down way too much. Greater success might've been avoiding the destructive and costly cold war in the first place.

There was no real deformation to ourselves, just a way to keep the world at piece...regional flair-ups not withstanding.

Right. The rise of the national security state has had no real effect. The blacklisting and infiltration of political dissent. The creation and execution of secret policy. How does informed consent work with secret policy again?

Like I said in a different thread, this may strike more of a nerve with me, because I consider myself a leftist. I believe in a certain level of socialism. If I were born a few decades earlier, I would've been persecuted for these beliefs. If I had been born in a different country, the US probably would've sought my death. Hell, right now you probably think I'm the enemy, rather than a fellow citizen with a different point of view.

[Top Gun]

TC raises an excellent point about the root societal causes of Hitler's rise to power, and the aftermath of WW1 that set it in motion. It's a stark contrast to what happened after WW2: both the Marshall Plan in Europe and the American occupation of Japan focused heavily on rebuilding infrastructure and economic capabilities, including those of our mortal enemies in that conflict. As a result, nations like Germany and Japan are among our closest allies and a few of the biggest economies in the world. Too bad we didn't apply the same lesson some 50-odd years later...

[Ferno]

She also illustrates the fact that individuals don't take power from people, but a community gives power to a person.