The one worlder's propaganda has been very successful. Any position other than outright American attempt at control of the entire world is immediately labeled "isolationism" and condemmend by all right thinking people. Except that there is a lot of territory between the two extreems. We might try peaceful trade with everybody that is interested and not trying to force those that aren't.(Gen Smedly Butler had something to say along those lines.) Not much fun in that so I doub't we'll change any time soon.
what is isolationism?
- Thread starter xd9fan
- Start date
- Status
The one worlder's propaganda has been very successful. Any position other than outright American attempt at control of the entire world is immediately labeled "isolationism" and condemmend by all right thinking people. Except that there is a lot of territory between the two extreems. We might try peaceful trade with everybody that is interested and not trying to force those that aren't.(Gen Smedly Butler had something to say along those lines.) Not much fun in that so I doub't we'll change any time soon.
Sarcasm, dude, sarcasm.
There are those on this very post who believe that we were responsible for WWII.
There are those on this very post who believe that we were responsible for WWII.
Go back and re-read. Their actual point was that the US was moving against the Japanese well before the attack on Pearl Harbor. The Japanese countered by attacking at Pearl Harbor. You may prefer to think of the US as having been a non-participant previous to Dec. 7, 1941, but the facts do not support that position. FDR did want to get into the war, but moreso against the Germans.
Well, not "we" exactly, but Wilson and his cabal sure had a heck of a lot to do with it. Had we not entered WWI, the two sides would have been forced into peace talks on nearly equal footing, resulting in only a slight shift in the geopolitical maps (which had been regularly shifting back and forth for centuries previous). Our coming into it forced Germany to get a really bad deal in the peace, resulting in the rise to power of Adolph Hitler, and you know the rest of the story.
I can understand the isolationist position, though I don't think it is possible or practical. If we had never gotten involved in the larger world, we could have stayed out of its wars. We have and we are.
Personaly, I think the industral revolution was a mistake, but it can not be undone. Perhaps it could have been done differently, building an economy on elecrtcity generated by wind and water and sun. But as it happened coal and oil were available, and were used.
It happened before my time and I had no say. I have made my living and my life with the machines that are here.
The same with the history of the US and the rest of the world, most of it happened before my time and I have to deal with what is now.
Personaly, I think the industral revolution was a mistake, but it can not be undone. Perhaps it could have been done differently, building an economy on elecrtcity generated by wind and water and sun. But as it happened coal and oil were available, and were used.
It happened before my time and I had no say. I have made my living and my life with the machines that are here.
The same with the history of the US and the rest of the world, most of it happened before my time and I have to deal with what is now.
US history books in schools have been completely messed up for a long time. You'd do far better homeschooling your kids with better-researched texts.
Just as an example, everyone knows the Monitor and Merrimack were the first ironclad ships, right? Right? Wrong.
In 1858, there was already a ship crossing the Atlantic that was 692 feet of SOLID IRON with a displacement of 32,000 tons and both screw and paddlewheels for propulsion, five funnels, a ship that could have sailed right through any of the US fleet vessels at the time with not much more than a crunch of wood. It was called the Great Eastern...but you will not even find mention of it in most US history books.
Or the fact that it was only due to a failed final negotation with its board of directors that it wasn't used to ship the ENTIRE southern yearly cotton crop to England in a couple of shipments during the Civil War, an unstoppable iron vessel that the Union would have been helpless to interdict, and the funds may well have turned the war in the South's favor.
The things you didn't learn are a real eye-opener.
Just as an example, everyone knows the Monitor and Merrimack were the first ironclad ships, right? Right? Wrong.
In 1858, there was already a ship crossing the Atlantic that was 692 feet of SOLID IRON with a displacement of 32,000 tons and both screw and paddlewheels for propulsion, five funnels, a ship that could have sailed right through any of the US fleet vessels at the time with not much more than a crunch of wood. It was called the Great Eastern...but you will not even find mention of it in most US history books.
Or the fact that it was only due to a failed final negotation with its board of directors that it wasn't used to ship the ENTIRE southern yearly cotton crop to England in a couple of shipments during the Civil War, an unstoppable iron vessel that the Union would have been helpless to interdict, and the funds may well have turned the war in the South's favor.
The things you didn't learn are a real eye-opener.
A lot of posters here are trying to tailor history to support their argument. Of course nothing could be more normal...
There's a big difference between not wanting to get involved in European wars in the late 1700's and being isolationist or even having a policy of non-interventionism. Actually the U.S. has a (sensible) history of only intervening with weaker powers.
Westward expansion and Manifest Destiny began for the U.S. (after a long colonial history) with the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 and the Lewis and Clark expedition in 1804. (And I'm ignoring Benedict Arnold's invasion of Canada in 1775, because we were at war with England and it can be argued that was defensive instead of an aggressive move to conquer and rule more territory.)
This interventionist policy in our own back yard was quickly followed in 1823 with the Monroe doctrine, which led to a century or so of economic exploitation of central and south America. United Fruit Company and their ilk were backed up with gunboat diplomacy. We meddled with foreign governments continuously, from the creation of the "United States of Central America"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_Central_America
to the creation of Panama.
This interventionist history continued through the Spanish American war of 1895 and the ridiculous yellow journalism of "remember the Maine." Then something new and different in our history happened. After conquering the Philippines in that war, and deciding to keep it as our manifest destiny demanded, things didn't go so well. Unlike our continental westward expansion, there weren't waves of settlers moving into the new territory. The Philippine Insurrection lasted until 1913.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Insurrection
This aberration in our history, a time when we had a military occupation of a distant foreign land with no settlers emigrating to integrate the territory with the rest of the country, led to a peculiar public backlash. This was one of the main contributing factors to the birth of isolationism.
WWI really didn't involve us at all when it started. The public quickly saw that the numbers of dead were staggering. Isolationism grew as a result. But the loss of American lives at sea to German U-boats, combined with the threat of an invasion from Mexico sucked us into the war.
There's a big difference between not wanting to get involved in European wars in the late 1700's and being isolationist or even having a policy of non-interventionism. Actually the U.S. has a (sensible) history of only intervening with weaker powers.
Westward expansion and Manifest Destiny began for the U.S. (after a long colonial history) with the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 and the Lewis and Clark expedition in 1804. (And I'm ignoring Benedict Arnold's invasion of Canada in 1775, because we were at war with England and it can be argued that was defensive instead of an aggressive move to conquer and rule more territory.)
This interventionist policy in our own back yard was quickly followed in 1823 with the Monroe doctrine, which led to a century or so of economic exploitation of central and south America. United Fruit Company and their ilk were backed up with gunboat diplomacy. We meddled with foreign governments continuously, from the creation of the "United States of Central America"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_Central_America
to the creation of Panama.
This interventionist history continued through the Spanish American war of 1895 and the ridiculous yellow journalism of "remember the Maine." Then something new and different in our history happened. After conquering the Philippines in that war, and deciding to keep it as our manifest destiny demanded, things didn't go so well. Unlike our continental westward expansion, there weren't waves of settlers moving into the new territory. The Philippine Insurrection lasted until 1913.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Insurrection
This aberration in our history, a time when we had a military occupation of a distant foreign land with no settlers emigrating to integrate the territory with the rest of the country, led to a peculiar public backlash. This was one of the main contributing factors to the birth of isolationism.
WWI really didn't involve us at all when it started. The public quickly saw that the numbers of dead were staggering. Isolationism grew as a result. But the loss of American lives at sea to German U-boats, combined with the threat of an invasion from Mexico sucked us into the war.
Although I think public education in this country has been going downhill for the last 30 or 40 years, I've never seen a textbook that said this. All the textbooks I've seen called the Monitor and the Merrimack the first battle between ironclads. The French and British had ironclad warships before we did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Clad#Ironclads
Most ordinary people in this country still are isolationist, if we use the word to mean avoiding military and political involvement in the rest of the world if we can.
The elites in our country have favored internationalism or globalism since the 1870s. To keep ordinary people from grasping this they use the term "isolationist" to mean "protectionist," which means someone who wants to keep out foreign goods and keep us from doing business around the world.
Although our Yale-educated bosses will never admit it, a country does not have to be the world's policeman to trade. Ask Switzerland. Or Sweden.
Besides reading Washington's Farewell Address, a wonderful statement of our traditional policy, I encourage all of you to read the complete "Four Freedoms" speech by FDR, Harry Truman's speech announcing the Truman Doctrine (helping Greece and Turkey), and JFK's inaugural address, in which he says we are willing to pay any price, bear any burden, to assure the success of freedom.
These three speeches are the most important examples of how the elites try to convince the public that military involvement in the squabbles of Europe and Asia is in our best interest.
The elites in our country have favored internationalism or globalism since the 1870s. To keep ordinary people from grasping this they use the term "isolationist" to mean "protectionist," which means someone who wants to keep out foreign goods and keep us from doing business around the world.
Although our Yale-educated bosses will never admit it, a country does not have to be the world's policeman to trade. Ask Switzerland. Or Sweden.
Besides reading Washington's Farewell Address, a wonderful statement of our traditional policy, I encourage all of you to read the complete "Four Freedoms" speech by FDR, Harry Truman's speech announcing the Truman Doctrine (helping Greece and Turkey), and JFK's inaugural address, in which he says we are willing to pay any price, bear any burden, to assure the success of freedom.
These three speeches are the most important examples of how the elites try to convince the public that military involvement in the squabbles of Europe and Asia is in our best interest.
I think people mis-understood the intent of my post. I was just stating a fact about ww2. The pilots I mentioned were the Flying Tigers. I'm sure you've heard of them. The Japanese lost air superiority over China and could no longer do bombing missions with total immunity. There is a good chance that our early involvement in the Japanese/Chinese conflict lead to Japans loss in the Pacific.
I didn't say anything about starting ww2 or bringing it upon ourselves. But we were indeed trying to help China before Pearl Harbor. Because we knew that Japan would cause lots of problems with Chinas natural resources.
Im sorry to hear my little posting caused so much turmoil. I'm into history and try to avoid the politics.
I didn't say anything about starting ww2 or bringing it upon ourselves. But we were indeed trying to help China before Pearl Harbor. Because we knew that Japan would cause lots of problems with Chinas natural resources.
Im sorry to hear my little posting caused so much turmoil. I'm into history and try to avoid the politics.
Gun Geezer
Member
The REAL Isolationist:
Isolationism is where a guy sits on the back porch all day in sub-0 weather because his in-laws are there for a visit.
Isolationism is where a guy sits on the back porch all day in sub-0 weather because his in-laws are there for a visit.
Isolationism is akin to "good fences make good neighbors." This doesn't
mean we don't trade or take care of growing problems that could actually
affect us. However, what has happened is that we don't stay in our
yard, don't keep our fence mended, go into other peoples' yard all the
way over on the other side of town and "tell 'em how it's gonna be from
now on", etc. etc. Of course, this comes from our new job in Globotown
where we are one of the globocops. We use to be globo-farmer/educator/
inventor/etc. Under our burden of national debt and negative consumer
savings, we are also now globo-debtor. In such a position we can't be
isolationist because we are no longer independent.
Whether or not we were "moving against" them, we had a significant
presence in the Pacific. Recall that we were already in the Philippines
before the start of the last century and had been involved in China as
well. Japan could not expand without running into us. Ironically, it was
earlier contact with the US that had shown the Japanese where the
world was going. Like they've shown before, the Japanese took an
outside idea and ran with it to its logical conclusion.
Had we stayed in our yard the world we be a very different place and
maybe not for the better. The Axis may have still been defeated because
of their small populations and the amount of land the USSR and China had
available from which to operate. Or, we might now be dealing with a fascist
Eurasian empire --as friend or foe? Who knows.
mean we don't trade or take care of growing problems that could actually
affect us. However, what has happened is that we don't stay in our
yard, don't keep our fence mended, go into other peoples' yard all the
way over on the other side of town and "tell 'em how it's gonna be from
now on", etc. etc. Of course, this comes from our new job in Globotown
where we are one of the globocops. We use to be globo-farmer/educator/
inventor/etc. Under our burden of national debt and negative consumer
savings, we are also now globo-debtor. In such a position we can't be
isolationist because we are no longer independent.
Whether or not we were "moving against" them, we had a significant
presence in the Pacific. Recall that we were already in the Philippines
before the start of the last century and had been involved in China as
well. Japan could not expand without running into us. Ironically, it was
earlier contact with the US that had shown the Japanese where the
world was going. Like they've shown before, the Japanese took an
outside idea and ran with it to its logical conclusion.
Had we stayed in our yard the world we be a very different place and
maybe not for the better. The Axis may have still been defeated because
of their small populations and the amount of land the USSR and China had
available from which to operate. Or, we might now be dealing with a fascist
Eurasian empire --as friend or foe? Who knows.
What?
If I recall, we were asking for just the opposite once the treaty talks started. Heck, back when Keenes was still making sense he pretty much predicted the consequences of Versailles with "The Consquences of the Peace." We also helped Germany pay some of those onerous reparations they were forced to make to forestall exactly what happened.
The ones that were really pushing the harsh terms (and who helped crunch OUR economy as well to when they demanded payment in gold for above assitance) were.... surprise surprise...
the French.
shermacman -- well said brother, preach on.
We ain't perfect by a long shot, but I'm tired as well of hearing the constant self-loathing that's become so fashionable in the last few decades.
Agreed, but you are missing my point. Had we not entered WWI, tilting the scales decidedly against Germany, all sides in the peace talks down the road would have been on reasonably equal footing. Casualties were way down by the time we got in. Machine guns and trenches pretty much prevented anyone advancing any further than they were. Lines were hardening on all sides, and peace talks were probably less than a year away. The ONLY reason Wilson got us in that war was so he could influence the peace talks and help establish a world government which he felt was inevitable after the war. Our entry, however, put the Germans in the position of having zero leverage in the peace talks, resulting in Versailles, ultimately Hitler and WWII. In short, had an Americanist ("isolationist," if you prefer), and not an internationalist, been the president, WWII would never have happened. The iron curtain would never have happened. Countless evils would never have happened.
Good point indeed. I'll confess I'm not enough of a military historian to debate you on the military side and ensuing woulda coulda of that era.
These world wars would have happened in a different form and our
involvement in fighting someone as a result of them would have been
delayed. The genocides of the 20th century would have continued and
most likely expanded.
Would I still prefer isolationism? You betcha. We could have played things
like the Swiss and been in a better geographic situation to outlast them, but
we still would have had something akin to the Cold War. Or again, we might
have joined some sort of resulting Global Order anyway. Our government in
practice today could actually be far more repressive than the one we have
now.
It is quite possible that the Eurasian Empire could have blown itself apart
over the last 60+ years and we could have still been sitting pretty today.
Unless, they pulled a nuclear Peal Harbor against CONUS in the 1960s.
However, a final global order requires North America. Hitler attacked Great
Britain in order to bring them into his fold, not to utterly destroy them.
Had a true isolationist America continued to this day, we would either be
involved in an outright war with the biggest player(s) in Eurasia or various
LICs with their proxies across Central and South America right now. In
that case, the best we would hope for is A) either utterly destroying
such an enemy through WMDs or B) convincing them we are not worth
their efforts and waste of resources. Globally then we either get a quick
burn and mass die-off or a slow sputtering out and gradual population
bottleneck.
Judgement delayed. Not avoided.
How do you figure? It is mobilization for great wars that made our central government so centralized and powerful. Oppression of the people requires centralization and a huge power grab. Decentralized, as we were prior to WWI, oppression was much less likely.
Although I am on your side in this debate, I will point out that legalized, centralized oppression results as you say. Societal oppression, as experienced by blacks in this country following the Civil War, requires no such centralization of power. Edited to add: My point in bringing this up is that, if we had followed an isolationist path, many evils would have been avoided. Others would not. It was largely due to the intervention (interference, some would say) on the part of a strong central government here in the US that Jim Crow laws were abolished. Mankind is such that we never seem able to do more than exchange one set of problems for another.
"those that don't remember history are condemed to repete it.'
The thread is focused on the past. Every major government has attemped World Domination from the time of the first tribes. Persian, Greek, Roman, British Empires and others have expanded there influence through wars and conquest.
I will submit, that we only have one world (until interplanetary expansion) and that a One World Government is inevitable. The question then is what kind of government will it be.
Will we be a player or be played.
The thread is focused on the past. Every major government has attemped World Domination from the time of the first tribes. Persian, Greek, Roman, British Empires and others have expanded there influence through wars and conquest.
I will submit, that we only have one world (until interplanetary expansion) and that a One World Government is inevitable. The question then is what kind of government will it be.
Will we be a player or be played.
Who says? Interestingly, 90% or more of the people in the world do not want one world government. It is something an elite cabal has been working for since before the turn of last the last century, but it is far from inevitable when so few actually want it.
Well, I guess I should reconsider that. Excluding the Third World, 90% don't want it. The people of the Third World would likely be the only ones to actually advantage from a one world government, that is till the gas chambers get constructed. Until then, though, their lives might actually be improved somewhat.
- Status
