Who was the last one? It wasn't Britain. I think you have to go back to the Romans. I don't think having a hegemon is a usual
And how did we get on in those two examples, given the claim that we held hegemonic power?
But how did America get on in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan?
Being hegemonic doesn't mean always winning.
Correct, we suffered some awful defeats in the 19th century.
Even hegemonic powers need both good allies, and willing subjects. The UK could never have defeated France or Germany on its own, in 1815 or 1918. And, the UK's dominance would have been far less pronounced without thousands of Sikhs, Gurkhas, Afghans, Africans in the ranks of the Imperial armies.
Britain's naval might meant that any attempt to defeat the UK at home would be defeated, that anyone who fought Britain would suffer terribly through blockade. Britain's financial dominance meant that it could fund coalitions against its enemies. But, Britain could not win unaided.
On topic. Biden has to win next year, next year's election will be as pivotal for humanity as Operation Overlord.
The fascist GOP and Trump need to be annihilated.
On that logic @TSE, you are in favour of the GOP being declared a proscribed organisation and legally banned from next year's election? Ditto Trump.
And, if you are not in favour, why not, given the language you have just used?
If there is a threat to democracy, it's people like yourself who believe only they have the right answer when it comes to what is and isn't allowed.
Your line of thinking - and those of a similar ilk - is the far greater threat to democracy than the buffoon Trump.
You absolute roaster.
'Buffoon Trump', trying to downplay his tyranny.
We got the beer hall putsch in 2021 thanks to that 'buffoon'.
I want them defeated at the ballot box, which is why I said they need to be annihilated.
For someone who proclaims their absolute immodestly, you are not very good at answering the question. Although, as a lawyer, I guess you may not be trying to give a straight answer.
You were the one who referenced next year as the most important date for democracy since Operation Overlord ie the D-Day landings against the Nazis. You called the GOP fascists. Your language and analogies clearly scream you think them equivalent to Fascists and / or Nazis, in which case why not ban them?
You clearly want them banned so why don't you stop being a coward and state what you truly want, as opposed to hiding behind some nominal fence-sitting behaviour because you realise it's a step too far.
Oh, and maybe have a reasonable argument as opposed to going all Gammon when you are challenged.
I prefer fascists to lose at the ballot box and or convicted of crimes they are guilty of.
If only you got this angry at Trump and the GOP trying to steal the 2020 election.
I did. But two wrongs don't make a right. In any event, what I did or did not do doesn't really excuse that type of language you used.
As I said, you are now backtracking and saying you want them defeated at the ballot box but your original language made it clear you would much rather see them proscribed and banned. If I hear someone saying "Black people are criminals" and then trying to backtrack by saying "yeah but what I really meant is.." it's clear where their sentiments lie.
One of the benchmarks for fascism is trying to overturn legitimate elections with violence.
The events subsequent to the 2020 election met that threshold.
Ah you mean like the left wing protests we often get in the uk when tories win that often devolve into violence?
That reads like another 1 April joke.
Fringe protests does not even remotely relate to what we saw after the 2020 election. The other side knew and accepted they had lost, and there wasn't even a hint some other outcome would have occurred.
Does it really when every time the tories win there is a screed of articles in places like the guardian claiming the tories didn't really win because adding up all the votes for other parties add up to more than the tory vote percentage. How is that different from what happened in the us and the protests that turned violent are incited by such articles
You are equating writing a newspaper article discussing the alleged problems with the current voting system and advocating a legal change… with a bunch of people with murderous intent and weapons trying to overturn an election?
Have you ever been caught in the middle of one of those protests? I have and I can assure you murderous intent is there, what else do you call throwing petrol bombs. If we were the us do you think those protests would not have people with guns and willing to use them?
Which Britsh protests about election outcomes have had petrol bombs thrown, outside Northern Ireland?
Well the one that swept over me certainly had petrol bombs, flares and hurled bricks deployed against the police. This was back in 92
I am sorry, but I remember 1992 quite well but cannot find in either my memory or Google any reference to petrol bombs being thrown at police over the election result. Which city was it?
I do remember some *very* violent anti-poll-tax riots around then. But not especially about the elections.
The poll tax riots were certainly quite violent but weren't against an election result, though they did bring about the end both of the policy and that PM.
There were no petrol bombs at the 1990 London poll tax riot of which the 33rd anniversary was yesterday. There was a lot of other violence at it, though.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
The world will usually have a hegemon. As hegemons go, the US is about the most benign.
Who was the last one? It wasn't Britain. I think you have to go back to the Romans. I don't think having a hegemon is a usual or healthy state.
Most certainly was. 1815-1900 or so. Till the Boers shattered the illusion.
It was - in particular- from 1815 to 1870, economically and politically, and that dominance was absolutely akin to the USA today, which is what counts.
At no stage during that time could we have fielded a massive land army to defeat a rival power. But, we didn't need to do so.
That is the salient point though. Britain had a lot of power to 'rule the waves' and keep trade going (to our own advantage), but no capacity whatever to intervene in the internal matters of the US, Russia, Germany, France, Austria-Hungary, the Netherlands, etc. There was not the gulf in material wealth and military power between us and rivals that allowed us to exercise hegemonic influence. When we did bring force to bear, it was always against less developed opponents - till WW1, and we all know how that went.
Are yoy really claiming the UK didn't interfere in Russian politics during their civil war? Or, you know, wage a two decade long war with France to halt their revolution? Portugal was a virtual British colony for twenty years.
And how did we get on in those two examples, given the claim that we held hegemonic power?
But how did America get on in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan?
Being hegemonic doesn't mean always winning.
Arguably they didn't lose in Iraq, given they replaced Saddam. Vietnam they lost as South Vietnam fell to the Vietcong. The Korean War was a draw. WW1 and WW2 US led victories. Afghanistan was a failure in terms of replacing the Taliban but a success in terms of killing Bin Laden
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
It's why I care about US politics and their domestic choices. It's why I disagree with @Luckyguy1983 when he points out it is none of our business. We are directly affected by the choices that America makes. Their withdrawal from Europe, pre Ukraine, materially affected our national security. They are back here now and we should be thankful for that but their attention will switch back to the Pacific soon enough. Its why we are so keen to play there. We want to remain relevant to them.
Whilst it's slightly humiliating given the hegemonic status we ourselves used to have it's also rational and in our national interest.
No, we didn't. We were never the global hegemon. Even in our pomp, America, Russia, Germany, and France were very powerful, and there were many second rank powers like the Ottoman Empire, Italy, Spain, to rival us. We were unmatched at sea - we were never global hegemon, thank goodness.
Well on that basis there has never been a global hegemon. Not the US, which always faced competing powers, and certainly not your earlier suggestion of the Roman Empire, which only ever controlled about 4% of the globe.
Following the collapse of the Soviet Empire, no power has even come close to rivalling the US, until the relatively recent emergence of China. Yes, not everyone gladly acknowledged American sway, but nobody has come close to challenging it, and the country's ability to project its will beyond its borders has been unprecedented, through diplomacy, its Government agencies, military bases etc. Britain never had this.
We'll have to disagree on this. British dominance throughout the 19th century was on a par with US dominance from 1918 onwards, imo.
Meh. Even the British foreign policy doctrine of the period was 'balance of powers'. Never running of all the other powers, which would have been impossible to achieve, as others have acknowledged. There were just too many powerful competitors in the 19th century.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
The world will usually have a hegemon. As hegemons go, the US is about the most benign.
Who was the last one? It wasn't Britain. I think you have to go back to the Romans. I don't think having a hegemon is a usual or healthy state.
Most certainly was. 1815-1900 or so. Till the Boers shattered the illusion.
It was - in particular- from 1815 to 1870, economically and politically, and that dominance was absolutely akin to the USA today, which is what counts.
At no stage during that time could we have fielded a massive land army to defeat a rival power. But, we didn't need to do so.
That is the salient point though. Britain had a lot of power to 'rule the waves' and keep trade going (to our own advantage), but no capacity whatever to intervene in the internal matters of the US, Russia, Germany, France, Austria-Hungary, the Netherlands, etc. There was not the gulf in material wealth and military power between us and rivals that allowed us to exercise hegemonic influence. When we did bring force to bear, it was always against less developed opponents - till WW1, and we all know how that went.
We did defeat Russia in the Crimea, the Americans were too preoccupied with their own affairs (and a civil war) to do much, Germany didn't really exist and Austria-Hungary was occupied in the Balkans. The economic system was dominated by Britain and organised as such that any rival power would have to back down, save France, and that did influence their internal affairs on everything from free trade to abolition of the slave trade.
The British Army (note: not the Indian Army) was consistently pretty crap. It won in the Crimera only because Russia was far worse and in the Boer War it was initially abominable.
It only really started to professionalise in the run up to WW1.
The performance of the British army from 1793 to 1808 was abysmal. The Royal Navy, by contrast, had driven its enemies from the seas, and maintained a close blockade of France and its satellites.
The army that Wellington forged, after 1808 (which had very strong Portugese, German and Spanish contingents), was outstanding. At the same time, British money and munitions were sustaining every member of every coalition that fought the French.
By 1812, the British military was so strong that we could hand the Americans their arses when they tried to invade Canada, at the same time as fighting Napoleon.
And lose 45 000 men in an unsuccessful bid to defeat the slave rebellion in Haiti.
@Sean_F yes, it's worth noting that even "British" performance in WW1 or WW2 was largely an imperial one.
We could certainly do much more today if we added the armed forces of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, Nepal, India and Pakistan to our tally, and by the same token we'd have struggled to have done much at all back then without them.
Wait until Dan finds out what the first American President(s) did to King George III.
Has a US President ever attended the coronation of a British Monarch?
No. This is the norm.
Plus if President Biden went to the coronation then protocol would require the King to go to Biden's reinaugration in 2025 in return, or nightmare of nighmares for the Palace, Trump's second inaugration.
Stick to sending Ambassadors, or at most the Vice President and Prince of Wales
Is it normal protocol for an invitation to be issued and refused?
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
It's why I care about US politics and their domestic choices. It's why I disagree with @Luckyguy1983 when he points out it is none of our business. We are directly affected by the choices that America makes. Their withdrawal from Europe, pre Ukraine, materially affected our national security. They are back here now and we should be thankful for that but their attention will switch back to the Pacific soon enough. Its why we are so keen to play there. We want to remain relevant to them.
Whilst it's slightly humiliating given the hegemonic status we ourselves used to have it's also rational and in our national interest.
No, we didn't. We were never the global hegemon. Even in our pomp, America, Russia, Germany, and France were very powerful, and there were many second rank powers like the Ottoman Empire, Italy, Spain, to rival us. We were unmatched at sea - we were never global hegemon, thank goodness.
Well on that basis there has never been a global hegemon. Not the US, which always faced competing powers, and certainly not your earlier suggestion of the Roman Empire, which only ever controlled about 4% of the globe.
Following the collapse of the Soviet Empire, no power has even come close to rivalling the US, until the relatively recent emergence of China. Yes, not everyone gladly acknowledged American sway, but nobody has come close to challenging it, and the country's ability to project its will beyond its borders has been unprecedented, through diplomacy, its Government agencies, military bases etc. Britain never had this.
We'll have to disagree on this. British dominance throughout the 19th century was on a par with US dominance from 1918 onwards, imo.
Meh. Even the British foreign policy doctrine of the period was 'balance of powers'. Never running of all the other powers, which would have been impossible to achieve, as others have acknowledged. There were just too many powerful competitors in the 19th century.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
The world will usually have a hegemon. As hegemons go, the US is about the most benign.
Who was the last one? It wasn't Britain. I think you have to go back to the Romans. I don't think having a hegemon is a usual or healthy state.
Most certainly was. 1815-1900 or so. Till the Boers shattered the illusion.
It was - in particular- from 1815 to 1870, economically and politically, and that dominance was absolutely akin to the USA today, which is what counts.
At no stage during that time could we have fielded a massive land army to defeat a rival power. But, we didn't need to do so.
That is the salient point though. Britain had a lot of power to 'rule the waves' and keep trade going (to our own advantage), but no capacity whatever to intervene in the internal matters of the US, Russia, Germany, France, Austria-Hungary, the Netherlands, etc. There was not the gulf in material wealth and military power between us and rivals that allowed us to exercise hegemonic influence. When we did bring force to bear, it was always against less developed opponents - till WW1, and we all know how that went.
We did defeat Russia in the Crimea, the Americans were too preoccupied with their own affairs (and a civil war) to do much, Germany didn't really exist and Austria-Hungary was occupied in the Balkans. The economic system was dominated by Britain and organised as such that any rival power would have to back down, save France, and that did influence their internal affairs on everything from free trade to abolition of the slave trade.
The British Army (note: not the Indian Army) was consistently pretty crap. It won in the Crimera only because Russia was far worse and in the Boer War it was initially abominable.
It only really started to professionalise in the run up to WW1.
The performance of the British army from 1793 to 1808 was abysmal. The Royal Navy, by contrast, had driven its enemies from the seas, and maintained a close blockade of France and its satellites.
The army that Wellington forged, after 1808 (which had very strong Portugese, German and Spanish contingents), was outstanding. At the same time, British money and munitions were sustaining every member of every coalition that fought the French.
By 1812, the British military was so strong that we could hand the Americans their arses when they tried to invade Canada, at the same time as fighting Napoleon.
And lose 45 000 men in an unsuccessful bid to defeat the slave rebellion in Haiti.
The West Indies was the graveyard of the British army. It was almost a death sentence to be posted there. Of course, once the slaves broke definitively with France, then Haiti became almost an ally.
George W. Bush's top domestic priority was to improve education in the US. In seeking to improve education, he was following both Reagan ("A Nation at Risk"), and his father.
But he was more ambitious than either, because he hoped to do so by federal action, in a nation where almost all of the education decisions are made at the state and local levels*. He reached out to Democrats, and was able to get the support of no less than Ted Kennedy for his "No Child Left Behind". He was explicit, as he had been in Texas, about trying to reduce the gaps between whites, blacks, and Hispanics.
You can argue that his education programs, and leadership, are part of the explanation for that rise, that they made no difference, that gains would have been even larger without them. Similarly, you can argue that the losses under Obama were due in part to his leadership, that Obama had no effect on them, or that they would have been worse without Obama's leadership.
Of those six possibilities, I think the first is the most likely -- but would be interested in seeing a serious study of the question.
(*At the time, I hoped he would succeed, but was skeptical, because of those diffculties.)
Wait until Dan finds out what the first American President(s) did to King George III.
Has a US President ever attended the coronation of a British Monarch?
No. This is the norm.
Plus if President Biden went to the coronation then protocol would require the King to go to Biden's reinaugration in 2025 in return, or nightmare of nighmares for the Palace, Trump's second inaugration.
Stick to sending Ambassadors, or at most the Vice President and Prince of Wales
Is it normal protocol for an invitation to be issued and refused?
The invite may be new, but that wouldn't make a refusal something to get worked up about. It may have just been a courtesy ask, without genuine expectation of attendance.
Don't forget Ben Bradshaw's and Lloyd Russell-Moyne's behaviour in the Commons, particularly the latter's intimidation of a female MP.
Unfortunately, while you also get it on the Right, there does tend to be a larger tendency on the Left whose first question is "who did it?" rather than "is the action wrong?" before deciding to take a judgement.
I very much hope those MPs will be deselected.
Bradshaw was apparently begged to restand in 2019, he has been a lonely Labour voice in the SW (though I think they have a few more now, even not counting Bristol), and I think won't be standing again.
Russell-Moyne is young and in a seat which is probably now safe as houses despite only being won in 2017. Unless he campaigns for an Independent Corbyn mayoralty or something I should think he would be safe.
Rusell-Moyle might be the most loathsome of all 650 MPs, and he faces some stiff competition.
Thinking on the various loathsome MPs (which honestly is not that high a percentrage, thankfully), it made me wonder what is up with Chris Pincher. Not heard a peep since his moment of unglory.
Thankfully nothing is heard ever of the overwhelming majority of MPs; when they do break cover - perhaps on some current affairs panel like QT or AQ - you realise how fortunate we are that they usually keep silent.
Very few understand a single word of the legislation for which they are uniquely accountable.
Time to remove their salaries, make them part time trustees, pay their train fare, and pay constituency staff to do the case work.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
The world will usually have a hegemon. As hegemons go, the US is about the most benign.
Who was the last one? It wasn't Britain. I think you have to go back to the Romans. I don't think having a hegemon is a usual or healthy state.
Most certainly was. 1815-1900 or so. Till the Boers shattered the illusion.
It was - in particular- from 1815 to 1870, economically and politically, and that dominance was absolutely akin to the USA today, which is what counts.
At no stage during that time could we have fielded a massive land army to defeat a rival power. But, we didn't need to do so.
That is the salient point though. Britain had a lot of power to 'rule the waves' and keep trade going (to our own advantage), but no capacity whatever to intervene in the internal matters of the US, Russia, Germany, France, Austria-Hungary, the Netherlands, etc. There was not the gulf in material wealth and military power between us and rivals that allowed us to exercise hegemonic influence. When we did bring force to bear, it was always against less developed opponents - till WW1, and we all know how that went.
We did defeat Russia in the Crimea, the Americans were too preoccupied with their own affairs (and a civil war) to do much, Germany didn't really exist and Austria-Hungary was occupied in the Balkans. The economic system was dominated by Britain and organised as such that any rival power would have to back down, save France, and that did influence their internal affairs on everything from free trade to abolition of the slave trade.
The British Army (note: not the Indian Army) was consistently pretty crap. It won in the Crimera only because Russia was far worse and in the Boer War it was initially abominable.
It only really started to professionalise in the run up to WW1.
The performance of the British army from 1793 to 1808 was abysmal. The Royal Navy, by contrast, had driven its enemies from the seas, and maintained a close blockade of France and its satellites.
The army that Wellington forged, after 1808 (which had very strong Portugese, German and Spanish contingents), was outstanding. At the same time, British money and munitions were sustaining every member of every coalition that fought the French.
By 1812, the British military was so strong that we could hand the Americans their arses when they tried to invade Canada, at the same time as fighting Napoleon.
And lose 45 000 men in an unsuccessful bid to defeat the slave rebellion in Haiti.
The West Indies was the graveyard of the British army. It was almost a death sentence to be posted there. Of course, once the slaves broke definitively with France, then Haiti became almost an ally.
Bloody though it was, the Haitian revolution made slavery untenable. Afterwards, the military cost of maintaining slave colonies vs the economic benefits shifted to abolition.
Could Biden and Trump cut a deal such that Trump pleads guilty to a third set of impeachment charges on the understanding that Biden pardons him on all his other criminal charges?
Trump's ego would never let him. In any case how can someone be impeached when they are not in am elected post?
Also, short of a Presidential pardon for all offences, Biden would not be able to stop other jurisdictions prosecuting him.
Whether someone can be impeached after leaving office as US president is an open legal question, but other former officials have been impeached:
The deal I had in mind would involve an impeachment conviction being rushed through as a formality, just to disbar him from becoming president again, but you are right that a presidential pardon could only apply to federal offences and therefore it's not in Biden's remit to give him a stay out of jail card.
I doubt Trump could cope with jail. He might not even be able to cope with sitting in the dock and being instructed by the judge to answer a question or to keep quiet.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
The world will usually have a hegemon. As hegemons go, the US is about the most benign.
Who was the last one? It wasn't Britain. I think you have to go back to the Romans. I don't think having a hegemon is a usual or healthy state.
Most certainly was. 1815-1900 or so. Till the Boers shattered the illusion.
It was - in particular- from 1815 to 1870, economically and politically, and that dominance was absolutely akin to the USA today, which is what counts.
At no stage during that time could we have fielded a massive land army to defeat a rival power. But, we didn't need to do so.
That is the salient point though. Britain had a lot of power to 'rule the waves' and keep trade going (to our own advantage), but no capacity whatever to intervene in the internal matters of the US, Russia, Germany, France, Austria-Hungary, the Netherlands, etc. There was not the gulf in material wealth and military power between us and rivals that allowed us to exercise hegemonic influence. When we did bring force to bear, it was always against less developed opponents - till WW1, and we all know how that went.
We did defeat Russia in the Crimea, the Americans were too preoccupied with their own affairs (and a civil war) to do much, Germany didn't really exist and Austria-Hungary was occupied in the Balkans. The economic system was dominated by Britain and organised as such that any rival power would have to back down, save France, and that did influence their internal affairs on everything from free trade to abolition of the slave trade.
The British Army (note: not the Indian Army) was consistently pretty crap. It won in the Crimera only because Russia was far worse and in the Boer War it was initially abominable.
It only really started to professionalise in the run up to WW1.
The performance of the British army from 1793 to 1808 was abysmal. The Royal Navy, by contrast, had driven its enemies from the seas, and maintained a close blockade of France and its satellites.
The army that Wellington forged, after 1808 (which had very strong Portugese, German and Spanish contingents), was outstanding. At the same time, British money and munitions were sustaining every member of every coalition that fought the French.
By 1812, the British military was so strong that we could hand the Americans their arses when they tried to invade Canada, at the same time as fighting Napoleon.
And lose 45 000 men in an unsuccessful bid to defeat the slave rebellion in Haiti.
The West Indies was the graveyard of the British army. It was almost a death sentence to be posted there. Of course, once the slaves broke definitively with France, then Haiti became almost an ally.
Bloody though it was, the Haitian revolution made slavery untenable. Afterwards, the military cost of maintaining slave colonies vs the economic benefits shifted to abolition.
I think it drove a lot of the momentum towards freedom in the West Indies.
Sadly, it probably made things worse for the slaves in the Deep South of the US. Many Haitian planters settled in Louisiana, bringing with them tales of horror. Most Southern States strengthened repression after that period.
The Slaves in the South were numerous enough (25-30% of the population in total, but over 50%+ in some places) to be a danger, but not numerous enough to be able to obtain freedom by force. So, the authorities feared them, but were still able to repress them through the use of slave patrols.
The slave/free ratio in Haiti was crazy, at about 80/20. That meant that relentless terror was needed to repress them.
BUT perhaps worth noting, that in lead-up to 1948 election, Harry Truman had his own issues, most especially re: Public Opinion. With many politicos, pundits and active voters, including many Democrats and Progressives (of that era) skeptical regarding the possibility and/or desirability of Truman's re-nomination AND re-election.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
Point one - we should never have allowed ourselves to get into this situation. Absolute power corrupts absolutely - even with the best of intentions. The world's number 1 superpower (assisted by the world's second superpower) just unleashed a devastating global pandemic on us, killing more people than the holocaust. What is the redress for that? Where does one register one's complaint?
Point two - having got ourselves here, we must make every effort to be able to defend our islands, rather than be dependent on the US, and then if they withdraw from the scene, have to somehow flutter our eyelashes at the Chinese.
Point one - ...The world's number 1 superpower (assisted by the world's second superpower) just unleashed a devastating global pandemic on us, killing more people than the holocaust...
You make it sound as if the US & China have acted like (indeed worse than) the Nazis - an assertion for which there is no clear evidence.
Wait until Dan finds out what the first American President(s) did to King George III.
Has a US President ever attended the coronation of a British Monarch?
No. This is the norm.
Plus if President Biden went to the coronation then protocol would require the King to go to Biden's reinaugration in 2025 in return, or nightmare of nighmares for the Palace, Trump's second inaugration.
Stick to sending Ambassadors, or at most the Vice President and Prince of Wales
Is it normal protocol for an invitation to be issued and refused?
The invitation should never have been issued in the first place without confirming with the White House, at most it should have gone to the First Lady only (who likely will come) or the VP. The old stuffy courtiers would never have countenanced a US President getting a formal invite in this way given it is totally against protocol as no US President has ever been to a coronation, no surprise after 1776. Whoever sent it should be removed.
Otherwise they are risking British monarchs getting invites to the inaugrations of GOP Presidents unpopular in the UK, not just Democratic Presidents
Could Biden and Trump cut a deal such that Trump pleads guilty to a third set of impeachment charges on the understanding that Biden pardons him on all his other criminal charges?
Trump's ego would never let him. In any case how can someone be impeached when they are not in am elected post?
Also, short of a Presidential pardon for all offences, Biden would not be able to stop other jurisdictions prosecuting him.
Whether someone can be impeached after leaving office as US president is an open legal question, but other former officials have been impeached:
The deal I had in mind would involve an impeachment conviction being rushed through as a formality, just to disbar him from becoming president again, but you are right that a presidential pardon could only apply to federal offences and therefore it's not in Biden's remit to give him a stay out of jail card.
I doubt Trump could cope with jail. He might not even be able to cope with sitting in the dock and being instructed by the judge to answer a question or to keep quiet.
Who was the last one? It wasn't Britain. I think you have to go back to the Romans. I don't think having a hegemon is a usual
And how did we get on in those two examples, given the claim that we held hegemonic power?
But how did America get on in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan?
Being hegemonic doesn't mean always winning.
Correct, we suffered some awful defeats in the 19th century.
Even hegemonic powers need both good allies, and willing subjects. The UK could never have defeated France or Germany on its own, in 1815 or 1918. And, the UK's dominance would have been far less pronounced without thousands of Sikhs, Gurkhas, Afghans, Africans in the ranks of the Imperial armies.
Britain's naval might meant that any attempt to defeat the UK at home would be defeated, that anyone who fought Britain would suffer terribly through blockade. Britain's financial dominance meant that it could fund coalitions against its enemies. But, Britain could not win unaided.
There have been brief periods where one power has enjoyed global dominance.
The Mongol Empire in the mid 13th century dominated Eurasia from China to Hungary and might in other circumstances have dominated Western Europe as well as North Africa.
Napoleonic France was the dominant power from 1805 to 1812 - Britain was powerless against the Continental System for a short period.
How about the Axis Powers from 1940-42? Nazi Germany and her allies dominated Europe and had the Soviet Union in real trouble while Imperial Japan swept America and the colonial powers out of South East Asia and the western Pacific.
Finally, I’d offer the USA from the Fall of Communism to the attack on New York. You can argue the American intervention in Somalia was a disaster but elsewhere western power was dominant.
I agree prolonged unipolar periods have been rare but short periods of global dominance by single powers or blocs have occurred. The nature of British Imperial power was different and largely staying out of European conflicts from 1815 to 1914 a big help.
Lord Chelmsford's defeat at Isandlwana must rank up amongst them for chronic stupidity.
I've always found Smith-Dorrien's career fascinating, who basically started their as one of the handful of survivors.
Nothing will ever beat the Fall of Singapore.
I still get cross whenever I read about that today.
Total incompetence and complete humiliation.
We may have lost the battle but we still won the War, liberating Singapore from the Japanese in 1945
After the fall of Singapore, our Empire east of Suez was effectively at an end, and within a quarter century all that was left of the entire Empire were a few isolated islands and Hong Kong.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
It's why I care about US politics and their domestic choices. It's why I disagree with @Luckyguy1983 when he points out it is none of our business. We are directly affected by the choices that America makes. Their withdrawal from Europe, pre Ukraine, materially affected our national security. They are back here now and we should be thankful for that but their attention will switch back to the Pacific soon enough. Its why we are so keen to play there. We want to remain relevant to them.
Whilst it's slightly humiliating given the hegemonic status we ourselves used to have it's also rational and in our national interest.
No, we didn't. We were never the global hegemon. Even in our pomp, America, Russia, Germany, and France were very powerful, and there were many second rank powers like the Ottoman Empire, Italy, Spain, to rival us. We were unmatched at sea - we were never global hegemon, thank goodness.
Well on that basis there has never been a global hegemon. Not the US, which always faced competing powers, and certainly not your earlier suggestion of the Roman Empire, which only ever controlled about 4% of the globe.
Following the collapse of the Soviet Empire, no power has even come close to rivalling the US, until the relatively recent emergence of China. Yes, not everyone gladly acknowledged American sway, but nobody has come close to challenging it, and the country's ability to project its will beyond its borders has been unprecedented, through diplomacy, its Government agencies, military bases etc. Britain never had this.
We'll have to disagree on this. British dominance throughout the 19th century was on a par with US dominance from 1918 onwards, imo.
Meh. Even the British foreign policy doctrine of the period was 'balance of powers'. Never running of all the other powers, which would have been impossible to achieve, as others have acknowledged. There were just too many powerful competitors in the 19th century.
In what sense do you think the US runs all the other powers now?
Lord Chelmsford's defeat at Isandlwana must rank up amongst them for chronic stupidity.
I've always found Smith-Dorrien's career fascinating, who basically started their as one of the handful of survivors.
Nothing will ever beat the Fall of Singapore.
I still get cross whenever I read about that today.
Total incompetence and complete humiliation.
We may have lost the battle but we still won the War, liberating Singapore from the Japanese in 1945
After the fall of Singapore, our Empire east of Suez was effectively at an end, and within a quarter century all that was left of the entire Empire were a few isolated islands and Hong Kong.
I'd say the Empire was pretty well being wound up from 1931 onwards. What I think the government at the time expected was that the UK would retain a network of bases around the world. A lot of newly independent countries were quite keen on a continued British military presence.
Lord Chelmsford's defeat at Isandlwana must rank up amongst them for chronic stupidity.
I've always found Smith-Dorrien's career fascinating, who basically started their as one of the handful of survivors.
Nothing will ever beat the Fall of Singapore.
I still get cross whenever I read about that today.
Total incompetence and complete humiliation.
We may have lost the battle but we still won the War, liberating Singapore from the Japanese in 1945
After the fall of Singapore, our Empire east of Suez was effectively at an end, and within a quarter century all that was left of the entire Empire were a few isolated islands and Hong Kong.
So what, that would have been the case even if Singapore had never fallen in 1942, not least due to US pressure.
The only way we might have preserved the Empire longer term was to do a deal with Hitler and Hirohito under PM Halifax, giving the Nazis control of continental Europe and Japan control of China and French and Dutch Indochina in return for our keeping our independence and Empire but letting evil win in the process, something Churchill correctly would not countenance
On Haiti: I have been reading Sandburg's biography of Lincoln with great pleasure, and recently learned that Lincoln recognized both Liberia and Haiti (or Hayti, as it was sometimes spelled, then). And that he had to reverse his own State Department to say, through an informal channel, that, yes, a black representative from Haiti would be fine.
And then welcomed the representative, when he arrived.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
The world will usually have a hegemon. As hegemons go, the US is about the most benign.
Who was the last one? It wasn't Britain. I think you have to go back to the Romans. I don't think having a hegemon is a usual or healthy state.
Most certainly was. 1815-1900 or so. Till the Boers shattered the illusion.
It was - in particular- from 1815 to 1870, economically and politically, and that dominance was absolutely akin to the USA today, which is what counts.
At no stage during that time could we have fielded a massive land army to defeat a rival power. But, we didn't need to do so.
That is the salient point though. Britain had a lot of power to 'rule the waves' and keep trade going (to our own advantage), but no capacity whatever to intervene in the internal matters of the US, Russia, Germany, France, Austria-Hungary, the Netherlands, etc. There was not the gulf in material wealth and military power between us and rivals that allowed us to exercise hegemonic influence. When we did bring force to bear, it was always against less developed opponents - till WW1, and we all know how that went.
Are yoy really claiming the UK didn't interfere in Russian politics during their civil war? Or, you know, wage a two decade long war with France to halt their revolution? Portugal was a virtual British colony for twenty years.
And how did we get on in those two examples, given the claim that we held hegemonic power?
But how did America get on in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan?
Being hegemonic doesn't mean always winning.
Arguably they didn't lose in Iraq, given they replaced Saddam. Vietnam they lost as South Vietnam fell to the Vietcong. The Korean War was a draw. WW1 and WW2 US led victories. Afghanistan was a failure in terms of replacing the Taliban but a success in terms of killing Bin Laden
On the Korean War point, while Korea is still divided, my Partner knows an old Korean lady who still to this day visits the Korean War vets in Aberdeenshire to give them food and check up on them. The gratitude she feels towards these men is truly humbling.
Incidentally, the Korean War memorial in Washington DC is one of the most moving. As you walk towards the central section you have to walk past statues of soldiers of the various UN countries but, the way it's laid out, it feels like you're walking with them. Very solemn.
On Haiti: I have been reading Sandburg's biography of Lincoln with great pleasure, and recently learned that Lincoln recognized both Liberia and Haiti (or Hayti, as it was sometimes spelled, then). And that he had to reverse his own State Department to say, through an informal channel, that, yes, a black representative from Haiti would be fine.
And then welcomed the representative, when he arrived.
I'm fascinated by the years following the end of the Second World War. From reading Citizen Clem, and a few others books about the 1940-50 period, I'm struck by how much of American foreign policy was aimed at the dismantling of the British Empire. Certainly it's difficult to imagine the Empire being viable in a post-45 world, but the Americans certainly seemed to fear that it would be.
Edit: I appear to have responded to the wrong post! Please blame fat fingers and/or the couple of pints I sank earlier; anything but me personally!
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
The world will usually have a hegemon. As hegemons go, the US is about the most benign.
Who was the last one? It wasn't Britain. I think you have to go back to the Romans. I don't think having a hegemon is a usual or healthy state.
Most certainly was. 1815-1900 or so. Till the Boers shattered the illusion.
It was - in particular- from 1815 to 1870, economically and politically, and that dominance was absolutely akin to the USA today, which is what counts.
At no stage during that time could we have fielded a massive land army to defeat a rival power. But, we didn't need to do so.
That is the salient point though. Britain had a lot of power to 'rule the waves' and keep trade going (to our own advantage), but no capacity whatever to intervene in the internal matters of the US, Russia, Germany, France, Austria-Hungary, the Netherlands, etc. There was not the gulf in material wealth and military power between us and rivals that allowed us to exercise hegemonic influence. When we did bring force to bear, it was always against less developed opponents - till WW1, and we all know how that went.
Are yoy really claiming the UK didn't interfere in Russian politics during their civil war? Or, you know, wage a two decade long war with France to halt their revolution? Portugal was a virtual British colony for twenty years.
And how did we get on in those two examples, given the claim that we held hegemonic power?
But how did America get on in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan?
Being hegemonic doesn't mean always winning.
Arguably they didn't lose in Iraq, given they replaced Saddam. Vietnam they lost as South Vietnam fell to the Vietcong. The Korean War was a draw. WW1 and WW2 US led victories. Afghanistan was a failure in terms of replacing the Taliban but a success in terms of killing Bin Laden
On the Korean War point, while Korea is still divided, my Partner knows an old Korean lady who still to this day visits the Korean War vets in Aberdeenshire to give them food and check up on them. The gratitude she feels towards these men is truly humbling.
Incidentally, the Korean War memorial in Washington DC is one of the most moving. As you walk towards the central section you have to walk past statues of soldiers of the various UN countries but, the way it's laid out, it feels like you're walking with them. Very solemn.
The South Koreans are immensely grateful for US and British military intervention.
I knew some people who took part. By all accounts, the Chinese were very decent towards POW’s, the worst thing being you had to sit through boring lectures on Marxism-Leninism.
The North Koreans, OTOH? People shot themselves, rather than being taken captive by them.
Lord Chelmsford's defeat at Isandlwana must rank up amongst them for chronic stupidity.
I've always found Smith-Dorrien's career fascinating, who basically started their as one of the handful of survivors.
Nothing will ever beat the Fall of Singapore.
I still get cross whenever I read about that today.
Total incompetence and complete humiliation.
We may have lost the battle but we still won the War, liberating Singapore from the Japanese in 1945
After the fall of Singapore, our Empire east of Suez was effectively at an end, and within a quarter century all that was left of the entire Empire were a few isolated islands and Hong Kong.
So what, that would have been the case even if Singapore had never fallen in 1942, not least due to US pressure.
The only way we might have preserved the Empire longer term was to do a deal with Hitler and Hirohito under PM Halifax, giving the Nazis control of continental Europe and Japan control of China and French and Dutch Indochina in return for our keeping our independence and Empire but letting evil win in the process, something Churchill correctly would not countenance
The Empire was just red on a map. In many ways, colonisation and planting the flag is an admission of defeat - far better to control somewhere without having to do that. What we shouldn't have done was sacrifice our prosperity.
Lord Chelmsford's defeat at Isandlwana must rank up amongst them for chronic stupidity.
I've always found Smith-Dorrien's career fascinating, who basically started their as one of the handful of survivors.
Nothing will ever beat the Fall of Singapore.
I still get cross whenever I read about that today.
Total incompetence and complete humiliation.
We may have lost the battle but we still won the War, liberating Singapore from the Japanese in 1945
After the fall of Singapore, our Empire east of Suez was effectively at an end, and within a quarter century all that was left of the entire Empire were a few isolated islands and Hong Kong.
So what, that would have been the case even if Singapore had never fallen in 1942, not least due to US pressure.
The only way we might have preserved the Empire longer term was to do a deal with Hitler and Hirohito under PM Halifax, giving the Nazis control of continental Europe and Japan control of China and French and Dutch Indochina in return for our keeping our independence and Empire but letting evil win in the process, something Churchill correctly would not countenance
The Empire was just red on a map. In many ways, colonisation and planting the flag is an admission of defeat - far better to control somewhere without having to do that. What we shouldn't have done was sacrifice our prosperity.
The average Brit is much more prosperous now than at the height of Empire
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
Point one - we should never have allowed ourselves to get into this situation. Absolute power corrupts absolutely - even with the best of intentions. The world's number 1 superpower (assisted by the world's second superpower) just unleashed a devastating global pandemic on us, killing more people than the holocaust. What is the redress for that? Where does one register one's complaint?
Point two - having got ourselves here, we must make every effort to be able to defend our islands, rather than be dependent on the US, and then if they withdraw from the scene, have to somehow flutter our eyelashes at the Chinese.
Point one - ...The world's number 1 superpower (assisted by the world's second superpower) just unleashed a devastating global pandemic on us, killing more people than the holocaust...
You make it sound as if the US & China have acted like (indeed worse than) the Nazis - an assertion for which there is no clear evidence.
I do not do anything of the kind - I have stated a plain fact, and you're free to draw what inference you wish. I also haven't argued that the leak was deliberate - but it is criminally negligent at the very least.
Unpopular - If you are interested in that immediate post-war period in the United States, you might want to look for John Gunther's "Inside U.S.A."
Originally published in 1947, it's a fascinating portrait of the US in those few years between the end of WW II, and the beginning of the Cold War.
Most Americans were happily ignoring the rest of the world during those years.
Thank you for the recommendation, I'll add it to the list. Indeed, there seemed to be a risk that the US would return to the Splendid Isolation she had enjoyed in the inter-war years and would leave the British, French and Russians to slug it out over Europe.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
Point one - we should never have allowed ourselves to get into this situation. Absolute power corrupts absolutely - even with the best of intentions. The world's number 1 superpower (assisted by the world's second superpower) just unleashed a devastating global pandemic on us, killing more people than the holocaust. What is the redress for that? Where does one register one's complaint?
Point two - having got ourselves here, we must make every effort to be able to defend our islands, rather than be dependent on the US, and then if they withdraw from the scene, have to somehow flutter our eyelashes at the Chinese.
Point one - ...The world's number 1 superpower (assisted by the world's second superpower) just unleashed a devastating global pandemic on us, killing more people than the holocaust...
You make it sound as if the US & China have acted like (indeed worse than) the Nazis - an assertion for which there is no clear evidence.
I do not do anything of the kind - I have stated a plain fact, and you're free to draw what inference you wish. I also haven't argued that the leak was deliberate - but it is criminally negligent at the very least.
You haven't stated a plain fact. You have asserted a conspiracy theory without any evidence or backup, based on your deep prejudice against the US.
Lord Chelmsford's defeat at Isandlwana must rank up amongst them for chronic stupidity.
I've always found Smith-Dorrien's career fascinating, who basically started their as one of the handful of survivors.
Nothing will ever beat the Fall of Singapore.
I still get cross whenever I read about that today.
Total incompetence and complete humiliation.
We may have lost the battle but we still won the War, liberating Singapore from the Japanese in 1945
After the fall of Singapore, our Empire east of Suez was effectively at an end, and within a quarter century all that was left of the entire Empire were a few isolated islands and Hong Kong.
So what, that would have been the case even if Singapore had never fallen in 1942, not least due to US pressure.
The only way we might have preserved the Empire longer term was to do a deal with Hitler and Hirohito under PM Halifax, giving the Nazis control of continental Europe and Japan control of China and French and Dutch Indochina in return for our keeping our independence and Empire but letting evil win in the process, something Churchill correctly would not countenance
The Empire was just red on a map. In many ways, colonisation and planting the flag is an admission of defeat - far better to control somewhere without having to do that. What we shouldn't have done was sacrifice our prosperity.
You mean as the UK did in places from Argentina to China?
Lord Chelmsford's defeat at Isandlwana must rank up amongst them for chronic stupidity.
I've always found Smith-Dorrien's career fascinating, who basically started their as one of the handful of survivors.
Nothing will ever beat the Fall of Singapore.
I still get cross whenever I read about that today.
Total incompetence and complete humiliation.
We may have lost the battle but we still won the War, liberating Singapore from the Japanese in 1945
After the fall of Singapore, our Empire east of Suez was effectively at an end, and within a quarter century all that was left of the entire Empire were a few isolated islands and Hong Kong.
So what, that would have been the case even if Singapore had never fallen in 1942, not least due to US pressure.
The only way we might have preserved the Empire longer term was to do a deal with Hitler and Hirohito under PM Halifax, giving the Nazis control of continental Europe and Japan control of China and French and Dutch Indochina in return for our keeping our independence and Empire but letting evil win in the process, something Churchill correctly would not countenance
The Empire was just red on a map. In many ways, colonisation and planting the flag is an admission of defeat - far better to control somewhere without having to do that. What we shouldn't have done was sacrifice our prosperity.
You mean as the UK did in places from Argentina to China?
On Haiti: I have been reading Sandburg's biography of Lincoln with great pleasure, and recently learned that Lincoln recognized both Liberia and Haiti (or Hayti, as it was sometimes spelled, then). And that he had to reverse his own State Department to say, through an informal channel, that, yes, a black representative from Haiti would be fine.
And then welcomed the representative, when he arrived.
I'm fascinated by the years following the end of the Second World War. From reading Citizen Clem, and a few others books about the 1940-50 period, I'm struck by how much of American foreign policy was aimed at the dismantling of the British Empire. Certainly it's difficult to imagine the Empire being viable in a post-45 world, but the Americans certainly seemed to fear that it would be.
Edit: I appear to have responded to the wrong post! Please blame fat fingers and/or the couple of pints I sank earlier; anything but me personally!
Yes, it was pretty clear from 1945 onwards that the USA wanted to end the European Empires, with 1956 and the Suez crisis rubbing our and the French noses in it.
Within 20 years what seemed to be an established order across Africa, Middle East, Asia, the Pacific and the Caribbean ended.
That decolonisation progressed so quickly and so enthusiastically even in the most docile colonies shows how thin the veneer of European power was in these places.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
The world will usually have a hegemon. As hegemons go, the US is about the most benign.
Who was the last one? It wasn't Britain. I think you have to go back to the Romans. I don't think having a hegemon is a usual or healthy state.
Most certainly was. 1815-1900 or so. Till the Boers shattered the illusion.
It was - in particular- from 1815 to 1870, economically and politically, and that dominance was absolutely akin to the USA today, which is what counts.
At no stage during that time could we have fielded a massive land army to defeat a rival power. But, we didn't need to do so.
That is the salient point though. Britain had a lot of power to 'rule the waves' and keep trade going (to our own advantage), but no capacity whatever to intervene in the internal matters of the US, Russia, Germany, France, Austria-Hungary, the Netherlands, etc. There was not the gulf in material wealth and military power between us and rivals that allowed us to exercise hegemonic influence. When we did bring force to bear, it was always against less developed opponents - till WW1, and we all know how that went.
Are yoy really claiming the UK didn't interfere in Russian politics during their civil war? Or, you know, wage a two decade long war with France to halt their revolution? Portugal was a virtual British colony for twenty years.
And how did we get on in those two examples, given the claim that we held hegemonic power?
But how did America get on in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan?
Being hegemonic doesn't mean always winning.
Arguably they didn't lose in Iraq, given they replaced Saddam. Vietnam they lost as South Vietnam fell to the Vietcong. The Korean War was a draw. WW1 and WW2 US led victories. Afghanistan was a failure in terms of replacing the Taliban but a success in terms of killing Bin Laden
On the Korean War point, while Korea is still divided, my Partner knows an old Korean lady who still to this day visits the Korean War vets in Aberdeenshire to give them food and check up on them. The gratitude she feels towards these men is truly humbling.
Incidentally, the Korean War memorial in Washington DC is one of the most moving. As you walk towards the central section you have to walk past statues of soldiers of the various UN countries but, the way it's laid out, it feels like you're walking with them. Very solemn.
I'm ashamed to say I never asked my dad if he'd visited the Scottish memorial, but just the sort of Quixotic thing he'd have done with a drink in him. Quite a nice view of the Forth, only slightly spoiled by Grangemouth.
Lord Chelmsford's defeat at Isandlwana must rank up amongst them for chronic stupidity.
I've always found Smith-Dorrien's career fascinating, who basically started their as one of the handful of survivors.
Nothing will ever beat the Fall of Singapore.
I still get cross whenever I read about that today.
Total incompetence and complete humiliation.
We may have lost the battle but we still won the War, liberating Singapore from the Japanese in 1945
After the fall of Singapore, our Empire east of Suez was effectively at an end, and within a quarter century all that was left of the entire Empire were a few isolated islands and Hong Kong.
So what, that would have been the case even if Singapore had never fallen in 1942, not least due to US pressure.
The only way we might have preserved the Empire longer term was to do a deal with Hitler and Hirohito under PM Halifax, giving the Nazis control of continental Europe and Japan control of China and French and Dutch Indochina in return for our keeping our independence and Empire but letting evil win in the process, something Churchill correctly would not countenance
The Empire was just red on a map. In many ways, colonisation and planting the flag is an admission of defeat - far better to control somewhere without having to do that. What we shouldn't have done was sacrifice our prosperity.
You mean as the UK did in places from Argentina to China?
On Haiti: I have been reading Sandburg's biography of Lincoln with great pleasure, and recently learned that Lincoln recognized both Liberia and Haiti (or Hayti, as it was sometimes spelled, then). And that he had to reverse his own State Department to say, through an informal channel, that, yes, a black representative from Haiti would be fine.
And then welcomed the representative, when he arrived.
I'm fascinated by the years following the end of the Second World War. From reading Citizen Clem, and a few others books about the 1940-50 period, I'm struck by how much of American foreign policy was aimed at the dismantling of the British Empire. Certainly it's difficult to imagine the Empire being viable in a post-45 world, but the Americans certainly seemed to fear that it would be.
Edit: I appear to have responded to the wrong post! Please blame fat fingers and/or the couple of pints I sank earlier; anything but me personally!
Yes, it was pretty clear from 1945 onwards that the USA wanted to end the European Empires, with 1956 and the Suez crisis rubbing our and the French noses in it.
Within 20 years what seemed to be an established order across Africa, Middle East, Asia, the Pacific and the Caribbean ended.
That decolonisation progressed so quickly and so enthusiastically even in the most docile colonies shows how thin the veneer of European power was in these places.
What’s always struck me as odd is that places that wished to be much closer to the UK (Newfoundland, Malta, Seychelles) were told No Way.
On Haiti: I have been reading Sandburg's biography of Lincoln with great pleasure, and recently learned that Lincoln recognized both Liberia and Haiti (or Hayti, as it was sometimes spelled, then). And that he had to reverse his own State Department to say, through an informal channel, that, yes, a black representative from Haiti would be fine.
And then welcomed the representative, when he arrived.
I'm fascinated by the years following the end of the Second World War. From reading Citizen Clem, and a few others books about the 1940-50 period, I'm struck by how much of American foreign policy was aimed at the dismantling of the British Empire. Certainly it's difficult to imagine the Empire being viable in a post-45 world, but the Americans certainly seemed to fear that it would be.
Edit: I appear to have responded to the wrong post! Please blame fat fingers and/or the couple of pints I sank earlier; anything but me personally!
Yes, it was pretty clear from 1945 onwards that the USA wanted to end the European Empires, with 1956 and the Suez crisis rubbing our and the French noses in it.
Within 20 years what seemed to be an established order across Africa, Middle East, Asia, the Pacific and the Caribbean ended.
That decolonisation progressed so quickly and so enthusiastically even in the most docile colonies shows how thin the veneer of European power was in these places.
IMHO, it was for the same reason LBJ came to favour civil rights (for most of his life, he was a segregationist).
During the Cold War, the Soviet Union made much of its anti-colonial credentials, and attacked Jim Crow.
The USA wanted to deny them that propaganda advantage (of course, some real monsters came to power, in the wake of decolonisation).
Wait until Dan finds out what the first American President(s) did to King George III.
Has a US President ever attended the coronation of a British Monarch?
No. This is the norm.
Plus if President Biden went to the coronation then protocol would require the King to go to Biden's reinaugration in 2025 in return, or nightmare of nighmares for the Palace, Trump's second inaugration.
Stick to sending Ambassadors, or at most the Vice President and Prince of Wales
Is it normal protocol for an invitation to be issued and refused?
It wasn’t an invitation to Biden. It was an invitation to the US to pick someone to send
On Haiti: I have been reading Sandburg's biography of Lincoln with great pleasure, and recently learned that Lincoln recognized both Liberia and Haiti (or Hayti, as it was sometimes spelled, then). And that he had to reverse his own State Department to say, through an informal channel, that, yes, a black representative from Haiti would be fine.
And then welcomed the representative, when he arrived.
I'm fascinated by the years following the end of the Second World War. From reading Citizen Clem, and a few others books about the 1940-50 period, I'm struck by how much of American foreign policy was aimed at the dismantling of the British Empire. Certainly it's difficult to imagine the Empire being viable in a post-45 world, but the Americans certainly seemed to fear that it would be.
Edit: I appear to have responded to the wrong post! Please blame fat fingers and/or the couple of pints I sank earlier; anything but me personally!
Yes, it was pretty clear from 1945 onwards that the USA wanted to end the European Empires, with 1956 and the Suez crisis rubbing our and the French noses in it.
Within 20 years what seemed to be an established order across Africa, Middle East, Asia, the Pacific and the Caribbean ended.
That decolonisation progressed so quickly and so enthusiastically even in the most docile colonies shows how thin the veneer of European power was in these places.
IMHO, it was for the same reason LBJ came to favour civil rights (for most of his life, he was a segregationist).
During the Cold War, the Soviet Union made much of its anti-colonial credentials, and attacked Jim Crow.
The USA wanted to deny them that propaganda advantage (of course, some real monsters came to power, in the wake of decolonisation).
I think it was partially that and partially a genuinely persuaded elite that the anti-segregation and anti-colonial arguments were morally correct.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
Point one - we should never have allowed ourselves to get into this situation. Absolute power corrupts absolutely - even with the best of intentions. The world's number 1 superpower (assisted by the world's second superpower) just unleashed a devastating global pandemic on us, killing more people than the holocaust. What is the redress for that? Where does one register one's complaint?
Point two - having got ourselves here, we must make every effort to be able to defend our islands, rather than be dependent on the US, and then if they withdraw from the scene, have to somehow flutter our eyelashes at the Chinese.
Point one - ...The world's number 1 superpower (assisted by the world's second superpower) just unleashed a devastating global pandemic on us, killing more people than the holocaust...
You make it sound as if the US & China have acted like (indeed worse than) the Nazis - an assertion for which there is no clear evidence.
I do not do anything of the kind - I have stated a plain fact, and you're free to draw what inference you wish. I also haven't argued that the leak was deliberate - but it is criminally negligent at the very least.
In what sense is: The world's number 1 superpower (assisted by the world's second superpower) just unleashed a devastating global pandemic on us a 'plain fact'?
On Haiti: I have been reading Sandburg's biography of Lincoln with great pleasure, and recently learned that Lincoln recognized both Liberia and Haiti (or Hayti, as it was sometimes spelled, then). And that he had to reverse his own State Department to say, through an informal channel, that, yes, a black representative from Haiti would be fine.
And then welcomed the representative, when he arrived.
I'm fascinated by the years following the end of the Second World War. From reading Citizen Clem, and a few others books about the 1940-50 period, I'm struck by how much of American foreign policy was aimed at the dismantling of the British Empire. Certainly it's difficult to imagine the Empire being viable in a post-45 world, but the Americans certainly seemed to fear that it would be.
Edit: I appear to have responded to the wrong post! Please blame fat fingers and/or the couple of pints I sank earlier; anything but me personally!
Yes, it was pretty clear from 1945 onwards that the USA wanted to end the European Empires, with 1956 and the Suez crisis rubbing our and the French noses in it.
Within 20 years what seemed to be an established order across Africa, Middle East, Asia, the Pacific and the Caribbean ended.
That decolonisation progressed so quickly and so enthusiastically even in the most docile colonies shows how thin the veneer of European power was in these places.
IMHO, it was for the same reason LBJ came to favour civil rights (for most of his life, he was a segregationist).
During the Cold War, the Soviet Union made much of its anti-colonial credentials, and attacked Jim Crow.
The USA wanted to deny them that propaganda advantage (of course, some real monsters came to power, in the wake of decolonisation).
I think it was partially that and partially a genuinely persuaded elite that the anti-segregation and anti-colonial arguments were morally correct.
Not for one moment, do I think that the US elite saw anything wrong with colonialism. They did it themselves. It was all about the needs of the Cold War. Directly running places as colonies was bad PR. Indirectly running them as Protectorates was de rigeur.
At home, yes, I think that many were persuaded that the treatment of fellow citizens, on the basis of skin colour, was wrong. Others took a pragmatic view that Jim Crow was unsustainable.
On Haiti: I have been reading Sandburg's biography of Lincoln with great pleasure, and recently learned that Lincoln recognized both Liberia and Haiti (or Hayti, as it was sometimes spelled, then). And that he had to reverse his own State Department to say, through an informal channel, that, yes, a black representative from Haiti would be fine.
And then welcomed the representative, when he arrived.
I'm fascinated by the years following the end of the Second World War. From reading Citizen Clem, and a few others books about the 1940-50 period, I'm struck by how much of American foreign policy was aimed at the dismantling of the British Empire. Certainly it's difficult to imagine the Empire being viable in a post-45 world, but the Americans certainly seemed to fear that it would be.
Edit: I appear to have responded to the wrong post! Please blame fat fingers and/or the couple of pints I sank earlier; anything but me personally!
Yes, it was pretty clear from 1945 onwards that the USA wanted to end the European Empires, with 1956 and the Suez crisis rubbing our and the French noses in it.
Within 20 years what seemed to be an established order across Africa, Middle East, Asia, the Pacific and the Caribbean ended.
That decolonisation progressed so quickly and so enthusiastically even in the most docile colonies shows how thin the veneer of European power was in these places.
IMHO, it was for the same reason LBJ came to favour civil rights (for most of his life, he was a segregationist).
During the Cold War, the Soviet Union made much of its anti-colonial credentials, and attacked Jim Crow.
The USA wanted to deny them that propaganda advantage (of course, some real monsters came to power, in the wake of decolonisation).
I think it was partially that and partially a genuinely persuaded elite that the anti-segregation and anti-colonial arguments were morally correct.
Not for one moment, do I think that the US elite saw anything wrong with colonialism. They did it themselves. It was all about the needs of the Cold War. Directly running places as colonies was bad PR. Indirectly running them as Protectorates was de rigeur.
At home, yes, I think that many were persuaded that the treatment of fellow citizens, on the basis of skin colour, was wrong. Others took a pragmatic view that Jim Crow was unsustainable.
They could easily have held onto Cuba and the Philippines had they wanted to. Annexed them and made them states. They chose not to.
On Haiti: I have been reading Sandburg's biography of Lincoln with great pleasure, and recently learned that Lincoln recognized both Liberia and Haiti (or Hayti, as it was sometimes spelled, then). And that he had to reverse his own State Department to say, through an informal channel, that, yes, a black representative from Haiti would be fine.
And then welcomed the representative, when he arrived.
I'm fascinated by the years following the end of the Second World War. From reading Citizen Clem, and a few others books about the 1940-50 period, I'm struck by how much of American foreign policy was aimed at the dismantling of the British Empire. Certainly it's difficult to imagine the Empire being viable in a post-45 world, but the Americans certainly seemed to fear that it would be.
Edit: I appear to have responded to the wrong post! Please blame fat fingers and/or the couple of pints I sank earlier; anything but me personally!
Yes, it was pretty clear from 1945 onwards that the USA wanted to end the European Empires, with 1956 and the Suez crisis rubbing our and the French noses in it.
Within 20 years what seemed to be an established order across Africa, Middle East, Asia, the Pacific and the Caribbean ended.
That decolonisation progressed so quickly and so enthusiastically even in the most docile colonies shows how thin the veneer of European power was in these places.
IMHO, it was for the same reason LBJ came to favour civil rights (for most of his life, he was a segregationist).
During the Cold War, the Soviet Union made much of its anti-colonial credentials, and attacked Jim Crow.
The USA wanted to deny them that propaganda advantage (of course, some real monsters came to power, in the wake of decolonisation).
I think it was partially that and partially a genuinely persuaded elite that the anti-segregation and anti-colonial arguments were morally correct.
Not for one moment, do I think that the US elite saw anything wrong with colonialism. They did it themselves. It was all about the needs of the Cold War. Directly running places as colonies was bad PR. Indirectly running them as Protectorates was de rigeur.
At home, yes, I think that many were persuaded that the treatment of fellow citizens, on the basis of skin colour, was wrong. Others took a pragmatic view that Jim Crow was unsustainable.
They could easily have held onto Cuba and the Philippines had they wanted to. Annexed them and made them states. They chose not to.
I also think America saw themselves in British colonies, so the arguments about oppression and self-rule resonated, due to their own founding history.
On Haiti: I have been reading Sandburg's biography of Lincoln with great pleasure, and recently learned that Lincoln recognized both Liberia and Haiti (or Hayti, as it was sometimes spelled, then). And that he had to reverse his own State Department to say, through an informal channel, that, yes, a black representative from Haiti would be fine.
And then welcomed the representative, when he arrived.
I'm fascinated by the years following the end of the Second World War. From reading Citizen Clem, and a few others books about the 1940-50 period, I'm struck by how much of American foreign policy was aimed at the dismantling of the British Empire. Certainly it's difficult to imagine the Empire being viable in a post-45 world, but the Americans certainly seemed to fear that it would be.
Edit: I appear to have responded to the wrong post! Please blame fat fingers and/or the couple of pints I sank earlier; anything but me personally!
Yes, it was pretty clear from 1945 onwards that the USA wanted to end the European Empires, with 1956 and the Suez crisis rubbing our and the French noses in it.
Within 20 years what seemed to be an established order across Africa, Middle East, Asia, the Pacific and the Caribbean ended.
That decolonisation progressed so quickly and so enthusiastically even in the most docile colonies shows how thin the veneer of European power was in these places.
IMHO, it was for the same reason LBJ came to favour civil rights (for most of his life, he was a segregationist).
During the Cold War, the Soviet Union made much of its anti-colonial credentials, and attacked Jim Crow.
The USA wanted to deny them that propaganda advantage (of course, some real monsters came to power, in the wake of decolonisation).
I think it was partially that and partially a genuinely persuaded elite that the anti-segregation and anti-colonial arguments were morally correct.
Not for one moment, do I think that the US elite saw anything wrong with colonialism. They did it themselves. It was all about the needs of the Cold War. Directly running places as colonies was bad PR. Indirectly running them as Protectorates was de rigeur.
At home, yes, I think that many were persuaded that the treatment of fellow citizens, on the basis of skin colour, was wrong. Others took a pragmatic view that Jim Crow was unsustainable.
They could easily have held onto Cuba and the Philippines had they wanted to. Annexed them and made them states. They chose not to.
Cuba was in practice a colony till 1959. The Philippines till 1946, and its leaders were US puppets well after that date. Guam, Puerto Rico, US Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, Alaska and Hawaii were colonies (although Hawaii and Alaska were made States in 1959).
The US had no qualms about removing Latin American leaders who failed to do their bidding.
The USA’s anti-colonial credentials are non-existent.
SeanF said: "Not for one moment, do I think that the US elite saw anything wrong with colonialism. They did it themselves."
In fact, there were many Americans who opposed the colonialism after the Spanish-American War, including many who could be called "elites". (There's a quite readable account of their opposition in the third chapter of Barbara Tuchman's "The Proud Tower".)
And by 1934, they had won the argument: "The Tydings–McDuffie Act, officially the Philippine Independence Act (Pub. L. 73–127, 48 Stat. 456, enacted March 24, 1934), is an Act of Congress that established the process for the Philippines, then an American territory, to become an independent country after a ten-year transition period. Under the act, the 1935 Constitution of the Philippines was written and the Commonwealth of the Philippines was established, with the first directly elected President of the Philippines. (Direct elections to the Philippine Legislature had been held since 1907.) It also established limitations on Filipino immigration to the United States." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tydings–McDuffie_Act
On Haiti: I have been reading Sandburg's biography of Lincoln with great pleasure, and recently learned that Lincoln recognized both Liberia and Haiti (or Hayti, as it was sometimes spelled, then). And that he had to reverse his own State Department to say, through an informal channel, that, yes, a black representative from Haiti would be fine.
And then welcomed the representative, when he arrived.
I'm fascinated by the years following the end of the Second World War. From reading Citizen Clem, and a few others books about the 1940-50 period, I'm struck by how much of American foreign policy was aimed at the dismantling of the British Empire. Certainly it's difficult to imagine the Empire being viable in a post-45 world, but the Americans certainly seemed to fear that it would be.
Edit: I appear to have responded to the wrong post! Please blame fat fingers and/or the couple of pints I sank earlier; anything but me personally!
Yes, it was pretty clear from 1945 onwards that the USA wanted to end the European Empires, with 1956 and the Suez crisis rubbing our and the French noses in it.
Within 20 years what seemed to be an established order across Africa, Middle East, Asia, the Pacific and the Caribbean ended.
That decolonisation progressed so quickly and so enthusiastically even in the most docile colonies shows how thin the veneer of European power was in these places.
IMHO, it was for the same reason LBJ came to favour civil rights (for most of his life, he was a segregationist).
During the Cold War, the Soviet Union made much of its anti-colonial credentials, and attacked Jim Crow.
The USA wanted to deny them that propaganda advantage (of course, some real monsters came to power, in the wake of decolonisation).
I think it was partially that and partially a genuinely persuaded elite that the anti-segregation and anti-colonial arguments were morally correct.
Not for one moment, do I think that the US elite saw anything wrong with colonialism. They did it themselves. It was all about the needs of the Cold War. Directly running places as colonies was bad PR. Indirectly running them as Protectorates was de rigeur.
At home, yes, I think that many were persuaded that the treatment of fellow citizens, on the basis of skin colour, was wrong. Others took a pragmatic view that Jim Crow was unsustainable.
They could easily have held onto Cuba and the Philippines had they wanted to. Annexed them and made them states. They chose not to.
Cuba was in practice a colony till 1959. The Philippines till 1946, and its leaders were US puppets well after that date. Guam, Puerto Rico, US Samoa, US Virgin Islands, Alaska, Hawaii, were all colonies, although the latter two became states in 1959).
The US had no qualms about removing and installing puppet governments in Latin America.
On Haiti: I have been reading Sandburg's biography of Lincoln with great pleasure, and recently learned that Lincoln recognized both Liberia and Haiti (or Hayti, as it was sometimes spelled, then). And that he had to reverse his own State Department to say, through an informal channel, that, yes, a black representative from Haiti would be fine.
And then welcomed the representative, when he arrived.
I'm fascinated by the years following the end of the Second World War. From reading Citizen Clem, and a few others books about the 1940-50 period, I'm struck by how much of American foreign policy was aimed at the dismantling of the British Empire. Certainly it's difficult to imagine the Empire being viable in a post-45 world, but the Americans certainly seemed to fear that it would be.
Edit: I appear to have responded to the wrong post! Please blame fat fingers and/or the couple of pints I sank earlier; anything but me personally!
Yes, it was pretty clear from 1945 onwards that the USA wanted to end the European Empires, with 1956 and the Suez crisis rubbing our and the French noses in it.
Within 20 years what seemed to be an established order across Africa, Middle East, Asia, the Pacific and the Caribbean ended.
That decolonisation progressed so quickly and so enthusiastically even in the most docile colonies shows how thin the veneer of European power was in these places.
IMHO, it was for the same reason LBJ came to favour civil rights (for most of his life, he was a segregationist)…
Was he ?
The only really strong political beliefs he seems to have held was a genuine support for the New Deal. A poverty stricken rural childhood meant he genuinely understood the benefit of, for example, rural electrification.
But his overriding principle was a desire for power.
The only time he actively advocated white supremacy was in his first senate campaign - which earned him a reputation as a moderate (!), since prior to that he was seen as a firebrand New Dealer.
I don’t think his support for civil rights had very much, if anything at all to do with foreign policy.
The thing about US and colonies was. They could easily have absorbed Cuba, Phillipines and Central America into States of the Union. But then they'd have had voting rights. Far easier just to have control without representation.
On topic. Biden has to win next year, next year's election will be as pivotal for humanity as Operation Overlord.
The fascist GOP and Trump need to be annihilated.
On that logic @TSE, you are in favour of the GOP being declared a proscribed organisation and legally banned from next year's election? Ditto Trump.
And, if you are not in favour, why not, given the language you have just used?
If there is a threat to democracy, it's people like yourself who believe only they have the right answer when it comes to what is and isn't allowed.
Your line of thinking - and those of a similar ilk - is the far greater threat to democracy than the buffoon Trump.
You absolute roaster.
'Buffoon Trump', trying to downplay his tyranny.
We got the beer hall putsch in 2021 thanks to that 'buffoon'.
I want them defeated at the ballot box, which is why I said they need to be annihilated.
For someone who proclaims their absolute immodestly, you are not very good at answering the question. Although, as a lawyer, I guess you may not be trying to give a straight answer.
You were the one who referenced next year as the most important date for democracy since Operation Overlord ie the D-Day landings against the Nazis. You called the GOP fascists. Your language and analogies clearly scream you think them equivalent to Fascists and / or Nazis, in which case why not ban them?
You clearly want them banned so why don't you stop being a coward and state what you truly want, as opposed to hiding behind some nominal fence-sitting behaviour because you realise it's a step too far.
Oh, and maybe have a reasonable argument as opposed to going all Gammon when you are challenged.
I prefer fascists to lose at the ballot box and or convicted of crimes they are guilty of.
If only you got this angry at Trump and the GOP trying to steal the 2020 election.
I did. But two wrongs don't make a right. In any event, what I did or did not do doesn't really excuse that type of language you used.
As I said, you are now backtracking and saying you want them defeated at the ballot box but your original language made it clear you would much rather see them proscribed and banned. If I hear someone saying "Black people are criminals" and then trying to backtrack by saying "yeah but what I really meant is.." it's clear where their sentiments lie.
One of the benchmarks for fascism is trying to overturn legitimate elections with violence.
The events subsequent to the 2020 election met that threshold.
Ah you mean like the left wing protests we often get in the uk when tories win that often devolve into violence?
That reads like another 1 April joke.
Fringe protests does not even remotely relate to what we saw after the 2020 election. The other side knew and accepted they had lost, and there wasn't even a hint some other outcome would have occurred.
Does it really when every time the tories win there is a screed of articles in places like the guardian claiming the tories didn't really win because adding up all the votes for other parties add up to more than the tory vote percentage. How is that different from what happened in the us and the protests that turned violent are incited by such articles
An article criticising first-past-the-post in the Guardian is not in any way like the 6 January storming of the Capitol. kle4 is right: are you trying to be an April fool?
On Haiti: I have been reading Sandburg's biography of Lincoln with great pleasure, and recently learned that Lincoln recognized both Liberia and Haiti (or Hayti, as it was sometimes spelled, then). And that he had to reverse his own State Department to say, through an informal channel, that, yes, a black representative from Haiti would be fine.
And then welcomed the representative, when he arrived.
I'm fascinated by the years following the end of the Second World War. From reading Citizen Clem, and a few others books about the 1940-50 period, I'm struck by how much of American foreign policy was aimed at the dismantling of the British Empire. Certainly it's difficult to imagine the Empire being viable in a post-45 world, but the Americans certainly seemed to fear that it would be.
Edit: I appear to have responded to the wrong post! Please blame fat fingers and/or the couple of pints I sank earlier; anything but me personally!
Yes, it was pretty clear from 1945 onwards that the USA wanted to end the European Empires, with 1956 and the Suez crisis rubbing our and the French noses in it.
Within 20 years what seemed to be an established order across Africa, Middle East, Asia, the Pacific and the Caribbean ended.
That decolonisation progressed so quickly and so enthusiastically even in the most docile colonies shows how thin the veneer of European power was in these places.
IMHO, it was for the same reason LBJ came to favour civil rights (for most of his life, he was a segregationist)…
Was he ?
The only really strong political beliefs he seems to have held was a genuine support for the New Deal. A poverty stricken rural childhood meant he genuinely understood the benefit of, for example, rural electrification.
But his overriding principle was a desire for power.
The only time he actively advocated white supremacy was in his first senate campaign - which earned him a reputation as a moderate (!), since prior to that he was seen as a firebrand New Dealer.
I don’t think his support for civil rights had very much, if anything at all to do with foreign policy.
I doubt if his support for segregation was anything other than pragmatic, but he was in lockstep with the other Southern Senators, prior to becoming Vice President.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
This is why the awful state of so many American cities is so worrying.
The thing about US and colonies was. They could easily have absorbed Cuba, Phillipines and Central America into States of the Union. But then they'd have had voting rights. Far easier just to have control without representation.
The whole incorporated and unincorporated territories thing is most confusing. I honestly thought one benefit of the USA would have is not ending up with imperial legacy remnants like we have, but apparently not.
The next Holyrood election is not due until 2026 but Panelbase’s findings will make for uncomfortable reading in Bute House and SNP headquarters.
In constituencies, 37 per cent of people said they would vote for the SNP, a fall of 6 points. Labour received 33 per cent support, up six points; the Conservatives 17 per cent, up one point; the Lib Dems 8 per cent, up one point; the Greens 5 per cent, up one point; with 4 per cent voting for other parties.
On the regional list, 31 per cent said they would vote SNP; Labour secured 27 per cent; the Tories 20 per cent; the Greens 10 per cent and the Lib Dems 6 per cent. Alba returned 5 per cent in a result that would see them return two MSPs, according to Curtice’s analysis
The SNP group would drop by 16 to 48 MSPs while Labour would go up by 15 to 37, the Conservatives would fall by five to 26 and the Greens and Lib Dems would each add two members to return ten and six MSPs respectively.
This would mean there would be a majority of unionist politicians in Holyrood for the first time since 2011.
Imagine the fun we could have with a Rainbow Alliance. Tory, Labour, LibDem all working together to shut out the SNP. It would be *chaos* but as long as they always pull back together to vote down the Nats it could be seriously entertaining...
Unionists want to create 10 more Edinburgh Trams debacles. Good luck selling that on the doorsteps.
On Haiti: I have been reading Sandburg's biography of Lincoln with great pleasure, and recently learned that Lincoln recognized both Liberia and Haiti (or Hayti, as it was sometimes spelled, then). And that he had to reverse his own State Department to say, through an informal channel, that, yes, a black representative from Haiti would be fine.
And then welcomed the representative, when he arrived.
I'm fascinated by the years following the end of the Second World War. From reading Citizen Clem, and a few others books about the 1940-50 period, I'm struck by how much of American foreign policy was aimed at the dismantling of the British Empire. Certainly it's difficult to imagine the Empire being viable in a post-45 world, but the Americans certainly seemed to fear that it would be.
Edit: I appear to have responded to the wrong post! Please blame fat fingers and/or the couple of pints I sank earlier; anything but me personally!
Yes, it was pretty clear from 1945 onwards that the USA wanted to end the European Empires, with 1956 and the Suez crisis rubbing our and the French noses in it.
Within 20 years what seemed to be an established order across Africa, Middle East, Asia, the Pacific and the Caribbean ended.
That decolonisation progressed so quickly and so enthusiastically even in the most docile colonies shows how thin the veneer of European power was in these places.
IMHO, it was for the same reason LBJ came to favour civil rights (for most of his life, he was a segregationist)…
Was he ?
The only really strong political beliefs he seems to have held was a genuine support for the New Deal. A poverty stricken rural childhood meant he genuinely understood the benefit of, for example, rural electrification.
But his overriding principle was a desire for power.
The only time he actively advocated white supremacy was in his first senate campaign - which earned him a reputation as a moderate (!), since prior to that he was seen as a firebrand New Dealer.
I don’t think his support for civil rights had very much, if anything at all to do with foreign policy.
This is true, but I do believe Johnson was absolutely serious about legislating civil rights, which consisted of a whole raft of bills. He put his full energy and political capital into the project and didn't try to water down the proposals he inherited from Kennedy. I think he saw he had an opportunity and was going to use it.
Not sure we’ve ever had a true global hegemon, in the sense of a power with control over the entire world
The Romans had no control over early imperial China (which was Rome’s equal in size and wealth, to boot)
Imperial Britain faced too many potent rivals. We were THE superpower, but not a hegemonic power
The USA first faced the USSR (which could have wiped out America with nukes, albeit by assuring self destruction); it now faces ascending China which also has nukes and is in some economic senses already stronger (more manufacturing, bigger share of world trade)
LBJ achieved a lot in six years. He changed the country for the better at a tricky time.
Had he not become embroiled in Vietnam, he might have been remembered as one if the most effective presidents in history.
Kennedy wanted out from Vietnam, against the advice of the majority of his White House team. Johnson inherited much the same team, and made the mistake of thinking he could strong-arm foreign leaders in the same way he could, with ease, manage domestic rivals.
The thing about US and colonies was. They could easily have absorbed Cuba, Phillipines and Central America into States of the Union. But then they'd have had voting rights. Far easier just to have control without representation.
The whole incorporated and unincorporated territories thing is most confusing. I honestly thought one benefit of the USA would have is not ending up with imperial legacy remnants like we have, but apparently not.
I see very little difference between US and European Imperialism (with the exception of the horror show that was the Congo Free State).
That said, the US mostly defeated rival imperialists and being part of the USA (or its territories) is better than the alternatives.
LBJ achieved a lot in six years. He changed the country for the better at a tricky time.
I would not disagree. He’s a good example of how an unprincipled rogue can end up doing good things.
Vietnam, civil rights, counter culture, Cold War. An honest man of principle (right or left), would have royally f***ed it up.
Vietnam was an awful problem to solve.
Eisenhower made the original mistake of picking up the disastrous French colonial failure. Kennedy was working his way to getting out if it - against the opposition of a good part of the foreign policy establishment - and it’s reasonably clear he would have done so had he lived.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
This is why the awful state of so many American cities is so worrying.
And Wokeness. Not only is it deeply damaging America in multiple ways - especially education - America is exporting it to the rest of the west. I preferred it when America exported jazz or Star Wars
LBJ achieved a lot in six years. He changed the country for the better at a tricky time.
Had he not become embroiled in Vietnam, he might have been remembered as one if the most effective presidents in history.
Kennedy wanted out from Vietnam, against the advice of the majority of his White House team. Johnson inherited much the same team, and made the mistake of thinking he could strong-arm foreign leaders in the same way he could, with ease, manage domestic rivals.
Had South Vietnam been successfully defended, like South Korea, no one would now argue that US intervention was wrong.
LBJ achieved a lot in six years. He changed the country for the better at a tricky time.
Had he not become embroiled in Vietnam, he might have been remembered as one if the most effective presidents in history.
Kennedy wanted out from Vietnam, against the advice of the majority of his White House team. Johnson inherited much the same team, and made the mistake of thinking he could strong-arm foreign leaders in the same way he could, with ease, manage domestic rivals.
Had South Vietnam been successfully defended, like South Korea, no one would now argue that US intervention was wrong.
I’ve just been to Vietnam where I read some more books about the war. I’ve now read 15 or 20. I reckon I’m quite expert
The war was unwinnable, because it was a war for independence and the Vietnamese are tough, resourceful, resilient people, and they’d had enough of occupiers
The USA had as much chance of winning that was as Putin has of ‘winning’ in Ukraine. The best you can hope for is a short period of conquest - followed by inevitable insurrection and, ultimately, long painful costly retreat
On Haiti: I have been reading Sandburg's biography of Lincoln with great pleasure, and recently learned that Lincoln recognized both Liberia and Haiti (or Hayti, as it was sometimes spelled, then). And that he had to reverse his own State Department to say, through an informal channel, that, yes, a black representative from Haiti would be fine.
And then welcomed the representative, when he arrived.
I'm fascinated by the years following the end of the Second World War. From reading Citizen Clem, and a few others books about the 1940-50 period, I'm struck by how much of American foreign policy was aimed at the dismantling of the British Empire. Certainly it's difficult to imagine the Empire being viable in a post-45 world, but the Americans certainly seemed to fear that it would be.
Edit: I appear to have responded to the wrong post! Please blame fat fingers and/or the couple of pints I sank earlier; anything but me personally!
Yes, it was pretty clear from 1945 onwards that the USA wanted to end the European Empires, with 1956 and the Suez crisis rubbing our and the French noses in it.
Within 20 years what seemed to be an established order across Africa, Middle East, Asia, the Pacific and the Caribbean ended.
That decolonisation progressed so quickly and so enthusiastically even in the most docile colonies shows how thin the veneer of European power was in these places.
IMHO, it was for the same reason LBJ came to favour civil rights (for most of his life, he was a segregationist)…
Was he ?
The only really strong political beliefs he seems to have held was a genuine support for the New Deal. A poverty stricken rural childhood meant he genuinely understood the benefit of, for example, rural electrification.
But his overriding principle was a desire for power.
The only time he actively advocated white supremacy was in his first senate campaign - which earned him a reputation as a moderate (!), since prior to that he was seen as a firebrand New Dealer.
I don’t think his support for civil rights had very much, if anything at all to do with foreign policy.
This is true, but I do believe Johnson was absolutely serious about legislating civil rights, which consisted of a whole raft of bills. He put his full energy and political capital into the project and didn't try to water down the proposals he inherited from Kennedy. I think he saw he had an opportunity and was going to use it.
Oh, I agree. I think there might even have been real principle in there too (so long as it didn’t conflict with his own interests). He is something of an enigma, part monster and part idealist.
LBJ achieved a lot in six years. He changed the country for the better at a tricky time.
Had he not become embroiled in Vietnam, he might have been remembered as one if the most effective presidents in history.
Kennedy wanted out from Vietnam, against the advice of the majority of his White House team. Johnson inherited much the same team, and made the mistake of thinking he could strong-arm foreign leaders in the same way he could, with ease, manage domestic rivals.
Had South Vietnam been successfully defended, like South Korea, no one would now argue that US intervention was wrong.
I’ve just been to Vietnam where I read some more books about the war. I’ve now read 15 or 20. I reckon I’m quite expert
The war was unwinnable, because it was a war for independence and the Vietnamese are tough, resourceful, resilient people, and they’d had enough of occupiers
The USA had as much chance of winning that was as Putin has of ‘winning’ in Ukraine. The best you can hope for is a short period of conquest - followed by inevitable insurrection and, ultimately, long painful costly retreat
Whilst (most people) agree now imperialism is bad, it's also pretty useful that thesedays it just also seems like an awful lot of hassle so it's not worth it.
LBJ achieved a lot in six years. He changed the country for the better at a tricky time.
Had he not become embroiled in Vietnam, he might have been remembered as one if the most effective presidents in history.
Kennedy wanted out from Vietnam, against the advice of the majority of his White House team. Johnson inherited much the same team, and made the mistake of thinking he could strong-arm foreign leaders in the same way he could, with ease, manage domestic rivals.
Had South Vietnam been successfully defended, like South Korea, no one would now argue that US intervention was wrong.
LBJ achieved a lot in six years. He changed the country for the better at a tricky time.
I would not disagree. He’s a good example of how an unprincipled rogue can end up doing good things.
Vietnam, civil rights, counter culture, Cold War. An honest man of principle (right or left), would have royally f***ed it up.
Vietnam was an awful problem to solve.
Eisenhower made the original mistake of picking up the disastrous French colonial failure. Kennedy was working his way to getting out if it - against the opposition of a good part of the foreign policy establishment - and it’s reasonably clear he would have done so had he lived.
As McNamara said - when he eventually realised the war was an epic mistake - the US should have flooded Vietnam with fridges and cars, rather than bombing them with defoliant and napalm
Communism had to be confronted but persuasion and bribery would likely have worked better on the Vietnamese
LBJ achieved a lot in six years. He changed the country for the better at a tricky time.
Had he not become embroiled in Vietnam, he might have been remembered as one if the most effective presidents in history.
Kennedy wanted out from Vietnam, against the advice of the majority of his White House team. Johnson inherited much the same team, and made the mistake of thinking he could strong-arm foreign leaders in the same way he could, with ease, manage domestic rivals.
Had South Vietnam been successfully defended, like South Korea, no one would now argue that US intervention was wrong.
I’ve just been to Vietnam where I read some more books about the war. I’ve now read 15 or 20. I reckon I’m quite expert
The war was unwinnable, because it was a war for independence and the Vietnamese are tough, resourceful, resilient people, and they’d had enough of occupiers
The USA had as much chance of winning that was as Putin has of ‘winning’ in Ukraine. The best you can hope for is a short period of conquest - followed by inevitable insurrection and, ultimately, long painful costly retreat
Have you read Ellsberg’s ‘Secrets’ ? I’ve read a lot of books about Vietnam, but that’s absolutely revelatory about Washington’s decision making. I don’t think anyone before or since has combined that kind of access with the willingness to write openly and honestly about it.
LBJ achieved a lot in six years. He changed the country for the better at a tricky time.
Had he not become embroiled in Vietnam, he might have been remembered as one if the most effective presidents in history.
Kennedy wanted out from Vietnam, against the advice of the majority of his White House team. Johnson inherited much the same team, and made the mistake of thinking he could strong-arm foreign leaders in the same way he could, with ease, manage domestic rivals.
Had South Vietnam been successfully defended, like South Korea, no one would now argue that US intervention was wrong.
It was an unwinnable war, very much unlike Korea.
Quite so. The Vietnamese would have fought to the last man, and women, in a fetid tunnel near Dalat, to gain their freedom. They’d had a century of hated and racist occupation by France (who they eventually humiliated in battle), before that a long detested history of interference by China. They were prepared to fight to the death to be independent
You cannot win a war in that scenario, unless you’re prepared to do something Roman or Mongol - ie kill everyone in the country. America was never gonna do that, even tho they could have done, with nukes
LBJ achieved a lot in six years. He changed the country for the better at a tricky time.
Had he not become embroiled in Vietnam, he might have been remembered as one if the most effective presidents in history.
Kennedy wanted out from Vietnam, against the advice of the majority of his White House team. Johnson inherited much the same team, and made the mistake of thinking he could strong-arm foreign leaders in the same way he could, with ease, manage domestic rivals.
Had South Vietnam been successfully defended, like South Korea, no one would now argue that US intervention was wrong.
I’ve just been to Vietnam where I read some more books about the war. I’ve now read 15 or 20. I reckon I’m quite expert
The war was unwinnable, because it was a war for independence and the Vietnamese are tough, resourceful, resilient people, and they’d had enough of occupiers
The USA had as much chance of winning that was as Putin has of ‘winning’ in Ukraine. The best you can hope for is a short period of conquest - followed by inevitable insurrection and, ultimately, long painful costly retreat
Have you read Ellsberg’s ‘Secrets’ ? I’ve read a lot of books about Vietnam, but that’s absolutely revelatory about Washington’s decision making. I don’t think anyone before or since has combined that kind of access with the willingness to write openly and honestly about it.
I haven’t. I shall add it to the list
Wasn’t it you who recommended ‘Kill Everything That Moves’ to me? If so, thank you. Shocking and sobering, and essential reading
LBJ achieved a lot in six years. He changed the country for the better at a tricky time.
Had he not become embroiled in Vietnam, he might have been remembered as one if the most effective presidents in history.
Kennedy wanted out from Vietnam, against the advice of the majority of his White House team. Johnson inherited much the same team, and made the mistake of thinking he could strong-arm foreign leaders in the same way he could, with ease, manage domestic rivals.
Had South Vietnam been successfully defended, like South Korea, no one would now argue that US intervention was wrong.
I’ve just been to Vietnam where I read some more books about the war. I’ve now read 15 or 20. I reckon I’m quite expert
The war was unwinnable, because it was a war for independence and the Vietnamese are tough, resourceful, resilient people, and they’d had enough of occupiers
The USA had as much chance of winning that was as Putin has of ‘winning’ in Ukraine. The best you can hope for is a short period of conquest - followed by inevitable insurrection and, ultimately, long painful costly retreat
Putin, had the West turned its back on Ukraine, would have responded to insurrection with mass executions, and with deporting much of the population.
I don’t disagree, the Vietnam War was unwinnable, but Korea could easily have been unwinnable. Singman Rhee was a shit, actually much nastier than any South Vietnamese leader, and Kim Il Sung at least claimed to be leading a war of national liberation
One of the more successful US anti-colonial actions came right after the Civil War: 'After Gen. Lee's surrender, and that of Gen. Joseph E. Johnston in North Carolina, the only significant Confederate field force remaining was in Texas under Gen. Edmund Kirby Smith. Sheridan was supposed to lead troops in the Grand Review of the Armies in Washington, D.C., but Grant appointed him commander of the Military District of the Southwest on May 17, 1865,[6] six days before the parade, with orders to defeat Smith without delay and restore Texas and Louisiana to Union control. However, Smith surrendered before Sheridan reached New Orleans.[citation needed]
Grant was also concerned about the situation in neighboring Mexico, where 40,000 French soldiers propped up the puppet regime of Austrian Archduke Maximilian. He gave Sheridan permission to gather a large Texas occupation force. Sheridan assembled 50,000 men in three corps, quickly occupied Texas coastal cities, spread inland, and began to patrol the Mexico–United States border. The Army's presence, U.S. political pressure, and the growing resistance of Benito Juárez induced the French to abandon their claims against Mexico. Napoleon III announced a staged withdrawal of French troops to be completed in November 1867. In light of growing opposition at home and concern with the rise of German military prowess, Napoleon III stepped up the French withdrawal, which was completed by March 12, 1867.[38] By June 19 of that year, Mexico's republican army had captured, tried, and executed Maximilian. Sheridan later admitted in his memoirs that he had supplied arms and ammunition to Juárez's forces: "... which we left at convenient places on our side of the river to fall into their hands".' source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Sheridan#Reconstruction
As I recall, Sheridan left 30,000 rifles, and ammunition for them, for the Juarez forces to pick up from those "convenient places".
Judging by his actions, even Napoleon III respected those 50,00 well-armed Union veterans.
Comments
Who was the last one? It wasn't Britain. I think you have to go back to the Romans. I don't think having a hegemon is a usual
And how did we get on in those two examples, given the claim that we held hegemonic power?
But how did America get on in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan?
Being hegemonic doesn't mean always winning.
Correct, we suffered some awful defeats in the 19th century.
Even hegemonic powers need both good allies, and willing subjects. The UK could never have defeated France or Germany on its own, in 1815 or 1918. And, the UK's dominance would have been far less pronounced without thousands of Sikhs, Gurkhas, Afghans, Africans in the ranks of the Imperial armies.
Britain's naval might meant that any attempt to defeat the UK at home would be defeated, that anyone who fought Britain would suffer terribly through blockade. Britain's financial dominance meant that it could fund coalitions against its enemies. But, Britain could not win unaided.
We could certainly do much more today if we added the armed forces of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, Nepal, India and Pakistan to our tally, and by the same token we'd have struggled to have done much at all back then without them.
For comparison, when was the US foreign policy doctrine ever 'running of all the other powers'?
I've always found Smith-Dorrien's career fascinating, who basically started their as one of the handful of survivors.
But he was more ambitious than either, because he hoped to do so by federal action, in a nation where almost all of the education decisions are made at the state and local levels*. He reached out to Democrats, and was able to get the support of no less than Ted Kennedy for his "No Child Left Behind". He was explicit, as he had been in Texas, about trying to reduce the gaps between whites, blacks, and Hispanics.
Test scores on the NAEP rose while he was in office, but were flat, or fell, after he left the presidency: https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/ltt/?age=9
You can argue that his education programs, and leadership, are part of the explanation for that rise, that they made no difference, that gains would have been even larger without them. Similarly, you can argue that the losses under Obama were due in part to his leadership, that Obama had no effect on them, or that they would have been worse without Obama's leadership.
Of those six possibilities, I think the first is the most likely -- but would be interested in seeing a serious study of the question.
(*At the time, I hoped he would succeed, but was skeptical, because of those diffculties.)
' A bungling, useless, selfish old swine.'
Very few understand a single word of the legislation for which they are uniquely accountable.
Time to remove their salaries, make them part time trustees, pay their train fare, and pay constituency staff to do the case work.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/23/can-you-impeach-former-president/
The deal I had in mind would involve an impeachment conviction being rushed through as a formality, just to disbar him from becoming president again, but you are right that a presidential pardon could only apply to federal offences and therefore it's not in Biden's remit to give him a stay out of jail card.
I doubt Trump could cope with jail. He might not even be able to cope with sitting in the dock and being instructed by the judge to answer a question or to keep quiet.
Sadly, it probably made things worse for the slaves in the Deep South of the US. Many Haitian planters settled in Louisiana, bringing with them tales of horror. Most Southern States strengthened repression after that period.
The Slaves in the South were numerous enough (25-30% of the population in total, but over 50%+ in some places) to be a danger, but not numerous enough to be able to obtain freedom by force. So, the authorities feared them, but were still able to repress them through the use of slave patrols.
The slave/free ratio in Haiti was crazy, at about 80/20. That meant that relentless terror was needed to repress them.
Total incompetence and complete humiliation.
You make it sound as if the US & China have acted like (indeed worse than) the Nazis - an assertion for which there is no clear evidence.
Otherwise they are risking British monarchs getting invites to the inaugrations of GOP Presidents unpopular in the UK, not just Democratic Presidents
Being hegemonic doesn't mean always winning.
Correct, we suffered some awful defeats in the 19th century.
Even hegemonic powers need both good allies, and willing subjects. The UK could never have defeated France or Germany on its own, in 1815 or 1918. And, the UK's dominance would have been far less pronounced without thousands of Sikhs, Gurkhas, Afghans, Africans in the ranks of the Imperial armies.
Britain's naval might meant that any attempt to defeat the UK at home would be defeated, that anyone who fought Britain would suffer terribly through blockade. Britain's financial dominance meant that it could fund coalitions against its enemies. But, Britain could not win unaided.
There have been brief periods where one power has enjoyed global dominance.
The Mongol Empire in the mid 13th century dominated Eurasia from China to Hungary and might in other circumstances have dominated Western Europe as well as North Africa.
Napoleonic France was the dominant power from 1805 to 1812 - Britain was powerless against the Continental System for a short period.
How about the Axis Powers from 1940-42? Nazi Germany and her allies dominated Europe and had the Soviet Union in real trouble while Imperial Japan swept America and the colonial powers out of South East Asia and the western Pacific.
Finally, I’d offer the USA from the Fall of Communism to the attack on New York. You can argue the American intervention in Somalia was a disaster but elsewhere western power was dominant.
I agree prolonged unipolar periods have been rare but short periods of global dominance by single powers or blocs have occurred. The nature of British Imperial power was different and largely staying out of European conflicts from 1815 to 1914 a big help.
The only way we might have preserved the Empire longer term was to do a deal with Hitler and Hirohito under PM Halifax, giving the Nazis control of continental Europe and Japan control of China and French and Dutch Indochina in return for our keeping our independence and Empire but letting evil win in the process, something Churchill correctly would not countenance
And then welcomed the representative, when he arrived.
Incidentally, the Korean War memorial in Washington DC is one of the most moving. As you walk towards the central section you have to walk past statues of soldiers of the various UN countries but, the way it's laid out, it feels like you're walking with them. Very solemn.
Edit: I appear to have responded to the wrong post! Please blame fat fingers and/or the couple of pints I sank earlier; anything but me personally!
I knew some people who took part. By all accounts, the Chinese were very decent towards POW’s, the worst thing being you had to sit through boring lectures on Marxism-Leninism.
The North Koreans, OTOH? People shot themselves, rather than being taken captive by them.
Originally published in 1947, it's a fascinating portrait of the US in those few years between the end of WW II, and the beginning of the Cold War.
Most Americans were happily ignoring the rest of the world during those years.
Within 20 years what seemed to be an established order across Africa, Middle East, Asia, the Pacific and the Caribbean ended.
That decolonisation progressed so quickly and so enthusiastically even in the most docile colonies shows how thin the veneer of European power was in these places.
Cows to get flatulence blockers !!!!!
I thought April fool ended at lunchtime but it is tomorrow's headline
https://twitter.com/TmorrowsPapers/status/1642268434346983432?t=djUnZgYoPfZ6oswsCAabXA&s=19
Heralds SNP split
https://twitter.com/electpoliticsuk/status/1642271489901703168?t=Zpt65p0vDTElepvVa60neA&s=19
During the Cold War, the Soviet Union made much of its anti-colonial credentials, and attacked Jim Crow.
The USA wanted to deny them that propaganda advantage (of course, some real monsters came to power, in the wake of decolonisation).
At home, yes, I think that many were persuaded that the treatment of fellow citizens, on the basis of skin colour, was wrong. Others took a pragmatic view that Jim Crow was unsustainable.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11928613/Tory-MP-wakes-naked-brothel-unable-clothes-calls-senior-colleague-help.html
Handy to be a Tory MP then, mind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REpNTi-9oRQ
puppets well after that date. Guam, Puerto Rico, US Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, Alaska and Hawaii were colonies (although Hawaii and Alaska were made States in 1959).
The US had no qualms about removing Latin American leaders who failed to do their bidding.
The USA’s anti-colonial credentials are non-existent.
In fact, there were many Americans who opposed the colonialism after the Spanish-American War, including many who could be called "elites". (There's a quite readable account of their opposition in the third chapter of Barbara Tuchman's "The Proud Tower".)
And by 1934, they had won the argument: "The Tydings–McDuffie Act, officially the Philippine Independence Act (Pub. L. 73–127, 48 Stat. 456, enacted March 24, 1934), is an Act of Congress that established the process for the Philippines, then an American territory, to become an independent country after a ten-year transition period. Under the act, the 1935 Constitution of the Philippines was written and the Commonwealth of the Philippines was established, with the first directly elected President of the Philippines. (Direct elections to the Philippine Legislature had been held since 1907.) It also established limitations on Filipino immigration to the United States."
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tydings–McDuffie_Act
puppets well after that date. Guam, Puerto Rico, US Samoa, US Virgin Islands, Alaska, Hawaii, were all colonies, although the latter two became states in 1959).
The US had no qualms about removing and installing puppet governments in Latin America.
It’s anti-colonial credentials are non-existent.
The only really strong political beliefs he seems to have held was a genuine support for the New Deal. A poverty stricken rural childhood meant he genuinely understood the benefit of, for example, rural electrification.
But his overriding principle was a desire for power.
The only time he actively advocated white supremacy was in his first senate campaign - which earned him a reputation as a moderate (!), since prior to that he was seen as a firebrand New Dealer.
I don’t think his support for civil rights had very much, if anything at all to do with foreign policy.
But then they'd have had voting rights.
Far easier just to have control without representation.
Wasn't cut out for politics at all.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65152418
SNP crank or unionist crank or neither. Place your bets according to prejudice...
An honest man of principle (right or left), would have royally f***ed it up.
Liverpool = Tories
The Romans had no control over early imperial China (which was Rome’s equal in size and wealth, to boot)
Imperial Britain faced too many potent rivals. We were THE superpower, but not a hegemonic power
The USA first faced the USSR (which could have wiped out America with nukes, albeit by assuring self destruction); it now faces ascending China which also has nukes and is in some economic senses already stronger (more manufacturing, bigger share of world trade)
[insert comment about AI here]
Kennedy wanted out from Vietnam, against the advice of the majority of his White House team. Johnson inherited much the same team, and made the mistake of thinking he could strong-arm foreign leaders in the same way he could, with ease, manage domestic rivals.
That said, the US mostly defeated rival imperialists and being part of the USA (or its territories) is better than the alternatives.
Eisenhower made the original mistake of picking up the disastrous French colonial failure. Kennedy was working his way to getting out if it - against the opposition of a good part of the foreign policy establishment - and it’s reasonably clear he would have done so had he lived.
The war was unwinnable, because it was a war for independence and the Vietnamese are tough, resourceful, resilient people, and they’d had enough of occupiers
The USA had as much chance of winning that was as Putin has of ‘winning’ in Ukraine. The best you can hope for is a short period of conquest - followed by inevitable insurrection and, ultimately, long painful costly retreat
I think there might even have been real principle in there too (so long as it didn’t conflict with his own interests).
He is something of an enigma, part monster and part idealist.
Communism had to be confronted but persuasion and bribery would likely have worked better on the Vietnamese
I’ve read a lot of books about Vietnam, but that’s absolutely revelatory about Washington’s decision making.
I don’t think anyone before or since has combined that kind of access with the willingness to write openly and honestly about it.
You cannot win a war in that scenario, unless you’re prepared to do something Roman or Mongol - ie kill everyone in the country. America was never gonna do that, even tho they could have done, with nukes
Wasn’t it you who recommended ‘Kill Everything That Moves’ to me? If so, thank you. Shocking and sobering, and essential reading
I don’t disagree, the Vietnam War was unwinnable, but Korea could easily have been unwinnable.
Singman Rhee was a shit, actually much nastier than any South Vietnamese leader, and Kim Il Sung at least claimed to be leading a war of national liberation
'After Gen. Lee's surrender, and that of Gen. Joseph E. Johnston in North Carolina, the only significant Confederate field force remaining was in Texas under Gen. Edmund Kirby Smith. Sheridan was supposed to lead troops in the Grand Review of the Armies in Washington, D.C., but Grant appointed him commander of the Military District of the Southwest on May 17, 1865,[6] six days before the parade, with orders to defeat Smith without delay and restore Texas and Louisiana to Union control. However, Smith surrendered before Sheridan reached New Orleans.[citation needed]
Grant was also concerned about the situation in neighboring Mexico, where 40,000 French soldiers propped up the puppet regime of Austrian Archduke Maximilian. He gave Sheridan permission to gather a large Texas occupation force. Sheridan assembled 50,000 men in three corps, quickly occupied Texas coastal cities, spread inland, and began to patrol the Mexico–United States border. The Army's presence, U.S. political pressure, and the growing resistance of Benito Juárez induced the French to abandon their claims against Mexico. Napoleon III announced a staged withdrawal of French troops to be completed in November 1867. In light of growing opposition at home and concern with the rise of German military prowess, Napoleon III stepped up the French withdrawal, which was completed by March 12, 1867.[38] By June 19 of that year, Mexico's republican army had captured, tried, and executed Maximilian. Sheridan later admitted in his memoirs that he had supplied arms and ammunition to Juárez's forces: "... which we left at convenient places on our side of the river to fall into their hands".'
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Sheridan#Reconstruction
As I recall, Sheridan left 30,000 rifles, and ammunition for them, for the Juarez forces to pick up from those "convenient places".
Judging by his actions, even Napoleon III respected those 50,00 well-armed Union veterans.