It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Didn't America Take Over the World (1945-1950)

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 10:42 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Have you been reading R.A. Heinlein?


panshin.com...




posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 10:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas
a reply to: makemap

China has more people,russia while abit bigger then the usa land mass wise but they got hammered population wise during ww2 and have a bout half the population of the united states does today 300+ million for usa to some where around 154ish million for the russians ,Nigeria for example is about the same population as Russian federation


Population figures is unknown. No one truly knows each others population wise back then. Russia land masses included Mongolia and parts of East Asia which US has no access what so ever. Nor does US troops understand the territory. If they started invading, the first thing would be ambush, killing lots of troops. Second thing would be roadblocks allowing USSR to keep their factories intact. Third thing is guerilla warfare like Vietnam war, attacking at night time, etc. Slowing the entire process.

North Korea and Vietnam war only had lots of loses is because it start out as civil war. You won't see this happening in Europe, Africa, USSR.

China was still in civil war, but Americans going in attacking China will just unite them against America instead as majority went for the Communist side already.

eurasiangeopolitics.files.wordpress.com...
edit on 27-1-2017 by makemap because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 10:47 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

It did, or rather the bankers did. They were just smart about it.

Think about it. You're a superpower, what do you do? Start invading countries? No, people will fight you, cost you money, resources. Even your own people will start to oppose you as resources are always diverted to the war effort.

Instead, what if you could tell other countries, "Look, you can be free to run your own lives as long as you pay tribute to us." You don't want to occupy a country, you just want your cut of their labor and resources. You don't send in the military as long as the tribute comes in.

How is the tribute paid? Enter Bretton Woods. Essentially, Bretton Woods says that US Federal Reserve Notes are the king of currencies. A deceptively simple sounding statement with huge implications. Countries now need to acquire US currency to do business. The only way they can get the currency is to trade their resources for it, the only source for the currency is the US. The US gets stuff, they get a paper receipt for their tribute.

Think about if Hitler never attacked Russia, and the US never entered the war. How would Hitler have run Europe if he had won? He would have to station troops in the occupied countries for generations. Productivity in those countries would be low because morale would be low. Then he still has to worry about Russia, China, and the US. It would have been constant headaches.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 10:49 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Sure...

You could nuke all the military assets of every other nation, maybe just a few and shock the rest into submission.

Then you'd have all the world angry.

The biggest opposition an army can face is conscience when committing to immoral acts, especially when it's soldiers come from lands that held high things such as freedom or liberty.

It would be easier committing to nuclear armageddon.

Because wiping the slate clean elsewhere directly affects you at home, we can only theorize what would happen if a few hundred nuclear bombs went off around the world.

The other option is occupation, conscience comes into play then...

In a word, it would be futile.

We can always learn something from history, maps of Europe. A place where people always wanted to dominate other people, their maps are well divided because no matter how powerful you are a limit exists to your power. People will survive to live another day.

You'd be nuking well fortified positions for years, suppressing what populations are left. I guess in a way not unlike Habsburg Spain.

A true effort in futility, I dare say morality alone would implode the USA very quickly.

Another poster mentioned the true war of dominance... The rise of the corporation. The cold war was a one of ideology, the battle for minds and hearts, we were probably oblivious to the war for your pocket. Why fight when you can win with Nestlé or coca cola, Adidas and Ford.

That's a war they've been winning, though I'd say look to the East in the next 10-20 years because they'll rise for the fight for your pocket.

Nukes are a waste of useful resources, namely you and me.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 10:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: madmac5150
Because... back then the military-industrial complex was still in its infancy, and we, for the most part, wanted nothing else to do with war. America was still in an isolationist mood... Eisenhower recognized this, and warned us as well.

We didn't listen.

JFK tried to shut them down, and was murdered for his efforts.

Again, we didn't listen.

The Founding Fathers warned us against foreign entanglements...

We didn't listen.

America doesn't need to rule the world. America needs to start taking care of its own, for once...



I think you might be under selling the inevitability of a global nuclear war long term.

Historically it is almost a certainty sooner or later.


So, sooner or later the two biggest kids on the block will slug it out...

Why?

The Russians know what we know. Global nuclear war will kill ALL of us.

Obama did his best to engage the Russians in a World War, and President Putin showed remarkable restraint. We are SO effing lucky that he did...

HRC wanted to perpetuate past policies that would force a third world war. That is FACT.

I am not totally sold on Trump, but he at least got the finger off of the trigger...



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 11:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: JoshuaCox

For one: The amount of A bombs you are talking about didn't exist during that time period. The building of those bombs right then was a time consuming process, because of the amount of plutonium that would have been needed. Took quite a few years to gear up to that.

Two) The US at that time was confident that it would take much longer for the USSR to develop their own bomb, some estimates had it at decades. Unknown to the US at the time, a couple of scientist that helped with the original development of the first A bomb, had been feeding info to the USSR (they had been vetted by GB, but had strong communistic ties). By 1949, the USSR had detonated it's first A bomb. It was, as you put it: Too Late.

Three) The US population was tired of war. They'd been doing it for 4 years now, and were done. Fighting Hitler and Japan was something we did because we got pulled into that war. Once Germany and then Japan surrendered the US population was done with it. There would have been almost no support to go on a war of conquest.





1) you don't need many. You just have stop any other world power from getting the bomb.


2) it doesn't matter when Russia gets a nuke, it matters if they get a nuke. (I agree it was part of trumans thiking. Just saying.


3) what happens when the next nuclear power elects a Hitler?? How much worse is it then??
Will that Hitler have the same reservations about using them?



This isn't my idea... Truman had this option laid out before him with experienced generals saying this was the right course of action. Truman had to say NO?!?!

I'm not advocating it. Just think it is an interesting question that only one or 2 men in all of history have had to make.
edit on 27-1-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 11:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: madmac5150

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: madmac5150
Because... back then the military-industrial complex was still in its infancy, and we, for the most part, wanted nothing else to do with war. America was still in an isolationist mood... Eisenhower recognized this, and warned us as well.

We didn't listen.

JFK tried to shut them down, and was murdered for his efforts.

Again, we didn't listen.

The Founding Fathers warned us against foreign entanglements...

We didn't listen.

America doesn't need to rule the world. America needs to start taking care of its own, for once...



I think you might be under selling the inevitability of a global nuclear war long term.

Historically it is almost a certainty sooner or later.


So, sooner or later the two biggest kids on the block will slug it out...

Why?

The Russians know what we know. Global nuclear war will kill ALL of us.

Obama did his best to engage the Russians in a World War, and President Putin showed remarkable restraint. We are SO effing lucky that he did...

HRC wanted to perpetuate past policies that would force a third world war. That is FACT.

I am not totally sold on Trump, but he at least got the finger off of the trigger...



Historically ,the 2 biggest almost always slug it out, that has been what has almost always happened...for what 10,000 years of human history...we haven't hit the century mark yet with nukes.

If you let a dozen countries have nukes, how long till one of them gets a Hitler?

It hasn't even been a century yet, and every country that gets them, every election you roll the dice...

Are you sure since we were all born under a nuclear sword of Damocles, we haven't forgotten it is there?


edit on 27-1-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 11:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Sure...

You could nuke all the military assets of every other nation, maybe just a few and shock the rest into submission.

Then you'd have all the world angry.

The biggest opposition an army can face is conscience when committing to immoral acts, especially when it's soldiers come from lands that held high things such as freedom or liberty.

It would be easier committing to nuclear armageddon.

Because wiping the slate clean elsewhere directly affects you at home, we can only theorize what would happen if a few hundred nuclear bombs went off around the world.

The other option is occupation, conscience comes into play then...

In a word, it would be futile.

We can always learn something from history, maps of Europe. A place where people always wanted to dominate other people, their maps are well divided because no matter how powerful you are a limit exists to your power. People will survive to live another day.

You'd be nuking well fortified positions for years, suppressing what populations are left. I guess in a way not unlike Habsburg Spain.

A true effort in futility, I dare say morality alone would implode the USA very quickly.

Another poster mentioned the true war of dominance... The rise of the corporation. The cold war was a one of ideology, the battle for minds and hearts, we were probably oblivious to the war for your pocket. Why fight when you can win with Nestlé or coca cola, Adidas and Ford.

That's a war they've been winning, though I'd say look to the East in the next 10-20 years because they'll rise for the fight for your pocket.

Nukes are a waste of useful resources, namely you and me.



I really think your downplaying the chance it could happen today.. or next week, or next decade...


We would definately have pissed everyone off, but looking at it from the end of WW2...


What would Hitler have done if he had it first??

What would Hitler have done if he had it second?!?!

When does the next nuclear power elect a Hitler???

I think right after WW2, when we were the only still standing modern inferstructure on the planet!!! We could have won..


Provide a fair and improved reality for the world's peasantry (1950's America couldn't have done this part lol, but today's maybe.)

Pretend you don't run things but squash any advanced militaries and rebellions in the cradle..

Maybe.



I'm still not sure it wouldn't be worth the trade to eliminate the threat of a global thermonuclear war , reguardless...


That said we probubally blow it completely.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 11:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: madmac5150

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: madmac5150
Because... back then the military-industrial complex was still in its infancy, and we, for the most part, wanted nothing else to do with war. America was still in an isolationist mood... Eisenhower recognized this, and warned us as well.

We didn't listen.

JFK tried to shut them down, and was murdered for his efforts.

Again, we didn't listen.

The Founding Fathers warned us against foreign entanglements...

We didn't listen.

America doesn't need to rule the world. America needs to start taking care of its own, for once...



I think you might be under selling the inevitability of a global nuclear war long term.

Historically it is almost a certainty sooner or later.


So, sooner or later the two biggest kids on the block will slug it out...

Why?

The Russians know what we know. Global nuclear war will kill ALL of us.

Obama did his best to engage the Russians in a World War, and President Putin showed remarkable restraint. We are SO effing lucky that he did...

HRC wanted to perpetuate past policies that would force a third world war. That is FACT.

I am not totally sold on Trump, but he at least got the finger off of the trigger...



Historically ,the 2 biggest almost always slug it out, that has been what has almost always happened...for what 10,000 years of human history...we haven't hit the century mark yet with nukes.

If you let a dozen countries have nukes, how long till one of them gets a Hitler?

It hasn't even been a century yet, and every country that gets them, every election you roll the dice...

Are you sure since we were all born under a nuclear sword of Damocles, we haven't forgotten it is there?



Faith. Call it faith.

We have Russian members here on ATS. How many of them are ready to be nuked for an ideology? Zero, I am guessing.

Should they prove me wrong, I will issue a retraction.

Americans don't want to kill Russians any more than they want to kill us.

The media wants a clash, and preferably during "sweeps week".... ratings....

Screw them all, I say....
edit on 27-1-2017 by madmac5150 because: My ducks are assholes



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox




That said we probubally blow it completely.

Interesting word that.

But yeah, if the US had been interested in world domination, you're right.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 11:26 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

With the 1st developement of the nuclear bomb, and the enormous fleet of B-52's the USA could have easily occupied the entire world.

As far as the title...It did. Except for political domination in the Eastern world. That was all good until about 2000 when Putin came in. I guarantee if the US had seen that threat of a charismatic Russian leader rising, he would have been assassinated.

The new political threat is China. It just isn't named yet.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 11:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
a reply to: JoshuaCox

It did, or rather the bankers did. They were just smart about it.

Think about it. You're a superpower, what do you do? Start invading countries? No, people will fight you, cost you money, resources. Even your own people will start to oppose you as resources are always diverted to the war effort.

Instead, what if you could tell other countries, "Look, you can be free to run your own lives as long as you pay tribute to us." You don't want to occupy a country, you just want your cut of their labor and resources. You don't send in the military as long as the tribute comes in.

How is the tribute paid? Enter Bretton Woods. Essentially, Bretton Woods says that US Federal Reserve Notes are the king of currencies. A deceptively simple sounding statement with huge implications. Countries now need to acquire US currency to do business. The only way they can get the currency is to trade their resources for it, the only source for the currency is the US. The US gets stuff, they get a paper receipt for their tribute.

Think about if Hitler never attacked Russia, and the US never entered the war. How would Hitler have run Europe if he had won? He would have to station troops in the occupied countries for generations. Productivity in those countries would be low because morale would be low. Then he still has to worry about Russia, China, and the US. It would have been constant headaches.



If Hitler wins, he gets the bomb first and doesn't have to occupy Europe...


Everything you said is irrelevant when compared to a global thermonuclear war...everything.



If you let a dozen states have nukes, how long till you have one?
edit on 27-1-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 11:29 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox




Everything you said is irrelevant when compared to a global thermonuclear war...everything.


There were no thermonuclear weapons in 1945.
Or 1950.

edit on 1/27/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Jeezus..are you for real?
Psychopath.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 11:33 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

What was the state of human rights and intelligence at that period?



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 11:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JoshuaCox




Everything you said is irrelevant when compared to a global thermonuclear war...everything.


There were no thermonuclear weapons in 1945.
Or 1950.

Atomic weapons lead to those, and the 5 years we were the only nuclear power , with the only still standing inferstructure would probubally have gotten it done.


Thermonuclear war is the long term consequence of not being the only nuclear power.

Only at that one moment in all of human history did anyone have the option to conquer the world.

What happens in napoleon has nukes? We are all speaking French.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

You and most of us are probably never born..be my guess

They knew how to make the bomb but not on a large scale..yet, while you bomb so and so, someone else is going to attack anyway.
edit on 27-1-2017 by vonclod because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox




Only at that one moment in all of human history did anyone have the option to conquer the world.


Yeah.
Well. Good thing "America First" wasn't the meme.

Right?



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 11:38 PM
link   
well lets think about how rome, macedonia, mongolia, russia, the US and canada got so big.

much less people lived in all these places than in the world in 1945 and the targets were mostly far less advanced and not used to war.

less people = easier conquest

but the biggest reason is that americans are mostly cowards that hate fighting and look for the easiest way to benefit off others, that's why we put so much focus on air and sea power, on drones, missiles, on space, technology, etc.

we have always stayed at a distance from combat and rarely get into full scale wars



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 11:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: JoshuaCox

What was the state of human rights and intelligence at that period?


Total crap lol...

Well maybe not intelligence , but 1950's America wasn't exactly known for its tolerance of different cultures lol.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join