5 ms·

Here's a thought experiment you can use to clarify the difference between good & evil: What would each side in a conflict do if they had overwhelming power? We

by avar 10y ago

Here's a thought experiment you can use to clarify the difference between good & evil: What would each side in a conflict do if they had overwhelming power? We have plenty of evidence to see what the US would do. When they defeated Germany & Japan at the end of WWII did they enslave their people? Use their nuclear advantage to conquer new lands and colonize them? No, they rebuilt their economies and tried to ensure that they had stable governments & trading partners. What do you think ISIS would do with exclusive use of nuclear weapons? How about Iraq under Saddam etc? Do you think Hamas would be equally deterred by Israelis using their children as human shields as Israelis are by Hamas using theirs for that purpose? Of course good & evil isn't black and white, the western world does a lot of bad stuff. But it's just as brainwashed to think that just because all sides cause some civilian casualties to think that everyone's morally equal, as it is to think that the US is some altruistic knight in shining armor that can do no wrong.

watbot69 10y ago
Do you think the US is not using it's "overwhelming power" because of moral high ground or because it would spur a united retaliation as well as internal resistance?
skriticos2 10y ago
The US actions after WWII in the peace negotiations weren't as altruistic as you are trying to make out. In fact it was a reaction to the disastrous result of the peace negotiations after WWI, which greatly contributed to WWII, and with the USSR being what it was and everyone building nukes they probably thought WWIII was not in their interest. Building up western Europe was a strong force against the USSR and a convenient buffer zone.
- js8 10y ago
  Are you saying that if altruism (helping others) is a rational thing to do, then it's not really altruism? I find that argument a little strange.
  - maxvu 10y ago
    Altruism isn't "helping others", it's "helping others for others' sake". Other motivations muddy the selflessness.
    - js8 10y ago
      But isn't that the case here? US didn't expect anything in return other than side effects of Europe being stronger (which was an advantage for them as well).
      - saiya-jin 10y ago
        to enforce future battlefield so war could potentially be fought only far, far away and enemy would weaken itself, and US would benefit in similar fashion as from WWII... I am sure there were many aspects considered for Marshall plan, some could probably be called altruistic, but many could be called selfish.
        lambdadmitry 10y ago
        >some could probably be called altruistic, but many could be called selfish This is a zero-sum mentality in a sense. There are deals that benefit both sides, so there is no sense in selfish/altruistic dichotomy. One can be both "selfish" and "good" by pursuing positive-sum deals.
    - lambdadmitry 10y ago
      I believe most people don't assume that US (or other country, for that matter) is "truly altruistic" in your definition. However, the US is the first world power to make positive-sum policies the basis of its foreign relations (starting from the Marshall Plan onwards). You are right that this is not "selflessness", but positive-sum is even better as it is a sustainable approach.
csallen 10y ago
On one hand, I think that's a great thought experiment. You're right, there are nuances here, and oversimplifying into good vs evil doesn't serve anyone well. On the other hand, it's sort of a disingenuous thought experiment, because everyone is already in 100% agreement that Nazi Germany, ISIS, Saddam, etc are morally awful. However we've been brainwashed into thinking that we're saints. So which perception is it that needs correcting?
- soundwave106 10y ago
  Some people are brainwashed into thinking that we are saints. As you can see in this thread, however, there are a fair amount of people that are quite aware of the United States' issues. (I also think it's not that great to cartoonishly portray Nazi Germany / ISIS / Saddam as one dimensional stock evil cartoon characters; this is also a sort of "brainwashing" from my perspective. Yes, these cultures also have done some awful, awful things, however I feel it is important not to erase the human impulse and circumstances that caused these to develop.) From a general audience perspective, I'm personally pretty cynical on addressing this though. In theory, it would be nice to see an end to "mass propaganda and willful ignorance". In practice, I honestly can't think of a country in which no propaganda occurs, and there is no such thing as state secrets. The United States may have done some awful things over the last 70 years, but so have other less powerful countries. Were the situation different, and another country dominant instead of the US... well, I personally would expect very similar results. I can't think of any nation / community / tribe that doesn't do some sort of bending and filtering of worldview. So from my perspective this really isn't a nation problem, this is a core human issue: tribalism. Resolving the issues that come up with tribalism would be great. However, given that it's such a core behavior of humanity, I think this is going to be terribly difficult, perhaps impossible, to do. It would be nice if I was wrong...
  - csallen 10y ago
    It's unlikely that an HN thread about unreported drone strikes which hit #1 at 3AM EST will contain a fair representation of American opinions, but I digress. Tribalism and propaganda are closely related, in that the former contributes to the latter. However, the same is likely true of slavery and racism, the oppression of women, discrimination against gays, etc. You can limit all of these things without ending tribalism. At least I hope so, because tribalism is baked into human nature itself. So for example with propaganda, we can start by improving our history books and classes. And we've seen some of that over time. The way they taught kids about slavery in the 1920s, for example, was borderline criminal.
bmmayer1 10y ago
Right. The record of history is pretty clear that world powers can and have acted within a broad latitude of barbarity towards weaker nations, mostly on the 'barbaric' end of the spectrum. The record of history is also pretty clear that the US is the most docile and harmless of world powers that has ever existed. There's a reason we call it the Pax Americana--the 'overwhelming power' of the US has contributed to the peace, freedom and wealth of billions of people around the globe who aren't American. Let's compare that record with a random 'world superpower' selection: - Ancient Rome (constant war on the frontiers, relentless expansionism and imperialism) - Umayyad Caliphate (forced conversion by the sword, constant aggression towards neighbors) - Genghis Khan (mass murdering, raping, genocidal maniac) - the British Empire (slave trade, colonial domination) - The Soviet Union (worldwide support and funding of mass murderer by proxy) There has to be some perspective when talking about the US's role as the world police. There will always be a world superpower, and that superpower has the power to exercise restraint and civility when dealing with other nations. On that front 20th to 21st century America has taken an active role in: - Stabilizing world order through active involvement in mediating inter-national conflicts (League of Nations, then the United Nations) - Promoting globalization, free trade and free flow of capital and people amongst the nations of the world, including rival powers like Russia and China - Protecting NATO allies from the specter of the Soviet Union (for decades a very real threat to international peace, prosperity & stability) - Preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons which have apocalyptic potential to end life as we know it Now, it's hard to see how our (many admittedly unjustified) interventions in various regimes and countries throughout history outweighs the remarkable achievements of the Pax Americana. It would be hard to find another world superpower in history that comes anywhere close to the US in terms of stable, safe, prosperous and peaceful world governance.
- wz1000 10y ago
  With regards to domestic policy, the US was miles better than the USSR. With regards to foreign policy, the distinction isnt anywhere near that clear. The US has supported mass murders in Guatemala, Iran, Nicaragua, Pakistan/Bangladesh, Indonesia, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq since WW2 and I'm sure I'm missing a few. The nuclear arms race was also hardly one sided, and Kennedy in particular has a terrible record when it came to the imminent nuclear destruction of the world. The Cuban missile crisis was sparked of by NATO and US troop movements in Turkey and Eastern Europe. The United Nations in particular was deliberately crippled by the US. There are quotes from officials under Nixon and Ford who said they were deliberately instructed to sabotage UN proceedings relating to the Pakistani genocide in Bangladesh. There are also numerous such instances where the US has dramatically opposed international consensus and blocked the functioning of international agencies relating to Israel/Palestine, Rwanda, Cuba, Indonesia/East Timor and Nicaragua.
wz1000 10y ago
Yes, I would prefer a US hegemony over an ISIS hegemony. The comparison itself is ridiculous. But saying that the US has not used its military strength for its own benefit and at the expense of the people of other countries is ridiculous. The US staged a coup in Guatemala at the behest of the United Fruit Company, when the democratically elected Prime Minister of Guatemala wanted to end UFCs exploitative labor practices. This ultimately led to the US backed genocide of the Mayas in Guatemala. The US supported the Contras in Nicaragua and blatantly violated the sovereignty of the nation for its own interests, and was found to be violating international law. The ICJ demanded reparations for the human rights violations Nicaragua, which the US refused. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d'%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d'%C3%A9t... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States#U.S._defense_and_response https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States#U.S... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States#U.S._defense_and_response https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States#U.S...
- js8 10y ago
  I see it as different periods, really. The decisions are made by people, and there were different people in power in 1940s United States than in 1980s United States.
  - fit2rule 10y ago
    The decisions are made by people, following policies that have been in place for decades.
    - js8 10y ago
      Sometimes, sometimes not. Marshall plan wasn't based on decades of policy, but rather on decades of experience.
      - fit2rule 10y ago
        I think you mean to say: The Marshall Plan is a policy, formulated on the basis of decades of experience.
FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
This is not a good thought experiment. A better one would be what would each side in a conflict do AND it was the most powerful nation in the world economically, militarily, culturally, and diplomatically and was the arbiter of a global system that prioritizes economic growth and benefits more from trade with a sovereign than resource extraction via explicit, systematic repression from a puppet government. The United States simply has nothing to gain and everything to lose for applying those levels of violence that you consider evil. It is actively against their interest. Enslaving Germany and Japan after WWII would be counter to their objective as enslaved populations are not as efficient or productive. A democratic Japan is the world's 3rd largest economy and is an important strategic and trade partner. A brutally oppressed, unproductive Japan would harbor resentment and require an expensive, remote military garrison to contain. I believe that it is inappropriate to apply a moral dimension to the behavior of nation-states. In conflicts, the logic of violence is weighed between costs and benefits. When your adversary is an enemy of God, a spawn of Satan or some other type of evil, there is no moral good, no benefit in showing them mercy, it is in fact weakness and a moral failing not to expunge such evil. When you think of yourself as the "good guys", the other side is necessarily evil. Evil must be vanquished. That's my main argument against having a "good vs evil" worldview. It becomes easier to justify horrific actions directed at evil-doers. It's a binary, and, frankly, very naive and ignorant way of thinking about the world. Even in the canonical conflict of good vs evil in the 20th century, WWII, there were heroes on both sides, "good" and honorable men such as Erwin Rommel. One should always be wary of any group that explicitly refers to itself as the good guys. That should not need to be stated. Usually when someone says that, they're doing some heinous shit and are saying it to convince themselves that their actions are a means to an end for the "greater good" Let's be honest, this is tribalism, a matter of where in time and space you happened to be born. You are a westerner. Your side, where you are born, is the side that is the force for good. Try this thought experiment: imagine you were born in the ungoverned area of Pakistan, and, while attending a wedding, a faceless drone drops a bomb on the reception. Are you going to blame uncle Nazir, who came out of hiding to attend? Maybe he bears responsibility, but most bystanders will blame the perpetrator of the bombing. If one happened to be around a CIA station director when a suicide bomber detonated, I doubt many people are going to blame him or the United States for that.
Panoramix 10y ago
Japan is a particularly bad example: Truman and congress wanted to destroy Japan, make an example out of it. Destroy all of their industry and infrastructure. Except general MacArthur, the de facto ruler of the area openly disobeyed (quite unprecedented). He decided to rebuild Japan, because it was painfully obvious that they could use an ally. If it was up to the US government, they would be all but rubble.
- effie 10y ago
  That's interesting. How come one general overruled the president and congress?
stefantalpalaru 10y ago
> When they defeated Germany & Japan at the end of WWII did they enslave their people? Use their nuclear advantage to conquer new lands and colonize them? No, they rebuilt their economies and tried to ensure that they had stable governments & trading partners. The US influence and control over "liberated" Europe was much more discrete, but still as efficient: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio They still did their usual military coup routine in Greece - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_military_junta_of_1967%E2%80%9374 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_military_junta_of_1967%E... - and were really close to do the same in Italy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golpe_Borghese https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golpe_Borghese This degree of discrete but ruthless control is in place to this day: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident
0xfeba 10y ago
> No, they [the US] rebuilt their economies and tried to ensure that they had stable governments & trading partners. Except we completely stiffed Russia, who without which we wouldn't have won WWII, at least not so easily. And then since things were peaceful we decided to make the USSR the enemy for then next 40 years, via the threat of "communism" spreading. And that led to Vietnam, Korea, etc., and all the military action in virtually every country of Central/South America. No one is claiming we're all morally equal.
- refurb 10y ago
  Wow. I would disagree enitrely about how the west treated Russia. You're forgetting Stalin colluded with Hitler to split up Eastern Europe. That included murdering thousands of Polish officers who were a threat to Soviet rule. The only reason why Russia was fighting the Hitler was because he was double crossed. Russia's threat to European democracy was clearly evident even before WW2 started.
  - 0xfeba 10y ago
    > You're forgetting Stalin colluded with Hitler to split up Eastern Europe. That included murdering thousands of Polish officers who were a threat to Soviet rule. The only reason why Russia was fighting the Hitler was because he was double crossed. Yes, but Khrushchev was in power for the majority of time right after the war and was like a total 180 from Stalin, who seemed to honestly want to improve relations. But I suppose this is all hindsight.
- opo 10y ago
  >...Except we completely stiffed Russia, “stiffed” would imply we didn’t pay a debt we had previously agreed upon. Obviously that is not the case. As to why the Soviet Union or eastern Europe was not part of the Marshall Plan: >...Although offered participation, the Soviet Union refused Plan benefits, and also blocked benefits to Eastern Bloc countries, such as East Germany and Poland. The United States provided similar aid programs in Asia, but they were not called "Marshall Plan". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan

by avar 10y ago

watbot69 10y ago

Do you think the US is not using it's "overwhelming power" because of moral high ground or because it would spur a united retaliation as well as internal resistance?

skriticos2 10y ago

The US actions after WWII in the peace negotiations weren't as altruistic as you are trying to make out. In fact it was a reaction to the disastrous result of the peace negotiations after WWI, which greatly contributed to WWII, and with the USSR being what it was and everyone building nukes they probably thought WWIII was not in their interest. Building up western Europe was a strong force against the USSR and a convenient buffer zone.

js8 10y ago
Are you saying that if altruism (helping others) is a rational thing to do, then it's not really altruism? I find that argument a little strange.
- maxvu 10y ago
  Altruism isn't "helping others", it's "helping others for others' sake". Other motivations muddy the selflessness.
  - js8 10y ago
    But isn't that the case here? US didn't expect anything in return other than side effects of Europe being stronger (which was an advantage for them as well).
    - saiya-jin 10y ago
      to enforce future battlefield so war could potentially be fought only far, far away and enemy would weaken itself, and US would benefit in similar fashion as from WWII... I am sure there were many aspects considered for Marshall plan, some could probably be called altruistic, but many could be called selfish.
      - lambdadmitry 10y ago
        >some could probably be called altruistic, but many could be called selfish This is a zero-sum mentality in a sense. There are deals that benefit both sides, so there is no sense in selfish/altruistic dichotomy. One can be both "selfish" and "good" by pursuing positive-sum deals.
  - lambdadmitry 10y ago
    I believe most people don't assume that US (or other country, for that matter) is "truly altruistic" in your definition. However, the US is the first world power to make positive-sum policies the basis of its foreign relations (starting from the Marshall Plan onwards). You are right that this is not "selflessness", but positive-sum is even better as it is a sustainable approach.

csallen 10y ago

On one hand, I think that's a great thought experiment. You're right, there are nuances here, and oversimplifying into good vs evil doesn't serve anyone well. On the other hand, it's sort of a disingenuous thought experiment, because everyone is already in 100% agreement that Nazi Germany, ISIS, Saddam, etc are morally awful. However we've been brainwashed into thinking that we're saints. So which perception is it that needs correcting?

soundwave106 10y ago
Some people are brainwashed into thinking that we are saints. As you can see in this thread, however, there are a fair amount of people that are quite aware of the United States' issues. (I also think it's not that great to cartoonishly portray Nazi Germany / ISIS / Saddam as one dimensional stock evil cartoon characters; this is also a sort of "brainwashing" from my perspective. Yes, these cultures also have done some awful, awful things, however I feel it is important not to erase the human impulse and circumstances that caused these to develop.) From a general audience perspective, I'm personally pretty cynical on addressing this though. In theory, it would be nice to see an end to "mass propaganda and willful ignorance". In practice, I honestly can't think of a country in which no propaganda occurs, and there is no such thing as state secrets. The United States may have done some awful things over the last 70 years, but so have other less powerful countries. Were the situation different, and another country dominant instead of the US... well, I personally would expect very similar results. I can't think of any nation / community / tribe that doesn't do some sort of bending and filtering of worldview. So from my perspective this really isn't a nation problem, this is a core human issue: tribalism. Resolving the issues that come up with tribalism would be great. However, given that it's such a core behavior of humanity, I think this is going to be terribly difficult, perhaps impossible, to do. It would be nice if I was wrong...
- csallen 10y ago
  It's unlikely that an HN thread about unreported drone strikes which hit #1 at 3AM EST will contain a fair representation of American opinions, but I digress. Tribalism and propaganda are closely related, in that the former contributes to the latter. However, the same is likely true of slavery and racism, the oppression of women, discrimination against gays, etc. You can limit all of these things without ending tribalism. At least I hope so, because tribalism is baked into human nature itself. So for example with propaganda, we can start by improving our history books and classes. And we've seen some of that over time. The way they taught kids about slavery in the 1920s, for example, was borderline criminal.

bmmayer1 10y ago

Right. The record of history is pretty clear that world powers can and have acted within a broad latitude of barbarity towards weaker nations, mostly on the 'barbaric' end of the spectrum. The record of history is also pretty clear that the US is the most docile and harmless of world powers that has ever existed. There's a reason we call it the Pax Americana--the 'overwhelming power' of the US has contributed to the peace, freedom and wealth of billions of people around the globe who aren't American. Let's compare that record with a random 'world superpower' selection: - Ancient Rome (constant war on the frontiers, relentless expansionism and imperialism) - Umayyad Caliphate (forced conversion by the sword, constant aggression towards neighbors) - Genghis Khan (mass murdering, raping, genocidal maniac) - the British Empire (slave trade, colonial domination) - The Soviet Union (worldwide support and funding of mass murderer by proxy) There has to be some perspective when talking about the US's role as the world police. There will always be a world superpower, and that superpower has the power to exercise restraint and civility when dealing with other nations. On that front 20th to 21st century America has taken an active role in: - Stabilizing world order through active involvement in mediating inter-national conflicts (League of Nations, then the United Nations) - Promoting globalization, free trade and free flow of capital and people amongst the nations of the world, including rival powers like Russia and China - Protecting NATO allies from the specter of the Soviet Union (for decades a very real threat to international peace, prosperity & stability) - Preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons which have apocalyptic potential to end life as we know it Now, it's hard to see how our (many admittedly unjustified) interventions in various regimes and countries throughout history outweighs the remarkable achievements of the Pax Americana. It would be hard to find another world superpower in history that comes anywhere close to the US in terms of stable, safe, prosperous and peaceful world governance.

wz1000 10y ago
With regards to domestic policy, the US was miles better than the USSR. With regards to foreign policy, the distinction isnt anywhere near that clear. The US has supported mass murders in Guatemala, Iran, Nicaragua, Pakistan/Bangladesh, Indonesia, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq since WW2 and I'm sure I'm missing a few. The nuclear arms race was also hardly one sided, and Kennedy in particular has a terrible record when it came to the imminent nuclear destruction of the world. The Cuban missile crisis was sparked of by NATO and US troop movements in Turkey and Eastern Europe. The United Nations in particular was deliberately crippled by the US. There are quotes from officials under Nixon and Ford who said they were deliberately instructed to sabotage UN proceedings relating to the Pakistani genocide in Bangladesh. There are also numerous such instances where the US has dramatically opposed international consensus and blocked the functioning of international agencies relating to Israel/Palestine, Rwanda, Cuba, Indonesia/East Timor and Nicaragua.

wz1000 10y ago

Yes, I would prefer a US hegemony over an ISIS hegemony. The comparison itself is ridiculous. But saying that the US has not used its military strength for its own benefit and at the expense of the people of other countries is ridiculous. The US staged a coup in Guatemala at the behest of the United Fruit Company, when the democratically elected Prime Minister of Guatemala wanted to end UFCs exploitative labor practices. This ultimately led to the US backed genocide of the Mayas in Guatemala. The US supported the Contras in Nicaragua and blatantly violated the sovereignty of the nation for its own interests, and was found to be violating international law. The ICJ demanded reparations for the human rights violations Nicaragua, which the US refused. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d'%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d'%C3%A9t... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States#U.S._defense_and_response https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States#U.S... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States#U.S._defense_and_response https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States#U.S...

js8 10y ago
I see it as different periods, really. The decisions are made by people, and there were different people in power in 1940s United States than in 1980s United States.
- fit2rule 10y ago
  The decisions are made by people, following policies that have been in place for decades.
  - js8 10y ago
    Sometimes, sometimes not. Marshall plan wasn't based on decades of policy, but rather on decades of experience.
    - fit2rule 10y ago
      I think you mean to say: The Marshall Plan is a policy, formulated on the basis of decades of experience.

FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago

This is not a good thought experiment. A better one would be what would each side in a conflict do AND it was the most powerful nation in the world economically, militarily, culturally, and diplomatically and was the arbiter of a global system that prioritizes economic growth and benefits more from trade with a sovereign than resource extraction via explicit, systematic repression from a puppet government. The United States simply has nothing to gain and everything to lose for applying those levels of violence that you consider evil. It is actively against their interest. Enslaving Germany and Japan after WWII would be counter to their objective as enslaved populations are not as efficient or productive. A democratic Japan is the world's 3rd largest economy and is an important strategic and trade partner. A brutally oppressed, unproductive Japan would harbor resentment and require an expensive, remote military garrison to contain. I believe that it is inappropriate to apply a moral dimension to the behavior of nation-states. In conflicts, the logic of violence is weighed between costs and benefits. When your adversary is an enemy of God, a spawn of Satan or some other type of evil, there is no moral good, no benefit in showing them mercy, it is in fact weakness and a moral failing not to expunge such evil. When you think of yourself as the "good guys", the other side is necessarily evil. Evil must be vanquished. That's my main argument against having a "good vs evil" worldview. It becomes easier to justify horrific actions directed at evil-doers. It's a binary, and, frankly, very naive and ignorant way of thinking about the world. Even in the canonical conflict of good vs evil in the 20th century, WWII, there were heroes on both sides, "good" and honorable men such as Erwin Rommel. One should always be wary of any group that explicitly refers to itself as the good guys. That should not need to be stated. Usually when someone says that, they're doing some heinous shit and are saying it to convince themselves that their actions are a means to an end for the "greater good" Let's be honest, this is tribalism, a matter of where in time and space you happened to be born. You are a westerner. Your side, where you are born, is the side that is the force for good. Try this thought experiment: imagine you were born in the ungoverned area of Pakistan, and, while attending a wedding, a faceless drone drops a bomb on the reception. Are you going to blame uncle Nazir, who came out of hiding to attend? Maybe he bears responsibility, but most bystanders will blame the perpetrator of the bombing. If one happened to be around a CIA station director when a suicide bomber detonated, I doubt many people are going to blame him or the United States for that.

Panoramix 10y ago

Japan is a particularly bad example: Truman and congress wanted to destroy Japan, make an example out of it. Destroy all of their industry and infrastructure. Except general MacArthur, the de facto ruler of the area openly disobeyed (quite unprecedented). He decided to rebuild Japan, because it was painfully obvious that they could use an ally. If it was up to the US government, they would be all but rubble.

effie 10y ago
That's interesting. How come one general overruled the president and congress?

stefantalpalaru 10y ago

> When they defeated Germany & Japan at the end of WWII did they enslave their people? Use their nuclear advantage to conquer new lands and colonize them? No, they rebuilt their economies and tried to ensure that they had stable governments & trading partners. The US influence and control over "liberated" Europe was much more discrete, but still as efficient: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio They still did their usual military coup routine in Greece - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_military_junta_of_1967%E2%80%9374 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_military_junta_of_1967%E... - and were really close to do the same in Italy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golpe_Borghese https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golpe_Borghese This degree of discrete but ruthless control is in place to this day: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident

0xfeba 10y ago

> No, they [the US] rebuilt their economies and tried to ensure that they had stable governments & trading partners. Except we completely stiffed Russia, who without which we wouldn't have won WWII, at least not so easily. And then since things were peaceful we decided to make the USSR the enemy for then next 40 years, via the threat of "communism" spreading. And that led to Vietnam, Korea, etc., and all the military action in virtually every country of Central/South America. No one is claiming we're all morally equal.

refurb 10y ago
Wow. I would disagree enitrely about how the west treated Russia. You're forgetting Stalin colluded with Hitler to split up Eastern Europe. That included murdering thousands of Polish officers who were a threat to Soviet rule. The only reason why Russia was fighting the Hitler was because he was double crossed. Russia's threat to European democracy was clearly evident even before WW2 started.
- 0xfeba 10y ago
  > You're forgetting Stalin colluded with Hitler to split up Eastern Europe. That included murdering thousands of Polish officers who were a threat to Soviet rule. The only reason why Russia was fighting the Hitler was because he was double crossed. Yes, but Khrushchev was in power for the majority of time right after the war and was like a total 180 from Stalin, who seemed to honestly want to improve relations. But I suppose this is all hindsight.
opo 10y ago
>...Except we completely stiffed Russia, “stiffed” would imply we didn’t pay a debt we had previously agreed upon. Obviously that is not the case. As to why the Soviet Union or eastern Europe was not part of the Marshall Plan: >...Although offered participation, the Soviet Union refused Plan benefits, and also blocked benefits to Eastern Bloc countries, such as East Germany and Poland. The United States provided similar aid programs in Asia, but they were not called "Marshall Plan". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan