6 ms·

WW 2 is the war that took the USA from an isolationist power to global policeman. Conversely it set the UK (and to a lesser extent, France) on the path of libe

by btilly 7y ago

WW 2 is the war that took the USA from an isolationist power to global policeman. Conversely it set the UK (and to a lesser extent, France) on the path of liberating their colonies. It also set the state for the UN to be created. And the groundwork for a new international norm against wars of conquest. Yes, the same countries wound up staying in charge. But it transformed the world.

dntbnmpls 7y ago
> WW 2 is the war that took the USA from an isolationist power to global policeman. The US was never isolationist. It's one of those lies that we tell ourselves to pretend we aren't an empire. If we were isolationists, we would be a 13 state nation. Our first vassal nation was japan and we got them in the 1850s. But of course, we'd never call them that since that's what empires do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Expedition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Expedition Go read up on the spanish american war and the colonies we got from that ( also in the 1800s ). And of course wars to prevent freedom of the philippines, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_Wa... Go read about the Great White Fleet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_White_Fleet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_White_Fleet For an isolationist nation, we sure did get around. > Conversely it set the UK (and to a lesser extent, France) on the path of liberating their colonies. Path of "liberating"? The UK and France didn't liberate anything. The indians, vietnamese, etc all fought bloody wars to free themselves from their brutal colonial masters. Tens of millions of indians, vietnamese, algerians, sub-saharan africans, burmese, etc had to die to liberate themselves. India, vietnam, algeria, etc weren't given their freedom by the "gracious" brits, french, etc. The british, french, etc colonizers were never the good guys. > And the groundwork for a new international norm against wars of conquest. How convenient since the world had already been conquered by the winners huh? Not much left to conquer other than land dominated by the "winners". Also it wasn't anything new. The league of nations already laid the groundwork. Funnily enough, germany and japan weren't too fond of that since they had just begun their quest for conquest. > Yes, the same countries wound up staying in charge. But it transformed the world. The former negates the latter. If you could point out the fundamental ( paradigm shift ) that occurred because of ww2, I'm all ears. Instead of saying it transformed the world, point out the transformation.
- mannykannot 7y ago
  I am sure you will have a reply to all of the following (and I could probably come up with some arguments of my own, if I were so inclined), but here's a few more arguably transformational consequences: 1. The rise of the USSR as a global actor. 2. The rise of communist China. 3. The demilitarization of Japan, and the ending of its colonial ambitions. 4. The development and use of nuclear weapons, transforming what it means to be a global actor. 5. The foundation of Israel, transforming the politics of the Middle East and beyond. 6. The rise of the dollar. 7. The effective end of Western European military competition. There is also something significant for not happening: 8. The USA exploiting its monopoly of nuclear weaponry beyond the defeat of Japan. I agree with you that colonialism was on its way out regardless, but WW2 and its immediate consequences may have accelerated it, arguably leading to 9. A redefinition of what expansionism means. As I don't think the 'mega wars' theory is any more the whole of history than the 'great men' theory, I do not want to exaggerate WW2's importance (and, furthermore, I consider WW2 in Europe to be a continuation of WW1), but it seems inarguable that things changed quite significantly (including of course, the fact that the tensions that precipitated the war were no longer in effect afterwards.)
  - dntbnmpls 7y ago
    > but here's a few more arguably transformational consequences: You are confusing important happenings to transformational changes ( ie paradigm shifts ). Nothing you listed are transformation changes to the world order. The soviet union existed before ww2 and they were a dominant force before ww2. Communist china rose within the ( american/anglo-american/western/international ) world order. Probably the most important geopolitic event in the 20th century was the collapse of the soviet union. But it wasn't transformational. It didn't cause a paradigm shift. The world order remained. > but it seems inarguable that things changed quite significantly Change happened within a western world order. It wasn't transformational to the world order. Lots of history happened after ww2. What didn't happen was a transformational change to the world order. Man landed on the moon. Didn't change the world order.
    - mannykannot 7y ago

by btilly 7y ago

dntbnmpls 7y ago

> WW 2 is the war that took the USA from an isolationist power to global policeman. The US was never isolationist. It's one of those lies that we tell ourselves to pretend we aren't an empire. If we were isolationists, we would be a 13 state nation. Our first vassal nation was japan and we got them in the 1850s. But of course, we'd never call them that since that's what empires do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Expedition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Expedition Go read up on the spanish american war and the colonies we got from that ( also in the 1800s ). And of course wars to prevent freedom of the philippines, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_Wa... Go read about the Great White Fleet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_White_Fleet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_White_Fleet For an isolationist nation, we sure did get around. > Conversely it set the UK (and to a lesser extent, France) on the path of liberating their colonies. Path of "liberating"? The UK and France didn't liberate anything. The indians, vietnamese, etc all fought bloody wars to free themselves from their brutal colonial masters. Tens of millions of indians, vietnamese, algerians, sub-saharan africans, burmese, etc had to die to liberate themselves. India, vietnam, algeria, etc weren't given their freedom by the "gracious" brits, french, etc. The british, french, etc colonizers were never the good guys. > And the groundwork for a new international norm against wars of conquest. How convenient since the world had already been conquered by the winners huh? Not much left to conquer other than land dominated by the "winners". Also it wasn't anything new. The league of nations already laid the groundwork. Funnily enough, germany and japan weren't too fond of that since they had just begun their quest for conquest. > Yes, the same countries wound up staying in charge. But it transformed the world. The former negates the latter. If you could point out the fundamental ( paradigm shift ) that occurred because of ww2, I'm all ears. Instead of saying it transformed the world, point out the transformation.

mannykannot 7y ago
I am sure you will have a reply to all of the following (and I could probably come up with some arguments of my own, if I were so inclined), but here's a few more arguably transformational consequences: 1. The rise of the USSR as a global actor. 2. The rise of communist China. 3. The demilitarization of Japan, and the ending of its colonial ambitions. 4. The development and use of nuclear weapons, transforming what it means to be a global actor. 5. The foundation of Israel, transforming the politics of the Middle East and beyond. 6. The rise of the dollar. 7. The effective end of Western European military competition. There is also something significant for not happening: 8. The USA exploiting its monopoly of nuclear weaponry beyond the defeat of Japan. I agree with you that colonialism was on its way out regardless, but WW2 and its immediate consequences may have accelerated it, arguably leading to 9. A redefinition of what expansionism means. As I don't think the 'mega wars' theory is any more the whole of history than the 'great men' theory, I do not want to exaggerate WW2's importance (and, furthermore, I consider WW2 in Europe to be a continuation of WW1), but it seems inarguable that things changed quite significantly (including of course, the fact that the tensions that precipitated the war were no longer in effect afterwards.)
- dntbnmpls 7y ago
  > but here's a few more arguably transformational consequences: You are confusing important happenings to transformational changes ( ie paradigm shifts ). Nothing you listed are transformation changes to the world order. The soviet union existed before ww2 and they were a dominant force before ww2. Communist china rose within the ( american/anglo-american/western/international ) world order. Probably the most important geopolitic event in the 20th century was the collapse of the soviet union. But it wasn't transformational. It didn't cause a paradigm shift. The world order remained. > but it seems inarguable that things changed quite significantly Change happened within a western world order. It wasn't transformational to the world order. Lots of history happened after ww2. What didn't happen was a transformational change to the world order. Man landed on the moon. Didn't change the world order.
  - mannykannot 7y ago