4 ms·

I agree with you that the US does not have the political legitimacy for conscription right now, and its surprising that they did for WW1, WW2, Korea, and Vietna

I agree with you that the US does not have the political legitimacy for conscription right now, and its surprising that they did for WW1, WW2, Korea, and Vietnam. None of those conflicts were existential for the US, they were all power plays of some kind.

shepherdjerred 3y ago
How in the world was WW2 a power play for the US?
- palmfacehn 3y ago
  To be concise, power shifted to the US. The colonial era ended or was slated to end. Former colonies were liberated and became client states of the US. The US retained an industrial base, Europe did not. The Bretton Woods agreement was signed. The Marshall plan was enacted. The Euro-Dollar system followed. As the sole remaining industrial power the US was able to dictate terms to the rest of the world. The topic goes quite deep. I'm sure better minds have written books arguing the specifics.
  - Analemma_ 3y ago
    That's a very different claim from what was said originally though. It's true that World War II resulted in the US being much more powerful, but the evidence that this was the intention all along in joining the war is very shaky. Both among national elites, and even moreso among the general public, opinion was pretty strongly isolationist and against getting involved in World War II until Pearl Harbor happened. There's not really any reason to believe that there was a master plan to make the US the global superpower by entering the war, it just kind of happened.
    - shepherdjerred 3y ago
      That's my understanding as well. We _may_ have entered the war if Pearl Harbor had never happened. If the Japanese had not attacked, the United States certainly would've entered the war later, but I don't think you could ever refer to it as a "power play".
    - palmfacehn 3y ago
      Entering later rather than sooner was a power play. Ascribing intent is tricky here. Personifying the modern state is another iffy area. "Directed history" is another can of worms.
      - Analemma_ 3y ago
        Again, I think this is wrong and you're suffering some hindsight bias. In retrospect it can look like the entry of the United States into WWII was always inevitable, but this is not how people saw things at the time. Up through 1941 the American public saw the war as a European affair that was not our problem: people were strongly against actual military involvement and even the Lend-Lease Act was quite controversial. It wasn't until Pearl Harbor that the entry of the US into the war was a sure thing.
        palmfacehn 3y ago
        It is too subjective to ascribe intent. It is worse than psychoanalysis because "the US" isn't a distinct individual. Instead there's a collection of individuals, all with different sets of sometimes overlapping incentives. Inevitability isn't the question. Rather, "power play" in terms of post-hoc analysis is the only question we can probe. Suggesting otherwise is a leap beyond conjecture. Without implying that this was the analysis at the time, we can safely say that the US was positioned to be the sole remaining industrial superpower post war, if the US entered the war at the time which it did. If it had entered earlier or not at all, this may not have been the case. The original comment was concise. Perhaps it was appropriate for a simple assertion, but it did leave room for ambiguity.
  - shepherdjerred 3y ago
    You're totally right: the outcome of WW2 had a lot of effects that ultimately benefited the United States. My reply was directed towards the idea that the US entered WW2 as a "power play", not that the outcome of the war resulted in more power for the US. The primary reason the US entered WW2 was because of Pearl Harbor.
- Footnote7341 3y ago
  There is a reason that FDR fully intended to fight a pacific war years before pearl harbor ever happened. Japan doesn't just attack Hawaii because they were deranged.
  - shepherdjerred 3y ago
    The United States might not have entered the war at all had the Japanese not attacked. The American public was split up until Pearl Harbor. Entering WW2 is the most righteous thing the US has ever done. I know that the US has done a lot of wrong, but I cannot imagine how much more suffering there would've been if the Axis had won.
analognoise 3y ago
WW2 wasn't existential? If WW2 wasn't existential I don't know where the bar is.
- Footnote7341 3y ago
  There was zero threat to CONUS during WW2. If you understand that FDR was planning on fighting a pacific war long before pearl harbor it makes a lot more sense.
  - analognoise 3y ago
    The USA is not just CONUS. Also there was a Japanese plan to unlease the plague on San Diego - it was ended by WW2. Not...quite sure how much of a threat "attacked Hawaii, allies under attack, plans to send plague to San Diego" all groups up to be, but yeah it was existential.

shepherdjerred 3y ago

How in the world was WW2 a power play for the US?

palmfacehn 3y ago
To be concise, power shifted to the US. The colonial era ended or was slated to end. Former colonies were liberated and became client states of the US. The US retained an industrial base, Europe did not. The Bretton Woods agreement was signed. The Marshall plan was enacted. The Euro-Dollar system followed. As the sole remaining industrial power the US was able to dictate terms to the rest of the world. The topic goes quite deep. I'm sure better minds have written books arguing the specifics.
- Analemma_ 3y ago
  That's a very different claim from what was said originally though. It's true that World War II resulted in the US being much more powerful, but the evidence that this was the intention all along in joining the war is very shaky. Both among national elites, and even moreso among the general public, opinion was pretty strongly isolationist and against getting involved in World War II until Pearl Harbor happened. There's not really any reason to believe that there was a master plan to make the US the global superpower by entering the war, it just kind of happened.
  - shepherdjerred 3y ago
    That's my understanding as well. We _may_ have entered the war if Pearl Harbor had never happened. If the Japanese had not attacked, the United States certainly would've entered the war later, but I don't think you could ever refer to it as a "power play".
  - palmfacehn 3y ago
    Entering later rather than sooner was a power play. Ascribing intent is tricky here. Personifying the modern state is another iffy area. "Directed history" is another can of worms.
    - Analemma_ 3y ago
      Again, I think this is wrong and you're suffering some hindsight bias. In retrospect it can look like the entry of the United States into WWII was always inevitable, but this is not how people saw things at the time. Up through 1941 the American public saw the war as a European affair that was not our problem: people were strongly against actual military involvement and even the Lend-Lease Act was quite controversial. It wasn't until Pearl Harbor that the entry of the US into the war was a sure thing.
      - palmfacehn 3y ago
        It is too subjective to ascribe intent. It is worse than psychoanalysis because "the US" isn't a distinct individual. Instead there's a collection of individuals, all with different sets of sometimes overlapping incentives. Inevitability isn't the question. Rather, "power play" in terms of post-hoc analysis is the only question we can probe. Suggesting otherwise is a leap beyond conjecture. Without implying that this was the analysis at the time, we can safely say that the US was positioned to be the sole remaining industrial superpower post war, if the US entered the war at the time which it did. If it had entered earlier or not at all, this may not have been the case. The original comment was concise. Perhaps it was appropriate for a simple assertion, but it did leave room for ambiguity.
- shepherdjerred 3y ago
  You're totally right: the outcome of WW2 had a lot of effects that ultimately benefited the United States. My reply was directed towards the idea that the US entered WW2 as a "power play", not that the outcome of the war resulted in more power for the US. The primary reason the US entered WW2 was because of Pearl Harbor.
Footnote7341 3y ago
There is a reason that FDR fully intended to fight a pacific war years before pearl harbor ever happened. Japan doesn't just attack Hawaii because they were deranged.
- shepherdjerred 3y ago
  The United States might not have entered the war at all had the Japanese not attacked. The American public was split up until Pearl Harbor. Entering WW2 is the most righteous thing the US has ever done. I know that the US has done a lot of wrong, but I cannot imagine how much more suffering there would've been if the Axis had won.

analognoise 3y ago

WW2 wasn't existential? If WW2 wasn't existential I don't know where the bar is.

Footnote7341 3y ago
There was zero threat to CONUS during WW2. If you understand that FDR was planning on fighting a pacific war long before pearl harbor it makes a lot more sense.
- analognoise 3y ago
  The USA is not just CONUS. Also there was a Japanese plan to unlease the plague on San Diego - it was ended by WW2. Not...quite sure how much of a threat "attacked Hawaii, allies under attack, plans to send plague to San Diego" all groups up to be, but yeah it was existential.