4 ms·

Because America can’t be trusted.

eastbound 27d ago
Yes. Also to note, why was the US trusted before? I think it's a heritage from the Marshall plan: The US saved us twice from Germany, therefore we owe them our nations and storing our gold there won't change much. A century later, it does. I'd rephrase the question as: Would you trust your parents? In childhood years probably, because you owe them your education anyway.
- rjzzleep 27d ago
  I think you should look up the Morgenthau plan and look at the state of Germany today. Of course people will say that it's all because of Germany's own decisions. To which I would counter that Germany doesn't any sovereign decisions and the last time it did that was in 2011.
  - gregorygoc 27d ago
    What happened in 2011 and why were there no sovereign decisions afterwards?
  - mschuster91 27d ago
    > I think you should look up the Morgenthau plan and look at the state of Germany today. That plan never got implemented.
- deepsun 27d ago
  And because of the very convenient geographical location USA is unlikely to be invaded. You'd want your gold to be safe.
  - aequitas 26d ago
    Unless it’s invaded from the inside.
- lovich 27d ago
  I mean, we were trusted but also not fully. This isnt the first time European powers repatriated gold from the US. In 1971 France sent their navy to take their gold back because of another conservative US leader who decided to try and leverage our power at the expense of international trust and lost us a portion of said power[1]. I am an American. I preferred when we were stronger because we sweetened the deal enough with everyone else that they let us be world financier/police/anti piracy force/etc. This fucking machismo theory taking over the older conservatives and the "The Torment Nexus was actually an awesome idea" taking over the tech bros and younger conservatives is fucking destroying us. Both groups seem incapable of believing in a win/win deal. Its also zero sum game to these fuckers and thus our soft power, and eventually our hard power, is being lost. [1]https://www.helleniscope.com/2025/07/31/august-1971-the-day-a-french-warship-came-to-new-york-to-repatriate-french-gold/ https://www.helleniscope.com/2025/07/31/august-1971-the-day-...
  - ElProlactin 27d ago
    It's not really "eventually" for our hard power. Iran has exposed many limitations and weaknesses in America's defense capabilities, and it's a fraction of the threat China is. We have 0 carrier strike groups in the Indo-Pacific right now.
    - lovich 27d ago
      I think its eventually in that if we put our might behind it we could take probably any 2-3 major military powers on the planet at the current moment, but that's with the caveat that putting our might behind it means tens to hundreds of thousands of dead military members which we as a nation have lost the stomach for. I am saying eventually in that I think we will not even be able to do that if we found our grit again in the coming years as long as we are prioritizing raising testosterone in individual soldiers and removing qualified women and minorities from our military over having competent leaders and prioritizing logistics.
      - ElProlactin 27d ago
        Sorry, the ship has already sailed. 1. In Iran alone, the US has depleted stocks of some of its most advanced and important weapons systems. 2. The US does not have the manufacturing capacity for an extended conflict (China does) and the US is in fact dependent on Chinese components and raw materials. 3. As it relates to a China contingency in the Taiwan Strait: the Strait is ~140 miles at its widest point, and the Chinese have spent 20+ years investing in A2/AD capabilities. Given the state of the US military right now, it's hard to see how the US could overcome China's geographic advantage. 4. Our most important allies don't trust us (and we're even threatening some of them) so don't expect them to help. 5. Some of the most experienced and competent military leaders have been pushed out by an unqualified alcoholic who is more interested in how many pushups the cannon fodder can do than he is in how many ships America can build.
- kergonath 27d ago
  > Also to note, why was the US trusted before? Trust was never absolute. What we trusted was that the US would act rationally to further their interests. The US benefited tremendously from economic development across the world (industrialisation, free trade, rebuilding after the wars, etc). Sometimes the US government miscalculated (like in Iraq), but there was nothing really destructive like what Trump is doing. Even when we disagreed we could still talk things through and agree on other things. Now, you have Trump insulting allies and praising ennemies every day. Of course there is no trust.
- FjordWarden 27d ago
  There is a very awkward episode in Belgium national history, at the eve of WWII, the then minister of finance Camille Gutt, had the foresight to move tonnes of gold from the national bank to America and France but for some reason our king did not manage to pack his bags in time and was captured by the Nazis.
  - koonsolo 27d ago
    Do you have any reference to your story? Because this is not the historically accepted one. From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_III_of_Belgium#World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_III_of_Belgium#World_W...): "On 24 May 1940, Leopold, having assumed command of the Belgian Army, met with his ministers for the final time. The ministers urged the king to leave the country with the government. Prime Minister Hubert Pierlot reminded him that capitulation was a decision for the Belgian government, not for the king, to make. The king indicated that he had decided to remain in Belgium with his troops, whatever the outcome. The ministers took this to mean that he would establish a new government under the direction of Hitler, potentially a treasonous act. Leopold thought that he might be seen as a deserter if he were to leave the country: "He was resolved to remain with his army and amidst his people so as to share their fate."[6] Leopold had long had a difficult and contentious relationship with his ministers, acting independently of government influence whenever possible, and seeking to circumvent and even limit the ministers' powers, while expanding his own."
    - FjordWarden 27d ago
      Yes sorry I forgot to mention the king would have been like 70kg max so easier to transport then tonnes of gold.
- roenxi 27d ago
  In this context "trust" is something of a euphemism. The US had a big enough military relatively speaking that if they came for your gold then it wasn't feasible to stop them unless you were part of a competing bloc. So, you know. Keep the gold somewhere the US is happy with. Best shot of getting to a good outcome, and the US was pretty reasonable in the 1900s. That all appears to have changed. They may already have lost the ability to physically coerce even medium powers and at any rate look like they have to retreat the boundaries of their global Not-An-Empire. So it makes sense to start rethinking the gold's physical location.
- matkoniecz 27d ago
  > why was the US trusted before? because risk of US stealing gold was lower and potential usefulness in case of being invaded by Russia et all was higher?
- tim333 27d ago
  The US constitution is strong against despots and pro law. It's being tested now but I think maga too will pass. The US is largely immune to being invaded due to having a lot of guns and a lot of ocean. This long predates Marshall.

Yes. Also to note, why was the US trusted before? I think it's a heritage from the Marshall plan: The US saved us twice from Germany, therefore we owe them our nations and storing our gold there won't change much. A century later, it does. I'd rephrase the question as: Would you trust your parents? In childhood years probably, because you owe them your education anyway.

rjzzleep 27d ago
I think you should look up the Morgenthau plan and look at the state of Germany today. Of course people will say that it's all because of Germany's own decisions. To which I would counter that Germany doesn't any sovereign decisions and the last time it did that was in 2011.
- gregorygoc 27d ago
  What happened in 2011 and why were there no sovereign decisions afterwards?
- mschuster91 27d ago
  > I think you should look up the Morgenthau plan and look at the state of Germany today. That plan never got implemented.
deepsun 27d ago
And because of the very convenient geographical location USA is unlikely to be invaded. You'd want your gold to be safe.
- aequitas 26d ago
  Unless it’s invaded from the inside.
lovich 27d ago
I mean, we were trusted but also not fully. This isnt the first time European powers repatriated gold from the US. In 1971 France sent their navy to take their gold back because of another conservative US leader who decided to try and leverage our power at the expense of international trust and lost us a portion of said power[1]. I am an American. I preferred when we were stronger because we sweetened the deal enough with everyone else that they let us be world financier/police/anti piracy force/etc. This fucking machismo theory taking over the older conservatives and the "The Torment Nexus was actually an awesome idea" taking over the tech bros and younger conservatives is fucking destroying us. Both groups seem incapable of believing in a win/win deal. Its also zero sum game to these fuckers and thus our soft power, and eventually our hard power, is being lost. [1]https://www.helleniscope.com/2025/07/31/august-1971-the-day-a-french-warship-came-to-new-york-to-repatriate-french-gold/ https://www.helleniscope.com/2025/07/31/august-1971-the-day-...
- ElProlactin 27d ago
  It's not really "eventually" for our hard power. Iran has exposed many limitations and weaknesses in America's defense capabilities, and it's a fraction of the threat China is. We have 0 carrier strike groups in the Indo-Pacific right now.
  - lovich 27d ago
    I think its eventually in that if we put our might behind it we could take probably any 2-3 major military powers on the planet at the current moment, but that's with the caveat that putting our might behind it means tens to hundreds of thousands of dead military members which we as a nation have lost the stomach for. I am saying eventually in that I think we will not even be able to do that if we found our grit again in the coming years as long as we are prioritizing raising testosterone in individual soldiers and removing qualified women and minorities from our military over having competent leaders and prioritizing logistics.
    - ElProlactin 27d ago
      Sorry, the ship has already sailed. 1. In Iran alone, the US has depleted stocks of some of its most advanced and important weapons systems. 2. The US does not have the manufacturing capacity for an extended conflict (China does) and the US is in fact dependent on Chinese components and raw materials. 3. As it relates to a China contingency in the Taiwan Strait: the Strait is ~140 miles at its widest point, and the Chinese have spent 20+ years investing in A2/AD capabilities. Given the state of the US military right now, it's hard to see how the US could overcome China's geographic advantage. 4. Our most important allies don't trust us (and we're even threatening some of them) so don't expect them to help. 5. Some of the most experienced and competent military leaders have been pushed out by an unqualified alcoholic who is more interested in how many pushups the cannon fodder can do than he is in how many ships America can build.
kergonath 27d ago
> Also to note, why was the US trusted before? Trust was never absolute. What we trusted was that the US would act rationally to further their interests. The US benefited tremendously from economic development across the world (industrialisation, free trade, rebuilding after the wars, etc). Sometimes the US government miscalculated (like in Iraq), but there was nothing really destructive like what Trump is doing. Even when we disagreed we could still talk things through and agree on other things. Now, you have Trump insulting allies and praising ennemies every day. Of course there is no trust.
FjordWarden 27d ago
There is a very awkward episode in Belgium national history, at the eve of WWII, the then minister of finance Camille Gutt, had the foresight to move tonnes of gold from the national bank to America and France but for some reason our king did not manage to pack his bags in time and was captured by the Nazis.
- koonsolo 27d ago
  Do you have any reference to your story? Because this is not the historically accepted one. From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_III_of_Belgium#World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_III_of_Belgium#World_W...): "On 24 May 1940, Leopold, having assumed command of the Belgian Army, met with his ministers for the final time. The ministers urged the king to leave the country with the government. Prime Minister Hubert Pierlot reminded him that capitulation was a decision for the Belgian government, not for the king, to make. The king indicated that he had decided to remain in Belgium with his troops, whatever the outcome. The ministers took this to mean that he would establish a new government under the direction of Hitler, potentially a treasonous act. Leopold thought that he might be seen as a deserter if he were to leave the country: "He was resolved to remain with his army and amidst his people so as to share their fate."[6] Leopold had long had a difficult and contentious relationship with his ministers, acting independently of government influence whenever possible, and seeking to circumvent and even limit the ministers' powers, while expanding his own."
  - FjordWarden 27d ago
    Yes sorry I forgot to mention the king would have been like 70kg max so easier to transport then tonnes of gold.
roenxi 27d ago
In this context "trust" is something of a euphemism. The US had a big enough military relatively speaking that if they came for your gold then it wasn't feasible to stop them unless you were part of a competing bloc. So, you know. Keep the gold somewhere the US is happy with. Best shot of getting to a good outcome, and the US was pretty reasonable in the 1900s. That all appears to have changed. They may already have lost the ability to physically coerce even medium powers and at any rate look like they have to retreat the boundaries of their global Not-An-Empire. So it makes sense to start rethinking the gold's physical location.
matkoniecz 27d ago
> why was the US trusted before? because risk of US stealing gold was lower and potential usefulness in case of being invaded by Russia et all was higher?
tim333 27d ago
The US constitution is strong against despots and pro law. It's being tested now but I think maga too will pass. The US is largely immune to being invaded due to having a lot of guns and a lot of ocean. This long predates Marshall.