4 ms·

I am skeptical that we can learn any practical lessons from the relative success of Reconstruction. There was a lot more in play there beyond military occupati

by Crito 12y ago

I am skeptical that we can learn any practical lessons from the relative success of Reconstruction. There was a lot more in play there beyond military occupation. After the war, the South shared a massive porous border with the economically dominant progressive North. Furthermore, you had that progressive North participating in the democratic processes of the occupied South (as the article and apparently the book talk about). Nothing like any of that happens with modern US invasions and occupations.

jackfoxy 12y ago
>>Nothing like any of that happens with modern US invasions and occupations. The post WWII occupations of Germany and Japan?
- Crito 12y ago
  Germany perhaps, but not Japan. With Germany it is difficult to say since the post-war split of Germany is something that doesn't have a great analogue in Reconstruction. Japan did not have a porous border with the US, and although there was nevertheless a large amount of cultural exchange following the war, it was nothing compared to what occurred between the North and South in the US. Furthermore, while American individuals involved themselves with Japan's government following the war, that was not general American voting public doing it; it was only a handful of people. Having a MacArthur from the conquering nation and having to share a government with the conquering nation are rather dissimilar. The Japanese public were not voting for American leaders, and the American public were not voting for Japanese leaders. American and Japanese leaders were not regularly engaging in debate, nor were they forced to reconcile differences in their domestic policies. However I would not consider either of those a modern US invasion/occupation anyway. We don't really fight/invade/occupy like that anymore.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
ArkyBeagle 12y ago
Do not presume the North to have been all that progressive. Economically, the period from the end of the War to 1880 or so was closely run. This was also global - it's often thought the government in Britain was close to falling around 1870. One economist who was invited to speak before China's Politboro was asked about this - how did Britain not fall then?

by Crito 12y ago

jackfoxy 12y ago

>>Nothing like any of that happens with modern US invasions and occupations. The post WWII occupations of Germany and Japan?

Crito 12y ago
Germany perhaps, but not Japan. With Germany it is difficult to say since the post-war split of Germany is something that doesn't have a great analogue in Reconstruction. Japan did not have a porous border with the US, and although there was nevertheless a large amount of cultural exchange following the war, it was nothing compared to what occurred between the North and South in the US. Furthermore, while American individuals involved themselves with Japan's government following the war, that was not general American voting public doing it; it was only a handful of people. Having a MacArthur from the conquering nation and having to share a government with the conquering nation are rather dissimilar. The Japanese public were not voting for American leaders, and the American public were not voting for Japanese leaders. American and Japanese leaders were not regularly engaging in debate, nor were they forced to reconcile differences in their domestic policies. However I would not consider either of those a modern US invasion/occupation anyway. We don't really fight/invade/occupy like that anymore.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

ArkyBeagle 12y ago

Do not presume the North to have been all that progressive. Economically, the period from the end of the War to 1880 or so was closely run. This was also global - it's often thought the government in Britain was close to falling around 1870. One economist who was invited to speak before China's Politboro was asked about this - how did Britain not fall then?