I think this thread needs a total reset, considering how off topic this has gotten. Finlandization, nuclear war and how evil Stalin was are slightly different subjects that than how the US can improve it’s global reputation post WWII. I get that the question is all tied up in the Cold War, but it doesn’t change the fact that this thread has gotten off topic.
AHC: Best possible US international reputation by the modern day?
- Thread starter NAF
- Start date
-
- Tags
- united states usa
Ehh it was kind of inevitable considering the OP was the one by and large dragging stuff like Soviet Apologiasm into the thread, completely blaming the Cold War/Nuclear arms race on the US, and the like. He also brought up some legitimate pretty terrible US actions but the actual effect and discussion of the former stuff. Ya know literally claiming that the US "Causing the Nuclear Arms Race" was directly responsible for most of the US's bad reputation in the present day kind of muddles any discussion of legitimate US bad actions and specific policies that could or could not have been either make the US reputation better or worse.
Add in complete falsehoods like Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the conventional firebombing being completely irrelevant to the Japanese decision to surrender and placing literally all of the Japanese decision to surrender on the Soviet entry into the war.
Admittedly in the US/West traditionally the effect of Nagasaki and Hiroshima tend to be somewhat overstated and the Soviet entry understated (though that is changing). In reality I don't think either the two nukings or the Soviet invasion of Manchuria alone would probably have been enough to finally bring the Japanese leadership to accept reality (/ gather up their testes to do so accepting their was a pretty decent chance that some pissed off IJA colonel would try and murder all of the leaders trying to surrender and still going forward.). It was a combination of the IJA being driven back across the Pacific, most of the IJN being sunken, numerous garrisons that weren't directly taken being cut off and starved/bombed continuously, the Chinese performing better in China, the conventional/firebombing campaign of the Home Islands, the Air/Unrestricted submarine warfare campaign that sank most of the merchant fleet and when combined with the B29 campaign of dropping mines in coastal waters of the Home Islands pretty much caused the transportation system in Japan to crash to the extent that by the end of the war a Japanese civilian doing hard labor got a ration of 1400 calories a day (For hard labor something like 3000 calories a day are considered needed. The minimum for an average adult male to just not lose weight is 2000 calories. And rations for WALLIED POWs and various slave laborers from Korea/Indonesia/Philippines/China/Manchuria and elsewhere received considerably less then 1400 calories a day. For a man doing hard labor 1400 calories is basically rapid starvation. For those POWs and conscripted slave laborers their rations equaled very rapid starvation.) and the Soviet invasion sweeping through the Kwangtung Army like it was tissue paper (and hence denying Japan the resources and industry of Manchuria and Korea) and the Soviet entry killing the insane hope of the Japanese leadership that their could be a insane peace deal negotiated by the Soviets.
Basically the Japanese leadership/government/military/ and society at that point were at the level where their navy had to be sunk, their army killed or starved, their conquests and colonies cut off or liberated, their cities burned to ashes, their shipping sunk (and Japan very very heavily depended on coastal shipping for transport within the Home Islands.), their industrial/infrastructure/logistical systems crushed utterly, nuclear weapons used and a new Massive military power entering the Fray.
Even if say the US hadn't used Nukes and the Japanese had say surrendered three or four months later the death toll among non Japanese would be something like a minimum of 100K Asian civilians dying per month the war was extended, probably tens of thousands of WALLIED POWs starved to death/worked to death/dying of disease/being openly murdered/ or the occasional vivisection or being literally eaten by their Japanese guards. Add in the deaths of Japanese civilians from the continued bombing. And most of all with the infrastructure/logistical net that much more crushed you'd probably be looking at large scale famine. The days of Ethnic Japanese Males working long days of hard labor receiving 1400 calories would be looked back on fondly. Even with the Allies rushing in food aid post surrender the destruction of infrastructure would make actually getting food to the civilians difficult.
I can see definitely that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are even today a factor for those who dislike the US. But at the time it was a question of "Do a terrible terrible terrible thing or do a even more terrible thing by not doing it." Any option available was terrible and involved causing untold suffering to innocent Civilians. There was no "good option". Just a question of which option was less godawful.
The OP was not the one making those claims, rather it was merely a prolific poster in the thread.
You're right. I profusely apologize to NAP. I made a grievous mistake and I do deeply apologize for it.
I had thought the guy you're talking about was the OP. My bad.
I saw that the guy said he was Vietnamese, which kinda explains why he seems so against the US. I mean, better reason than others, tbh. At least he's not claiming the British should've won the American Revolution, or that America should be destroyed because it's supposedly racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic or some crazy shit like that. Hating the US because they bombed the shit out of your country and killed millions of your people is a justification I can at least understand (I think we can all agree here that the Vietnam War was a fucking stupid idea and that America should've never gotten involved in the first place)
Last edited:
Really where? Thought he was European.
I mean his profile pic looks to be a photo of a statue of William Tell in a European looking town.
Last edited:
BlazingRoman
Father Maryland
To answer your questions. I was born in Germany where I spent half my youth. I speak fluent German. I am a British citizen. I consider myself Half-British, Half-German.I lived in Vietnam for over a year where I taught English as a Foreign Language. I have a lot of Vietnamese friends (though I could never master the tonal language as I am tone deaf). The first thing I saw entering Vietnam was that the guy who took my passport had two thumbs on one hand; a birth defect from the American chemical weapons. I saw evidence of the damage inflicted by the American war everywhere and it deeply affected me. Vietnamese forests are silent - no birdsong - because all the wildlife is dead from the American chemical weapons.
I also lived and taught in Cambodia for a few months. Anthony Bourdain says 'once You've been to Cambodia You'll never want to stop beating Henry Kissinger to death with your bare hands...' I saw evidence of the US/British support for Pol Pot, his thugs and their 20 year guerilla civil war everywhere. For example so many people missing legs. US/UK support was crucial for Pol Pot and his thugs being able to cover the country in land mines.
How the US/UK gave Pol Pot a hand
I now live in the UK. I have a lot of Polish friends who have emigrated to the UK. Some of them old enough to have lived under Soviet occupation. They have told me horror stories about the old days. Nevertheless, given what they have now - in Poland and as immigrants to the UK - they would give a lot to have the USSR and Warsaw Pact Poland back. Their sentiment is much stronger than that of my German friends who lived in the DDR and would quite like it back. Societies where work was slack and they did not live in fear of homelessness (I have worked as staff at a homeless shelter).
The Picture in my Profile is Nils Dacke who was Swedish.
I assure you I oppose British Foreign policy as strongly as I oppose American foreign policy. A defeat for Imperialism (specific definition, something that first developed in the late 19th century involving the export of finance capital) abroad is a victory for the working class at home.
(PS Father Maryland you have straw manned and misrepresented my postions to the point that I cant help but see it as intentional. This is why I have said I think you are playing games.)
You say it is more constructive to focus on the middle east. The US and Britain consistently armed and funded radical islam, and worked against secular nationalism in the middle east, as part of their anti-soviet strategy. This is one of the reasons I wanted to avoid the cold war. I recommend this text to everyone:
Last edited:
To be fair, most of the US' negative reputation stems from the Cold War and the 21st century over its' foreign policy then. Sure it engaged in imperialistic actions even before then in Hawaii, Cuba, Philippines, Latin America in general and against native Americans, but if the US avoided a lot of the foreign policy misadventures post 1945 it could maintain a better reputation outside tankie or uber-left circles.
And even that circle could be split in two if the US backs Ho, and decides to bring Yugoslavia into its camp
Last edited:
You left out that the Indian Army had burst out and was rolling up the Imperial Japanese Empire in Southeast Asia too, as a warmup act for coughing meaningfully and indicating that perhaps it was time for the British to get out of India, post-war, unless they wanted to be dessert. Imperial Japan was under attack from all sides.
This
Plus again, if the usa stands up and is the real bastion of liberty and not just part time if it turns a profit or if it keeps the masses in line.
The US did try to bring Yugoslavia into it's camp. Tito didn't bite at least not completely. I think he figured that even trying might have been too much for the Soviets. For them walking a line that kept them from being a Moscow puppet but kept them open to trade from both sides was a pretty smart move.
Yugoslavia was the only communist state that the US openly supplied surplus arms to in a massive manner (providing numerous small arms, light weapons, tanks, tank destroyers, and the like mostly WW2 surplus). The US Supplied Hellcat Tank Destroyers were actually used in combat during the 90's Yugoslav wars.
The problem with openly backing Ho is among other things that when the option to really do so (sometime between 1945 and the US going all in in 1963.) It pretty much inherently meant really pissing off the French who were a needed part of NATO.
Strawmanning doesn't mean " Literally repeat what you say).
As to your friends is it possible your circle is composed pretty heavily of those who are on the far left ( not in the American sense but in the sense of being something like marxist/socialists) partially because that fits in with your own political beliefs? Meaning that your circle isn't actually inherently statistically average? Thats not exactly a rare occurrence. People seek out those who agree with them.
I mean if I mostly hung out with older Cubans in Miami my impression might be that pre Castro Cuba was a utopia and Castro is the worst dictator ever. Something we would both agree is inaccurate.
Their definitely is Warsaw Pact romanticism among some especially in the older generations and in Russia.
In my own experience Poles tend to be by a margin less likely to have said nostalgic romanticism.
Oh and regarding the UN vote your source is inaccurate. The US ( and UK I think) were in favor of seating an exile government led by former prince Shinahouk while the Vietnamese were pushing their own government. The Vietnamese had indeed liberated Cambodia. But they'd set up a puppet government there which was admittedly a vast improvement over the Khmer Rouge. But at a certain point everyone realized the Vietnamese weren't leaving (anymore then they'd intended on leaving after signing a treaty with the US to withdraw their garrison in the early 60s)which resulted in a multi faceted insurgency that extended beyond the Khmer Rouge and lasted for years.
For the UN vote the US wasn't actually backing the Khmer Rouge. Instead they backed a exile coalition led by Prince Shinahouk ( who was admittedly a slimy bastard who was himself arguably more responsible for the rise of the Khmer rouge then any other man). The US opposed seating the Vietnamese puppet government because logically they realized that meant giving Vietnam two UN votes. Since there wasn't any agreement the Khmer rouge kept the seat more out of inertia and an inability to decide which claimant to the title of " rightful government of Cambodia" should have the seat.
Last edited:
That too. It took a truly stunning number of factors to break the will of the Japanese government and military leadership ( and have them grow the balls to do something that still carried a significant risk of some pissed of IJA captains/ colonels shooting them all for " treason".).
On Cambodia I am less interested in the UN legal stuff than the fact that the US/UK gave large quantities of weapons to the Khmer Rouge Guerillas and Uk special forces gave the Khmer Rouge guerillas a lot of training in how to use land mines (as well as the mines themselves). Thats why I couldn't leave the tourist trails in Cambodia and couldn't walk down a street in Pnomh Penh without seeing people missing legs.
My source says everything you do about the US eventually pushing for Shinahouk and his boys to have the cambodia UN seat. But that is a side issue the point I wanted to get accross from my source was this:
"The Cambodian training became an exclusively British operation after the “Irangate” arms-for-hostages scandal broke in Washington in 1986. “If Congress had found out that Americans were mixed up in clandestine training in Indo-China, let alone with Pol Pot,” a Ministry of Defence source told O’Dwyer-Russell, “the balloon would have gone right up. It was one of those classic Thatcher-Reagan arrangements.” Moreover, Margaret Thatcher had let slip, to the consternation of the Foreign Office, that “the more reasonable ones in the Khmer Rouge will have to play some part in a future government”. In 1991, I interviewed a member of “R” (reserve) Squadron of the SAS, who had served on the border. “We trained the KR in a lot of technical stuff - a lot about mines,” he said. “We used mines that came originally from Royal Ordnance in Britain, which we got by way of Egypt with marking changed" "
Source - writer having twice won British Journalist of the Year for reporting of Cambodian Genocide
As for your strawmanning me. Two examples: 1 You saying my proposing neutral Germany was me proposing Soviet dominated Germany. 2 You repeatedly saying I thought Korea 'should' have been 'given to China', that I morally support Chinese Imperialism, when what I actually said was that I thought a not-divided chinese-soviet occupied korea was a likely consequence of the POD I suggested (no shoulds or moral judgements involved) and that my personal ASB preference would be a neutral Korea. You banging on about this repeatedly even after I clarified the point.
On my Friends, you dont know me and make a lot of assumptions. Most of my Polish friends consider themselves apolitical and are not members of political organisations. Yeah, maybe Poles who emigrate to the UK are less likely to favour the new order than those who stay. And maybe those who end up homeless in the UK (a high proportion and I met most of my polish friends either helping them out of homlessness or through those I helped out of homelessness) are more likley to hate capitalism and prefer communism than average - though that is a lot of people. But none of the polish people I know are politcal activists or ideologues.
Most of my german friends who lived in East germany are family friends my parents met when I was a child. My parents lean conservative.
I mentioned Poland precisely because pro-communist sentiment is weakest there. I have friends who emigrated to the UK from all over Eastern Europe who would like the old order back (thought they generally see it as a pipe dream and politics as a waste of time). On this topic, who are you to call the views of people who acutally experienced communist eastern europe and would like back the life of economic/housing/food security which they once had back 'nostalgic romanticism'? Older Cubans who live in Miami are largely people who were rich and powerful under the old order. Polish immigrants to the UK are not by and large people who were big men in the old Polish regime or rich bosses under it.
A lot of eastern europeans have fled the new order and the birth rate has shot right down because people no longer see a future. Here is the Financial Times citing the loss of welfare as a major driver of this.
On large numbers of American millenials having a favourable view of communism. You said they think communism means Bernie Sanders. This is BS, we are talking about a generation with access to wikipedia and the wider internet, the best informed generation in history. To make my point and avoid ambiguity I looked up American millenials polled views on Stalin.
Millennials think George W Bush killed more people than Stalin
One third of younger generation respondents believe that more people were killed under the Republican’s tenure than the former Soviet Union dictator
www.independent.co.uk
Last edited:
So, I said that I thought no nukes and a Japanese surrender delayed by a few months means that Korea gets occupied in its entirety by Russia so there is no Korean war.
Nukes were used in August, Korea was divided in September. The US negotiators were surprised the Russians accepted division. Without the Nukes they probably wouldn't have. So united, Soviet occupied Korea, no Korean War.
People aren't idiots and knew how destructive Nukes were from tests.
Father Maryland, this isn't moral support for Russian occupied Korea just what I consider likely consequences of the POD I suggested
The reason nukes aren't used is because of the backlash from using them. When nukes were invented, it was inevitable that they'd be used at least once by somebody.
If not Korea, then a future war (prob not Vietnam though). Israel might be most likely to use a nuke I think, if sufficiently threatened.
If not Korea, then a future war (prob not Vietnam though). Israel might be most likely to use a nuke I think, if sufficiently threatened.
Nah nulkes would have been used way before the mid to late 1960s when the Israelis got them.
To reiterate - while I think they are evil and their agenda is psychopathic - the State Department have never been idiots.
They could and would predict backlash. If the cost benefit analysis said the advantages gained from using Nukes would be outweighed by the disadvantages caused by the backlash then they would chose not to use them (at the very least against cities, and with a less tense international situation, hopefully not at all).
WW2 was viewed by just about everyone as incredibly exceptional circumstances.
Last edited: