Not in the last century, though . It looks like the only territory we’ve gained in the past hundred years has been the US Virgin Islands (1917), and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (1947), of which, the only part we still own, are the Northern Mariana Islands.
I was reading the term “last century” to mean the 20th Century. I suppose “past hundred years” is a better reading, though.
No idea where you read that in the OP but ok. The thread has turned into a US bash when the question was if there are any examples in history of powerful nations not being expansionist. Not that I’m surprised, mind.
WRT your example I don’t think the US has ever controlled other nations to the extent that the eastern block nations were controlled by the USSR during the Cold War. Even using early examples like Panama and the Philipines I’m not seeing it. This isn’t to say the US hasn’t been controlling…add to Panama and the Philipines things like South Vietnam or the economic control we’ve wielded in Central and South America. Which is why I said that the US wasn’t a good example of a powerful nation that hasn’t been expansionist. At which point we should move on to OTHER examples…but no, why answer the OP?
-XT
Got to keep-up with the times old boy (and this, coming from an older one), other than Hitler’s try to reign the world, European nations have largely abandoned colonialism – except for some colonies they’d held for much longer than the arbitrary Century mark chosen by Sam – think Algeria, Ceuta, Melilla. Outside of Hitler’s Germany, hasn’t had anything close to the expansionist desires of this past Century’s two colossuses, the former USSR and the USA.
Sure, I’ll let you quibble all you want about actual overseas ownership, but that’s all it is. Once you have your paws deeply ingrained in a nation’s economy and are capable of posing and deposing leaders as pieces on a chessboard, I submit to you that it is exactly the same as colonization and/or conquer.
And today, the US of A is by faaaar, the world’s biggest Empire – whether through economic or military means; or both.
Now then, I fully expect a non-answer from you ragging on Spain and its own Age of Empire and your favored Black Legend. Won’t mean spit to what I just wrote.
Much more at source for those interested in fighting ignorance and/or flag-waving of the Star-Spangled-Banner’s utter hypocrisy as some sort of ‘benign’ force on the world.
It has always been about Number One. Still is.
Say, while we are on the topic, some of you just might enjoy trading cards:
Why answer the OP, eh Red? Not when a ranting hijack will do anyway. Spain? Hell man, you guys have been irrelevent for centuries now. World power? Hell, even the FRENCH are more of a world power.
-XT
Hmm. I hope this comment isn’t aimed at me, because I don’t see anywhere that I’ve bashed the US, unless you consider pointing out US history to be bashing.
In S. Vietnam, we changed the government at our will and had them implement our policies. This is exactly what the USSR did in say, Poland. The difference is that we had different policies and implemented different styles of government than the USSR.
You want to choose an arbitrarily limiting definition of expansionism and complain when other people disagree with that definition. Seems like you’re the one not discussing the OP. Some posters in this thread have said that the US has not been expansionist for the past century. This means that the US is on the table for debate. Simply because xtisme declares “debate over,” that doesn’t mean we all have to stop talking about it.
Iran is not very powerful.
The OP limits its scope of discussion to neither territory nor conquest, specifically. So I disagree with your choice of the US.
Yes.
Just like every other nation on the planet. The US happens to be at the top of the heap at the moment.
As noted in “Rise and Fall of the Great Powers” (Paul Kennedy, 1989) at one point The Queen of England was the Empress of India. This did not stop them from complaining about Germany’s efforts to build a railroad to Baghdad as “trying to rule the world”.
Also note that, with the exception of Iraq and Afghanistan, we are perfectly and legally in each of those nations wherein we have built a base.
I am curious to know why a base in Kosovo, running under a UN Mandate, is on the list. Are they considering each base wherein US personel are posted to be a US base, regardless of the actual reasoning behind the base being there?
It was aimed at those who seem fixated on the US, despite the fact the OP is asking for powerful nations NOT expansionist…and its been adaquately demonstrated that the US is not on that list. Normally, people would just move on…but no.
If that shoe fits you…then there you are.
I must have missed the US tanks rolling through their capital to crush not only their government but a popular uprising in the streets as well.
Regardless, who gives a fuck? Whether the US was as bad or worse (or something in between) to the USSR, the US is not on the list of powerful nations not expansions. Move on, ehe?
Unless you are secretly disagreeing with me and want to try and put the US back on the list, what diff? Why not start a US bashing thread of your own?
And I think that assertion has been adaquately put down. Don’t you? Its ridiculous to even attempt to put the US on such a list…you’d have too overlook the very formation of the US to do so (though I suppose we weren’t a major power when we expanded the fronteer westward).
You are certainly free to continue the hijack I suppose…or beating a dead horse.
Obviously.
Ok, lets talk about it then. The US was certainly expansionist at various times in its history. There are multiple examples of this no matter how rabid or rational one is. So, its NOT an example of what the OP is asking for. Assuming no one comes back and disagrees with that assertion, what more do you think need be said?
-XT
The Viet Cong was the popular uprising.
Right. You get to keep making questionable assertions about US history that should go unchallenged because its time to move on.
Or you could start a bogus US History thread, too.
Yes, I agree it’s been put down. But I think the question of what constitutes an expansionist government is interesting in itself and is part of the debate, since we obviously disagree about what the OP meant. It’s an interesting question as to what expansionist means in the nuclear age, since most nations face restrictions on how they can deploy conventional forces. The major players in that question are going to the US, USSR/Russians, Chinese, British and French, and depending on the definition you use, they may come off as expansionist or not at various periods of time. I don’t see what your problem is in discussing it.
The hijack is you running around claiming any discussion of the US in the context of a debate about what it means to be expansionist is a hijack. :rolleyes:
I don’t know. If you agree that US actions in, say, Vietnam are considered expansionist, why do you keep responding to my posts. I disagree with your outlook on this thread, so I’m responding to you. You just seem to want to avoid any discussion of US history while at the same time making dubious assertions about US history.
-XT
[/QUOTE]
I am going to go out on a limb and guess that so-called Great Powers (as the term may apply in their particular places and times) may not necessarily be directly expansionistic, but almost *have * to be hegemonistic, in the sense of seeking to have the leading role in the political or economic game, either in general or in a specific sphere of interests (how else can you define “Great Power”?). So happens that historically the more direct way of being the hegemon was taking over lands and peoples; but in our times, there are subtler ways to do it.
Yes…I see it now. Your grasp of history is staggering. Its JUST like what the Russians did in Poland and Hungary!
Such as? Which assertions do you question exactly? The thing I said about the Philipines? Fair enough…its an excellent example of US expansionism. Hell, if Tame says so thats good enough for me (and on reflection I agree anyway).
Well, you or me. What difference?
Because the OP asked "Are there examples of powerful nations that did not become expansionist?’, not ‘What is the modern definition of expansionist government and how does it apply in the nuclear age’ or ‘America: An expansionist government or simply twisted and evil?’.
Other than that, I have no problem discussing what expansionism means, or if the US is expansionist both historically and in modern terms (I would certainly agree with historical, and if one expands to economically I’d agree there too). I would agree with your list in historic terms (and even in post-nuclear terms…just not today. On your list the only expansionist governments would be in economic terms, and only the US and China would qualify IMHO. Certainly I don’t think one can stretch things to include the Brits or French…or the Russians…in todays world).
Certainly. YMMV.
-XT
And you’re grasp of English is just as staggering. I clearly stated we had different policies in S. Vietnam then the USSR did in Poland. I guess I shouldn’t have assumed that you would be able to figure out that our differing policies meant that we handled the S. Vietnamese popular uprising differently. But we did use military force to prevent a popular uprising which was aimed at the popular goal of reunification with the N. Vietnamese to live under a Marxist/Socialist regime.
Normally, I would just stop here. But it’s clear to me that you are bent on construing things into my posts that aren’t there. So, to continue, I don’t know if the Soviets specifically used their tanks in Poland the way we used our tanks in Vietnam, since I am not a military historian. I have also not discussed whether US tactics were more or less brutal then the Soviets.
Notice here what I’ve done. I’ve simply laid out the facts. I have made no moral judgment on whether our actions were qualitatively better than the Soviets. I have not called America evil for taking these actions. All I have done is state what happened.
Oh, I forgot. I’m not supposed to respond to any assertions xtisme makes because its time to move on.
If I’ve responded to you that means that I disagree with a specific statement you’ve made. You can read the previous posts to see which things you’ve posted that I disagree with.
The difference is that nothing I’ve posted in this thread is counterfactual historically.
If the OP wants to limit debate, let him come back and do so. People have made assertions in this thread that I disagreed with, so I responded to them. I thought that was the kind of thing that goes on in GD. But I guess for you that any and all discussion of US History counts as calling the US twisted and evil, since nothing I’ve posted in this thread could be remotely construed to mean that, no matter whatever bogus assertions you wish to make.
I think the Russians use of their energy reserves to bully their neighboring states, combined with other things going on in Russia right now are a prelude to an expansionist mindset. I guess only the future will tell. But if energy reserves are unable to keep up with demand, we may see a number of countries pursue an expansionist agenda.
I did. As for the rest of your insulting post towards my country, some thing never change. :mad: :mad:
I understand, as is your wont, that you communicate much better with emoticons. Hope those help.
I did – in detail as per my cites. As for the rest of your insulting post towards my country, some thing never change. Not even the fact that we’re one of the word’s top-ten most powerful economies. :mad: :mad:
I understand, as is your wont, that you communicate much better with emoticons. Hope those help.
Mods: if you’d please cancel prior post, I’d appreciate it. Mised edit window to add to same.
Any country who ties political ideas to trade is using its ‘power’ to influence another nation. Canada ties economic aid to certain benchmarks. eg. You must use the money to build clean water wells for poor people. That is using power to influence goals that one country thinks is worthwhile pursuing. Another example might be if you agree to buy x amount of Y we will buy x amount of Z in return. The other country may not want Z, but they want to sell Y and make the agreement. In either case influence is being exerted on another country. Given that I don’t see how any country who trades with other countries isn’t ‘expansionist’ in some form or another if they tie any political ideology to that trade.
Maybe Sweeden or Norway qualify for the past hundred years? Sweeden did allow Nazi troop movements during WWII, and they benefitted from trade with it, but I don’t think they had any significant effect on the German government, policies, or economy.
Perhaps I should have been clearer in the OP, I suppose I do mean territorially expansionist, using military force or threat of military force to acquire new territories as opposed to having economic policies that influence other governments. Perhaps no examples exist in history of what I’m asking about.