What about India? I’ve been told that they’ve never invaded a foreign nation though I certainly don’t know if that’s true and quite frankly I’m skeptical. They were fairly wealthy and powerful and some point in history, right?
Marc
A powerful nation is one that has the means to project its influence beyond its borders. Given human nature, a nation that has that capability will use it, sooner or later.
It is only since WWII that the Western powers collectively decided that territorial acquisition is not an appropriate behavior for a nation. Before then, every nation would try to annex territory if they thought they could get away with it. Any nation created before WWII that had any means of projecting force will have used it.
Are there any postwar nations with means to project force and have restrained themselves from using it?
[QUOTE=MGibson]
What about India? I’ve been told that they’ve never invaded a foreign nation though I certainly don’t know if that’s true and quite frankly I’m skeptical. They were fairly wealthy and powerful and some point in history, right?
[/QUOTE]
India was a conglomerate of many smaller entities who frequently warred against each other. Expansionist wars.
[QUOTE=BrightNShiny]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Neither Sweeden nor Norway were significantly more powerful than their neighbors, though. There wasn’t anyone they really could have pushed around at that point.
[QUOTE=An Gadaí]
Could Switzerland have gone around bullying their neighbours?
[/QUOTE]
The Gauls initially invited the Romans into their lands to help them fight invading Helvetians (Swiss).
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
America is a country that was literally built on expansionism. From the extermination/conquest of the Native Americans to the Mexican-American War, this country was built on conquest.
[/QUOTE]
Every Nation stands on the corpse of another.
[QUOTE=Pleonast]
A powerful nation is one that has the means to project its influence beyond its borders. Given human nature, a nation that has that capability will use it, sooner or later.
It is only since WWII that the Western powers collectively decided that territorial acquisition is not an appropriate behavior for a nation. Before then, every nation would try to annex territory if they thought they could get away with it. Any nation created before WWII that had any means of projecting force will have used it.
Are there any postwar nations with means to project force and have restrained themselves from using it?
[/QUOTE]
A lot of nations post war qualify.
Australia. New Zealand. Canada. Even Japan, post war.
I think that Australia and New Zealand have not projected their power outside their own borders for the purposes of conquest, since the formation of their respective countries..
Are either considered powerful nations though?
-XT
Yes, but Australia and New Zealand were formed by the conquest of each country from it’s native inhabitants.
Of course, we’re getting into true scotsman territory here if we argue that neither has expanded because neither is a “powerful nation”. But Australia and New Zealand both have what can be considered natural borders. Territorial expansion would require the annexation of some island chain or another, and most of those island chains were for the longest time the property of one colonial power or another, just as Australia and New Zealand themeselves were. No European country has invaded and annexed any island chains in the post-WWII era either. The only such invasion that comes to mind is the Argentine invasion of the Falklands.
[QUOTE=mlees]
I think that Australia and New Zealand have not projected their power outside their own borders for the purposes of conquest, since the formation of their respective countries..
[/QUOTE]
I believe they seized several territories during the 1st world war, I think they may have been German possessions in the Pacific.
[QUOTE=xtisme]
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.
[/QUOTE]
It’s only a bash if you consider Imperialism a bad thing. The few stalwart defenders who refuse to accept America’s Imperialism invite the America bashing. Accept that America is nakedly Imperialist, as most of the people in the world do, and you’ll find these sorts of conflicts of rhetoric will just vanish into thin air. Then we can discuss more interesting topics like how we feel about how America uses it’s imperial might, what the make-up of the empire is, and what our spheres of influence are, and our place in history. The denial of America as an Empire is trite and boring at this point.
[QUOTE=Sitnam]
The Gauls initially invited the Romans into their lands to help them fight invading Helvetians (Swiss).
[/QUOTE]
No, the tribes that bordered the Helvetians asked the Romans into their lands to help them fight the invading Helvetians. There wasn’t a united ‘Gaul’ until Vercingetorix united them against Caesar.
[QUOTE=An Gadaí]
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.
[/QUOTE]
The problem with this definition is it leaves out coercive violence that lurks behind using economic influence. Canada is probably not threatening to invade or supply weapons to a rival tribe if people don’t build clean wells for the poor, but America does that all the time with oil deals. I personally would argue that putting unequal stipulations into trade agreements under the threat of violence should count as expansion. What is the difference between a Viceroy, the Raj and General Musharraf if the result is the same?
[QUOTE=mswas]
Canada is probably not threatening to invade or supply weapons to a rival tribe if people don’t build clean wells for the poor, but America does that all the time with oil deals.
[/QUOTE]
What? When does ‘America’ do oil deals? I can see the government buying oil for strategic purposes, but I understand it buys it on the open market like every other buyer of oil does. Do you have proof that it does different than that?
[QUOTE=Uzi]
What? When does ‘America’ do oil deals? I can see the government buying oil for strategic purposes, but I understand it buys it on the open market like every other buyer of oil does. Do you have proof that it does different than that?
[/QUOTE]
I am not talking about the US government buying oil directly but paving the way for American corporations to buy the oil. Deals are done all the time that relate to oil. We subsidize the building of infrastructure and pledge military support to protect that infrastructure, in order to guarantee a steady supply to the United States as we consume more oil than we produce. That’s what I mean by ‘oil deal’.
[QUOTE=mswas]
I am not talking about the US government buying oil directly but paving the way for American corporations to buy the oil. Deals are done all the time that relate to oil. We subsidize the building of infrastructure and pledge military support to protect that infrastructure, in order to guarantee a steady supply to the United States as we consume more oil than we produce. That’s what I mean by ‘oil deal’.
[/QUOTE]
The highest bidder for a contract gets to load up their tanker at the port. Whether that is China, India, the US, or anyone else it is all about show me the money. No supplier would sell for less regardless of who built their infrastructure or gave them military support. Now if you want to make the case that the US makes deals to allow their companies to produce that oil, that is another matter, one of which I don’t know about. Those companies may be subject to US regulation on who they sell to, but for the most part oil is sold on the world market and to the highest bidder.
[QUOTE=Uzi]
The highest bidder for a contract gets to load up their tanker at the port. Whether that is China, India, the US, or anyone else it is all about show me the money. No supplier would sell for less regardless of who built their infrastructure or gave them military support. Now if you want to make the case that the US makes deals to allow their companies to produce that oil, that is another matter, one of which I don’t know about. Those companies may be subject to US regulation on who they sell to, but for the most part oil is sold on the world market and to the highest bidder.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I don’t think that’s how it works at all. Oil distribution is a matter of treaties between countries and not simply ‘show me the money’.
[QUOTE=mswas]
I am not talking about the US government buying oil directly but paving the way for American corporations to buy the oil. Deals are done all the time that relate to oil. We subsidize the building of infrastructure and pledge military support to protect that infrastructure, in order to guarantee a steady supply to the United States as we consume more oil than we produce. That’s what I mean by ‘oil deal’.
[/QUOTE]
Can the Illuminati really be expansionist when they already control all the nations?
[QUOTE=xtisme]
Are either considered powerful nations though?
-XT
[/QUOTE]
Well, if you’re a sheep, New Zealand is a pretty powerful nation indeed!
[QUOTE=kidchameleon]
Can the Illuminati really be expansionist when they already control all the nations?
[/QUOTE]
Depends on how many open valences they have in their power structure.