Subject:
|
Re: Ok, why such anti-American sentiment? (Was Re: the metric system)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 3 May 2001 10:54:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
454 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Simpson writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Low writes:
> >
> > > I'd rather not, since my knowledge of history is fairly weak. I would say
> > > that American war-time intervention in Europe was more in the US national
> > > interest than because of any moral sensibility.
In short, the industrial base of the serpent's head was there.
The United States could easily take Japan in a fair fight, but
an Axis-controlled Europe was a much more dangerous nut that
needed cracking. Once pressure was off Britain, huge naval
reserves would have been freed for completing the Pacific
campaign, which ended up being unnecessary thanks to Allied
submariners and carrier pilots.
> > Ok, this is an honest question, although somewhat rhetorical, but I mean no
> > affront: Why, then, did Australia fight in the World Wars and in Vietnam with
> > America? I understand the historical relationship between the UK and Australia,
> > and yes, I'm glad that Australia made a sacrifice with the Allies...but, was it
> > a sacrifice made purely of self-defense, purely of moral sensibilities? Was
> > there a fear that if Europe should fall, then Australia's economy would be dealt
> > a terrible blow (as probably it would have)? In WWII, was there fear that Japan
> > would invade Australia?
>
> From distant memories of my School boy History.
> There was. Japan actually bombed the North of Oz a few times (Darwin?). The
> Oz Government had a plan only to defend an internal triangle which I think
> was almost Melbourne - Brisbain - Cairns. I am sure Oz would have expected
> support from the allies if it came to that - but, to be honest, I'm not sure
> about how quick the British forces would have been!
This is part of the reason that Australia and New Zealand
specifically made declarations to the effect that they were
going to treat the United States with preference in issues
of shared defence and command. This was a big deal at the
time (I think the official statements were made in Jan or
Feb of 42), because it meant that any shred of real hierarchy
in the Commonwealth was an illusion. Suez, of course, was
the final wakeup call.
But IIRC the US became a larger trading partner with Australia
and New Zealand than the UK quite early on--shortly after WWI,
I believe. It was simple logistics that even imperial preference
and the Sterling Area couldn't overcome.
> You must also remember that many living in Oz during WW2 were either British
> or had parents who were, so I am sure some would have seen at as a duty
> thing. If you look here you will see that many from Oz joined UK forces
> before Oz really entered the war:
> http://www.battleofbritain.net/section-7/section-7aust/australia.html
Australia and New Zealand were some of the staunchest defenders
of Britain and the Empire. The last survivor of the campaign
at Gallipoli, where so many died (and Churchill lost his position
as First Sea Lord), is an Australian (of 106 years' youth!); so
were a disproportionate number of the soldiers. Without troops
from Oceana, the British contingent in the Boer War would have
been much smaller. And, it should go without saying, Australian
soldiers in the CBI and island-hopping campaigns were critical
participants in WWII's Pacific theatre, yet their contributions
are too often overlooked in light of the US command and control
or even the British administrative control of territory.
Even in the First World War (oddly enough) there was a certain
worry that Germany would threaten Australia in the Pacific, with
cruiser squadrons from Tsingtao that would naturally head south
to get away from the Japanese.
> > It seems that your Pacific front was a matter of self-
> > defense, but what of your European front? Again, what of Vietnam? Did an
> > Australian Red Scare lead to fear of an expanding Asian communist empire? Did
> > Australia's national interests play a part in conflicts even when your territory
> > was not immediately endangered?
>
> Australia? Why was America there!
First of all, Germany and Italy declared war on the United States
on 8 December 1941, *not* the other way around, so you could say
technically that it was self-defence that the US entered the
war in Europe.
Regarding Viet Nam, that concern dates back to 1954 and Dien Bien
Phu. The US took over propping up neocolonial states there much
as it did from Britain and France elsewhere in the world. The
major difference is that the popular uprising had support from
a contiguous neighbour *and* the vast majority of the population
(by definition, really). It was the same mistake made with
Batista in Cuba, except that the US didn't know when to quit in
Viet Nam. Domino theory, and all that.
> > It often seems to me that America's sacrifices of blood are usually shrugged off
> > as just another instance of self-serving American selfishness. And frankly,
> > that angers me. Hey, I'm not here to defend the shame in my country's past. I
> > don't wave the flag much, but I'm not ashamed to carry it. Blood was spilled.
> > American G.I.'s went off to Europe, went off to the South Pacific, because their
> > government told them to do it, and because they were *needed*. Mothers lost
> > their sons, wives lost their husbands, children lost their fathers...as they did
> > in Australia. Sure, their was national interests involved, but there was,
> > ultimately, great national sacrifice on the part of common men and women...just
> > as in Australia.
I can't disagree there. My parents were of the WWII generation--
not baby boomers, as I was born quite late--and only a bit too
young to fight in that conflict (although their siblings did, as
did my girlfriend's parents, and we're barely 30). The sense of
duty and sacrifice is amazing, and I get it from talking to WWII
vets and their children here in Holland as well as in the UK. It
seems that most of the cynical vitriol spilt usually comes from
people who are more than one generation removed from the war.
Frankly, I don't think we can fairly pretend to understand what
that world was like, because thankfully most of us here didn't
have to live through it--but the sense of camaraderie and duty
are something that I can only pray we will see again one day,
without nearly the human and material cost.
> > > > But most countries shake a fist at America, while keeping the other hand open
> > > > in case they need something. Maybe that's wrong, but it feels that way.
> > >
> > > The angry gesture of the disempowered perhaps?
> >
> > Sure, when Bolivia shakes its fist, I'll agree. But do the Brittish, the
> > Germans, the French, the Canadians, maybe even the Australians, consider
> > themselves disempowered? There is a lot of fist-shaking toward America in
> > countries that regard us with an air of cultural superiority
Well, yes. When they were in the ascendant, we were uncouth yahoos.
Now that the US is the dominant imperial power, we're *dangerous*
uncouth yahoos, bent on imposing our uncultured ways upon them.
So in a sense, it *is* the angry gesture of the disempowered.
It's a rather old debate, one that's been going on since at least
1883 (IIRC) and the Exposition Universelles in Paris. The funny
thing, to me, is that without local collaborators and a market,
all of this "Americanism" would go absolutely nowhere.
best
Lindsay
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
30 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
