What if America was an isolationist nation?

[MrStoff1989]

What do you think would have happened if we would've followed Washington and Jefferson's advice and stayed to ourselves? Would we be the America we are today?

[oldnavyguy]

Boy, MrStoff1989 I am glad you started this thread/topic.

As I look at other posts, stories in the media and other sources I have come to believe the GREATEST mistake the United States has ever made is abandoning the essential isolationism of our founding fathers.

We should have made our efforts towards becoming strong enought to withstand external threats and solving the internal problems left over from our creation as a nation (e.g. slavery, racism etc.)

When we hae slipped into expansionism we have fought our most morally questionable wars (The Mexican War). When we have gotten involved for moralistic reasons (WW I) we are blamed for the unhappy results (Well if we hadonly joined the league of Nations germany anj japan could have been peacefull restrained are there would have been no need for WW II...) and when we get involved for complex reasons we are still wrong (We caused Japan to attack us because after all we cut off their oil, and by the way we were the vicious monsters who bomed Hiroshima and Nagasaki...)

I think if (admittedly a big if) we had had the courage and foresight to maintain a truely effective military AND had a "realpolitik" approach somewhat like I think Dr. Realism has advocated (that is, for economic and power reasons we still would have extended our control to most of the continent) we would be much better off today.

Old navy Guy

[histoman]

What do you think would have happened if we would've followed Washington and Jefferson's advice and stayed to ourselves? Would we be the America we are today?


more than 30% of the profits of us companies come from foreign operations. 10% of our gdp comes from trade. and we can't live w/o foreign oil.

what does "stay to ourselves" mean for our economic ties to other countries?

what does our economic interdependence imply about our other relations to them?

[oldnavyguy]

Not to speak for MrStoff1989,

Washington, Jefferson and others never meant we should become some type of hermit kingdom. Trade has always been, and will most likely always be, the life blood of the US.

But some trade is unescessary catering to consunerist wants not national needs. Even some national needs are "overtraded" for. Oil is an example. I am far from an environmentalist wacko, (at least I not much of an environmentalist, I'm not sure about the wacko) but it is obvious to the most casual observer that the US has been both lazy and wasteful. Between NOT developing alternatives and actually encouraging waste (SUVs?) we have created a dependence much greater than it has to be.

No nation can truely be an "island" anymore, at least not an economic one, but we can become much more of a political island. It simple is not our business how other nations run themselves. Whether they are a utopian democracy or a vicious dictatorship is not our business. Only if they are an actual threat to us do they become our concern and then only so far as they are a threat. With today's weapons systems it is much easier to "reach out and touch someone" to minimize their threat potential.

On the other hand "Charity begins at home" is also true. we have no obligation at all to help solve the political, economic and environmental problems of other nations. Why should a US taxpayer pay to rebuild a home knocked down by an earthquake in Iran, a Tsunami in Indonesia or a militia in Dafur when there are still houses waiting in New Orleans to be rebuilt? Besides, aid provided in all these instances makes no difference to the recipients. It certainly does not change their opinions of the United States.

Old Navy Guy

[Dr Realism]

I think we need to consider what the World looked like when Washington and Jefferson ruled the United States. The US was just a small nation on the edge of the Atlantic, and we needed time to build ourselves up. Therefore, it was good advice to stay out of European wars while we were weak, and to concentrate on trade.
Naturally, once the United States became stronger, it began to make itself felt throughout the World. This is because our most important interests are business and trade, and wherever those go, the military follows.
US naval control of the world's oceans means that trade flows unimpeded. This benefits all nations who wish to engage in trade because the ocean isn't a battle ground. If say, the Soviet Navy controlled the Oceans, it would bode ill for countries like the US, UK, Spain etc.
To advocate that the US should get rid of its military is to forget the days when our merchant ships were seized at will by anyone stronger that us, and that our business interests were at the mercy of others.

[Lucius]

What if America was an isolationist nation? Fascism and communism battle to the death and the winner pumps poison gas down into our bunker.

Apparently, a form of fascism has managed to survive and grow after communism collapsed of it's own internal contradictions. Fascism, on the other hand, doesn't make falsifiable claims. It relies on a received mumbo-jumbo of inevitability.

Fine.

In the meantime, the progress of liberal democracy will include mutual defense treaties between sovereign nations, the very core of which is Australia, the U.S., Canada, and Britain. These are alliances of principle.

But liberal democracies will also make alliances of convenience with countries which aren't really democratic, for instance, South Viet Nam, Kuwait. Republican France made an alliance with Imperial Russia! Is it wrong to enter into an alliance for strictly "operational/strategic" reasons? I don't think so. This is no game.

Everyone assumes that liberal democracy and capitalism will win out in the end. I incline that way myself. But it's not written in stone anywhere.

[DigitusImpudicus]

What a valuable thread has been started here. Every reply has some truth.

I think that there are times to be isolationist, and there are times to step out on the world stage and let your policies and national viewpoints be known, forcibly when required. When you have quality leaders, they will know which strategy is correct for that time and place. When you don't, God help you.

Our nation should be wholly concerned with the quality of the person leading it, and that person's relationship with our elected leadership. That, to me, is the essence of a successful republic.

Chris--

[histoman]

If say, the Soviet Navy controlled the Oceans, it would bode ill for countries like the US, UK, Spain etc.
To advocate that the US should get rid of its military is to forget the days when our merchant ships were seized at will by anyone stronger that us, and that our business interests were at the mercy of others.


this is a good point, but even if we didn't have the same naval presence foreign forces would still have to respect our merchant ships because to do otherwise would be tantamount to declaring war on the united states, which no country is going to do because, even without a dominant global military presence, a country with our resources could quickly mobilize and achieve that presence. also, because trade is truly global now and safe seas are in the interests of every nation, it would not be hard to secure international support for a coalition against any country that would try to disrupt world trade. so it wouldn't be necessary for the us to go it alone. they could count on the help of countless other countries.

[Nikd]

I think that US was "forced" to abandon the "isolationist" politic. In WW I they declared war after the sinking of "Lusitania" , Wilson a "isolationist" President declared war to satisfy the public demand. In WWII US was forced again after Pearl Harbor and the declaration of war by Germany.
In both World wars England, France and the Allies borrowed many money (with interest) from US, and paid that back with gold, so it was natural an intact US (no bombs, no refugees, intact industry and many resources) to achieve a leader role, with the greatest army in the Alliance. If we add and the "menace" that represented former USSR, threaten mainly to make Europe a Nuclear wasteland. Then the leadership and the abandon of the isolationist politic was needed.

To return to the topic, if US followed the same dogma, then sure WW I would last many more years, WW II? I don't know maybe never happened (as Germany would be probably destroyed already in WW I).

[PADDYBOY]

As a non american, I have to confess to an opinion based on self interest and preservation here. Without the U.S. playing the role of world policeman.
I get this horrible image of Tony Blair having to negotiate with Saddam Hussein the great!:eek: Before I puke up I wonder if anyone has any ideas as to
who would fill the role of world policeman if the U.S handed it's badge in?
Got to run now, got this gross image in my mind. Argh!!!:p

[Dr Realism]

As a non american, I have to confess to an opinion based on self interest and preservation here. Without the U.S. playing the role of world policeman.
I get this horrible image of Tony Blair having to negotiate with Saddam Hussein the great!:eek: Before I puke up I wonder if anyone has any ideas as to
who would fill the role of world policeman if the U.S handed it's badge in?
Got to run now, got this gross image in my mind. Argh!!!:p

If the US threw in the towel, the world system that we all know and love would collapse. Imagine if the US removed it's presence from Japan, Korea, Europe, the Middle East and everywhere else that the US has a military presence. There would be a new Russian Empire in Northern Asia sweeping into Central Asia and Eastern Europe. A neo-tributary system would be set up in East Asia whereby China once again rules supreme. Japan would rearm and go nuclear. Lord knows what would happen in Korea. India and Pakistan would be going at it, probably lobbing nukes at each other. Israel would probably annihalate Iran with nukes just to be safe. Egypt and the gulf kingdoms would be otherthrown by extremists.
Such a world would not benefit the US because it depends on trade for its people to continue their lifestyle, ergo, the US will not throw in the towel. The Pacific and Atlantic no longer protect the US. If America leaves the world, the barbarians will simply follow us home.

[histoman]

If the US threw in the towel, the world system that we all know and love would collapse. Imagine if the US removed it's presence from Japan, Korea, Europe, the Middle East and everywhere else that the US has a military presence. There would be a new Russian Empire in Northern Asia sweeping into Central Asia and Eastern Europe. A neo-tributary system would be set up in East Asia whereby China once again rules supreme. Japan would rearm and go nuclear. Lord knows what would happen in Korea. India and Pakistan would be going at it, probably lobbing nukes at each other. Israel would probably annihalate Iran with nukes just to be safe. Egypt and the gulf kingdoms would be otherthrown by extremists.
Such a world would not benefit the US because it depends on trade for its people to continue their lifestyle, ergo, the US will not throw in the towel. The Pacific and Atlantic no longer protect the US. If America leaves the world, the barbarians will simply follow us home.


if america were to withdraw its military presence other countries would indeed step up to fill the void. but this doesn't necessarily mean that the "world system that we all know and love would collapse". rather, the most likely scenario is that new military alliances would emerge to PRESERVE the status quo. america has natural allies in europe and japan. these countries would fill the void left by america in these regions. china is already a strong military presence in asia and us policy will not change anything. and the russian presence can be checked by a combination of renewed european power and our nuclear arsenal.

the middle east would be more problematic. but even here, america has allies in isreal, egypt, and saudi arabia. it is in the self-interest of these countries to step up and fill the void left by an american withdrawal. i think it's a safe assumption they would do just that.

over and above these military machinations is the fact of dependence on trade. china is obvious. but russia, too, needs trading partners to grow its economy and support its military. it doesn't have a circle of soviet bloc countries to rely on. so even our principal "enemies" are also our economic allies. everyone's dependence on trade and its many shared benefits will act as a natural and powerful deterrent against all but the most rash military encounters.

also, your calculus of chaos ignores the benefits of an american withdrawal. many people in the middle east and elsewhere would be very happy to see america leave their backyards. bin laden, for example, has said that his main goal is to get the americans out of saudi arabia, his home. he's not alone. we would gain a great deal of credibility in the world if we were not seen as "bullies" who use our military presence to "twist people's arms" to get our way. and to the extent that our credibility rises, our ability to influence events using diplomatic means will necessarily follow. peaceful settlements of issues where we are no longer seen as partisans but as impartial observers may actually be possible.


finally, an american pullback does not preclude a future interjection of our presence in the event it is absolutely needed. but the fact that our allies would have the capability to shoulder their part of the load in such a coalition would relieve americans of much of the burden they now carry. also, such interventions would be sporadic and would not require the same continual commitment of resources that our present policing role does.


so, in short, i think a diminution of our military role to that of defense of our territory and leader of the "good guys" is not only feasible, but also very desirable.

[Dr Realism]

I can't say that your wrong because we are of course speculating about a "what if" scenario, but I do disagree.
An American military withdrawl from the world would not raise our credibility. I believe it would make our diplomacy much less affective. If there is nothing to back up America's words then the words fall on deaf ear, much like UN resolutions.

I think our calculus' are based on different circumstances. You are saying that the US will still be acting as an off-shore balancer in times of need, whereas I am saying that it is 2007 and the US is totally done militarily intervening in the world. No US participation in NATO or other alliances, no more fighting unless someone invades our shores. The World is on its own. Obviously this runs counter to US interests but this is what I'm saying would happen if America simply stopped exporting security around the world.

The US only has 500 military personnel in Saudi Arabia today, according to Globalsecurity.org. The withdrawl of the thousands that used to be there was because we no longer needed them for the no-fly zone. No matter what we do to appease Bin Laden, he'll always come up with more greviences to fight over, so appeasement is pointless. If the US withdrew it's forces from the Middle East, Iran would be the regional hegemon. The Saudis and Egyptians are Iran's enemies and it's very likely that there would be a lot of fighting against Iran if Israel hadn't already destroyed Iran to guarantee its own existance.

Russia would reextened it's power over the caucus as it's been trying to do in recent years, though the US has frustrated its attempts.
In East Asia, those countries who do not submit to China's overlordship would be in dire straits as has been the case in the past.

[histoman]

An American military withdrawl from the world would not raise our credibility. I believe it would make our diplomacy much less affective. If there is nothing to back up America's words then the words fall on deaf ear, much like UN resolutions.


how has our occupation of iraq improved our credibility in the world? if anything, it has made it much, much worse, not only because the invasion was done on questionable grounds, but also because it has exposed the lie about our supposed military prowess. does anyone take us seriously anymore?


I think our calculus' are based on different circumstances. You are saying that the US will still be acting as an off-shore balancer in times of need, whereas I am saying that it is 2007 and the US is totally done militarily intervening in the world. more than that. the us would maintain its presence, but indirectly, through alliances with nations who share the same foreign policy goals. basically, i'd like to see our allies shoulder their fair share of the burden of international security and policework. wwii is long behind us. we don't have to worry about german and japanese armies any longer. let them defend themselves and their backyards.




The US only has 500 military personnel in Saudi Arabia today, according to Globalsecurity.org. The withdrawl of the thousands that used to be there was because we no longer needed them for the no-fly zone.well, we don't need them to fly the no-fly zone because we invaded iraq and deposed saddam. maybe that has something to do with bin-laden's continuing hostilities?



No matter what we do to appease Bin Laden, he'll always come up with more greviences to fight over, so appeasement is pointless. agreed. but unilaterally invading muslim countries like iraq is pointless, too. bin-laden will be defeated by a coalition of countries engaged mainly in intelligence and special forces activities. neither requres the full-blown military that we now have.


If the US withdrew it's forces from the Middle East, Iran would be the regional hegemon. The Saudis and Egyptians are Iran's enemies and it's very likely that there would be a lot of fighting against Iran if Israel hadn't already destroyed Iran to guarantee its own existance. well, if this is true it's due in no small part to our invasion of iraq! seems like we screwed up the balance of powers there, didn't we? this is what happens when you've got a lot guns but not a whole lot of brains.


Russia would reextened it's power over the caucus as it's been trying to do in recent years, though the US has frustrated its attempts.
In East Asia, those countries who do not submit to China's overlordship would be in dire straits as has been the case in the past.china does not have a history of occupying its neighbors. if it did, korea and much of southeast asia would have been chinese territory a long time ago. china traditionally has only expected foreign sovereigns to recognize the pre-eminence of china and pay tributes to its leader. other than these token gestures, china's neighbors have abided relatively free of chinese intrusion. (it's not their chinese neighbors that koreans dislike.) i don't see why this policy would change. the pre-eminence of a modern china is an irresistable fact that no us military presence in the region can change.

the exception is taiwan which the chinese view as a part of china. if the us were to pull back in the pacific, then this would weaken the island's precarious position. otoh, i'm not sure how really willing america would be to risking direct confrontation with china over taiwan. their presence may not in fact make any difference to taiwan's defense, in which case our continuing presence only acts as another irritant in chinese/us relations.

i don't know enough about the situation in the caucuses (sp?) to comment on that. but if we can exert a disproportunate influence in our own backyard, then i don't see why russia can't as well. it's what big countries naturally do.

[histoman]

The US only has 500 military personnel in Saudi Arabia today, according to Globalsecurity.org. The withdrawl of the thousands that used to be there was because we no longer needed them for the no-fly zone. No matter what we do to appease Bin Laden, he'll always come up with more greviences to fight over, so appeasement is pointless.



actually, now that i think about it some more, bin laden fought the soviets while they were in afganistan, but he stopped as soon as they left. so how do we know that he wouldn't stop fighting us if we left the middle east???

[Dr Realism]

I'm not going to bother getting into Iraq because if I do this thread will never end, and I read 50 opinions about Iraq everyday anyway.:( Oddly, one of the reason I joined historum is because I was sick of political forums and politics in general. I guess there's no escaping politics in the 21st century.
And come to think of it, you may actually be right about China becoming the next Superpower and defeating the US. You know why? Because nobody in China is allowed to discuss politics. Therefore they can divert their attention to other matters. Maybe that is why democracies are supposed to eventually fail, as was written in a different thread? Everyone becomes so educated, and eventually everyone has their own opinion and wants their opinion to be heard, and everyone else's opinion pisses them off, so everyone starts to hate everyone else because they are voicing what they think. And nobody really wants to know what everybody else thinks. And what I say becomes really offensive to someone else, and then there are laws against saying certain things, so it's really not freedom of speech. And eventually political freedom just means talking out of your ass about anything and everyone else starts doing the same thing. And eventually everybody just accepts a dictatorship because, at least we can all like each other because we don't know what everyone else is thinking, and we can just hate 1 guy instead. Maybe.:confused: :mad: :D

[Dr Realism]

china does not have a history of occupying its neighbors. if it did, korea and much of southeast asia would have been chinese territory a long time ago. china traditionally has only expected foreign sovereigns to recognize the pre-eminence of china and pay tributes to its leader. other than these token gestures, china's neighbors have abided relatively free of chinese intrusion.

And by the way. This statement is just flat out wrong.;)

[histoman]

I'm not going to bother getting into Iraq because if I do this thread will never end,


well, that's too bad because iraq is probably the main reason some people think we should return to a policy of isolationism. iraq is an example of american unilateral military action, and an example of "diplomacy" at the point of a gun, both of which come out of a policy of being the world's cop.


so i don't see how iraq can be avoided.

[histoman]

And by the way. This statement is just flat out wrong.;)


i took a course in chinese history way, way back and that is my recollection. i don't recall many wars with neighbors - in fact, except for a couple of modern examples and the proverbial invasion by foreigners such as monguls, the british, etc - i can't think of any - and the chinese have very seldom been foreign occupiers. rather, they regarded their own country as the center of the world (that's what the chinese characters for "china" mean) and looked down on others as "barbarians", not fit even to be ruled - directly, anyway.

another example of this policy of "disdainful non-engagement" (or isolationism) is the chinese naval expedition sometime in the 13th or 14th centuries that reached the shores of africa. the chinese went, they saw - and they came back. and that was the end of it. they didn't try to colonize the new lands they discovered. they didn't bring back slaves. all they did bring back were some exotic animals (giraffes an such) to amuse the emperor. in fact, when the admiral came back, the chinese scholars were so dismayed that they were able to persuade the emperor to forbid any further sea expeditions. that put an end to chinese explorations and inaugurated centuries of chinese isolationism that was only ended when westerners forcibly opened ports in places like macau and hong kong.

that's when the chinese finally woke up and realized that the world around them had changed and their civilization had been surpassed. this humiliating episode of foreign domination and the forced awakening to the decline in china's standing are two big reasons china is so determined to modernize. they want to reclaim what they believe is their rightful historical position as a great nation.


but if you know better, then please enlighten us.

[PADDYBOY]

Sometimes the best way to deal with a problem. Is not to deal with it???:mad:

[Belisarius]

I'm not an expert in this area but I do know that China has gone through eras of expansionism as well as retrenchment. During the T'ang dynasty, for example, China conquered most of Korea, Northern vietnam, most of central Asia up to the Aral sea, parts of Northern India, Nepal, and Tibet.

[PADDYBOY]

Belasurius
Wasn't it the withdrawal of military forces from the Falkland Islands during Margaret Thatchers Premiership, that led to Argintina assuming that the U.K.
was no longer prepared to defend it's sovereignty over the islands?
Hence the Falklands war

[Belisarius]

Belasurius
Wasn't it the withdrawal of military forces from the Falkland Islands during Margaret Thatchers Premiership, that led to Argintina assuming that the U.K.
was no longer prepared to defend it's sovereignty over the islands?
Hence the Falklands war

It was the withdrawl of HMS Endurance, a survey ship, that was thought to have tipped Argentina over the edge, but what's that got to do with my post on Chinese expansionism?

[histoman]

I'm not an expert in this area but I do know that China has gone through eras of expansionism as well as retrenchment. During the T'ang dynasty, for example, China conquered most of Korea, Northern vietnam, most of central Asia up to the Aral sea, parts of Northern India, Nepal, and Tibet.


tibet didn't become part of china until the qing dynasty, many centuries after the tang. here is an exerpt from this site that shows the map of chinese territory during the first dynasty, the han:

Chinese armies also invaded and annexed parts of northern Vietnam and northern Korea toward the end of the second century BC. Han control of peripheral regions was generally insecure, however. To ensure peace with non-Chinese local powers, the Han court developed a mutually beneficial "tributary system". Non-Chinese states were allowed to remain autonomous in exchange for symbolic acceptance of Han overlordship. Tributary ties were confirmed and strengthened through intermarriages at the ruling level and periodic exchanges of gifts and goods.

http://www.regenttour.com/china/history/han.htm

[Lucius]

how has our occupation of iraq improved our credibility in the world? if anything, it has made it much, much worse, not only because the invasion was done on questionable grounds, but also because it has exposed the lie about our supposed military prowess. does anyone take us seriously anymore?


The hostilities in the Persian Gulf War were brought to an end by means of a cease-fire agreed to by both side at Safwan. For two years, both sides abided by the Safwan Cease-Fire -

Our army retreated into Kuwait and watched helplessly.

Saddam proceeded to murder tens of thousands of innocent men women and children in the south of Iraq.

Then Saddam broke the cease-fire by painting coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone with radar, which was prohibited by the text of the cease-fire signed by the Iraqi representatives.

For about 8 years, both sides were content with them shooting at us, and us bombing them. Then the WTC atrocity happened.

So, it depends what you mean by "credibility." Saddam broke an agreement with the U.S. He ended up being hanged by the neck. That would seem to be credible enough to most people.

At the same time, we didn't go in and finish him off until after the Radical Islamic War on Liberal Democracy hit New York. A certain un-creditability attaches to the timing.

If you mean that Bush & Co. thought that they could transform a fascist dictatorship to a liberal democracy without first "preparing the ground" like we did in Germany and Japan, well, that's not merely uncredible. It's incredible.

I think most people around the world don't doubt our "military prowess". What they doubt is the judgement, the wisdom, of our commander-in-chief.

[histoman]

I think most people around the world don't doubt our "military prowess"


we can't subdue an insurgency in a country of, what, 30 million people? now we're on the verge of pulling out if the dems have their way. doesn't this look like a defeat to you? it certainly doesn't look like a victory to me.

[Lucius]

we can't subdue an insurgency in a country of, what, 30 million people? now we're on the verge of pulling out if the dems have their way. doesn't this look like a defeat to you? it certainly doesn't look like a victory to me.


Defeat and victory "look like" the same thing. You've seen the aerial photographs of the what the cities of Germany and Japan looked like after we got done with them in '45. That's what defeat for the one side and victory for the other look like. And everybody on the planet knows that the fact that Iraq's cities are relatively intact has zero to do with the prowess of the U.S. military. It has everything to do with the delicate sensibilities of the American people and everybody knows it. The enemy scorns us for being a bunch of pansies.

What were the generals supposed to do? Resign? Abandon their men on the eve of war?

I'm not a general and I don't play one on TV. But generally speaking, in a war, both sides are going to keep fighting until one side can't fight anymore. They're going to insist that they be all the way defeated, and will hear none of this "be reasonable" crap. If the "goal" is anything less than obliterating all civil institutions within the enemy country and replacing them with a military occupation government, then all the killing isn't worth it. It's like Captain Willard said in Apocalypse Now. Never get off the boat unless you're going all the way.

But in answer to your question, it's too early too say. Those generals are a lot smarter than I am.

[Dr Realism]

i took a course in chinese history way, way back and that is my recollection. i don't recall many wars with neighbors - in fact, except for a couple of modern examples and the proverbial invasion by foreigners such as monguls, the british, etc - i can't think of any - and the chinese have very seldom been foreign occupiers. rather, they regarded their own country as the center of the world (that's what the chinese characters for "china" mean) and looked down on others as "barbarians", not fit even to be ruled - directly, anyway.

another example of this policy of "disdainful non-engagement" (or isolationism) is the chinese naval expedition sometime in the 13th or 14th centuries that reached the shores of africa. the chinese went, they saw - and they came back. and that was the end of it. they didn't try to colonize the new lands they discovered. they didn't bring back slaves. all they did bring back were some exotic animals (giraffes an such) to amuse the emperor. in fact, when the admiral came back, the chinese scholars were so dismayed that they were able to persuade the emperor to forbid any further sea expeditions. that put an end to chinese explorations and inaugurated centuries of chinese isolationism that was only ended when westerners forcibly opened ports in places like macau and hong kong.

that's when the chinese finally woke up and realized that the world around them had changed and their civilization had been surpassed. this humiliating episode of foreign domination and the forced awakening to the decline in china's standing are two big reasons china is so determined to modernize. they want to reclaim what they believe is their rightful historical position as a great nation.


but if you know better, then please enlighten us.
I shall
Here's a very brief time period of 100 years in China's thousands of years of history.

598 China invades Koguryo, attacks the Turks in the North and conquers the peoples living in what is present day Southern China
602 China conquers Vietnam for the 3rd time
Afterwards China invades the Kingdom of Champa
605 China attacks the Khitan in Manchuria
612 China invades Koguryo(one of the 3 Kingdoms of Korea during the 3 Kingdoms period), with 1 million soldiers and fails
613 China tries again and fails
614 China tries again and fails
630 The Chinese attack the Eastern Turks
638 China fights a war with Tibet
640's The Chinese attacks the Western Turks
644 China conquers the Kingdom of Karashahr in Eastern Turkestan
645 China attacks Koguryo again
647 China attacks Koguryo again
648 China conquers the Kingdom of Kucha in Eastern Turkestan
657 China attacks the Western Turks
660 China(in alliance with Shilla) conquers the Korean Kingdom of Baekje and fights the Japanese.
668 China and Shilla invade and conquer Koguryo. (Afterwards, the Chinese militarily occupy Baekje and Koguryo. Shilla drives the Chinese out of Korea in 671 and sets up the Shilla Dynasty with its capital in Gyeongju.(I visited that city recently.:) It was great. It has lots of Ancient buildings, Temples, and artifacts).
670 China fights another war with Tibet
689 China attacks Tibet and loses
692 China attacks Tibet and wins

This is just a brief time period in China's history of conquest and warfare. I'm not going to list every event in China's history because that would obviously take forever. But you must realize that China's history is not one of peaceful coexistence with its neighbors.
Histoman. If after reading this, you continue to insist that China's history is peaceful, then I have nothing more to say to you because it will mean that you are not on this forum for knowledge but only to start arguments and make immature comments.:mad:

[histoman]

I shall
Here's a very brief time period of 100 years in China's thousands of years of history.

598 China invades Koguryo, attacks the Turks in the North and conquers the peoples living in what is present day Southern China
602 China conquers Vietnam for the 3rd time
Afterwards China invades the Kingdom of Champa
605 China attacks the Khitan in Manchuria
612 China invades Koguryo(one of the 3 Kingdoms of Korea during the 3 Kingdoms period), with 1 million soldiers and fails
613 China tries again and fails
614 China tries again and fails
630 The Chinese attack the Eastern Turks
638 China fights a war with Tibet
640's The Chinese attacks the Western Turks
644 China conquers the Kingdom of Karashahr in Eastern Turkestan
645 China attacks Koguryo again
647 China attacks Koguryo again
648 China conquers the Kingdom of Kucha in Eastern Turkestan
657 China attacks the Western Turks
660 China(in alliance with Shilla) conquers the Korean Kingdom of Baekje and fights the Japanese.
668 China and Shilla invade and conquer Koguryo. (Afterwards, the Chinese militarily occupy Baekje and Koguryo. Shilla drives the Chinese out of Korea in 671 and sets up the Shilla Dynasty with its capital in Gyeongju.(I visited that city recently.:) It was great. It has lots of Ancient buildings, Temples, and artifacts).
670 China fights another war with Tibet
689 China attacks Tibet and loses
692 China attacks Tibet and wins

This is just a brief time period in China's history of conquest and warfare. I'm not going to list every event in China's history because that would obviously take forever. But you must realize that China's history is not one of peaceful coexistence with its neighbors.
Histoman. If after reading this, you continue to insist that China's history is peaceful, then I have nothing more to say to you because it will mean that you are not on this forum for knowledge but only to start arguments and make immature comments.:mad:


easy there, doc. people might think you're still sore about the "horny young chinese men" quip.

if any of these events were significant compared to, say, the barbarian invasions that actually overthrew dynasties, or the internal rebellions that split the country, then they would have been taught in undergrad courses like the one i took and would be well known. but they're not - well known, that is; some may have been taught, but i've simply forgotten them because they were not pivotal in chinese history.

chinese history is overwhelmingly about foreign invasion and internal conflict and divisions. remember: dynasties like the qing and yuan were manchus and mongols, not native han chinese. the excursions to korea and vietnam were peripheral to these central themes. that's why they are not well known. except in korea and vietnam, of course. but not anywhere else.

finally, china is a big country. it has long borders with many different peoples, not all of them friendly - eg, barbarians invasions. so it should not come as a surprise that there have been many border skirmishes, and that the borders have moved back and forth as a result. w/o detailed knowledge of what happened in each of these incidents - and without any sources - i won't agree with your characterization that china was the aggressor in every case. i mean, china didn't build the great wall so it could invade its neighbors!

now, to come back to the present and to get a better informed perspective on the potential threat china might pose to its neighbors, i found this interview with lee kuan yew, the former pm of singapore. here's an excerpt:

SPIEGEL: The Chinese Government is promoting the peaceful rise of China. Do you believe them?

Mr. Lee: Yes, I do, with one reservation. I think they have calculated that they need 30 to 40 -- maybe 50 years of peace and quiet to catch up, to build up their system, change it from the communist system to the market system. They must avoid the mistakes made by Germany and Japan. Their competition for power, influence and resources led in the last century to two terrible wars.

SPIEGEL: What should the Chinese do differently?

Mr. Lee: They will trade, they will not demand, "This is my sphere of influence, you keep out". America goes to South America and they also go to South America. Brazil has now put aside an area as big as the state of Massachusetts to grow soya beans for China. They are going to Sudan and Venezuela for oil because the Venezuelan President doesn't like America. They are going to Iran for oil and gas. So, they are not asking for a military contest for power, but for an economic competition.

SPIEGEL: But would anybody take them really seriously without military power?

Mr. Lee: About eight years ago, I met Liu Huaqing, the man who built the Chinese Navy. Mao personally sent him to Leningrad to learn to build ships. I said to him, "The Russians made very rough, crude weapons". He replied, "You are wrong. They made first-class weapons, equal to the Americans." The Russian mistake was that they put so much into military expenditure and so little into civilian technology. So their economy collapsed. I believe the Chinese leadership have learnt: If you compete with America in armaments, you will lose. You will bankrupt yourself. So, avoid it, keep your head down, and smile, for 40 or 50 years.

SPIEGEL: What are your reservations?

Mr. Lee: I don't know whether the next generation will stay on this course. After 15 or 20 years they may feel their muscles are very powerful. We know the mind of the leaders but the mood of the people on the ground is another matter. Because there's no more communist ideology to hold the people together, the ground is now galvanised by Chinese patriotism and nationalism. Look at the anti-Japanese demonstrations.

SPIEGEL: How do you explain that China is spending billions on military modernisation right now?

Mr. Lee: Their modernisation is just a drop in the ocean. Their objective is to raise the level of damage they can deliver to the Americans if they intervene in Taiwan. Their objective is not to defeat the Americans, which they cannot do. They know they will be defeated. They want to weaken the American resolve to intervene. That is their objective, but they do not want to attack Taiwan.


SPIEGEL: Many Americans fear that China and the US are bound to become strategic rivals. Will this become the great rivalry of the 21st century?

Mr. Lee: Rivals, yes, but not necessarily enemies. The Chinese have spent a lot of energy and time to make sure that their periphery is friendly to them. So, they settled with Russia, they have settled with India. They're going to have a free trade agreement with India -- they're learning from each other. Instead of quarrelling with the Philippines and the Vietnamese over oil in the South China Sea, they have agreed on joint exploration and sharing. They've agreed on a strategic agreement with Indonesia for bilateral trade and technology.

SPIEGEL: But the Americans are trying to encircle China. They have won new bases in Central Asia.

Mr. Lee: The Chinese are very conscious of being encircled by allies of America. But they are very good in countering those moves. South Korea today has the largest number of foreign students in China. They see their future in China. So, the only country that's openly on America's side is Japan. All the others are either neutral or friendly to China.
http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2005/08/lee-kuan-yew-interview.html


lee, who should know something about china repeats what i've been saying. china is embarked on an economic competition with the us, not a military confrontation. china is also pursuing a policy of peaceful relations with its neighbors as part of a strategy to secure economic resources. for the forseeable future, war, either against the us or any of its neighbors, is not in the best interests of china. they can't afford it.

but, doc. if you still think we should be scared of the big bad chinese, then by all means tell us why this is wrong.

[histoman]

And everybody on the planet knows that the fact that Iraq's cities are relatively intact has zero to do with the prowess of the U.S. military. It has everything to do with the delicate sensibilities of the American people and everybody knows it. The enemy scorns us for being a bunch of pansies.


your forces are only as effective as the weakest link, and in this age of tv, public opinion is the weak link. that's just another reason why a big military presence and these unilateral invasions won't work today. no-one has the appetite for them.


But in answer to your question, it's too early too say. Those generals are a lot smarter than I am.


i'm glad you finally got around to my question. i'm sorry you didn't answer it because the answer is obvious: if we withdraw from iraq and that country goes up in flames, then this war will be seen as a FAILURE. by EVERYONE.

there's no doubt about that.

[Dr Realism]

These events in China's past weren't important because you had never heard about them? LOL. They're not important because America schools didn't say anything about them? Double LOL. Your statement is the mother of all arrogance.:rolleyes:

China's constant battles with the Turkish peoples on north and central Asia, the Mongols, the Tibetans, the Khitan, the Xiongnu, the Koreans, and the Vietnamese are the reason China's borders look the way they do today and the reason that China is stronger than the countries around it. Of course it had wars along its borders. It kept pushing it's borders outward. Sometimes it was for defensive purposes, and sometimes it was for pure conquest. Offensive-defensivism, Defensive-offensivism, the end result is the same. Conquest is conquest.
China's wars with Tibet are part of the reason that Tibet is occupied by China rather than it being the other way around. Obviously. Tibet used to be a very powerful Empire. But that's not in the Western History books, so I guess it didn't really happen.
China has been battling its neighbors for control of Central Asia since the Han Dynasty. Central Asia was one of the keys to economic power because that's where the Silk Road was and therefore, trade with the Western and Middle Eastern Peoples. It's wars with the central Asians and even against the Arabs, are part of the reason that China controls half of Turkestan today.
China's wars with Koguryo were very important. Koguryo was a powerful Kingdom that ruled a lot of present day Manchuria. History could have gone either way, and much to China's benefit, the Koreans do not rule Manchuria today.
China's wars in Vietnam were also very important to the history of the region. China has been trying to incorporate Vietnam into China, almost since Vietnam's inception. You do realize that the people who live in Vietnam and the people who live in Thailand used to live in what is today known as Southern China? They were pushed South through years of Chinese expansion.
Do China's wars and constant conquests of Vietnam really matter? Well they certainly do if a Western Super Power comes along in the 20th century without ever reading anything about Vietnam's past wars and inserts 500,000 soldiers into Vietnam thinking it can win. Of course, it would have behooved for the arrogant westerners to have read about the 20 year war that Vietnam fought against the Ming Empire's 500,000 soldiers in the early 15th century which delivered a very embarrasing defeat to the Ming Empire. But that's not in the American history books, so it didn't happen.
China is a large country today because it conquered, not because it peacefully rose.

As for the future of the US and China. Economic power= Military power. That's quite obvious. If you believe that China and the US are going to be buddy buddy than your ignoring the history of the world. The two strongest powers are always Status Quo and Challenger. As for what happens in the future between America and China, I'll have to get back to you in 30 or 40 years.

[Lucius]

Sorry about my long-windedness. Can't help it.

Yes, credibility is associated with what "everybody" thinks. But think on this.

By the time of Agincourt, France had been trying to liberate itself from England for 78 years. It was a disaster for France. The Treaty of Troyes recognized Henry as the regent and heir to the French throne. Thirty-eight years later, England was expelled from the continent(except for a small area around Calais).

Is there a sense of urgency about naming the winner in Iraq? If Iraq "goes up in flames", it'll still be there after the fires go out.

[DigitusImpudicus]

Is there a sense of urgency about naming the winner in Iraq? If Iraq "goes up in flames", it'll still be there after the fires go out.
LOL! Spoken like a true historian!

I suppose the concern is who the new landlord is when the smoke clears...

Chris--

[histoman]

Is there a sense of urgency about naming the winner in Iraq? If Iraq "goes up in flames", it'll still be there after the fires go out.


the verdict of history may take 30 yrs, but public opinion is virtually instantaneous. and in today's world, it's the latter that counts. us foreign policy credibility and american confidence will take a hit if they lose iraq. and this doesn't even begin to consider what the consequences of a destabilized iraq implies for that region and the rest of the world. america call ill afford to lose its street cred at such a time.

[histoman]

These events in China's past weren't important because you had never heard about them? LOL. They're not important because America schools didn't say anything about them? Double LOL. Your statement is the mother of all arrogance.:rolleyes:


some of these battles were connected to the foreign invasions that eventually resulted in dynastic change, so i've already acknowledged their importance. as for the rest, such battles are normal for any country with long borders and unfriendly neighbors. but were they more important than those invasions that overthrew dynasties? or the civil wars that caused massive internal upheavals? go ask you avg chinese and see what he thinks. they know their own history.


China's constant battles with the Turkish peoples on north and central Asia, the Mongols, the Tibetans, the Khitan, the Xiongnu, the Koreans, and the Vietnamese are the reason China's borders look the way they do today and the reason that China is stronger than the countries around it. you're confused, here, doc. even had those battles not happened, china would still be stronger than its neighbors, for the simple reason that they were always bigger (population, if not also land), culturally and technologically more advanced, and wealthier than its neighbors. that's why kingdoms like vietnam and korea copied good parts of chinese culture and administration, and paid tribute to the middle kingdom.



Of course it had wars along its borders. It kept pushing it's borders outward. Sometimes it was for defensive purposes, and sometimes it was for pure conquest. Offensive-defensivism, Defensive-offensivism, the end result is the same. Conquest is conquest.defense = conquest? so you're saying self-defense is no different than aggressive conquest? no wonder you blame china for all these altercations.



China's wars with Tibet are part of the reason that Tibet is occupied by China rather than it being the other way around. Obviously. Tibet used to be a very powerful Empire. this doesn't make sense. you're saying if china had not fought tibet, tibet would include china today?!

go ahead and explain how tibet would have swallowed china?


China has been battling its neighbors for control of Central Asia since the Han Dynasty. Central Asia was one of the keys to economic power because that's where the Silk Road was and therefore, trade with the Western and Middle Eastern Peoples. It's wars with the central Asians and even against the Arabs, are part of the reason that China controls half of Turkestan today. these wars i do remember. but so what? it's natural for a nation to defend its economic interests. no-one can criticize them for this. EVERYONE does this. but it's one thing to secure trading routes on your border, and another to send naval expeditions to the other side of the world and subjugate and colonize other peoples. this the chinese had the opportunity to do but didn't. compared to other powers - like the british, spanish, portugese - the chinese were far less aggressive and relatively more peaceful.


China's wars in Vietnam were also very important to the history of the region. China has been trying to incorporate Vietnam into China, almost since Vietnam's inception. You do realize that the people who live in Vietnam and the people who live in Thailand used to live in what is today known as Southern China? They were pushed South through years of Chinese expansion. some of this expansion happened as a result of chinese civlians fleeing internal strife or wars in the north, and had nothing to do with military expansion. that's why you find chinese settled in many southeast asian countries.

as for vietnam itself, yes i know that at some points it was a part of china. but, again, so what? in the big picture of chinese history, how was vietnam even significant??? it's not even a part of china now.


Do China's wars and constant conquests of Vietnam really matter? Well they certainly do if a Western Super Power comes along in the 20th century without ever reading anything about Vietnam's past wars and inserts 500,000 soldiers into Vietnam thinking it can win. Of course, it would have behooved for the arrogant westerners to have read about the 20 year war that Vietnam fought against the Ming Empire's 500,000 soldiers in the early 15th century which delivered a very embarrasing defeat to the Ming Empire.


exactly. and that's just another reason why the communist chinese won't make the same mistake, right?


China is a large country today because it conquered, not because it peacefully rose. As for the future of the US and China. Economic power= Military power. That's quite obvious. If you believe that China and the US are going to be buddy buddy than your ignoring the history of the world.

you completely ignore the role that foreign invasions of china had in the formation of its borders. but even overlooking this, so what?! like i said before, this is how a country extends its CONTIGUOUS territory. but there is no evidence - not even in china's long history - that china has any intention of sending its military overseas to invade and conquer other nations, a la the us in iraq. china has never been a GLOBAL military power, not even when they had the means to achieve this and there were no opponents standing in its way.

so these warnings that china is setting itself up to be a military superpower to compete with america across the globe are unsubstiated fearmongering. if china runs up against the us, it will be because the latter is intruding on the regional affairs of the former, and not the other way around.


If you believe that China and the US are going to be buddy buddy than your ignoring the history of the world.

you're right in this respect: it is hard to be buddy-buddy with people like you who are convinced china has a secret agenda to conquer the world.

if you think china is going to turn around tomorrow and attack the us or any of its allies, you don't understand china's present policy or circumstances.

go back and read lee's comments.

[Belisarius]

tibet didn't become part of china until the qing dynasty, many centuries after the tang. here is an exerpt from this site that shows the map of chinese territory during the first dynasty, the han:



http://www.regenttour.com/china/history/han.htm

The map I have of the Tang empire at it's height clearly shows tibet as a province. here's another quote from the above website

The Tang are considered to be one of the great dynasties of Chinese history; many historians rank them right behind the Han. They extended the boundaries of China through Siberia in the North, Korea in the east, and were in what is now Vietnam in the South. They even extended a corridor of control along the Silk Road well into modern-day Afghanistan.

We can argue about the status of Tibet, but that's not the point I was trying to make, which was; China did have significant expansionist phases, like all empires.

Anyway this is getting way off topic. I'll leave that to Uber :D

[MrStoff1989]

Lol! It's all good, please just return to topic now.

[histoman]

The map I have of the Tang empire at it's height clearly shows tibet as a province. here's another quote from the above website



you need to look at a modern map because even your map shows that tibet was not part of china in the tang era. here's another site that actually identifies the old tibetan empire. you can see it borders china, but is not a part of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_dynasty

china had a tributary agreement with tibet during the tang, whereby the tibetan rulers would send emissaries to the chinese capital and kowtow before the chinese emperor thereby acknowledging the supremacy of chinese rule. he would hand over some gifts and in exchange the chinese would give him gifts worth more than those he gave, and the two kingdoms would agree to live peacefully and trade goods.

not a bad system, right?

[Dr Realism]

Forget about it Histoman. You've once again outclassed me and defeated the evil war mongering forces of Dr Realism.:) Congratulations. Let's see what facts we have agreed upon.
I.China has never been aggressive towards anyone.
II.The only major events in its history were the Khitan and Mongol invasions. III.The communists are going to peacefully and economically rule this world and there will be no wars. I feel better already.
IV.All Chinese know their history because the CCP teaches every fact from the last 4,000 years to them. Much the same as every American knows their history.:rolleyes: LOL. But seriously, I think you need to find a smarter group of chaps to argue with because we just can't keep up with you.

[Dr Realism]

The map I have of the Tang empire at it's height clearly shows tibet as a province. here's another quote from the above website

The Tang are considered to be one of the great dynasties of Chinese history; many historians rank them right behind the Han. They extended the boundaries of China through Siberia in the North, Korea in the east, and were in what is now Vietnam in the South. They even extended a corridor of control along the Silk Road well into modern-day Afghanistan.

We can argue about the status of Tibet, but that's not the point I was trying to make, which was; China did have significant expansionist phases, like all empires.

Anyway this is getting way off topic. I'll leave that to Uber :D

The Tang did not rule Tibet. In fact, during the Tang Dynasty, Tibet was a powerful Kingdom. The Tibetians and Chinese fought each other quite a few times and after fighting both the Arabs and Chinese, the Tibetians began to weaken. The Tang only controlled Korea for a few years before Shilla kicked them out of the southern and central areas of the Korean peninsula.

Yes the Chinese did have expansionist times, just like all other empires. Often the cycle would be that a dynasty would crumble, China would fracture into seperate Kingdoms. One Kingdom would begin to conquer the others and become powerful enough to take over most of China proper and form a Dynasty, then after consolidating, it would begin expanding, become very powerful, then start having too many wars, and eventually it would fall and the cycle would begin all over again.

[Lord_Cronus]

Let's see if I can get us back on topic here. If the US remained an isolationist country, I don't believe it would have anywhere near the influence it had during the late 20th century. Look at it like this, what if it didn't get involved in WWI? Germany would have more than likely won. The result, Hitler wouldn't have come to power, there would have been no holocaust and ultimately no WWII. That means Berlin wouldn't have been split, the Cold War would probably never have taken place. Also, Korea and Vietnam would never have been fought if the US took a neutral stance on Communism.

I think it goes back to Rome and even beyond. Julius Caesar knew that if the Senate would not allow expansion into neighboring, tribute paying mind you, territories Rome would stay small. Thus he began a campaign into Gaul that doubles the size of what would shortly become an empire. The conquest of man is to rule all that he sees. Manifest Destiny ring a bell?

[Lucius]

"Look at it like this, what if it [the U.S.] didn't get involved in WWI? Germany would have more than likely won."

I think you're on to something, Lord_Cronus. Of course it is impossible to say how the Second Battle of the Marne would have fallen out if the American Army had not been there to stem the tide in early June of '18. Britain and France were as exhausted as Germany was. By this time, Lenin had already signed over to Germany all of the Baltic states, Poland, the Ukraine, and Georgia. Before the Armistice in the west intervened, Germany had also occupied Belarus, the lower Don, and the Taman peninsula. I can't help but think they later would have given Yudenich and Denekin whatever help they needed to defeat the Red Army in the civil war. The Germans certainly would have been in a better position to aid the Whites than the Allies were in real event. German puppet regimes might well have stretched all the way to the Pacific.

It still would have been a close-run thing. Brest-Litovsk wasn't signed until March 3rd of '18. The Somme Offensive, which sought to separate the BEF from the French, went in just 18 days later. It was a success by WWI standards, but came nowhere close to it's objective. Nor did the Lys Offensive against the Belgians in April. The Aisne Offensive got about half-way to Paris. Then it ran into the 2nd U.S. Division at Belleau Wood and the 3rd at Chateau Thierry on June 4th. By continental standards, the two U.S. divisions were double-strength (Also, the 5th and 6th Marine Regiments were incorporated into these two divisions, which is a considerable point.) By the end of June there were 20 U.S. divisions in France; by the end of July, 30 divisions.

With no U.S. military presence in France, it is conceivable that the Germans could have driven down the Marne and reached Paris by the end of June. 30,000 French soldiers had revolted against the war the year before. There might have been widespread mutinies again. It might very well have knocked France out of the war - even compelled the BEF to evacuate back to England.

I don't see the Brits quitting though. I guess they'd keep fighting on in Greece and Italy, Mesopotamia and Palestine. But without loans from an isolationist America, well, it'd be hard.

And if the U.S. had been truly isolationist, we would have opposed neither the Japanese occupation of large parts of eastern Siberia in 1918 (presumably, the Japanese Empire and the German Empire would have composed their differences), nor their claims of exclusivity of trade with China. That would have removed the causus belli for the Pacific half of WWII too. But even a fanciful definition of an "isolationist America" must allow for U.S. political/economic/military dominance of Latin America. I mean, we've got to have some reality in our fantasies.

Yes, the NSDAP would never have come into existence. There would have been no Holocaust (also, Soviet Communism would have been strangled in it's crib. There would have been no Gulag). But Ludendorf was running an efficient dictatorship over all of Germany, which would have expanded in geographical scope after a victory of the Central Powers. Who knows?

Beyond that, I got nothing.

[Belisarius]

Having read the text accompanying my map, it does state "..and tributary kingdoms". That'll teach me to make assumptions. Thank you all, I stand/sit corrected. :o:)

[Dr Realism]

Having read the text accompanying my map, it does state "..and tributary kingdoms". That'll teach me to make assumptions. Thank you all, I stand/sit corrected. :o:)
Well, at least you can admit when your wrong.:) "True knowledge is realizing the extent of one's ignorance."

[histoman]

Forget about it Histoman.


look, doc. no hard feelings. i conceded that there was more warfare with neighbors than i had thought and remembered. but i don't agree that china expanded by "conquest" alone, as you claimed. for example, the process of BEING conquered by foreign invaders had the ironic result of EXPANDING chinese territory because the invaders brought THEIR lands into the chinese empire! for example, the qing conquerers - the manchus - brought manchuria and parts of north korea and mongolia into the empire. the yuan conquerers - the mongols - brought mongolia and huge parts of asia and even europe into the empire (although historians don't usually count these lands).

also the qing dynasty was one of the most - if not the most - expansionist periods in chinese history. yet, the rulers were NOT han chinese. (i don't remember what happened in the yuan period, but considering the khans were great conquerers they probably did they're share, too. )

[Lord_Cronus]

[quote=Lucius;14147
Beyond that, I got nothing.[/quote]

Just remember, that's a dramatic change in the scope of the world today. It's likely that we would be really worried about being invaded if the events played out like that.

[Lucius]

Oh yes, here's something else. The idea that something called nuclear fission could be used to make a bomb was thought up in Europe. Considering the reason they all left, we must conclude that Fermi, Einstein, Bohr, etc, would have remained to work at home. There would have been no animus against what the Nazis were pleased to call "Jewish Physics."

[Dr Realism]

look, doc. no hard feelings. i conceded that there was more warfare with neighbors than i had thought and remembered. but i don't agree that china expanded by "conquest" alone, as you claimed. for example, the process of BEING conquered by foreign invaders had the ironic result of EXPANDING chinese territory because the invaders brought THEIR lands into the chinese empire! for example, the qing conquerers - the manchus - brought manchuria and parts of north korea and mongolia into the empire. the yuan conquerers - the mongols - brought mongolia and huge parts of asia and even europe into the empire (although historians don't usually count these lands).

also the qing dynasty was one of the most - if not the most - expansionist periods in chinese history. yet, the rulers were NOT han chinese. (i don't remember what happened in the yuan period, but considering the khans were great conquerers they probably did they're share, too. )

The Qing Empire was one of the most expansionist times in Chinese history. But the Han, Tang, Ming, and others were also expansionist. Remember, China started as a small Kingdom on the Yellow River and after thousands of years, got to the size it is today. Naturally, because it has had thousands of years to get where it is today, it doesn't appear to be aggresive in the way the Nazi Germany or Napoleonic France were. And I would certainly not put it in the same category as those empires either. But China would not have survived for very long if it had been a Zebra instead of a Tiger.
Imperial China was only conquered by foreigners twice(excluding Euro-Russian-Japanese Imperialism).
It would actually bring up an interesting question, whether or not the Qing Empire was in fact a Chinese Empire or not because it was ruled by foreigners. Afterall, Hitler wasn't German, Stalin wasn't Russian, Napoleon was Corsican, and many other European rulers were not actually from the country that they ruled. Just musing.
The Qing didn't conquer the Joseon Dyasty in Korea, though it was a tributary.
The Yuan Dynasty is an oddity in my opinon. I wouldn't count it as a time of expansion for China because China wasn't the only thing they ruled. And no, I don't recall the Yuan bringing any territory into China proper.

Histoman, I have no problem discussing history with you as long as you post in a civilized manner without ripping on other posters and without being so confrontational. Nobody knows everything, and if I did, I wouldn't be here. And in the words of John Quincy Adam's mother, "Now Remember John, nobody likes a pompous ass...";)

[MrStoff1989]

Thank Goodness for Abigail.

[Nibblungs]

While reading through this thread I had a thought. If nations are even a little like people then isolation would be much like solitary confinement, kind of a crazy situation to want to place yourself in. Just like people, after a bad day at the office a little oblivion looks very tempting, even if you are the boss. I remember plenty of times when being American must have been pretty cool to the rest of the world. I guess my point is, opinions seem to come and go, while absolute policies such as isolationism can and will do any nation irrevocable harm in the long run.

[PADDYBOY]

While reading through this thread I had a thought. If nations are even a little like people then isolation would be much like solitary confinement, kind of a crazy situation to want to place yourself in. Just like people, after a bad day at the office a little oblivion looks very tempting, even if you are the boss. I remember plenty of times when being American must have been pretty cool to the rest of the world. I guess my point is, opinions seem to come and go, while absolute policies such as isolationism can and will do any nation irrevocable harm in the long run.


AYE.:)

[heikstheo]

What do you think would have happened if we would've followed Washington and Jefferson's advice and stayed to ourselves? Would we be the America we are today?I don't know. Can anyone on this board dig up the full text of Washington's and Jefferson's advice in context so as to see if their advice on isolationism was to America for all time or whether it was just for America as it was in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries?

[tjadams]

A few of the founding fathers and/or first few presidents, all wrote words of staying away from the tinder box that was Europe...
John Adams's Model Treaty of 1776 envisioned a purely commercial treaty with the French, not a binding military alliance.

Geo. Washington's farewell address of 1796 advised his countrymen “to steer clear of permanent Alliances,”

Thomas Jefferson's first inaugural of 1801 sought “peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.”
and "As to everything except commerce, we ought to divorce ourselves from them all"
and "Commerce with all nations, alliance with none should be out motto"

President James Monroe said: “In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy to do so.”

[Historian_X]

America took an isolationist stance post WW1 to some extent - by not sitting on the League of Nations. I'm guessing that you all know where this led, by having America not taking a wider political role in foreign policy in the interwar years Fascism and Naziism was able to spread more so than it possibly may have done if America had taken an active role within the League of Nations.

Argueably if America had not stayed isolationist in these years, you could possibly even have funded or aided in some way White Russians and aided the destruction of Leninism before Communism set root in Russia.

Even more worrying would have been America to have taken an isolationist stance post WW2. Without American support, the 'iron curtain' of the Warsaw pact could have spread westwards to a far greater extent than it ever reached. This is reflected mostly in the importance of the Marshall aid, and intervention in Greece.

If you think of it like that then possibly Communism could have spread through the majority of Europe / Asia. America would have faced massive economic sanctions due to loss of trade, and potential loss on the lend-lease repayments if any allied countries joined the Communist block.

So, with this in mind, where would America be if it was an isolationist nation? At best a lot poorer than it currently is, and probably not the dominant super power of the world. At worst a capitalist country surrounded by socialist enemies - outnumbered and outgunned...

[tjadams]

So, with this in mind, where would America be if it was an isolationist nation? At best a lot poorer than it currently is, and probably not the dominant super power of the world. At worst a capitalist country surrounded by socialist enemies - outnumbered and outgunned...

There are many countries that do not have 1/4 of the planet angry at them & they're doing just fine.

[Historian_X]

There are many countries that do not have 1/4 of the planet angry at them & they're doing just fine.

By 'do not' I assume you mean 'do', else you point goes without saying...

Anyway, assuming you mean 'do', true to some extent, but not quite reflective of the degree nations would be angry at America. I mean even North Korea has friends... Potential worlwide economic sanctions, and a continuation of the Cold War (would it even be cold?) are somewhat worse I would say.

If at the worst case scenario it was just North America that was Capitalist I daresay Hegelian ideology within the Soviet Union combined with a Marxist view of permanent revolution would lead to America eventually being crushed. Afterall, if truely isolationist you would only react when affected yourselves, which I daresay would be too late.

With such polarity between Capitalism and Socialism, and such amnosity the Communist block held towards capitalist countries, I think it would have been truely impossible for America to ever remain isolationist in the context of what actually happened.

Not to say what you said is by any means 'invalid', but I myself being from the UK, a country which has a lot to owe to America in the post WW2 world, I find it hard to see any way in which it would have been viable for America to sit back even if it wanted to.

[tjadams]

No, my point is clear & not misdirected to mean anything other than the way it was written.

Many independent countries manage globally to provide for their citizens, protect them & live & operate with many nations without taking the mantle of world police.

[Historian_X]

No, my point is clear & not misdirected to mean anything other than the way it was written.

Many independent countries manage globally to provide for their citizens, protect them & live & operate with many nations without taking the mantle of world police.

Ah I see now. :D

Still, in many ways it is hard to see any other country that could take up the role of 'world police' asides from the USA, and arguably if America had taken an isolationist role earlier a lot more 'policing' would need to be done... That or the 'policing' would be in a totally non ethical sense (where Liberalism and Western Democracy would policed by aggressors).

I fully understand the view that domestically, America would probably have a lot to gain from isolation, but I still fail to see how internationally it could benefit unless there was another nation to take up the role America currently holds. Especially when considering just how much of a role America has played up until this point.

[tjadams]

See, a slight wording or phrase can lead to a simple mis-understanding. Glad you're here to rattle the dusty cage bars of historical debate. :)

[minimac]

From what I gathered from everyone's response, everyone answered this question from a standpoint of the United States being an isolationist nation earlier. But what do you think if it tried to be one now? Could it?