Putin's Bikers on Red Army Victory Tour

[Martim Silva]

Well, 10 Night Wolves were stopped by the Polish border guards (though some Polish bikers buzzed their horns in protest against the refusal on the Polish side).

They promise to find "alternate" routes to Berlin. Seems it may involve moving without showing they are part of the group.

Regardless of what they achieve or not, the situation clearly shows the new power balance in Europe: in 1945 the Russians rolled in that area as conquerors, from 1945 to 1989 they were its masters.

Now they have to be desguised to move anywhere.

What a different place Central Europe is now.

Always nice to see a foreigner like Martim attempt to interpret American history and tell Americans what Americans currently believe.  That he is unsuccessful in understanding US history is not shameful.

Well, let me try to rephrase, since the previous post was really more a description of events (done in a hurry way too late at night; I really should know better) than noting my point.

I am not trying to assign blame to the US, or to anyone.

What I am pointing out is that the areas the US got out of the Mexican Cession were achieved through Imperial conquest, and that Empire-building is really not a bad thing most of the time. On the contrary, it is what makes nations strong. Those that refuse it become pathetic husks, like the UK is now, its men and government uncapable even to protect their little girls.

So, I have to ask, since the current thought line is that Imperialism is "not smart" and should not be done (as was also the opinion of Lincoln and Grant at the time):

- Was the adding of these territories to the United States good or bad for the country?

- Is America stronger for having Texas, California, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and part of Colorado?

- Would you prefer if the Mexican border had remained unchanged?

(and let us not forget the territories taken from the Native Americans: that was a sort of Imperialism, too. Apart those "bought" from drunk Native Americans that did not know what they were doing, was the acquisition by the US of places like the Dakotas and Montana a "not smart" move?)

To sum it up: were these Imperial Conquests a good or bad move by the United States?

[Valmy]

- Was the adding of these territories to the United States good or bad for the country?

- Is America stronger for having Texas, California, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and part of Colorado?

- Would you prefer if the Mexican border had remained unchanged?

Well they almost certainly made the Civil War inevitable and almost immediate. The annexation of California and the Gold Rush especially turbo-charged that. So it was pretty devastating in the short term. In the long term eh probably? I think the US would be fine either way.

My preferences are a little weird to ask about for this situation. Mexico was ruling a territory where the majority of the territory was controlled by people who rejected its authority and it was pretty intent on crushing them by force, as evidenced by their wars with the Apaches. It was all based on the antiquated claims of the Spanish Empire. I mean if we are talking about my fluffy bunny pie in the sky preferences for world history I am not sure I would include the Spanish Empire in that. But hey maybe it would have been better for Mexico if they had kept them...or maybe not maybe lots of immigrants from European states and the USA move in and they rebel against Mexico and it breaks up anyway. Who knows? I would rather the US had not launched expansionist wars though. But hey what is done is done.

and let us not forget the territories taken from the Native Americans: that was a sort of Imperialism, too.

No shit Sherlock. But we are talking about which Native American oppressing new world county do you prefer? Britain, the USA, or Mexico? The land was already taken and claimed.

[grumbler]

I am actually less concerned with more hunter-gatherer societies being displaced by modern societies than I am by the more normally-considered imperialism.  After all, the tribes displaced had themselves displaced earlier tribes, and there are more American Indians alive today than there have ever been. Yeah, you can call what the US did to the natives "imperialism," just as you can call the Bantu migration imperialism, or talk about the Indo-European imperialist policies in Europe and South Asia.

Now, the treatment of the American Indians people was infected by racism (see the treatment of non-H-G natives) and so perhaps more morally reprehensible than the Bantu or IE efforts, but it was no less inevitable. H-G societies simply cannot generate the warriors needed to defend their lands from pastoral or agricultural peoples.

[Admiral Yi]

And yes, like is said here, it was quite controversial at the time; but today's Americans don't remember things as they were and - as your post proves - tend to think "Mexico started it" and have little to no idea of the very real Imperial ambitions of the US at the time.

I would be willing to bet that the average American thinks-incorrectly-that the US started it.

[Eddie Teach]

- Is America stronger for having Texas, California, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and part of Colorado?

Yes. Because we were able to assimilate them. It's nothing like the situation 20th century Britain found itself in.

[grumbler]

- Is America stronger for having Texas, California, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and part of Colorado?

Yes. Because we were able to assimilate them. It's nothing like the situation 20th century Britain found itself in.

Plus:  Mexican food! 

[Eddie Teach]

Sure, but the UK got curry even though they let India go.

[Valmy]

Don't make me talk about the difference between Tex-Mex and interior food again damn it 

[Ed Anger]

Now I'm hungry.

[grumbler]

Sure, but the UK got curry even though they let India go.

and the US let Mexico go.

Shoulda kept Cuba though.

[KRonn]

So, I have to ask, since the current thought line is that Imperialism is "not smart" and should not be done (as was also the opinion of Lincoln and Grant at the time):

- Was the adding of these territories to the United States good or bad for the country?

- Is America stronger for having Texas, California, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and part of Colorado?
- Would you prefer if the Mexican border had remained unchanged?

(and let us not forget the territories taken from the Native Americans: that was a sort of Imperialism, too. Apart those "bought" from drunk Native Americans that did not know what they were doing, was the acquisition by the US of places like the Dakotas and Montana a "not smart" move?)

To sum it up: were these Imperial Conquests a good or bad move by the United States?

The US is better off for having these states. I don't think it would have mattered much to Mexico's benefit as they'd be as poor and economically deprived with poor governance as Mexico has been for much of its history. These states became strong and vibrant due to the American laws and values regarding economy and governance. I think the natural progression of settlement greatly favored the US and its settlers so eventually those lands would more likely  have become a part of the US just by the weight of settlement and agreements later on between the US and Mexico.
I also would think that they're a lot more "American" than some of the former Soviet republics are Russian, even with many Russians living there. I'm sure it's not the same in all republics, some more or less Russian.

As for adding territories/states, why single out the US? Canada did the same, as did Russia in its history. I think in Russia's case some of the territories they added often had stronger societies already there than the American Indians. I do feel strongly though that I wish the US had treated the natives a lot better. The US did many horrid things to the native populations. As did Mexico for that matter, which had a large native population, maybe larger than in north America. 

Putin talks foolishness of arming Mexico to retake the southwest US. That isn't really any kind of issue for even Mexico, though maybe for a few Mexicans who talk about it but it doesn't have any real support or traction. Those states are strongly US, as much as any other state is. Can Russia say the same about all its former republics?

That said though, I can understand some of Putin's/Russia's views on some of their former republics. But  I think that it's a lot more complicated than the case of US states.

[Zanza]

They've driven around Poland through Slovakia and Austria and are now in Germany. Next stop is Dachau and then onwards to Berlin.
I am not sure why they get any media attention.

[Admiral Yi]

Russians do need visas, don't they?

[Razgovory]

I am actually less concerned with more hunter-gatherer societies being displaced by modern societies than I am by the more normally-considered imperialism.  After all, the tribes displaced had themselves displaced earlier tribes, and there are more American Indians alive today than there have ever been.

  No, that doesn't appear to be true, but that never stopped you.

[Zanza]

Russians do need visas, don't they?

They need a Schengen visa to enter Slovakia. There are no border controls after that.