European views on American involvement in the Vietnam war.

[Valmy]

I'll reply properly later, Garbo, but I don't see how WW2 or WW1 meets the description I've given, I agree with Jacob's too. The only possible comparison I can see is the way Roosevelt behaved with the Free French. But Ike disagreed and FDR was attacked at home, so he shifted.

The Roosevelt administration really did horribly with France, both with Vichy and with the Free French.  In the end it would not have mattered if it had not angered De Gaulle so much.

[Martinus]

And even so, just because your imperialist ambition is to thwart another imperialist power does not make your actions non-imperialist.

Right, like the vile imperialism that led the UK to defend Poland. 

When did the UK defend Poland? Was it in 1939 when it declared war on Germany and then sat on its hands, happy to drop lealflets? Or in 1945, when it gave Poland over to Stalin? 

Hitler had made it pretty clear he did not want war with Britain.  He only went to war because Britain declared war on Germany.  Which was done in response to the invasion of Poland.  And as a result within months of September 1939 Britain was the sight of the biggest air campaign in history.

Britain (and by the way, Canada and the rest of the Commonwealth) gets no credit for 1945, but certainly gets credit for going to war in 1939.

This campaign has done nothing for Poland, which was overrun before it even began. Now, again, noone blames you for "not dying for Danzig" but don't expect gratitude.

[Valmy]

This campaign has done nothing for Poland, which was overrun before it even began. Now, again, noone blames you for "not dying for Danzig" but don't expect gratitude.

Well we did kill millions of Germans.  That at least had to take the sting out a little bit.

[CountDeMoney]

This campaign has done nothing for Poland, which was overrun before it even began. Now, again, noone blames you for "not dying for Danzig" but don't expect gratitude.

You know, I don't recall French troops pouring over the Rhine or the Royal Navy sortieing to draw out the fleet at Kiel on September 2nd, 1939, either. 

[derspiess]

This campaign has done nothing for Poland, which was overrun before it even began. Now, again, noone blames you for "not dying for Danzig" but don't expect gratitude.

You know, I don't recall French troops pouring over the Rhine or the Royal Navy sortieing to draw out the fleet at Kiel on September 2nd, 1939, either. 

There was the Saar offensive, which was enough to indicate to the French that they had no offensive capability.

[Gups]

This campaign has done nothing for Poland, which was overrun before it even began. Now, again, noone blames you for "not dying for Danzig" but don't expect gratitude.

You know, I don't recall French troops pouring over the Rhine or the Royal Navy sortieing to draw out the fleet at Kiel on September 2nd, 1939, either.

Or the Poles helping the Czechs out instead of helping themselves to Zaolzie.

[garbon]

I'll reply properly later, Garbo, but I don't see how WW2 or WW1 meets the description I've given, I agree with Jacob's too. The only possible comparison I can see is the way Roosevelt behaved with the Free French. But Ike disagreed and FDR was attacked at home, so he shifted.

Well you said: "The usual approach was not to acquire territory or to subjugate states, but to work with local elites, often with shared interests, and to preserve them."

I think to large extent we did that during the wars.

[Valmy]

You know, I don't recall French troops pouring over the Rhine or the Royal Navy sortieing to draw out the fleet at Kiel on September 2nd, 1939, either. 

Neither of those things would have done much for Poland.  It does not refute the fact that the UK went to war because of Germany's invasion of Poland.

[Jacob]

I'll reply properly later, Garbo, but I don't see how WW2 or WW1 meets the description I've given, I agree with Jacob's too. The only possible comparison I can see is the way Roosevelt behaved with the Free French. But Ike disagreed and FDR was attacked at home, so he shifted.

Yeah... (and this is @ Yi as well)...

WWI was not imperialist for the US (at least in the European theatre, I think there were some imperialist consequences elsewhere) as it didn't dictate how the war was fought and it didn't install client rulers in allied or vanquished states in the aftermath, and it didn't have any particular say in other countries after the war. I don't know too much about events outside of the European theatre so I can't say too much; I'd characterize American policy in China as imperialist, but mostly they rode on the coat tails of other European imperialist powers there.

The war part of WWII was not imperialist from an American perspective. The US entered the war in response to a direct attack on its sovereign territory by another major power. You could argue that the US acted as an imperialist in the aftermath of WWII, but I think the way it dealt with Western Europe (incl. W. Germany) and Japan undermines that argument. Given the conditions, those countries took full control of their own internal and foreign policies. So yeah, not imperialist.

We've been talking about the US because that's the question that's been asked, but to bring up some other countries, I'd rate the USSR as being significantly more imperialist than the US. It clearly kept Eastern Europe as client states whereas the US did not. So relative to the Soviet Union the US was less imperialist. Russia seems to be acting rather imperialist where it can get away with it, with or without wars.

I'd rate Iran's (and Syria's) meddling in Lebanon as clearly imperialist. I suspect you could make a pretty strong case that Saudi Arabia is using Wahabism et. al. as an imperialist tool as well.

China... well, if you consider Tibet (and to a lesser extent Taiwan) independent nations, then China is pretty brazenly imperialist as well.

As for other US actions - I'd consider the intervention in Libya to not be imperialist. The US is not involved in setting the agenda for a future Libya, the Libyan people is (thanks to the US). Getting into Afghanistan was not imperialist as it was a legitimate response to an act of war (and an egregious one at that); there is a risk that mission creep turns it imperialist, but as long as the US is aiming to get out and not dictate the future of Afghanistan then I'd be inclined to rate it as not imperialist.

[dps]

but you cannot deny that where there was no threat of a communist putsch or invasion there was no support for dictators.

I'm pretty sure you can find examples of US imperialism in South and Central America that did not involve (and in some cases predates) threats of Communist putsches or invasions, unless you get ridiculously creative with your interpretation.

And even so, just because your imperialist ambition is to thwart another imperialist power does not make your actions non-imperialist.

If you're fighting and/or spending significant amounts of money to pick which local elites rule a country as your client, especially if you thwart the popular will of the people in doing so, that's imperialism. That includes all kinds of US actions in South and Central America and it includes the involvement in Vietnam.

I'll grant you that US policy in Latin America from roughly the mid1890s up to the mid-20th century or so was often imperialistic.  We had considerable economic interests there, and occasionally propped up or installed local governments that we thought would favor those economic interests, and more frequently sent the navy down there to intimidate local officials to set policies to our liking.  But none of that applies to Indochina--for all intents and purposes, we had no economic interests there.

[Jacob]

I'll reply properly later, Garbo, but I don't see how WW2 or WW1 meets the description I've given, I agree with Jacob's too. The only possible comparison I can see is the way Roosevelt behaved with the Free French. But Ike disagreed and FDR was attacked at home, so he shifted.

Well you said: "The usual approach was not to acquire territory or to subjugate states, but to work with local elites, often with shared interests, and to preserve them."

I think to large extent we did that during the wars.

You didn't have much say about the local elites in WWI, as far as I'm aware.

In WWII you did, but you did not enter into the war to preserve client elites. Furthermore, you did not side with the elites against the populace (mostly, at least in Europe, except I suppose in Greece).

[dps]

I'll reply properly later, Garbo, but I don't see how WW2 or WW1 meets the description I've given, I agree with Jacob's too. The only possible comparison I can see is the way Roosevelt behaved with the Free French. But Ike disagreed and FDR was attacked at home, so he shifted.

Yeah... (and this is @ Yi as well)...

WWI was not imperialist for the US (at least in the European theatre, I think there were some imperialist consequences elsewhere) as it didn't dictate how the war was fought and it didn't install client rulers in allied or vanquished states in the aftermath, and it didn't have any particular say in other countries after the war. I don't know too much about events outside of the European theatre so I can't say too much; I'd characterize American policy in China as imperialist, but mostly they rode on the coat tails of other European imperialist powers there.

The war part of WWII was not imperialist from an American perspective. The US entered the war in response to a direct attack on its sovereign territory by another major power. You could argue that the US acted as an imperialist in the aftermath of WWII, but I think the way it dealt with Western Europe (incl. W. Germany) and Japan undermines that argument. Given the conditions, those countries took full control of their own internal and foreign policies. So yeah, not imperialist.

We've been talking about the US because that's the question that's been asked, but to bring up some other countries, I'd rate the USSR as being significantly more imperialist than the US. It clearly kept Eastern Europe as client states whereas the US did not. So relative to the Soviet Union the US was less imperialist. Russia seems to be acting rather imperialist where it can get away with it, with or without wars.

I'd rate Iran's (and Syria's) meddling in Lebanon as clearly imperialist. I suspect you could make a pretty strong case that Saudi Arabia is using Wahabism et. al. as an imperialist tool as well.

China... well, if you consider Tibet (and to a lesser extent Taiwan) independent nations, then China is pretty brazenly imperialist as well.

As for other US actions - I'd consider the intervention in Libya to not be imperialist. The US is not involved in setting the agenda for a future Libya, the Libyan people is (thanks to the US). Getting into Afghanistan was not imperialist as it was a legitimate response to an act of war (and an egregious one at that); there is a risk that mission creep turns it imperialist, but as long as the US is aiming to get out and not dictate the future of Afghanistan then I'd be inclined to rate it as not imperialist.

By your own definition, how the fuck was what we did in Germany and Japan after WWII not imperialistic?  We divided Germany into zones under military rule of us and the other Allied powers, and put Japan under our sole military rule, then imposed a constitution of our devising on them.  That's a hell of a lot more imperialistic (again, by your definition) than anything we did in South Vietnam.

[CountDeMoney]

There was the Saar offensive, which was enough to indicate to the French that they had no offensive capability.

That wasn't an offensive; that was a drive in the countryside, and a drive back home in time for dinner.

[Valmy]

That wasn't an offensive; that was a drive in the countryside, and a drive back home in time for dinner.

Heh in today's world it would be a blood bath that would have newspapers and media howling in fury.  1,000 men dead in one week?!  PULL OUT THE TROOPS!

Of course Gamelin did just that.

[mongers]

This campaign has done nothing for Poland, which was overrun before it even began. Now, again, noone blames you for "not dying for Danzig" but don't expect gratitude.

You know, I don't recall French troops pouring over the Rhine or the Royal Navy sortieing to draw out the fleet at Kiel on September 2nd, 1939, either.

Or the Poles helping the Czechs out instead of helping themselves to Zaolzie.

Yes, it's often forgotten that Poland was an unpleasant right wing military dictatorship, that didn't get along with its neighbour and iirc event enacted some anti-Semitic legislation in 38.

No one expect the Poles to last more than a couple of months against the Germans, and the Poles only hoped for 3 months, that was assuming they conducted a organised fighting retreat into a Polish redoubt, the plan was then the winter weather and 'something' turning up would save them.