End of Empires: who and what was responsible? (post WW2)

[JMA]

So, JMA, please consider the alternative that FDR at Yalta was "dotty as hell". It does open up some vistas.

Yes, he was as crazy as a coot by Yalta. It is important to look at his state of mind before Tehran as to understand how his arrogant self confidence was to lead to great Soviet (and communist Chinese) advances post WW2.

FDR expressed the belief that if he could establish close personal relations with Stalin, he could exert a positive influence on the Soviet leader directly to Churchill in a message on March 18, 1942: Source

I know you will not mind my being brutally frank when I tell you I think I can personally handle Stalin better than your Foreign Office or my State Department. Stalin hates the guts of all your top people. He thinks he likes me better, and I hope he will continue to do so.

Footnote on that source:

5. Warren F. Kimball, ed., Churchill and Roosevelt: The Complete Correspondence.Vol I, (Princeton University Press, 1984), 421. It should be noted, however, that as the war progressed, FDR told his son, James, that "Uncle Joe is smarter and tougher than I thought he was." James Roosevelt (with Bill Libby), My Parents: A Differing View (Chicago: Playboy Press, 1976), 203. But James Roosevelt has also written that FDR "never gave up the conviction he could convince old Joe to go our way". Ibid., 167.

Then the step before Yalta was Tehran. That set the ball rolling.

I thought the matter of an ill/sick/incapacitated President had been dealt with after Woodrow Wilson?

These matters keep rearing their ugly heads because it has been reported that JFK was ill at the Vienna in 1961 when the wily and experienced Khrushchev in Kennedy' own words "beat the hell out of me."

[jmm99]

Steve,

My take is that Mao et al played a number of US diplomats like harps. You don't buy that; and perhaps are among the "agrarian reformers" devotees. My take is that Ho played Patti like a harp. You don't buy that. My point on the last three sentences is that what I think and what you think mean diddly spit - what happened in China happened (and that was when I was 2 or 3).

What I did think interesting is the question of FDR's mental competence and when the slide began. He can scarcely be charged with malfeasance or non-feasance if he was not competent.

That was Hurley's point. Why obscure it with collateral arguments ?

Regards

Mike

[JMA]

JMA; it had been obvious in places like India that the age of colonialism was about to end. Without WW2, India would probably have gained sovereignty before 1945.

The Italian annexation of Abbyssinia in '37 and the Japanese attempts to quasi-colonialise China had already created much contempt in Europe. Colonialisation was already out of fashion by the 30's and even the colonialisation fo former Ottoman empire territories immediately after WWI as well as of former German colonies was done with new excuses, because flat-out colonialisation wasn't en vogue back in '19 any more.

Let's also keep in mind that decolonialisation actually began in 1815 (I know, anglophone-centric people don't think that way).

I believe I need to say that I am not against the decolonialisation that happened back then per se.

My concern has always been the method and the result.

All these so-called smart guys who have been in positions to make momentous decisions affecting the lives of many millions of people across the world have most often turned out to be not so smart or just plain incompetent or just didn't give a damn about the consequences.

[Dayuhan]

My take is that Mao et al played a number of US diplomats like harps. You don't buy that; and perhaps are among the "agrarian reformers" devotees. My take is that Ho played Patti like a harp. You don't buy that. My point on the last three sentences is that what I think and what you think mean diddly spit - what happened in China happened (and that was when I was 2 or 3).

I have no doubt that Mao and Ho played their respective Americans very successfully. We pay too much attention, though, to the opinions those men had of Mao and Ho and too little to their rather accurate assessments, respectively, of Chiang Kai-Shek and the French.

Patti's message as I read it was that whether Ho was a good guy or not really didn't matter: the French are going to lose and we might as well deal with it now. The message many Americans on the ground sent re Chiang was much the same. Their opinion of Mao may well have been too rosy: revolutionaries, after all, always have appeal, especially when they fight an utterly degenerate and corrupt government. Again, it doesn't matter much. The message that counted was not whether Mao was good or bad, but that Chiang Kai-Shek was going to fall no matter what the US did... a message that was, I suspect, quite accurate. Despite the fantasies of Luce et al, there seems little reason to believe that more armaments or any other form of US assistance would have kept Chiang afloat... he wasn't doing much with the stuff he had.

What I did think interesting is the question of FDR's mental competence and when the slide began. He can scarcely be charged with malfeasance or non-feasance if he was not competent.

That was Hurley's point. Why obscure it with collateral arguments ?

Because it implies that FDR had other, better options that he could have employed if he were in a better state. I've seen little reason to believe that this was the case.

All these so-called smart guys who have been in positions to make momentous decisions affecting the lives of many millions of people across the world have most often turned out to be not so smart or just plain incompetent or just didn't give a damn about the consequences.

It's always easy to criticize the decisions of others, especially with hindsight. In many situations all possible courses have huge risk of negative consequences, and those charged with making decisions don't have the luxury of hindsight. Terms like "incompetent" are easy to sling around, but do we know we'd have done any better in the same position?

[Bob's World]

Colonialism, like slavery, did not fall "out of fashion." Both simply became unprofitable.

The costs exceeded the benefits. If that had not happened I suspect we would today continue to morally rationalize both, just as humans did for the thousands of years.

Does anyone think that humans today are morally superior to those of all other times???

So, the question is, what changed the business model?

For Slavery, the advent of mechanization of the industrial age was a major factor in making it much cheaper to hire freemen at low wages to do the work that required many to do previously. Or to enable men to do work that simply physically was too demanding and dangerous to attract people to sign up for willingly in the past.

For Colonialism I will link the primary factor to the same factor I see driving major eras of insurgency, revolution and social change: Advents in Information Technology. An informed and connected populace is an empowered populace. An empowered populace is far more expensive to hold in collective servitude to some colonial master. It simply takes too many troops, too much effort to hold such an outrageous imbalance of power in place. As the American Colonists were fond of saying "An Island should not rule a Continent!!"

For the United States today there are lessons to be learned. Our own role is in many ways a de facto empire. Empires keep evolving over time. The Brits were less intrusive than the Romans; the Americans are less intrusive than the Brits. All, however, disrupt the relationship between a populace and their government by inserting a stronger, external power into the mix. We see today in many places where the US has emplaced control measures following WWII to implement Containment and to secure sea lanes and vital resources, a belt of shady governments and restless populaces.

Once again, the Cost/Benefit equation is shifting. The US must not "cut and run" as so many who see things in all or nothing terms might suggest. The US must, however, devise and implement a less controlling, and therefore less expensive, approach to servicing its interests in these vital locations. My belief (as I have shared here once or twice) is that such an approach will still work with governments, but will be much more cognizant of and sensitive to the will of the affected populaces; and will be much more willing to work with whatever government those people select for themselves. Selecting or artificially extending the reigns of governments that come to act with impunity toward their own people is no longer cost effective.

I agree with the morality of Wilson and FDR in calling for an end to Colonialism. The Pragmatism of Lincoln in dealing with Slavery is probably more accurate. At the end of the day, these matters always come down to a question of if the Juice is worth the Squeeze.

Cheers.

Bob

[JMA]

It's always easy to criticize the decisions of others, especially with hindsight. In many situations all possible courses have huge risk of negative consequences, and those charged with making decisions don't have the luxury of hindsight. Terms like "incompetent" are easy to sling around, but do we know we'd have done any better in the same position?

We use history and the release of hitherto classified information all the time to cast new light on the events of the past. Nothing new about that and it only seems to be a problem if what seeps out challenges what has passed for the truth before.

The problem as I see it is that certainly in the case of the US some individuals seek the highest public office not because they are qualified in terms of ability or experience but because they seek power and/or recognition. As a primer read this NYT article: All Politics Is Thymotic

Of course these people will never let on that they are only in it for themselves and will sell with the help of an army of spin doctors that they are really idealists (or whatever) acting only in the best interests of the country they represent. What a crock.

To the average American this may seem trivial as they get a chance to start all over again every four years. Quite often for others living across the world it is not so simple as to wipe the slate clean and start again. Take for example the people of Iraq or the people of Afghanistan. Then add to all this the confusion amongst the Israelis and the Palestinians as each new "wonder kid" enters the WH and decides what their future will be.

Lets talk incompetent. What is obvious is that given the democratic system in the US the American people are incompetent in their ability to elect a President of ability. This may not be a problem for the American people but it certainly is for those others living across the world who have to live with the outcome of US presidential decisions intended or otherwise.

I am only half joking when I say that prior to being allowed to stand for the Presidency (and probably other offices as well) candidates should submit to psychiatric evaluation .. and medical examination. If not for the sake of the US then for the sake of the world.

--------------------------
From Merriam-Webster

Definition of INCOMPETENT

1: not legally qualified
2: inadequate to or unsuitable for a particular purpose
3
a : lacking the qualities needed for effective action
b : unable to function properly <incompetent heart valves>

[Backwards Observer]

Maj. Gen. LeMay expresses his unadorned and straightforward view of civilians:

In a 3 hour period they'd dropped 1,665 tons of incendiary bombs killing more than 100,000 civilians and incinerating 16 square miles of the city. Precise figures aren't available but the firebombing and the nuclear bombing campaign against Japan, directed by LeMay between March 1945 and the Japanese surrender in August 1945, may have killed more than 1 million Japanese civilians. Official estimates from the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey put the numbers at 330,000 people killed, 476 injured, 8.5 million people made homeless, and 2.5 million buildings destroyed.

"There are no innocent civilians, so it doesn't bother me so much to be killing innocent bystanders" The New York Times reported at the time, "Maj. Gen. Curtis E. LeMay, Commander of the B-29s in the entire Marianas area, declared that if the war was shortened by a single day the attack will have served its purpose."

"THERE ARE NO INNOCENT CIVILIANS, SO IT DOESN"T BOTHER ME SO MUCH TO BE KILLING INNOCENT BYSTANDERS."

Anyone else think that sounds a bit, uh, you know...EVIL?

Here, I'll start the first reply, "Well, it's not evil in LeMay's case because..."

World War 2 Remembered

[Dayuhan]

We use history and the release of hitherto classified information all the time to cast new light on the events of the past. Nothing new about that and it only seems to be a problem if what seeps out challenges what has passed for the truth before.

People invent all sorts of histories. Not all "challenges to what has passed for the truth before" have any basis in fact or are supported by any sort of evidence. Often they are simply contrived to support a given viewpoint or preconceived belief. What passed for truth before may have been contrived for the same reasons. All we can do to make sense of it is to assess each point on its merits and on the merits of the evidence presented to support it... if no evidence is advanced to support a given theory, it's not generally worth considering it.

So far you've advanced no tangible evidence that FDRs opinion of empire altered the course of decolonization.

The problem as I see it is that certainly in the case of the US some individuals seek the highest public office not because they are qualified in terms of ability or experience but because they seek power and/or recognition.

People seek power for all kinds of reasons, often bad ones. This is in no way unique to the US.

To the average American this may seem trivial as they get a chance to start all over again every four years. Quite often for others living across the world it is not so simple as to wipe the slate clean and start again. Take for example the people of Iraq or the people of Afghanistan. Then add to all this the confusion amongst the Israelis and the Palestinians as each new "wonder kid" enters the WH and decides what their future will be.

You can have democracy or continuity, but you're not likely to have both.

Lets talk incompetent. What is obvious is that given the democratic system in the US the American people are incompetent in their ability to elect a President of ability. This may not be a problem for the American people but it certainly is for those others living across the world who have to live with the outcome of US presidential decisions intended or otherwise.

Will you at least concede that your personal assessments of competence and ability are subjective and based solely on your personal opinions?

[JMA]

People invent all sorts of histories. Not all "challenges to what has passed for the truth before" have any basis in fact or are supported by any sort of evidence. Often they are simply contrived to support a given viewpoint or preconceived belief. What passed for truth before may have been contrived for the same reasons. All we can do to make sense of it is to assess each point on its merits and on the merits of the evidence presented to support it... if no evidence is advanced to support a given theory, it's not generally worth considering it.

So far you've advanced no tangible evidence that FDRs opinion of empire altered the course of decolonization.

In my case 30 years on and now declassified stuff is starting to come out... there are some surprises. If the evidence leads to different conclusions then denial serves no purpose. Embrace the truth... rather than defend a lie.

You are welcome to prove any of my assertions wrong... if you can. Saying "prove it" takes me back to the schoolyard... and I'm not going back there. You have two choices. One, prove me wrong. Two, if you believe me to be wrong but don't have the time or interest to prove it then just ignore it.

People seek power for all kinds of reasons, often bad ones. This is in no way unique to the US.

Agreed. But the potential for damage through the actions of a clown in the WH is on a far greater scale than most (from say your average Mickey Mouse country).

You can have democracy or continuity, but you're not likely to have both.

You are working off the US model. The wild policy swings are not inevitable. It is a weakness in the American system and/or character.

Will you at least concede that your personal assessments of competence and ability are subjective and based solely on your personal opinions?

Not all, mostly they are supported by the facts available. You are free to conduct some research and prove me wrong where you can... if you can.

[JMA]

Colonialism, like slavery, did not fall "out of fashion." Both simply became unprofitable.

The costs exceeded the benefits. If that had not happened I suspect we would today continue to morally rationalize both, just as humans did for the thousands of years.

Does anyone think that humans today are morally superior to those of all other times???

So, the question is, what changed the business model?

For Slavery, the advent of mechanization of the industrial age was a major factor in making it much cheaper to hire freemen at low wages to do the work that required many to do previously. Or to enable men to do work that simply physically was too demanding and dangerous to attract people to sign up for willingly in the past.

For Colonialism I will link the primary factor to the same factor I see driving major eras of insurgency, revolution and social change: Advents in Information Technology. An informed and connected populace is an empowered populace. An empowered populace is far more expensive to hold in collective servitude to some colonial master. It simply takes too many troops, too much effort to hold such an outrageous imbalance of power in place. As the American Colonists were fond of saying "An Island should not rule a Continent!!"

For the United States today there are lessons to be learned. Our own role is in many ways a de facto empire. Empires keep evolving over time. The Brits were less intrusive than the Romans; the Americans are less intrusive than the Brits. All, however, disrupt the relationship between a populace and their government by inserting a stronger, external power into the mix. We see today in many places where the US has emplaced control measures following WWII to implement Containment and to secure sea lanes and vital resources, a belt of shady governments and restless populaces.

Once again, the Cost/Benefit equation is shifting. The US must not "cut and run" as so many who see things in all or nothing terms might suggest. The US must, however, devise and implement a less controlling, and therefore less expensive, approach to servicing its interests in these vital locations. My belief (as I have shared here once or twice) is that such an approach will still work with governments, but will be much more cognizant of and sensitive to the will of the affected populaces; and will be much more willing to work with whatever government those people select for themselves. Selecting or artificially extending the reigns of governments that come to act with impunity toward their own people is no longer cost effective.

I agree with the morality of Wilson and FDR in calling for an end to Colonialism. The Pragmatism of Lincoln in dealing with Slavery is probably more accurate. At the end of the day, these matters always come down to a question of if the Juice is worth the Squeeze.

Cheers.

Bob

Thank you, a valuable thought provoking contribution.

[slapout9]

So, the question is, what changed the business model?

Science changed the business model. Science is the creator of wealth not Capitalism or Communism or Socialism. Always has been always will be.

[Sigaba]

JMA--

What are your references (either primary sources or secondary works) for your interpretations of FDR's conduct of American foreign policy and American diplomatic history more generally?

[Dayuhan]

In my case 30 years on and now declassified stuff is starting to come out... there are some surprises. If the evidence leads to different conclusions then denial serves no purpose. Embrace the truth... rather than defend a lie.

What newly emerged truths, specifically, have emerged that support your contentions? o ahead, surprise us...

You are welcome to prove any of my assertions wrong... if you can.

The burden of proving an allegation rests rationally on the person making the allegation... especially with allegations that are visibly and immediately suspect.

Saying "prove it" takes me back to the schoolyard... and I'm not going back there. You have two choices. One, prove me wrong. Two, if you believe me to be wrong but don't have the time or interest to prove it then just ignore it.

In other words, you can't support the allegations you're making. Why then should anyone take them seriously?

If you're going to claim that FDR caused the chaos of decolonization, you have to be able to cite specific actions that FDR initiated that had a demonstrable impact on the decolonization process. Opinions are irrelevant. We all know that FDR had a low opinion of empire, as did almost any other thinking person. His opinion was scarcely going to have an impact on a process that took place well after his death. What did FDR actually do, and what impact did that action have on the decolonization process?

Responsibility for decolonization rests naturally on the colonial power. Certainly the US has some responsibility for the decolonization process in the Philippines. If you want to hold the US responsible for the decolonization process in India or Africa you have to be able to cite specific US actions and demonstrate that they had a significant impact on those processes. Again, words mean nothing, unless the words were translated into actions that had a demonstrable impact on events.

Similarly, if you want to claim that FDR caused the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe or the Communist victory in China, you have to cite concrete actions by FDR and establish a causative link between those actions and the events that followed.

The burden of proof lies on whoever made the allegation in the first place. Make a claim, you have to be prepared to support that claim if someone calls BS. Consider it called. Support the allegations credibly, or abandon them.

[JMA]

JMA--

What are your references (either primary sources or secondary works) for your interpretations of FDR's conduct of American foreign policy and American diplomatic history more generally?

Always nice to hear from someone wanting to learn. Learning is a personal journey and you really need to chose your own route.

But as a starter I suggest you start here:

My Dear Mr. Stalin: The Complete Correspondence of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Joseph V. Stalin

Here is a good review on that book - Roosevelt-Stalin Correspondence Sheds Light on FDR Post-War Vision

Now over to you...

[JMA]

What newly emerged truths, specifically, have emerged that support your contentions? o ahead, surprise us...

The burden of proving an allegation rests rationally on the person making the allegation... especially with allegations that are visibly and immediately suspect.

In other words, you can't support the allegations you're making. Why then should anyone take them seriously?

If you're going to claim that FDR caused the chaos of decolonization, you have to be able to cite specific actions that FDR initiated that had a demonstrable impact on the decolonization process. Opinions are irrelevant. We all know that FDR had a low opinion of empire, as did almost any other thinking person. His opinion was scarcely going to have an impact on a process that took place well after his death. What did FDR actually do, and what impact did that action have on the decolonization process?

Responsibility for decolonization rests naturally on the colonial power. Certainly the US has some responsibility for the decolonization process in the Philippines. If you want to hold the US responsible for the decolonization process in India or Africa you have to be able to cite specific US actions and demonstrate that they had a significant impact on those processes. Again, words mean nothing, unless the words were translated into actions that had a demonstrable impact on events.

Similarly, if you want to claim that FDR caused the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe or the Communist victory in China, you have to cite concrete actions by FDR and establish a causative link between those actions and the events that followed.

The burden of proof lies on whoever made the allegation in the first place. Make a claim, you have to be prepared to support that claim if someone calls BS. Consider it called. Support the allegations credibly, or abandon them.

I told you that I am not going to descend into a school yard debate with you on this matter. Learn to live with it.

[davidbfpo]

The WW2 British slogan 'Keep Calm and Carry On' appears to fit here and now. In recent days the tone has broken down, so stay within the SWC rules please.

[Steve Blair]

I told you that I am not going to descend into a school yard debate with you on this matter. Learn to live with it.

Asking someone to clarify their sources or amplify on them to support a viewpoint is not schoolyard debate. It's a standard part of scholarly discussion. Perhaps it's not something folks are accustomed to in the political snippet dominated internet, but when you're having historical discussions here it's best to keep that in mind and learn to live with it.

Frankly, your whole "FDR is responsible for everything" position is untenable because it ignores the influence of many other actors (both within the U.S. administration and outside of it...to include leaders in any number of countries). While "great man history" can be somewhat satisfying and convenient for justifying any number of positions, it fails spectacularly when subjected to close examination.

And asking for references, as Sigaba did, is pretty much the same thing as Dayuhan did, although in a shorter format.

[JMA]

Asking someone to clarify their sources or amplify on them to support a viewpoint is not schoolyard debate. It's a standard part of scholarly discussion. Perhaps it's not something folks are accustomed to in the political snippet dominated internet, but when you're having historical discussions here it's best to keep that in mind and learn to live with it.

Frankly, your whole "FDR is responsible for everything" position is untenable because it ignores the influence of many other actors (both within the U.S. administration and outside of it...to include leaders in any number of countries). While "great man history" can be somewhat satisfying and convenient for justifying any number of positions, it fails spectacularly when subjected to close examination.

And asking for references, as Sigaba did, is pretty much the same thing as Dayuhan did, although in a shorter format.

Steve I hear what you say. But do yourself a small favour and look back over the #77 posts in this thread and see whether Dayuhan has provided any source or link or whatever to support his opinion. As for the new guy let him explain his position and provide the sources etc etc which he expects from others before he arrives out of the blue and demands sources and references from me. Surely that is the even handed manner how it should work in an open forum, yes?

[Steve Blair]

Steve I hear what you say. But do yourself a small favour and look back over the #77 posts in this thread and see whether Dayuhan has provided any source or link or whatever to support his opinion. As for the new guy let him explain his position and provide the sources etc etc which he expects from others before he arrives out of the blue and demands sources and references from me. Surely that is the even handed manner how it should work in an open forum, yes?

I've been reviewing the entire thread for some time. I'm spelling out the methods of scholarly discussion for everyone involved, actually. David and I posted at the same time, but the message is really the same and goes out to everyone. Keep it civil. Keep it informed.

I mentioned your FDR comments specifically because I've always had an issue with "great man" theory. It has its uses, and can be informative up to a certain level (for example when examining MacArthur, because he had a great deal of control over who served on his staff and thus could shape the message and information himself), but it tends to break down when it's extended beyond its brief (such as when looking at most national or world leaders, especially in anything approaching the modern era).

[Sigaba]

Entire post.

JMA--

It is my observation that you take a (deleted) tone in your posts towards other members in this BB. It is also my observation, based upon the content of your posts, that this tone is unwarranted. In regards to you taking this tone with me, I suggest that you stop. Immediately.

In regards to your posts on this specific topic, you have offered broad interpretations of the history of American foreign relations, as well as of international diplomatic history, as well as of American political history, that were in vogue several decades but have proven to be intellectually and historiographically unsustainable in the last twenty plus years.

This isn't to say that all of your positions are indefensible, but rather that some are, but for entirely different reasons. Your use of some primary source materials does not disguise the fact that you are out of touch with several trajectories of historiographical discourse that provide sustainable frameworks for interpretation.

(Deleted) More research would also help.