Thread: Did the U.S. save Western Democracy?

There have been a few examples throughout history where a battle changed history. The Battle of Salamis was the naval battle between the Greeks and the Persians. Had the Greeks lost this important battle (considered the most important battle in human history by some historians), democracy and Western ideals may have been lost. You also have the Battle of Tours where the Franks defeated the Muslim Armies--preventing the spread of Islam into Europe. If the Franks and Charles Martel were defeated--Western democracy and ideals might be gone forever. This is also considered a history changing event.

Now, some may disagree with me on this--but I think the U.S. did something of the same magnitude. Imagine if the U.S. never brought the same level of support and military power to Europe and Asia during WWII. Imagine if we were defeated in WWII. Most experts believe Hitler would eventually have been defeated by Stalin. Is that a good thing though? Western Europe was Nazi occupied--so its to be assumed that Soviet forces would eventually move into France, the Benelux, Scandinavia, Italy, Africa, and perhaps the Middle East. They also would have attacked Japan had we not dropped the atomic bomb. After defeating Japan and taking control of all its islands and terroritories on mainland Asia and Oceania--it would have had a huge empire. It would have virtually been unchallenged. The U.S., the U.K., Australia would all have been figurative islands of democracy. We would not have had the same ability to curb their expansion if they decided to push into Australia, Africa, India, Korea, etc.

Did the U.S. save the world and keep the torch of democracy lit by backing up Western Europe and the free Asian nations as hard as it did? Are D-Day and the dropping of the Atomic Bomb more important than we make them out to be?

Maybe it saved European democracy... but it set South American democracy back years, so it's a mixed bag.

^also Asian. The world would be bleak in my opinion with a Communist Tokyo, Hong Kong, Singapore, Manilla, etc. Our protection of Japan by nukeing them allowed them to develop much faster than what they would have under hard line Soviet occupation. Same goes with Germany. I figure you would have the same results had the Soviets taken over France, Netherlands, Italy, Greece, etc. The European democracy is important because Europe had stakes in places across the globe.

Originally Posted by ReddAlert

^also Asian. The world would be bleak in my opinion with a Communist Tokyo, Hong Kong, Singapore, Manilla, etc. Our protection of Japan by nukeing them allowed them to develop much faster than what they would have under hard line Soviet occupation. Same goes with Germany. I figure you would have the same results had the Soviets taken over France, Netherlands, Italy, Greece, etc. The European democracy is important because Europe had stakes in places across the globe.

Ok. Asia too. But... protecting someone by throwing a nuclear weapon at them is about the biggest load I've heard in a while.


Anyway, as I was saying, did the US save democracy? Maybe, but selectively. Witness south and central America.

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by ReddAlert

There have been a few examples throughout history where a battle changed history. The Battle of Salamis was the naval battle between the Greeks and the Persians. Had the Greeks lost this important battle (considered the most important battle in human history by some historians), democracy and Western ideals may have been lost. You also have the Battle of Tours where the Franks defeated the Muslim Armies--preventing the spread of Islam into Europe. If the Franks and Charles Martel were defeated--Western democracy and ideals might be gone forever. This is also considered a history changing event.

There has been exellent history-books on similar significant events in history, I find them very intresting. Good thread, by the way.

Now, some may disagree with me on this--but I think the U.S. did something of the same magnitude. Imagine if the U.S. never brought the same level of support and military power to Europe and Asia during WWII. Imagine if we were defeated in WWII.

U.S. could have committed much more strength to the war that it did. I am sorry that I do not recall the document, but it pointed out that U.S. mobilization was made as cost efficent as possible, often leaving soldiers short of support or reserves. Not to blame, just to point out. (also, U.S. depression in economical field ended in the boost of military hardware)

Most experts believe Hitler would eventually have been defeated by Stalin. Is that a good thing though? Western Europe was Nazi occupied--so its to be assumed that Soviet forces would eventually move into France, the Benelux, Scandinavia, Italy, Africa, and perhaps the Middle East.

That was the Soviet dream, and could easily explain the ease in which Germans fought through the Soviets in the beginnings of Soviet Front, they were arrayed in assault formations, not in defensive forms.

They also would have attacked Japan had we not dropped the atomic bomb.

Soviets skirmished Japanese in Manshuria throughout the WW2, and did invade and conquer some Japanese territories.

After defeating Japan and taking control of all its islands and terroritories on mainland Asia and Oceania--it would have had a huge empire. It would have virtually been unchallenged.

Soviet Union was already a huge Empire, largest nation in the world with huge army, enourmous stocks of raw material and experience in war. Post-war world was a grim place and Soviets had already begun their bullying and threats, from footsoldier to the highest commanders. See what several U.S. and Britsh troops have stated in their writings about Soviet soldiers.

The U.S., the U.K., Australia would all have been figurative islands of democracy. We would not have had the same ability to curb their expansion if they decided to push into Australia, Africa, India, Korea, etc.

Had the Atomic threat not been there.

Did the U.S. save the world and keep the torch of democracy lit by backing up Western Europe and the free Asian nations as hard as it did? Are D-Day and the dropping of the Atomic Bomb more important than we make them out to be?

D-Day was not as huge operation as westerns would like it to be. But the result was very significant. It opened a front which Stalin had to counter as he renewed his push for Berlin.

Inresting part in your thesis is that U.S. saved democracy. Well, most European nations were, in fact, monarchs. They were nothing like the U.S. If you mean the parliamentar, then we are closer to the mark. But U.S. forces in European theathre and the new WMDs did force soviets to halt their advance.
But in my view, U.S. form of democracy is ill-suited to most other nations.

U.S. began its long crusade against communism because the Soviet communism was just a dictatorship in a cloak of socialism, and because of the `domino-theory.´

Looking back it is hard to tell weather you did more harm than good. South-America is a prime example where freedom, liberty and democracy were little more than masks. In your vigilant defence of Democracy, you have done very horrible deeds. Hard to tell have you helped of hampered.

Originally Posted by ReddAlert

^also Asian. The world would be bleak in my opinion with a Communist Tokyo, Hong Kong, Singapore, Manilla, etc. Our protection of Japan by nukeing them allowed them to develop much faster than what they would have under hard line Soviet occupation. Same goes with Germany. I figure you would have the same results had the Soviets taken over France, Netherlands, Italy, Greece, etc. The European democracy is important because Europe had stakes in places across the globe.

Humh. Take a peek. Read a bit. Might be intresting

Finland for Thought » U.S. secretly helps rebuilding Finland after WWII | Politics, current events, culture - In Finland & United States | An American's blog in Finland

Given the senario you spell out (the Soviet Union's invasion of all continental Europe) I still doubt democracy would have died out. The Soviets had enough trouble maintain their system in Russia and Eastern Europe; trying to manage an empire that stretched all the way to the French coast and included millions more billigerent citizens in occupied Europe would probably have been beyond the beaurocratic ability of Moscow. I suspect that some sort of democratic system would have broken through. But it would have hell for a few decades and Europe would certainly not be the same today.

Originally Posted by Donkey_Left

Ok. Asia too. But... protecting someone by throwing a nuclear weapon at them is about the biggest load I've heard in a while.


Anyway, as I was saying, did the US save democracy? Maybe, but selectively. Witness south and central America.

I have to agree our using a nuclear bomb in Japan had nothng to do with protecting Japan. It had two justifications at the time, and that is how it has to be looked at not with todays hindsight. First no one in the US really wanted to have to invade Japan especially after what had happened at Iwo Jima. Everyone at the time believed it would be a slaughter on both sides. Eventually the US would win, but before that happened milions of Japanese civilians and military would die, and US casualty figures were expected to be huge.

Secondarily, and a much more minor point, was that the admin was sending amessage to Moscow with the use of the weapon. However as I said this was only a minor consideration based on all the information I have been able to view.

Moreover did the US really help even the Aisan democracies as a result of the war. Certainly we Help turn Japan into a democracy. But all you have to do is look at Taiwan, South Korea, South Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, the Phillipines to see that democracy was not really the thing we were after. How long did it take to get actual democracies in any of these countries after the war. So while I agree with Donkeys point about South America one doesn't have to look there for proof that protecting democracy wasn't really the main motivating factor, or even high on the list of motivating factors.

Originally Posted by Donkey_Left

Maybe it saved European democracy... but it set South American democracy back years, so it's a mixed bag.

yes I can see that..our thirst for economic control , earleir in this century, built the "yanqui go home" diatribe....which despite better efforts resonates today.....

But one must be careful in what one wishes for and or projects..


for instance; why was our intervention WW1 any better than say an involvement in say a possible involvement in the Franco Prussian war? It was a European conflict in both cases and I believe that we had no business in ww1……….that being said, was our involvement in ww2 any better a thought?

Was it a European war? Due to the increased reach of strategic forces and the recourses being used by a burgeoning ‘global’ world, it seems we had to get involved….so one can surmise that we got involved in ww2 to protect economic resources we would need……the European continent under the Kaiser in ww1, or under Hitler in ww2 ( remember that the holocaust was not an advertised fact till after ww2) would not have made a huge impact on us per se’…………and the Hitler declared war on us argument does not hold water as due to lend lease we were a belligerent in but name only…


We got involved because our leadership felt that a fascist pall on the continent would work against us in the end….I mean who really cared in 1871 if Prussia crushed France..but in 1941, it mattered (1914 don't ask am I am still against it )..same can be said here and now..one may have a myopic view, its easy, but seen down the road, Iraq and Iran may be battles worth fighting…