What stopped the US from conquering other nations? Why didnt the US simply conquer Western Europe after WW2?
What about the guiding ideas and ideals of the US Prevented this from happening?
Or is it because Europe was connected through many means of communication to the US and thus European discourse and people were already integrated within The world view of Americans? Meaning that what matters for non aggression is the ability of the citizenry of both sides to have many valid communication routes?
>>1290373
I guess you can say Us bases is sort of a conquest but its not really. There is and was no unified government with the US at its top..
>>1290373
Because that's stupid you fucking moron
>>1290373
The US' entire argument against Soviet dominance in Eastern Europe was grounded on the principle of national self-determination. They couldn't just annex Western Europe on a whim, even if they had the means to do it (which they didn't).
>>1290373
Because we wouldn't have been able to do it.
>>1290373
Having strong allies is better than having puppets. The Cold War proved this.
>>1290373
Keep in mind that the US had a chance to annex Mexico after the war of 1848, but didn't because it would open the floodgates to massive immigration and complicate the already tenuous balance between free and slave states.
What makes you think that annexing a devastated 1945 Western Europe crowded with refugees was anything remotely resembling a good idea?
>>1290373
Hegemony > Colonial Empires.
Thats why youre in the shitters nowadays, Europe.
>Why didnt the US simply conquer Western Europe after WW2?
Because that's a retarded idea?
Literally what would be the point of this?
>lol haha we just concluded the most destructive war in human history let's conquer our allies for no reason at all haha it'll be funny guys
This is why you are not in charge of international policy.
>>1290408
But why are none of you giving the idea the benefit of the doubt to really explore it? why not conquer western europe but discourage immigration?
>>1290411
Did US officials discuss such matters?
My point is to get to the underlying ideas of why this could not have happened.
So if it didnt make sense that after being allies the US would suddenly decide to conquer these countries why did the US not have expansionist tendencies?
>>1290465
The U.S. did have expansionist tendencies, 50 years ago. And you know what, they probably would have done so if it was Teddy running the show. But the world had changed, the Cold War was on the horizon, the U.S. knew it couldn't deal with trying to manage its European holdings while also keeping the USSR in check. The political climate made even the faintest hope of such a deal impossible.
>>1290465
Why backstab your allies and weaken both them and yourself in another massive war that would be heavily disliked by your own peoples when you have another major enemy in the Soviet Union to deal with?
>>1290494
But you are essentially restating the question friend.
Why did it have allies? as oppose to simply trading partners and potentially conquest targets? and why would expansionism be disliked by Americans?
What are the sources of these points of view?
>>1290488
But the USSR managed it.. At least, at the time, it was not at all clear the USSR would eventually collapse..
>>1290465
Yes. Case and Point: the Philippines and Latin America. in 1870's-1930s. Its basically where US cut their teeth in foreign policy.
>GUYS WE SHOULD COLONIZE LIEK DE COOL YUROPEENS.
>Oh wow, this is bloody expensive.
>And people hate us.
>And we're not actually earning much money as we were led to believe.
>You know what? How about this? Fuck colonialism. We have the worlds top-tier capitalists, why not just set up governments friendly to us, maybe throw in a base agreement & mutual defense treaty, or even help their country modernize, and voila, all the benefits of colonization sans butthurt and nationalist uprisings or the expense of modernizing said peoples with our own taxes.
Which is exactly what happened in the Philippines.
>Friendly Allied Client State > Colony,
>>1290505
Because the USSR choose to go the other path and it costed them dearly.
>>1290507
Interesting.
So what allows modern countries to have this sort of interaction?
Why couldnt, for example, The roman empire control others this way?
What is it about the way the economy works that made it impossible?
The US view of Europe today is vaguely akin to the Roman view of Greeks: a weird combination of a superiority and an inferiority complex where we think Europe has more culture/might be more intellectual but is also effeminate, divided, and weak in comparison. We don't want the hassle of taking over the actual administration of Europe either just like how the Romans initially did not want to take over Greece but rather installed puppet kings/made economic deals with the Greeks. Eventually the Greeks started fighting so many wars against each other/foreigners that it started disrupting Roman business, and Rome decided to just establish permanent military bases to keep the peace but be otherwise content to let the Greeks run themselves (how Europe is now). This worked for a bit until the Greeks/Hellenic peoples started yet another series of massive conflicts which ultimately resulted in the direct occupation and annexation of Greece as Roman provinces-so, eventually, you may see Europe annexed as US states in the future.
>>1290585
hehe, with possible break up of the EU and the demographic shit and the resulting civil strife it might actually happen...
>>1290373
>Why didnt the US simply conquer Western Europe after WW2?
They did, look up the EU.
>>1290373
the US felt secure enough with their military presence in Western Europe without having to directly govern it, which the Soviets only felt secure in complete control.
it comes from different mindsets honestly. Russia was invaded from the same frontline twice in the last 20 years and lost 1/5 of their population for it, so they really weren't willing to take chances on a third catastrophe.
The US is pretty secure in being insulated by both oceans, so ensuring a buffer between America and any threat is solely up to missile shields in the air rather than armies on land.
the US presence in Europe was seen as mutually beneficial at the start. the US military acts as a deterrent against Soviet expansion, as the Western European militaries were completely destroyed with WW2, and the US also get the benefit of keeping the West European markets secured for trade, not having to fear losing markets and trade revenues to a communist uprising.
tl;dr: the Soviets occupied territory to create a shield to deter direct invasion. the US set up bases to deter Soviet Invasion of US allies and protect trade markets.
>>1290373
What would you call it, United States of Everything?
Just outright annexing territory brings massive issues, who need to be solved by Congressmen and Senators who aren't good at solving things efficiently.
Here are just some of the immediate questions in case of annexation, see if you can solve them.
What will be the status of the new territories? Will they be states, territories, or what?
The people, will they have status as American citizens, or not?
How much autonomy will they have? The administrators will be elected by the local populace, or will they be appointed by the US' federal government?
Will the annexed people serve in the army the same way Americans do? Will they be able to own guns?
How much will they be taxed? Where will their taxes go?
Which language will their government use, local or English?
International Jewry
>>1290624
Heh
>>1290540
The Roman empire did that constantly, especially up in Germania.
>>1290540
The Roman Empire had plenty of client states.
The mentality was different, also the time they were living in. For example the punics did on the Mediterranean sea pretty much what the Brits did overseas.
>>1290373
>Why didnt the US simply conquer Western Europe after WW2?
they did
