heresies - A good read for a slow day...

Discussion in 'Off-topic' started by NTA, Dec 30, 2016.

  1. NTA

    NTA Well-Known Member

    7,270
    129
    63
  2. Rugerer

    Rugerer GeePeeDoHolic

    6,386
    70
    48
    Why 1920? I'd always thought that WWII was considered the period of American ascendancy, taking over from Britain. One writer even put the "handover" at a specific event, when FDR and Churchill met for the Atlantic Charter.

    Talk about a career change! Crick started studying biology in 1947 and does his Nobel prize paper on DNA in 6 years, 1953. I'd always just assumed biology was Crick's lifelong career.
     

  3. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,586
    1,694
    113
    I would tend to agree with that position but I'd also posit that a nation that can keep itself functioning properly without becoming over-extended militarily, economically and politically can still be a top nation. Not necessarily the top nation but a top nation.
     
  4. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,586
    1,694
    113
    That was my understanding also. We were still pretty backwater in the 20s and 30s.
     
  5. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,535
    680
    113
    No, I think America's decisive involvement in World War One proved that we were a serious world power, if not "the" greatest and most mighty nation in the world.

    We declared war on Germany in April of 1917, actually put troops into combat later that summer, and and less than 1.5 years later, it was over. A war that had been going on for 3 years was over in about 16 months after our troops got "over there." The idea of Americans ("Yankees") going "over there" and kicking butt to save the world got a lot of traction in the minds of people worldwide.

    [ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGsVguiM5ao[/ame]

    But even in the early 1900s, we were a huge powerhouse of a nation with plenty of heavy industry, a well-developed infrastructure of roads and bridges and railroads. (Ok, no Eisenhower interstate highway system, but a bunch of U.S. highways. Most freight went by train in those days, and railroads were well-developed by 1920. You could say they probably peaked in the early 1900s).
     
  6. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,586
    1,694
    113
    Our involvement wasn't decisive. Wilson did not want to drag us into the war. The only reason the US eventually did enter the war was because of continued German u-boat attacks against US merchant ships and Germany's attempts to get Mexico to become a German ally and attack the US on the southern borders.
     
  7. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,586
    1,694
    113
    I'm not downplaying American involvement but you're giving us too much credit for being the reason why the war ended. US troop strength was only about 10% of the total Allied Powers forces. And our tactics were outdated. We were still employing deadly frontal assaults. The British and French had already learned that lesson. It was really better overall Allied tactics and a matter of attrition. 45 million Allied Powers forces against 25 million Central Powers forces. Our ability to keep fresh supplies flowing into the battlefields helped immensely also.
     
  8. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,586
    1,694
    113
    And with the exception of international trade, we kept mostly to ourselves. The end of WWII witnessed our foray into world meddling.
     
  9. CoffeeMate

    CoffeeMate Junior Butt Warmer

    46,427
    9
    0
    As yes, the Monroe Doctrine. Back during the good ol' days.
     
  10. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,586
    1,694
    113
    Payback for not respecting our authoritah. :mrgreen: