Is History Repeating Itself (America/War on Terror/WW2)

is the same happening to america than what happened to britain during WW2?...think about it, america is leading the war on terror (just how britain and the commonwealth led WW1 and start of WW2)!!

the same is happening to america than what happened to the british empire! this 'war on terror' is financially destroying the US (afghanistan/iraq/and possibly another vietnam in iran).

how can the US afford to be involved in 3 wars at once? america's debt burden is estimated at $8 trillion ($66 trillion in some reports) but either way its all RISING!

ive been reading about the bible prophecy of the new 'euro-superpower' and a friend of mine (who knows a lot) seems to think america is going to make deals with EU nations to help finish the job/or more support on the 'war on terror' (namely france, germany)

again, just like america did with britain in WW2

is history repeating itself?
whats your views on the above?

[edit on 19-8-2006 by Sepiroth]

Sure if history repeats' itself then sure why not....but just as likly NOT.

But I must say that NO one know's what's gon'a happen in the future...guess maybe why god gave us "faith" to balance it out if it does repeat not much we can do about it...but faith always helps' out.

So to y'r friend (that know's a'lot) I got' friends' like that to...guess we all do...lol
I always tell em' only god know's when and w'r it's all gon'a blow....NOT them or the
guy on TV making claims....anyway that's my 2 canadian cent's..hope it helped.

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven

Its not exactly the same situation, but something similar is happening, just not to the gain of the Europeans.

The fall of the British empire had more to do with commercial interruptions during WWI, the depression, new technology, the rise of America, internal politics, and perhaps tensions with the soviets than it did with war debts from WWII.

British commerce was hampered by WWI, and of course when when something people want stops coming from one place, they will get it from another.
They lost 40% of their merchant shipping capacity during the war, trade between their colonies was interrupted, and they chose to liquidate assets abroad rather than run up too much of a debt.

Thanks to the depression, they never really had the ability to fully reinvest abroad, so Britain became dependent on exports as opposed to trade between its colonies. This was a problem for them since in certain new industries they weren't really positioned to compete with others, particularly America.
The way they handled WWI caused the colonies to stop being major money makers for them.

What sealed the deal though was internal politics. WWII basically forced them into Keynesian policies- government purchasing and demand for manpower is what got them out of the depression and they liked it; they didn't want to go back to the policies of the depression so they kept it liberal, which required a lot of money. Either taxes had to go up or expenditures had to go down, so the colonies, which were no longer the money-machine they had once been and thus weren't the best instrument for financing a welfare state (especially since nationalists movements were both expensive to defeat and were wearing on a war-weary nation) were where they chose to cut costs.


And of course there is some conspiracy angle to consider. America ended up picking a lot of it up for Britain. Maybe that was the plan all along. The British didn't want it anymore and the Americans did. The America is a former British colony and has generally stood by them. Maybe they didn't so much give up the colonies as reorganize the management.


As for how it relates to America now:
Just as American industry made it difficult for Brtain to compete in exports, China makes it difficult for America to compete now.
All it would take is a financial crisis like the depression and perhaps a liberal sollution to force us to make cutbacks like Britain and step out of the spotlight.

We are running up a huge debt and are overly dependent on the internal service economy: eventually we could face a currency crisis and massive unemployment would result. The most logical way to get out of it would be to publically fund energy infrastructure to make us more viable exporters and stabilize our nation at a lower standard of living with social programs to pick up the slack.

If and when that happens, we'll no longer have much motive to fight to keep prices stable on commodities such as oil, we'll just want to secure our trading. At that point we'd likely become more internationalist, keep our naval funding high but significantly reduce the size of our army and airforce, as we'd have much less interest in the third world and be more concerned about peddling our wares to large, stable nations that we don't have to protect, particularly India and the EU.

As a historian and political scientist, I can see the point. Today's political situation does remind me of the late 1930's. Weak leadership and indecisive diplomacy has set teh stage for war, and anyone with an interest in the global situation can see that war is coming.

Vagabond's analysis of the British situation in that period os spot-on. In the summer of 1938, the United States was militarily defenseless. We had a large navy, mediocre air force, and very few ground forces. That's not so much the case today, but, you could justify the notion that our level of preparedness is dangerously low.

If you look at the international situation from the Iranian point of view, it could be argued in historical terms that they are seeing a picture of the west that's not too much different from the one that Hitler saw in 1938 before the Munich conference.

I would argue that the same sort of diplomatic stupidness that plunged the world in to war back then is affecting us today. Contemporary U.S. leaders are out of touch with the real world situation in much the same way as tehy were in the Spring of 1939. In many respects, today's U.N. activity resembles the same sort of dilitente behavior that scuttled the League of Nations. The intractability of the French right now is not that much different than the posture they struck in 1939.

Then, we get to the matter of appeasement. I recently talked to a local high school class about Neville Chamberlain and that wacky Munich conference. More than one student pointed out the similarities to that moment in time and today's failed efforts to bribe the Iranians. Interestingly enough, the Iranians are using many of the same tools to pursue their rise to power as Hitler did. It's not "Liebensraum," but it is fanatical and it is nationalist.

As a political scientist, I myself have warned in published work that we risk becoming the very thing we seek to oppose. Prior to the outbreak of world war in 1939, pundits of the day had similar fears.

It's so easy to talk about diplomacy and peace and talking and appeasement because war is such a terrible ugly thing. The French and British were so horrified by the threat of war with the memory of the Great War so near that they literally fed one of their own, Czechoslovakia as an appeasing gift to Germany to prevent war.

Chamberlain's famous "Scrap of Paper"

We, the German Fuhrer and Chancellor and the British Prime Minister, have had a further meeting today and are agreed in recognising that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first importance for the two countries and for Europe. We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to was with one another again. We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe.

A Very defiant Iran with clear goals,
yet still appeasement continues
but not all are afraid of action
and some are less afraid then others.

You really got to give to the man he really knows what he's doing with his foot dragging.

Yes, this all does very much look like what was going on 67 years ago except what's happening today doesn't look as bad since now their is a certain world power not appeasing.

I think you've put your finger on something important. Becasue the situation today doesn't look as bad, it's being downplayed by Western media and career diplomats. the pernicious truth of the thing is that it doesn't look as bad because the Old Guys in power today can't remember anything like it. If and when they hear argument from people like those who post here, they try to relate them to their own experience, which is lacking.

I myself have never been to war. I am Legally Blind, so the army won't take me. Even so, I come from a long line of soldiers, so I'm surrounded by the effects of war almost every day. As a trained historian and political scientist, I can put what I see and expeirence in to a context that matters. The lesson I learn is that past history matters.

The people in office today dodged Vietnam, which was my father's war. The same people who dodged Vietnam presided over Genada, Panama, and the Fall of the Soviet Union. When you get right down to it, THAT is their perspective on the politics that can potentially lead to war. As evidence, I submit the execution and outcome of the first Gulf War. These pampered men and women who have lead us in to the present circumstances suffer from the same bias that afflicted Neville Chamberlain.

They can only act on what they know. Trouble is, their wealth and power tend to insulate them from the consequences of their actions, while cutting them off from the people who have real-world experience. They surround themslves by people who think like they do becuase they can. As time passes, they lose touch with the "common sense" that the rest of us rub shoulders with every day, because we don't have the power nor the money to relish and become addicted to that kind of "privacy."

When people like us post on boards like ATS, we are staying in touch with the real world. We routinely come in to contact with things that we don't want to see or to hear. It's a reality check that we have...that they don't. Our job, as good citizens, is to force that reality check on them by telling our leaders what we want, and why. Each time you make a phone call, send an e-mail, or write a letter, you are intruding on the private self-made world of an elected official. If they get stupid and choose to ignore you...the will risk being voted out of office.

That's how you reduce the odds against another terrorist attack. You force your Representatives and Senators to act on the issues of national security, or you vote 'em out. If they don't get the point, you write or call and remind them. If they remain arrogant, you go to the polls and vote your conscience.

If that's not enogh, try using your voice while you've still got it. Anyone with a newspaper subscription can see what trends are now in play, and what dark times are coming. Write a letter to the editor of your lorcal paper several times a year. Pst of ATS and other boards. Get together with friends over lunch and decide who you're your gonna vote for. If you really wanna get nuts, write a book.

It's true that we do rely on our leaders to prevent another 9-11 attack, but history has proven that we need to give THEM guidance and direction. The state of politics todays provesthat the advice they gave us isn't working. Like so many of you, I didn't think I could be heard even if I bothered to speak up. Today, I'm in a position that I never dreamed possible. I reach people, and that's very humbling.

The examples you see in this thread don't even begin the scratch the surface of this very large and deep subject. Pre-vention doesn't mean that we stop something from ever happening. It means that we make such a terrible thing less likely. That, by itself, should force us to act positively and to good effect...when the next terror attack does happen. Until our enemies fear being caught, they will always attack without shame.

Anyone who bothers to watch t.v. news or read a paper just now will notice the harsh words flying around the U.N. chambers. It's worth noting that much of this rancor is like what we heard from the delegates to the League of Nations in the late 1930's. While it's true that Iran is not precisely a stand-in for Nazi Germany, they do represent a threat to Western democracies that shouldn't be ignored.

Nobody did anything on the international stage until German trooped rolled in to Poland in late 1939. It's quite likely that today's leaders won't do anything until there's a mushroom cloud in somebody's back yard. It's not quite the same thing as a good old fashioned panzer assault, but it will have out attention when it happens. I don't think future historians will fault us for our disbelief. they may even praise us for it. After all, who wants the aftermath of a nuclear attack which could destroy a nation?

The only similarity is the poisioning of the community within both countries
' 1930s German, and Post Y2k America '

Hitler used the emotional setback of WW1 on Germany to bring back moral and spirit in his people, enough so they would follow.
He figured out the new world before anyone else did, realised things that would naturally form in civilisation and used it to sucker his people into following.
He used the reichstag fire as a means to an end.

In regards to America,
Chenney was summoned before 911 by various petroleum experts, and advised on the current world situation. I beleive he realised the new world situation that was fast approaching, not becasue he was smart.. but because he had the means to manipulate the experts to divulge the information to him.

Realising the american economy had already past the point of no return in being able to avoid the new worlds consequences on a national that uses oil as its lifeblood, and being informed of a middle easter plot to again attack NYC... the plan almost made itself.

In direct retalitaion to the attrocity that was coming, he realised this would give them, an opporunity to strike ANY ME target, as long as it was catastrophic enough to shock and destory public happieness.

Knowing full well the state of affairs in Iraq, after Gw1, various satelite spying, various internal spying it was decided that a case could be drummed up, and a military opiton enforeced on a weak, and vulnerable Iraq.
They could take control of the community, use fellow arabs to give the appearence of a self governened country but ensure that the oil continues to flow the 'liberators' way as thanks for removing the regime.

Both men used a traumatic period on there nations times to advance there plans at global dominance.

The only saving grace of mankind today, is that civilizations VALUES have come leaps and bounds.
Through use of public media public opinion holds great ground over a countries actions.
We couldnt not remove the muslim problem the way hitler wanted to remove the jewish problem, because world outrage would surely spark a major revolt inside, and outside the US.

Hitler was able to carry out his plans under secrecy from the outside world for much of its execution.

Thankgod for propoganda and a world media.

In saying that doesnt mean they havent tried.

How long in Iraq did we beleive everythnig was justifyable?
until abbu grahib came out, against the US's best attmepts.

Bush.. the same was as Hitler did is attempting to hide the truth through brut military force. Attmepting to control the outgoing media from IRAQ, shows that this government isnt above hiding the truth from its citizens.

hitler was brought down because the allies new of his attocities, and decided the best actions was to destroy him.

history is written by the victors.
Who will be the victor in todays struggle?

If America wins, those evil muslims will perish and will forever be known as the religion of evil, whom murdered in the name of allah.

If the middle east wins, America will be seen as the war mongering, global dominating regime whom murdered for oil and industry.

Agit8dChop, that as actually quite well said. As a historian, I will not be surprised to learn in the next decade that much of what you say comes to pass. National leaders often have access to information that puts them years ahead of the rest of us. who scrabble to learn what little we can.

We may not be seeing the same kind of politics and military bloodletting...yet...but this decade is certainly just as perilous as was the 1930's.

Hey, this was fun. I think we are done here. This was worth doing. I hope to see it come up again some time. We're seeing a lot of things that will remind us of the past. Let's hope that more of those things are good.