I guess my question is who gave the Americans the right? I say this as an American. But would not the world be a better place if we just minded our own business and quit nation building and stoking non existant fires?

  • CrocodilloBombardino@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    There are privileges to being an empire and the capitalists in the US continue to use that empire to get access to those privileges. Favorable trade, commercial, and financing terms are a big one.

    Also the US war industry pushes the country to intervene. You can see how there are interventionist and isolationist movements in the US fighting right now over how much the US gets directly involved in Iran-Israel.

  • Steve@communick.news
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    93
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    After world war two, Europe was busy putting itself back together. It left an opening that the US stepped into. And who wouldn’t like to be the big dog in the yard.

    • Valmond@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      They (the USA) got to be the big dog, protecting us in europe, and we let them the hard & soft power. Everyone was happy (in the US and Europe) until americans started to believe their own hype that thay are in fact better than other people, and thus the breakup began.

      It’s not over just yet with the usa supremacy but trump fucked things up so bad that IMO ten years from now the world will be a different place.

      • AES_Enjoyer@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        protecting us in europe

        Protecting Europe from what exactly? What military threat did the US fight against in Europe? There hasn’t been an attack to western Europe since WW2 until the US bombing of Yugoslavia.

        • Valmond@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          You can’t be this dense right?

          Against the URSS 🙄

          Edit: BTW URSS = USSR = CCCP before any homeschooled troll tries to be smart.

              • AES_Enjoyer@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                The USSR that saved Eastern Europe from the almost complete genocide of Slav “untermenschen” according to Nazi genocidal plans such as Generalplan Ost, at the tremendous cost of 27 million deaths of Soviet citizens in the brave struggle against Nazis.

                • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  And it did so by means of rape and genocide. Our Soviet aligned government took 2 years to get rid of an epidemic of syphilis after they were through.

                  It was just another conquering imperialistic power

              • AES_Enjoyer@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                2 months ago

                What on Earth are you talking about? My country, Spain, only received weapons and military aid against fascism from the USSR years before WW2 started, during the Spanish civil war. The Soviet Union was the most antifascist state in Europe, and I wish my country would have been next to the Soviets so that we wouldn’t have endured almost 40 years of fascist regime.

                • Valmond@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Sure, just forget about Lithuania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, and so on and on and on.

                  The soviet union teamed up with the nazis and started the second world war, check out the molotov ribentrop act.

                  Also: why chose between two bad things, Franco and the USSR when you can aim for the free world? Are you unhappy i the EU?

    • palordrolap@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Pretty much this. Up to that point, it was Britain and a few other European nations that were doing all the management* in various places in the world. After WWII, they realised: “You know what, we’re tired and worn out and everyone wants us out anyway. We’re going low energy to rebuild at home. Someone else can step in if they want.”

      * a.k.a. “Colonialism”. Management is an odd choice of synonym I grant you, but once you’ve got a colony, it’s in your interests to run things in good order. Until the locals rightfully kick you out, that is.

      • AES_Enjoyer@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        After WWII, they realised: “You know what, we’re tired and worn out and everyone wants us out anyway

        This is a very naive understanding of the history of decolonisation. Decolonisation wasn’t a western initiative, it was done because the colonies were literally rebelling against their European oppressors, great part of that through Soviet funding and arming.

        Someone else can step in if they want.

        …unless they oppose western control of the region like Patrice Lumumba, Fidel Castro or Mosaddeq.

        • Apepollo11@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          This is also an oversimplification.

          Colonies were always rebelling. The main issue that led to decolonisation was that there was no longer the resources required to maintain these big empires.

          Coal was more expensive, troops were more expensive, everything now cost too much to maintain.

          It’s the end phase of every empire.

  • omega_x3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 months ago

    Just like America itself England can be blamed. Since there are already a bunch of WW2 answers, I’ll go back to post WW1 where England and France decided to carve up the middle east in their own interests. This created a bunch of countries with boarders that made little sense, mainly so one big influencal leader could give countries to his family members. Then jump ahead to an Australian showing up in Iran agreeing to look for oil and if he finds any he keeps 90% of the profits for 60 years. Once he found oil and made a bunch of money England said that is too good of a deal and just took over the company and changing its name to BP. Iran said this deal sucks and demanded a better deal, England said fuck you and went and asked America to step in and help them keep their deal. America sent the CIA in to cause problems, and the CIA was successful. The new leader still forced England to accept a more fair deal, but pissed off the people of Iran. So when the dictator was overthrown the new leadership was founded on a very popular policy of death to America because the CIA did what England asked them to do.

  • Etterra@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    Because people in power only want one thing - more power. They only fear one thing - loosing power.

  • JohnnyFlapHoleSeed@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    The main reason is that if we stop being the biggest shark in the tank, the next two biggest sharks (China and Russia) can’t be trusted to not feast on the smaller sharks. And if they do feast, they will become too large for the American shark to deal with.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’m sorry, this seems to imply the US doesn’t “feast on the smaller sharks”. It went as far as threatening Japan with sanctions because they were considering “digital sovereignty” with TRON OS as opposed to Windows at some point. Japan is almost a non-optional ally.

      And also one good solution of preventing someone from doing that is arming the smaller sharks. Yet USA seems even more against more equal spread of technologies and weapons than the “next two sharks”.

    • OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      The US is already feeding on the smaller sharks, and has been for decades. Look at their foreign policy in Central and South America, South East Asia, the Middle East.

      The only difference is that they’ve been feasting on other nations and not the West. China and Russia don’t have those restraints. All three of them are horrible, but America hasn’t been horrible to us until just recently.

      • AES_Enjoyer@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        for decades

        Centuries*.

        China and Russia don’t have those restraints

        I understand why you’d say that about modern Russia, but how on Earth are you comparing China to the USA? In what war has China been in the past 40 years? What countries has it been exploiting?

    • ape_arms@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      I think it’s even simpler than this. I think any government/state/group with power wants to hold and expand it. I’m not sure there is a group of people that exist that wouldn’t work to exercise control if they could. And I’m not defending the US, I just think it may be an inherently human thing to do.

      • AES_Enjoyer@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        I think any government/state/group with power wants to hold and expand it

        Then you’d be wrong. Famously, after the Russian Revolution in 1917, the Russian Socialist Federation of Soviet Republics, under the leadership of the Bolsheviks, created the first constitution in history that granted the unilateral right of self-determination and secession to all peoples of the former Russian Empire. This is how Poland gained its independence in 1918, as well as Finland and many other countries formerly part of the Russian Empire. Interesting episode of history.

          • AES_Enjoyer@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            In 1918 Poland decided to unilaterally invade modern Ukraine and Belarus because of nationalist expansionist beliefs, you can read about it on the wikipedia article or the Polish-Ukrainian war.

            In 1939 the Soviet Union recovered those territories and gave them back to the Belarusian and Ukrainian SSRs, which Poles are still crying about. If you care about seeing maps representing this I can give you sources no problem since I’m arguing from good faith.

            After 1945, Poland was forced by the USSR to give reparations in order to compensate for the lack of mutual defense agreement against Nazis before 1939, which was a mistaken policy that led to a lot of insatisfaction in Poland. After the mid-1950s, the Soviet Union removed these reparations and instead started subsidising the Polish socialist nation with cheap resources and industrialising it.

            What part of 1969 is relevant to you?

  • TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’m gonna answer from the perspective of someone who believes the world is a better place when it is led by America without reverting to a thin jingoist ideology. These aren’t my views, but a steel man of someone I would disagree with.

    Why does America feel the need to control the world?

    In the wake of the world wars, we realized that the world is best off with one power to lead the world. No powers and multiple powers will result in another world war. We were the best position to take that role after WW2 and resist the Soviet union’s attempt to gaining that position.

    Do what they say?

    Many of these countries don’t do what America says because America says it. Heck, many go against what we say. But they believe in a better world and when they remember that, they undtand that America is putting themselves in the most danger by clearing that path for the rest of the free world.

    Instead of taking care of their own problems at home?

    The problems we have at home are pretty limited. Most of these problems are born out of laziness. But we keep the criminals in check both at home and abroad.

    When did the US become police officer of the world and enforcer?

    If we didn’t step up after ww2, the world would have slipped into another world war or deem communism run rampant.

    I guess my question is who gave the Americans the right?

    The civilized world at the end of WW2. And under our leadership, the world is safer and healthier for it.

    I say this as an American. But would not the world be a better place if we just minded our own business and quit nation building and stoking non existant fires?

    From communism to extreme religious views, we are the only ones who are capable and willing to step up and protect the world against that. It’s a difficult and thankless job.

    • DrivebyHaiku@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      This is a very America centric veiw and even if it is a steel man it deserves a counterpoint.

      After WWII most of the nations who were old empire builders were decimated. The general feeling was even those on the winning side didn’t feel like they’d won. The rebuilding was slow and economic austerity lasted for decades.

      The American prosperity of the 1950’s and 60’s wasn’t “normal”. America didn’t have international competition it otherwise would have and that power gave them bargaining rights which made them both culturally dominant as they projected a sense of prosperity and politically powerful due to the resources at their disposal. Opposition to America was potentially disastrous and America threw their weight around like crazy. They expanded their military with these resources and established bases in countries too weak to oppose them.

      America came out of the war with something of a Big Damn Hero complex. Communism, for all it’s perceived threat was also a handy excuse to pursue expansion and in keeping American supremacy in place. Whether countries wantes to be “protected” or not really has a lot of across the board nuance. A lot of American political will was coercive and a lot of the things done in the fight for “democracy” were disproportionate and horrific.

      Really a lot of the American supremacy at bottom was might makes right. With the world finally recovering economically and now able to speak as equals the US is using measures that demand a return to that economic supremacy and stranglehold. The larger sore points are growing. The world doesn’t need one big power in charge. They don’t need a king with a standing army. They want to make their own choices and have freedoms to not conform to whatever America wants and the attitudes Americans show to disregard that will is garnering response.

    • Lemminary@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I also believed the world was a better place when the US led, but when anyone other than Trump was in power. At least with the US, we had a clear ideal of justice being normalized, and you could feel the progressive momentum with every passing year. We don’t get that among the other contesting world superpowers. But I don’t think the US stands for that anymore, thanks to meddling countries like Russia, but that doesn’t mean I want China or, especially, Russia to succeed them. They lobotomized the US and they showed their real face in return.

  • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    America was the standard for a Democratic Republic after WW2.

    after the war we helped most of Europe return to normal and even improved quality of life and living standards. part of that help came with stipulations on how the US had control within those countries that had help.

    Had the US not stepped in at the time to stabilize Europe, another war would have likely happened and another, and another.

    My guess, most of Europe would have fallen under Russian rule, or at the very least heavily influenced by, if the US didn’t step up.

    I suppose European’s don’t look at how bad the war left Europe and often just want to forget the atrocities, but that’s not an excuse for blaming the hand that helped you in your time of need.

    • AES_Enjoyer@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      The US didn’t step in with the Marshall plan to stabilize Europe against war, the US did so in order to prevent socialist uprisings all over Western Europe, and to create ties between European capital and US capital so that Western Europe would support the US in its imperialism.

  • sircac@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    Every empire has those aspirations.

    There are many ways to achieve it through the complex relationships between countries and societies (e.g. soft power, cultural influence, militar control, etc) but an empire willing to try it at any cost with any means will always succeed for longer as an empire…

  • silly goose meekah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’m German and went to the US for a year as a high school student.

    My US history teacher literally told us that the US is the world police. Because of that I believe that many Americans think that way.

  • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 months ago

    Meanwhile in another thread I saw some Brits bitching about America not entering WWII until the end of 1941.

    You’re the bad guy for trying to stay out of international affairs, you’re the bad guy for getting into international affairs. If you find yourself forced to play a game you can’t win, Just start hurting people.

    • XeroxCool@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      Whenever I’ve seen that, it’s usually in response to America taking the credit for saving the war despite “barely being there”. On the other hand, you could say adding the American force weighed the odds into the allies’ favor, so the swift end wouldn’t have happened naturally . On the other foot, America wouldn’t have built up enough arsenal to have that much effect had they not waited. And on your neighbor’s hand, America seemed to sit idly as they watched nazis be nazis because no no, the guy has some valid points

        • XeroxCool@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          If that’s your takeaway, sure. It’s more about the 1939 invasion of Poland, the French/British declaring war the same year, the 1940 Blitz bombing of England, and 1940 Battle of France.

          • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            Which were America’s problem…how exactly? I will 100% grant you, Germany deserved a swift lead pipe to the mouth for how the 1940’s went. The United States of America, an independent nation in a different hemisphere to which none of that happened, was trying to stay out of it because Europe is not our fault.

            We had no mutual defense treaties with anyone in Europe in the 1930’s. It wasn’t our fight. In what way was the safety or sovereignty of Poland our problem in 1939? Precisely how many American lives did we owe Poland at the time?

            All you little European nations are so big and proud until the goddamn krauts start getting uppity then it’s “Why didn’t you invade a foreign nation that didn’t do anything to you, Uncle Sam?”

            This is why we have NATO. Now we do have a mutual defense pact with much of Europe, so if anybody invades a member country, the rest of us come running.

    • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      This drives me nuts with the news cycle. “The US won’t get involved in X”. The media shows how awful fighting/revolt/etc are in X. “Why won’t the US do something about the horror in X!?” The US gets involved and, of course, some civilians die. This is guaranteed in war. The media then goes “The US is awful for killing civilians in X!” The US pulls out of X. The media goes “Why has the US abandoned X!?”

  • JaggedRobotPubes@lemmy.world
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Anybody who thinks about that question enough always realizes they don’t want that kind of power and control. Sometimes people think about it partly, get excited by the promises of power, but only misrepresented by their own misunderstandings, and mistakenly think they do.

    Nobody actually does, just not everybody realizes it fully.

  • Caveman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Kinda how they were “last man standing” in WW2. Everybody else got severely fucked and they won them over by with the Marshall aid program which got us to a bi-polar world with NATO in which the US was the hegemony.

    After the fall of the Soviet Union and before the rise of China there was only one superpower that could act as such militarily and then US continued their power trip.