China-Japan future flashpoint?

[K. A. Pital]

"NATO" is just an acronym. In reality there was a pre-war drift towards a super-imperialist British-American-French bloc, and in the end this union pretty much dominated NATO, just as it dominates the thing now. Key to success of this construct is the non-interference of colonial and satellite state spheres (Latin America and Pacific for the US, francophone Africa for France and remaining British Empire holdings for the British). The Soviet bogeyman justified a 50-year maintenance of an enormous level of militarization - just as the "Europe will go fascist again and invade us" bogeyman served as justification to maintain a very militarized economy, but the actual reasons for Soviet militarization were connected to the military-industrial lobby influence.

Great Powers were competing for power for hundreds of years. Alliances formed, blah blah blah. It's all true, but I am speaking about the latter part of the XX century, where European alliances have been robust.

In 2003 France and Germany sided with Russia over Iraqi war

There was no such thing as them "siding with Russia", since Russia basically sided with America over the Iraq war. It did not initiate a proxy war, did not support Iraqi freedom fighters and it failed to stop America and Britain from invading, too. Germany and France did not send troops to Iraq and exposed the war as an illegal war of agression, a Nuremberg-level crime, sure. However, they failed to do the necessary actions: when a Nuremberg-level crime is committed by your ally, this means your ally is a warmongering murderer and you should give weapons to opposing forces. Germany and France did not do that. Neither did Russia. They all folded.

How many tanks, cruise missiles, soldiers and radars did NATO amass in Europe? Compared with the amount of money they spent on colonial adventures?

A lot. Militarizing your nation before embarking on imperialist wars is necessary. Lots of weapons and fleets in being were accumulated by colonial empires persistently. It is also true that the USSR was a real and powerful adversary - militarizing against the USSR required only small lies ("bomber gap", "missile gap"), the perception of necessity was there. After the USSR collapsed, maintaining the militaristic madness obviously became harder. Lies become more obvious and stupid: like lumping together DPRK, Iraq and everyone America doesn't like into a fake "Axis" and then saying they're a huge threat to Europe, or inflating islamist terrorism beyond all possible proportions. The justifications, of course, failed, especially in case of Iraq.

But in all cases there were several key features of the superimperialist system:
1) large alliances were composed of brutal imperialistic European/offshoot powers, which have existed as racist conquering states for most of their history - Russia, America and the European colonial great powers, France and Britain. USSR/WARPAC, US-UK-France/NATO and the quickly annihilated Germany-Italy-Japan(+fascist Europe)/Axis.
2) super-imperialist alliances were formed between powers which had mutual goals in either maintenance and strengthening of their influence (France, Britain, US) or expansion of their influence (Germany-Japan-Italy, Sino-Soviet-European bloc before the split), and as such their existing or designated colonial spheres were not overlapping.

This allowed the super-alliances to always point at other huge military union as a threat and maintain a high level of militarization. Which of course means the ability to run colonial wars was maintained for a much longer time than it would've been if not for the cooperation - economic and military - between these powers.

Amassing huge military reserves at home is always a pre-requisite for further expansion and agressive war. Weapons aren't really divided into agressive and defensive, other than fixed defences and nuclear deterrent, maybe. But even this is false: at the dawn of NATO and WARPAC nuclear "deterrent" was not thought of as a special deterrent, but as of a simply useful WMD that may be used in a war quite easily like it was used over Japan. Only the build-up of multigigaton arsenals and corresponding missile stockpiles changed the perception of war planners.

[Simon_Jester]

This is untrue. NATOs purpose was quite specifically to oppose USSRs westward expansion into Europe. Nor was NATO a homogenous group since the interests and threats faced by countries were not the same.

Since the USSR didn't really expand into Western Europe beyond the demarcation lines and even basically sold off Greece in a cynical deal with Churchill, the purpose of NATO was most certainly not that. At various points NATO countries engaged in wars with countries that are not in Europe.

Stas, I suggest you take a step back for a moment, and consider the following:

There were several close international relationships involved among the NATO member states. This does not mean NATO itself was devoted to imperialism in the Third World. I would argue that there were two separate forces in play here. One was the tendency of the Western European states and the US to tacitly or explicitly back each other in imperialist ventures. The other was the urgent need for collective defense in the face of the potential threat of the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany.

These forces are not the same. In many cases, Western states that were cooperating in NATO were indifferent to foreign colonial issues (Italy never got involved in Vietnam), and vice versa (France was quite happy to have US support in Vietnam, and ultimately to have the US largely replace them in the country, even as they withdrew from NATO out of a desire to avoid being automatically drawn into any war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact.

Also, you seem to be assuming that all Western nations fully knew and understood the viewpoints, motives, desires, and future strategy that the USSR was going to pursue. This is simply not the case. A statement like "the Soviet Union has no expansionist aims in Europe" might have been strictly true in 1950, but do you honestly think Europeans were likely to believe it? Several European countries had been reduced to Soviet satellites within the past five years, and there were highly active communist parties with strong ties to Moscow in the rest. The Soviet army was large, heavily equipped, and perched in an excellent position to roll straight through into France should they choose to do so.

From the point of view of people not privy to discussions within the Politburo (i.e. everyone outside Russia), who simply projected historical trends forward... hell yes people were seriously worried about the idea of the Soviets using either conquest, infiltration, or a mix of the two to secure dominance over Europe. There was plenty of motivation for countries in Europe to form an alliance purely to forestall anticipated Soviet imperialism.

The fact that this alliance was in various ways abused, and that various members of the NATO bloc collaborated on various imperialist projects elsewhere in the world, does not mean that NATO was created specifically to further these imperialist projects.

There was no real desire for either country to support each other outside of the context of central european theater. Certainly France, Germany or even US showed no enthusiasm to support UK during the Falklands.

None of the countries really interfered with the colonialist slaughter by others. UK and US didn't bomb France because of Algeria, and the US only diplomatically pressured France and Britain very softly during the invasion of Egypt to secure their colonialist "property".

Likewise none of these countries did anything about Soviet intervention in Hungary. Or in numerous civil wars fought in the Third World in the wake of decolonization. Nor was there any kind of meaningful NATO intervention in the Arab-Israeli wars to stop that bloodshed.

YES, the US, Britain, and France all tiptoed around each other and did not actively intervene to break up each other's networks of imperial power.

NO, that does not mean NATO was an imperialist front.

The fact that these countries were callous enough to ignore one another's colonial ambitions in the Third World does not mean they didn't have legitimate concerns about military invasion from the Second World. And Soviet actions from 1945-1970 did precious little to lay those concerns to rest.

Being a superimperialistic bloc doesn't mean all nations blindly follow into war. Some nations in WARPAC refused to lend forces for Czechoslovakian intervention, for example. It doesn't mean WARPAC was not a superimperialistic bloc at least in capabilities, but perhaps also very much so in intent during the later years. NATO allows its members (France, UK, US) to conduct imperialistic invasions and do imperialistic shit in Africa and all across the world with impunity. That's enough. All nations stand neutral when another NATO nation does something like this and sometimes send forces.

Looking at recent imperialist ventures, the most obvious case of true imperialism in which NATO became involved were the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

In Afghanistan, the US invoked the mutual defense clause... and say what you will, it is hard to pretend that the US had NOT been attacked. The response may have been horribly mishandled and/or contaminated with imperialism, whatever. But the fact remains that when several thousand of your citizens are killed or injured by criminals operating out of another country, then you could reasonably expect anyone you have a mutual-defense pact with to support you in ferreting out those criminals, imperialist or not.

Indeed, anyone who won't honor the mutual defense pact you signed with them, under those conditions, should probably consider your alliance null and void. If you won't supply troops in response to a mass-casualty attack on my civilians, I can hardly rely on you to supply troops in the event of an invasion.

In Iraq, NATO had basically no effect, some of the NATO countries contributed troops, others didn't, with very little correlation between NATO membership and contribution. Sure, Britain provided significant troops, but South Korea and the Ukraine were both far more heavily involved than any of the other traditional NATO members. Major NATO players France and Germany stayed the hell out of the war and indeed actively condemned it- and seriously what more did you expect of them, was France supposed to threaten to launch nuclear missiles to keep the US and its coalition of the Renfields from invading Iraq?

---

NATO was formed for a very specific purpose. That members also engaged in other activities hardly disproves that fact. Nor does using small countries like poker chips mean that USSR wasn't considered a primary threat.

I prefer to judge by the actions instead of judging by statements. All great powers' statements have rung hollow in the past, and believing known liars is just stupid.

I accept this, embrace it even- and STILL think you are misinterpreting the actions you judge.

You point to the imperialism of Britain and France and the US, and conclude that any alliance between Britain and France and the US (note that France left NATO in the late 1950s) must be aimed at furthering imperialism.

Do you think that just because a man is a pimp, that man is incapable of forming an alliance with another pimp to deter the threat of a band of armed robbers? Do you assume that this alliance must necessarily be for the purpose of furthering their pandering, that they could not simply be in fear for their lives because of a threat from outside their cozy, rotten little system?

Which again doesn't mean that NATO was formed for the goal of imperial expansion.

Imperial maintenance is more like it. The USSR was a primary source of anti-colonial funding in the post-WWII period. Once again real actions against declarations.

NATO was formed to oppose the Red Army, not Soviet anti-colonial funds.

If you want something formed to oppose Soviet anti-colonial funds, and the governments created by those funds, look at the CIA, not NATO. Overwhelmingly, it was the US that supplied the funds and resources to counter Soviet actions in the Third World, especially after about 1955-60. The US pursued this goal, and not coincidentally became the dominant imperial power, entirely supplanting France and Britain in that role.

The fact that in the early stages of this operation the US took advantage of its relations with Britain and France should be of no surprise- thieves fall out. You should also bear in mind that the US was actively antagonistic to European imperial power in certain places where it was in their interests to be so- consider the US role in demanding and promoting independence for India during World War Two. Here, the US politicians seem to have been motivated by both principle and greed- the US would have a large economic postwar role in India if Britain were forced to withdraw, while many individual Americans found the idea of the Raj intolerable in its own right.

The actual power of the USSR was a good solidifying threat, but even after it was gone, NATO did not stop existing and, in fact, expanded. Imperialistic interventions did not stop.

NATO expanded because of its character as a mutual-defense pact, and one containing some very well armed nations- it is in almost any country's interests to join such a pact, because it removes fears about the potential actions of one's neighbors.

Imperialistic interventions did not stop, but by this point had long since changed character; Britain and France and other European nations no longer had any meaningful colonies or 'protectorates' subject to direct rule from the metropole. Instead, interventions took place in response to specific events that the Western media and societies viewed as crimes, such as Milosevic killing Kosovars or (asserted) violation of arms control provisions by Saddam Hussein.

It might be worth thinking about what this shift in the character of foreign interventions by rich nations into poor nations might mean, and how it changes things. Surely there is at least a change between different forms of imperial capital here, when we go from seeing nations administered as conquered provinces by a metropole, to seeing those nations ruled by corrupt and pliable governments that are subjugated by multinational corporations... arguably including the former metropoles themselves.

[stormthebeaches]

Since the USSR didn't really expand into Western Europe beyond the demarcation lines and even basically sold off Greece in a cynical deal with Churchill, the purpose of NATO was most certainly not that. At various points NATO countries engaged in wars with countries that are not in Europe.

I prefer to judge by the actions instead of judging by statements. All great powers' statements have rung hollow in the past, and believing known liars is just stupid.

NATO was formed due to the fear that the Soviet Union would expand westward, not that it actually would. If you believe otherwise then how about you cite some documents proving that the USSR was merely an excuse? It has been decades since NATO was formed, you should be able to find some declassified documents about the organization's "true" purpose.

I dislike the bullshit obfuscating term "Great Game" and prefer the term imperialism. Great Game implies something interesting and funny, kind of like a harmless game of chess. Imperialism implies a killfuckerous "game" where people's lives are put on the board like pawns.

Since the early modern period Britain's goal in Europe has always been to prevent one power from dominating the continent. I fail to see how that is imperialistic, if anything it is quite the opposite. Unless if you believe that any effort to protect international interests in imperialistic.

UK and US didn't bomb France because of Algeria,

The UK bombing France, just two decades after World War 2? Are you completely out of touch with reality?

Anyway, the US did put diplomatic pressure on France to end its involvement. And the Algerian war was a lot more morally complex than you seem to think.

and the US only diplomatically pressured France and Britain very softly during the invasion of Egypt to secure their colonialist "property".

You are flat out wrong here. The US organized an oil embargo against Britain and France and put financial pressure on Britain threatened to sell off its British bonds. These played an instrumental role forcing the two powers to back down.

US forces stand in Germany and Japan until this day

The US keeps forces in Japan due to treaty obligations. Japan keeps its military weak and exchange for US military protection. If the US military were to pull out of Japan then Japan would expand its military. Something I think you would be opposed to, no?

Like I said, the superimperialistic bloc started forming before NATO. You are right, the US did not do shit about European colonial Empires, because before WWII it slaughtered the Philippine people then annexed the place as a colony and ruled it directly. It was just another brutal colonial Empire with a republican order in the metropole.

NATO did not stop existing and, in fact, expanded.

NATO expanded because other countries voluntarily choose to join. Your acting like NATO annexed them through military force.

And immediately after WW2 the US granted independence to the Philippines. I fail to see how this proves anything.

In reality there was a pre-war drift towards a super-imperialist British-American-French bloc

Not really, America slid into isolationism after World War1 and America and Britain almost went to war in the 1930s.

There was no such thing as them "siding with Russia", since Russia basically sided with America over the Iraq war. It did not initiate a proxy war, did not support Iraqi freedom fighters and it failed to stop America and Britain from invading, too. Germany and France did not send troops to Iraq and exposed the war as an illegal war of agression, a Nuremberg-level crime, sure. However, they failed to do the necessary actions: when a Nuremberg-level crime is committed by your ally, this means your ally is a warmongering murderer and you should give weapons to opposing forces. Germany and France did not do that. Neither did Russia. They all folded.

So remaining neutral in the conflict is siding with America? I'm seriously getting a George W. Bush style "your with us or your against us" vibe here.

[K. A. Pital]

So remaining neutral in the conflict is siding with America?

Remaining neutral and allowing a war of agression to run its course is pretty much that. Doesn't matter with whom, actually.

As for the main point - okay. I'm convinced by Simon's and Kane's arguments about the general purpose of the alliance. NATO was formed to oppose the USSR. But doesn't this actually strengthen the point about the alliance coming into being before formal agreements? An alliance of large imperialists may change the goals and include new members as the situation demands. Post-Soviet NATO actions kind of prove it, too - new enemies were immediately found. I'm also not talking about simply potential enemies like the USSR, but real countries that were involved in wars.

[Simon_Jester]

I think NATO is complex- one cannot understand its purpose without accepting that its purpose has evolved over time.

When it was founded it had a very specific purpose- countering fear of Soviet aggression, especially the fear felt by Western European nations that the USSR would become aggressive and the US would not become involved. This was somewhat precedented- Hitler became master of continental Europe before the US even seriously considered any kind of intervention.

In this capacity NATO existed in parallel to the existing understanding (calling it an 'entente cordiale' would not be inappropriate) between Britain and France, and between the US and both parties. The dynamics of this relationship had just recently been very much changed by World War Two, though, so I would argue that the pre-1940 and post-1945 relations among the three countries represent a... sort of phase transition between two sharply different states.

The relationship between US/Britain/France and imperialism itself evolved during the Cold War. Indeed, I would argue that the very nature of imperialism as we know it changed in response to the evolution of national independence movements in the Third World. Different historical/social/economic pressures changed the character of the institution.

So by 1990 with the collapse of the USSR, we can say that NATO reacted by changing its goals and identifying new enemies. On the other hand, basically all its member states also reacted by taking advantage of a "peace dividend" and cutting military spending; this included the United States. And insofar as NATO had become a tool for supporting imperialism, it was also a quite different brand of imperialism, pushed by different actors, than the imperialism of 1935 or 1890.

[energiewende]

"NATO" is just an acronym. In reality there was a pre-war drift towards a super-imperialist British-American-French bloc, and in the end this union pretty much dominated NATO, just as it dominates the thing now. Key to success of this construct is the non-interference of colonial and satellite state spheres (Latin America and Pacific for the US, francophone Africa for France and remaining British Empire holdings for the British). The Soviet bogeyman justified a 50-year maintenance of an enormous level of militarization - just as the "Europe will go fascist again and invade us" bogeyman served as justification to maintain a very militarized economy, but the actual reasons for Soviet militarization were connected to the military-industrial lobby influence.

It's notable, then, that only six of NATO's 26 members meet or exceed its defence spending target of a mere 2% of GDP, while highest spender US spends 4.5%. USSR meanwhile spent, estimates vary, since the economy was not monetized and many functions such as education became "dual purpose", but between 15 and 50% with 25% as the most commonly quoted estimate.

I've noticed that you have a tendency to, on the one hand, analyse the world through the prism of the USSR's official Marxist-Leninist worldview, and on the other, to be very cynical about the conduct of the USSR itself but assume every other state operates in the same way. That's not entirely false but it is true to only a limited extent.

This is a manner of thinking I have observed in a number of others who experienced the USSR and other WARPAC states, by the way, and I still do not entirely understand the reasons for it. The idea that NATO is somehow held together by the muffling of Mali, Bolivia and the Pitcairn Islands is just hilarious, yet, not entirely unexpected for people who think in this way.

[K. A. Pital]

The USSR spent more than 50% during the war and immediate post-war years for obvious reasons, by 1980s-1990s this petered out to 12%, which is still a lot. But the economy was way smaller than that of the US or NATO for that instance, so it had a greater military burden if it wished to maintain parity.

The idea that NATO is somehow held together by the muffling of Mali, Bolivia and the Pitcairn Islands is just hilarious

That is not the idea, however.

That's not entirely false but it is true to only a limited extent.

Thank you, but anyone believing state propaganda - regardless of which state makes the claim - is in a much worse position than myself. If I am wrong, then reality is better than my cynical predictions - hooray, let's open a bottle of good champagne. If, however, the other person is wrong, he's in for a huge and severe correction of the worldview, unless he wants to end up in denial.

[Simon_Jester]

The key problem, Stas, is that you often analyze situations on the assumption that all statements made by politicians and government are the functional equivalent of the USSR's Pravda: composed for public consumption by office workers who do not particularly care about the truthfulness of what they say.

That is both true and false.

On the one hand, all these things ARE released for public consumption and composed by office workers.

On the other hand, the... call it the capacity for doublethink... in most of the Western nations is reduced, relative to what was found in the policy and propaganda wing of the Soviet government. In particular, a western politician is likely to actually mean what he is saying about foreign policy, horrifying or stupid though that statement may be.

Lying is usually reserved for domestic politics, because Western politicians have very few means to control public opinion, and yet must keep the public pacified. Therefore, they mostly lie to the people about domestic issues, while relying on indifference and the complacency of wealth to keep the public from becoming outraged about issues of foreign policy.

If Winston Churchill said that the 'honour of the Empire' demanded a certain course of action in the Raj, he actually meant it, it was not just him being a running-dog lackey of British capitalists.

If George Bush the Younger says that we are invading Iraq to 'free the Iraqi people,' by all evidence he actually meant it, for an admittedly peculiar and contradictory definition of 'freedom.'

And yet here you are. You tend to think about these people as if they were secretly very logical agents of capitalist imperialism, who analyze the world exactly like a Marxist would, but then inexplicably choose the Dark Side of the 'malefactors of great wealth' rather than the Light Side of The People.


Grant for the sake of argument that the entire basic corpus of Marxist-post-Leninist-et-cetera thought to which you adhere is correct; I am not arguing doctrine at the moment. My point is simply that if you view people (and nations) you dislike as having understood the situation exactly as you do, and then inexplicably chosen Evil over Good, you are making a mistake. You will never understand them and your predictions and arguments will be made from a position of relative ignorance.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Since the early modern period Britain's goal in Europe has always been to prevent one power from dominating the continent. I fail to see how that is imperialistic, if anything it is quite the opposite. Unless if you believe that any effort to protect international interests in imperialistic.

Wait … am I misinterpreting what you are saying here, or are you actually claiming that the British were never imperialistic? In any case "protect international interests" rings pretty hollow as a claim of non-imperialism, considering that the British considered their interests to entail de facto military and economic supremacy over the entire world.

And the Algerian war was a lot more morally complex than you seem to think.

What was morally complex about Algeria? The French had a huge inferiority complex even before World War II, and especially after the loss of Indochina were desperate to maintain vestiges of their imperial splendor (they thought it was the only way to remain a major world power). So they committed war crimes in their attempt to pacify Algeria; they did the same thing in Madagascar in 1947. Algeria though complex militarily was rather simple morally: French pride and stubbornness led to massive bloodshed.

If the US military were to pull out of Japan then Japan would expand its military.

The Japanese can't really expand their military, they have strict constitutional measures that prevent such a thing that are completely independent of the degree of US military presence. That said, the euphemistically termed "Self-Defense Forces" that Japan maintains are, for all intents and purposes, a fairly sophisticated military apparatus.

And immediately after WW2 the US granted independence to the Philippines. I fail to see how this proves anything.

Indeed, to agree with you further, the US had promised independence to the Philippines long before the outbreak of WW2. FDR was a rather staunch anti-imperialist. The actions that Stas is referring to are pre-WW1; not to say they were excusable, they weren't, but they were part of a radically different governing paradigm than the WW2 and NATO area that is the focus of this discussion.

Not really, America slid into isolationism after World War1 and America and Britain almost went to war in the 1930s.

I always found the talk of American "isolationism" to be massively overstated. The US had massive overseas involvement between the war periods. The US always liked to stick its nose in other country's business. It was only isolationist in the sense that it was reluctant to enter into formal alliances so as not to be dragged into a European war without cause.

[Zaune]

If George Bush the Younger says that we are invading Iraq to 'free the Iraqi people,' by all evidence he actually meant it, for an admittedly peculiar and contradictory definition of 'freedom.'

That is possibly the most terrifying and depressing thing I've read all day.

[stormthebeaches]

Wait … am I misinterpreting what you are saying here, or are you actually claiming that the British were never imperialistic? In any case "protect international interests" rings pretty hollow as a claim of non-imperialism, considering that the British considered their interests to entail de facto military and economic supremacy over the entire world.

I never said that Britain was never imperialistic. I was strictly referring to Britain's goals in Europe.

What was morally complex about Algeria? The French had a huge inferiority complex even before World War II, and especially after the loss of Indochina were desperate to maintain vestiges of their imperial splendor (they thought it was the only way to remain a major world power). So they committed war crimes in their attempt to pacify Algeria; they did the same thing in Madagascar in 1947. Algeria though complex militarily was rather simple morally: French pride and stubbornness led to massive bloodshed.

What was morally complex? For a start the Algerian rebels committed a large number of war crimes themselves. There is also the fact that the population did not overwhelmingly support independence from France (Algeria was not actually a French colony at the time but part of metropolitan France itself). I could go into more detail but it is late where I am so I will do it later.

The Japanese can't really expand their military, they have strict constitutional measures that prevent such a thing that are completely independent of the degree of US military presence. That said, the euphemistically termed "Self-Defense Forces" that Japan maintains are, for all intents and purposes, a fairly sophisticated military apparatus.

The Japanese constitution was draft by the US military when they had Japan under military occupation under the logic that since Japan had the protection of the US military it did not need a large military of its own. If the US military was to pull out the Japanese could always pass a constitutional amendment.

Indeed, to agree with you further, the US had promised independence to the Philippines long before the outbreak of WW2. FDR was a rather staunch anti-imperialist. The actions that Stas is referring to are pre-WW1; not to say they were excusable, they weren't, but they were part of a radically different governing paradigm than the WW2 and NATO area that is the focus of this discussion.

This was exactly my point. The US government of the 1900s was very different than the US government of the 1930s and 1940s and that bringing up the action of the US government during the US/Philippines war is a red hearing in a discussion about NATO.

I always found the talk of American "isolationism" to be massively overstated. The US had massive overseas involvement between the war periods. The US always liked to stick its nose in other country's business. It was only isolationist in the sense that it was reluctant to enter into formal alliances so as not to be dragged into a European war without cause.

Of course the US had massive overseas involvement. It would be impossible not to given the scale of the US economy. It still doesn't change the fact that the US largely retreated from world affairs during the interwar period and this didn't change until Pearl Harbor. Anyway, my main point here is that Stas's claim that, America, Britain and France were naturally gravitating towards each other in the early 20th century is a massive over simplification at best.

[Thanas]

Wait … am I misinterpreting what you are saying here, or are you actually claiming that the British were never imperialistic? In any case "protect international interests" rings pretty hollow as a claim of non-imperialism, considering that the British considered their interests to entail de facto military and economic supremacy over the entire world.

I never said that Britain was never imperialistic. I was strictly referring to Britain's goals in Europe.

How was that not imperialistic? Keeping you competing powers occupied with petty squabbles or crush them when they try to get a colonial foothold is the definition of imperialism.

[K. A. Pital]

My point is simply that if you view people (and nations) you dislike as having understood the situation exactly as you do, and then inexplicably chosen Evil over Good, you are making a mistake. You will never understand them and your predictions and arguments will be made from a position of relative ignorance.

Maybe. Like I said, if my predictions fail, I'll be glad that they failed, actually. However, I think that the Western PR specialists have a specific crash training on "looking honest". So things that have been said "honestly" are in fact a ploy to win the support of the gullible, the ones that like "tough man truth" and "simple straight talk". The redneck masses that vote for George Bush a prime example of that. I actually think that (outside of dyslexia) George Bush was a fairly smart person. The news that painted him as a simpleton actually appealed to parts of the American public that were also critical in the support of the Iraq meatgrinder, they were part of the game.

[Flagg]

My point is simply that if you view people (and nations) you dislike as having understood the situation exactly as you do, and then inexplicably chosen Evil over Good, you are making a mistake. You will never understand them and your predictions and arguments will be made from a position of relative ignorance.

Maybe. Like I said, if my predictions fail, I'll be glad that they failed, actually. However, I think that the Western PR specialists have a specific crash training on "looking honest". So things that have been said "honestly" are in fact a ploy to win the support of the gullible, the ones that like "tough man truth" and "simple straight talk". The redneck masses that vote for George Bush a prime example of that. I actually think that (outside of dyslexia) George Bush was a fairly smart person. The news that painted him as a simpleton actually appealed to parts of the American public that were also critical in the support of the Iraq meatgrinder, they were part of the game.

I don't think Bush 43 unintelligent, but he had no intellectual curiosity.

[energiewende]

Thank you, but anyone believing state propaganda - regardless of which state makes the claim - is in a much worse position

Of course. But then I would be very wary about viewing the world so much through the lens of the USSR's state religion. Also, while all states are broadly evil, they do have different motivations and practices.

Wait … am I misinterpreting what you are saying here, or are you actually claiming that the British were never imperialistic? In any case "protect international interests" rings pretty hollow as a claim of non-imperialism, considering that the British considered their interests to entail de facto military and economic supremacy over the entire world.

I never said that Britain was never imperialistic. I was strictly referring to Britain's goals in Europe.

How was that not imperialistic? Keeping you competing powers occupied with petty squabbles or crush them when they try to get a colonial foothold is the definition of imperialism.

It's quite clear he is saying Britain did not have imperialist ambitions on the European continent itself, which is broadly true.