Best President in US History?

[Director]

It doesn't do any good to 'argue' or 'reason' or 'discuss' with Dinglehoff. He can't change his mind and won't change the subject. His world is apparently hermetically sealed.

 

[Dinglehoff]

It doesn't do any good to 'argue' or 'reason' or 'discuss' with Dinglehoff. He can't change his mind and won't change the subject. His world is apparently hermetically sealed.

You are welcome to your opinion, but what I posted was reasonable.

 

[Zinegata]

MacArthur and the occupation gave space and justification for the pacification (in all senses) of Japan. Had the Missouri simply sailed out of Tokyo Bay after signing the surrender, Japan would not be the country it is today. The militarists were not as defeated as you might think - Japan had millions of men under arms in 1945, and while there were some notable seppukus, these are the same people who tried to stage a coup to keep the war going after their country had been nuked TWICE.

Yes, but the coup failed precisely because the anti-war faction had gained enough power to stop the militarists. Again, you're way overstating McArthur's influence over what the Japanese themselves did for themselves.

Japan and Germany were completely stomped, almost to the point of utter destruction. People in those countries believed in their government, and their government was completely humiliated. They (largely) accepted the defeat.

Nope, by the end only 30% or so of the German people supported the Nazis. They didn't accept the defeat so much as they didn't want to fight a war to begin with. The war destroyed much of the civilian infrastructure but its primary effect was to remove the militarist elements holding the rest of the country hostage. This idea that the Germans or Japanese had to be humiliated into submission is American militarist fanfiction.

In Iraq, people did not believe in their government. When their government was humiliated, it was no big deal to them - it was Saddam who lost, not Iraq, or more importantly, not their tribe or whatever grouping they saw themselves as. Look at Saddam's generals when they were put on trial. They were wearing their tribal headwear and such - one of them refused to give his name in front of a judge, pointing at his scarf and saying that that was who he was. That's the difference between a nation and a country.

Except that's your gross misunderstanding of the situation. The Iraqi people did not want to be bombed, period. They could care less about Saddam and Bush's petty quarrels.

And more importantly Saddam was important to the Sunnis, because they knew that they were the minority and the Shia may very well oppress them. The failure of the Iraq War, more than anything else, was a failure to understand that Iraq isn't a nation or a country. It's an artificial construct based on British imperialism, which forced three different societies to live together under one government primarily to aid the British in maintaining control by playing Sunni, Shia and Kurds against each other. Forcing the Shia, Sunni, and Kurds to live together under one government in ignorance of the these real ethnic and religious divides is why the country fell into civil war. A society that is not represented by a government but is ruled by it will inevitably just push to fight to create its own government to rule itself.

By contrast Japan and Germany were functioning countries before, during, and after the war. Removing the militarists allowed the Japanese and Germans to assume a non-militaristic path to prosperity, and in that sense alone the American Army can take partial credit; albeit in both cases the Soviets had way more to do with victory than the US Army did (Japan surrendering in large part due to the Machuria offensive). The real "hero" on the American side was in fact Marshall - who wisely pushed for financing the reconstruction of Europe.

But this idea that the American Army rebuilt or "fixed" Germany and Japan is complete and utter hogwash - it was the Germans and Japanese themselves who rebuilt their country and it was a generation of Germans and Japanese who lived in the 50s and 60s who did it. McArthur's towering ego simply had him take the credit for what the Japanese were doing on their own; and the American "exceptionalism" school has clung on to this narrative ever since rather than acknowledge that Japan had its own democrats and reformers all along.

 

[stevieji]

The failure of the Iraq War, more than anything else, was a failure to understand that Iraq isn't a nation or a country. It's an artificial construct based on British imperialism, which forced three different societies to live together under one government primarily to aid the British in maintaining control by playing Sunni, Shia and Kurds against each other.

I'm going to take issue with this statement because it's just a bit too easy and lazy, frankly, to blame 'British imperialism'. The Iraqi provinces were already part of an 'artificial construct' called the Ottoman Empire - and the Turks found that the best way for them to administer the region was as three separate provinces. The idea that the British chose to play off the ethnic groups against each other isn't just lazy, it's doesn't make sense.
The League of Nations gave Britain the Mandate of Mesopotamia in 1920 - essentially this is a legal document which gave Britain the responsibility for the administration of the region. By 1932 the state of Iraq was an independent country. This isn't any form of 'imperialism' that I'm familiar with - what it is, in fact, is the League of Nations dismantling an empire and attempting to bring self-determination to its many peoples.

Now, having cleared that up, I wonder whether the three provinces which came under the British Mandate could or should have been administered separately. I have seen it suggested that the old Ottoman Vilayets neatly contained the three groups - the Kurds in Mosul, Sunni in Baghdad and Shia in Basra. I'm not convinced this would be such a neat and tidy solution - and I'm not sure they would have made three separate, viable states - but it's worth thinking about.
The Kurds are now de facto controllers of parts of northern Iraq and - leaving aside the ISIS problem for now - I have personally supported their right to self-determination since before the first Gulf War. Would a formally recognised state of Kurdistan be tolerated by Turkey? Would Turkey even be prepared to cede Kurdish parts of its own territory as part of a peace process? I doubt it, but we can dream.
The other divide is equally 'untidy' - I would be interested to hear your ideas on where you would draw the line on the map - it's easy to criticise when you don't have to take responsibility.
In any case, the Shia areas are already a de facto part of the Iranian sphere of influence - and perhaps this should simply be formalised. How are we doing so far?
The most difficult part is the Baghdad Vilayet - what on earth would you do with this landlocked little province? Perhaps it should have become part of a greater Syria at the outset - the division between the French and British Mandates was obviously artificial, but the primary political purpose, don't forget, was to dismantle the Turkish Empire, not to replace it with an Arab Empire.
There are no easy answers - no matter how much we understand the history - but pointing fingers doesn't help anyone, particularly after nearly a hundred years.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

That's like those idiots who say Germany won WW2 because they dominate the EU.

Yeah its totaly weird.

 

[The-Doc]

The USA won the Vietnam War. What was the end point of the war going to be? They were going to drink Coca Cola and make our shoes.

What happened?

They drink Coca Cola and make our shoes.

A great many mass graves were filled between point A and B.

Anyway Richard Nixon was the best American President.

 

[Yakman]

it's nice that you spent so much time refuting arguments that I did not make. ;-)

Yes, but the coup failed precisely because the anti-war faction had gained enough power to stop the militarists. Again, you're way overstating McArthur's influence over what the Japanese themselves did for themselves.

The coup failed because it was hastily organized and sporadically executed. That being said, I never said anything about MacArthur's influence, beyond the fact that the occupation authority gave space and time for the anti-war faction to form a government and purge Japanese society from the insane militarism that had controlled it for generations. The American efforts were comical, really, and spoke more about American values and mores than the Japanese ones.

Nope, by the end only 30% or so of the German people supported the Nazis. They didn't accept the defeat so much as they didn't want to fight a war to begin with. The war destroyed much of the civilian infrastructure but its primary effect was to remove the militarist elements holding the rest of the country hostage. This idea that the Germans or Japanese had to be humiliated into submission is American militarist fanfiction.

Thank you for proving my point. 30% of the Germans supported the Nazis, but they signed up to fight anyways because their country was being invaded. When they lost, the new government(s) had the support of the population, despite being run for the occupying authorities. Compare this to the Iraqi experience. The Iraqis didn't take up arms to fight the invading Americans until after the invasion was over. They didn't support the new government - because they don't trust the government of their country, and don't and never have, identified with it.

Except that's your gross misunderstanding of the situation. The Iraqi people did not want to be bombed, period. They could care less about Saddam and Bush's petty quarrels.

And more importantly Saddam was important to the Sunnis, because they knew that they were the minority and the Shia may very well oppress them. The failure of the Iraq War, more than anything else, was a failure to understand that Iraq isn't a nation or a country. It's an artificial construct based on British imperialism, which forced three different societies to live together under one government primarily to aid the British in maintaining control by playing Sunni, Shia and Kurds against each other. Forcing the Shia, Sunni, and Kurds to live together under one government in ignorance of the these real ethnic and religious divides is why the country fell into civil war. A society that is not represented by a government but is ruled by it will inevitably just push to fight to create its own government to rule itself.

SADDAM was important to the Sunnis. Iraq as a nation-state was not. As far as artificial constructs go... well... Japan and Germany were squabbling princedoms until 1870 or so. That gives them... 70 years before WW2. Iraq was a country in 1930 or so (after being under the Ottoman power for centuries before that). That gives them... 70 years before the Americans came.

Thank you for agreeing with me on so many points, btw.

By contrast Japan and Germany were functioning countries before, during, and after the war. Removing the militarists allowed the Japanese and Germans to assume a non-militaristic path to prosperity, and in that sense alone the American Army can take partial credit; albeit in both cases the Soviets had way more to do with victory than the US Army did (Japan surrendering in large part due to the Machuria offensive). The real "hero" on the American side was in fact Marshall - who wisely pushed for financing the reconstruction of Europe.

But this idea that the American Army rebuilt or "fixed" Germany and Japan is complete and utter hogwash - it was the Germans and Japanese themselves who rebuilt their country and it was a generation of Germans and Japanese who lived in the 50s and 60s who did it. McArthur's towering ego simply had him take the credit for what the Japanese were doing on their own; and the American "exceptionalism" school has clung on to this narrative ever since rather than acknowledge that Japan had its own democrats and reformers all along.

I never said that the Americans rebuilt or fixed Germany or Japan. So... nice arguing with... umm.... someone?? I guess?

 

[gladius2metal]

I think this thread is really good for creating "on probation"-patches for the users participating in it

That's like those idiots who say Germany won WW2 because they dominate the EU.

a friend of mine proposed something similar in another way: a counter (or different) conspiracy theory...
losing two world wars officially, but after each one they are stronger than before...
(same for Japan, although they lost "only" one).

 

[Imgran]

I think this thread is really good for creating "on probation"-patches for the users participating in it


a friend of mine proposed something similar in another way: a counter (or different) conspiracy theory...
losing two world wars officially, but after each one they are stronger than before...
(same for Japan, although they lost "only" one).

Yes, that's frequently what happens when you reform society, at least if you do it right. Germany and Japan reformed their society in the aftermath of the war, and it's hard to argue with the results. This is by no means the only time when a military defeat has led to positive societal changes.