| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - US Naval Power in the late 19th Century
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


US Naval Power in the late 19th Century

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>
Author
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 2011 at 21:18
Actually some historians seem to recognize that the American tendency to remove itself from World Affairs, and dis-arm, and retire to our old ways of isolationism, was the final push that resulted in the dropping of two nukes over Japan!  I.e., the people, at home, were literally threatening their Senators and Congressmen, to end the conflict, bring our men home, and have a return to that old state of "Normalcy!" (note we have the sterling example of Warren G. Harding to thank for this term!)
 
The dropping of the bombs, and the soon arrival of Japanese to the peace table, averted what was becoming a national obsession, that is "Bring the Boys Home!"  Who knows what would have happened if, we had decided to actually invade Japan, and suffer what some experts predicted at least 1,000,000 deaths!, if another election happened and the majority of congress followed the public opinon, it might be that we would have just left a decayed Japan, safe and sound on their home islands?
 
What would the world of today be, if that was the result?
 
What would the Russians have done then?
 
Some experts have even proposed that the actual dropping of the bombs, was not so much directed towards an already defeated opponent, but more towards our friend?, the Soviet Union!
 
Regards,
 
Ron


Edited by opuslola - 10 Mar 2011 at 21:21
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 2011 at 21:32
Hello to you all
 
I know this is not my province but it seems that everyone here have ignored the primary factor behind any strong navy and that is the merchant fleet. The Royal navy only became powerful after the English merchant fleet grew to be the largest of its kind with the colonisation of America and the incursion into India.
 
The US had from its very beginning a large merchant fleet (the 2nd largest until the 1850s when it even outstripped the British before the grand British steamers dominated the American clippers). A merchant fleet that immediately went into trouble with the barbary pirates and got the US into its first war.
 
The Civil war had a devastating effect on the US merchant fleet but after the country recovered and Industrialisation grew at an exponential rate the merchant fleet grew and so the US navy.
 
I rest my case.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Mar 2011 at 00:04
With regard to your "objections" on Teddy and "liberal" being uttered in the same breath, keep in mind Gcle that we are discussing the US and not the UK and when you get down to it "progressive" was a dirty word to the likes of Mark Hanna. Think of it in terms of the "imperial presidency"...an interesting pattern should emerge.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Mar 2011 at 02:00
Thanks my dear Doktor!  You made a very good point above!  I am an old Au-H2O-64 conservative, that was, maybe like you, conceived in New Orleans, and born in Memphis, TN!
 
I hope you all have a great nights sleep!
 
Regards,
 
Ron
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Mar 2011 at 12:10
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Well Pinguin the thread addresses US naval power in the late 19th century and not the chaos of Spanish politics and policy at that time [interestingly the Silver Age of Spanish Letters did not translate into the like when it came to politics--cf. La Generacion del '98], which would last for a century (1876-1976). Interestingly, the Infanta Maria Teresa (Cervera's flagship) was an armored cruiser similar to Dewey's flag, the USS Olympia...the difference came in the realm of politics during the 1880s for while in the US insistence was on modernization, within the Spanish milieu any such program involving a branch of the military represented a threat to the politicla modus vivendi.
 
Nevertheless, the off-shoot of any discussion here demands the understanding that the actual transformation of the US Navy is a narrative of the 20th century and not the 19th. One might say that the Spanish American War of 1898 was the catalyst that made the thesis of Alfred Thayer Mahon in The Influence of Sea Power Upon History attractive for the justification of naval expenditures in terms of the offensive rather than the defensive within the context of American history.


Indeed. But by 1898 the American navy was clearly better than the Spanish, although perhaps by not a big margin. That was all my point. The American navy will become a lot better in the following years, but already at 1898 they had an advantage with respect to the declining Spanish empire.
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 5076
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Mar 2011 at 14:28
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

The U.S. was already a superpower in 1898. No doubt about it. Of course it got potentiated for WWII.


I hope that it is understood that the US was far from a superpower in 1898.  The potential was there at that time, but the US was hardly mature as a military power, and would not become so until 1942.


Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Mar 2011 at 14:45
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Hello to you all
 
I know this is not my province but it seems that everyone here have ignored the primary factor behind any strong navy and that is the merchant fleet. The Royal navy only became powerful after the English merchant fleet grew to be the largest of its kind with the colonisation of America and the incursion into India.
 
The US had from its very beginning a large merchant fleet (the 2nd largest until the 1850s when it even outstripped the British before the grand British steamers dominated the American clippers). A merchant fleet that immediately went into trouble with the barbary pirates and got the US into its first war.
 
The Civil war had a devastating effect on the US merchant fleet but after the country recovered and Industrialisation grew at an exponential rate the merchant fleet grew and so the US navy.
 
I rest my case.
 
Al-Jassas
During the period in question, the American merchant fleet, like most others, depended essentially on the Royal Navy for protection against maruders like pirates. It didn't need protectin against foreign powers since it didn't fight against any significant naval power (after 1812-15)
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Mar 2011 at 14:49
Penguin wrote:
 
Indeed. But by 1898 the American navy was clearly better than the Spanish, although perhaps by not a big margin. That was all my point. The American navy will become a lot better in the following years, but already at 1898 they had an advantage with respect to the declining Spanish empire.

Declining? How about moribund as the better term, after all there was no longer an empire" but instead a grouping known as the provincias de ultramar. The documents to read:

El gobierno del ministerio presidido por el Sr. Posada Herrera: Con respeto a la administracion de las Provincias de Ultramar (1884)

Reales disposiciones organizando la carrera administrativa en las provincias de Ultramar: Como tambien la administracion Civil y la de La Hacienda en las Isla de Cuba.

The point I wish to make is that Spanish naval career officers such as Cervera knew the real world as distinct from the politicians and were not divorced from reality with respect to capacity. As I earlier underscored, if the American military were poorly prepared, the Spanish were hopelessly deluded with respect to the maintenance of transmaritime efficiency. Hence any attempt to posit the Spanish-American War as an example of successful military imperialism is little more than opera bouffe.
 
Now with respect to Al Jassas:
 
The US had from its very beginning a large merchant fleet (the 2nd largest until the 1850s when it even outstripped the British before the grand British steamers dominated the American clippers). A merchant fleet that immediately went into trouble with the barbary pirates and got the US into its first war.
 
One can not confuse "merchant" fleets as extensions of military sea power. Besides, Baltimore Clippers were essentially useless save for the luxury trades (or as blockade runners) and whalers too specialized. If you wish to project the packet ship cosolidated in the years after 1818 as examples of sea power then we are in trouble. Yes, in 1861, one might say that the US merchant marine was the world's largest but using that fact as a projection of military power is more than tentative after all one can not argue that today's Norwegian merchant marine makes Norway a world power of consequence.
 
We can analyze the "Barbary Wars" in another thread (given the fact that the internal politics of Morocco, Algiers and Tunis are also factors) and the same must be said on the contention that merchant vessels directly give rise to armed navies with the English experience as the original example--shall we await the Dutch howls?


Edited by drgonzaga - 11 Mar 2011 at 14:51
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Mar 2011 at 14:59
Yes but wasn't the US navy in the service of the merchant fleet? If not how could one explain the Perry Japanese expedition and the annexation of Hawaii? All this happened when the US merchant fleet was prevented from trade and the US navy was used to assert US power.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 5076
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Mar 2011 at 15:23
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Yes but wasn't the US navy in the service of the merchant fleet? If not how could one explain the Perry Japanese expedition and the annexation of Hawaii? All this happened when the US merchant fleet was prevented from trade and the US navy was used to assert US power.
 
Al-Jassas


I would amend that to the navy was used to assert US interests.  US power (and naval power in this case) was minimal and had to be "point-specific" in its use:

1)  The Barbary "states."  They were not important enough for the European states to worry about - kidnappers and extortionists; a cost of doing business.  The US needed to show that it was willing to address its own interests, but it basically had to send the entire fleet to make its point - and that was a gamble since there was no base of support from which to operate!

2)  Perry "opened" Japan to trade just by showing up, most likely because the other maritime powers were focused on the Eastern Question around the Levant, and on getting rich through industrialization - other issues for them.  If you want to think about it, in large measure, at that time (1850s) it was a case of the US getting at "the pickings" of Asian trade while Britain and France were distracted elsewhere.

3)  Hawaii.  Do you realize how remote that was from everywhere else in the 1890s? Big smile  No one else had a vital interest there at the time.  See the posts above in re coaling stations.  Only a few people got rich picking pineapples, and there was no tourist trade then.

4) Even the Sp-Am War was point-specific in regard to US interests, and in relation to what passed for US power.

(Latin Americans tend to be sensitive to any foreign interests of North Americans. Smile )






Edited by pikeshot1600 - 11 Mar 2011 at 15:32
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Mar 2011 at 15:29
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Yes but wasn't the US navy in the service of the merchant fleet? If not how could one explain the Perry Japanese expedition and the annexation of Hawaii? All this happened when the US merchant fleet was prevented from trade and the US navy was used to assert US power.
 
Al-Jassas
 
A "navy" in the service of a merchant fleet is called a convoy. Likewise an armed merchant vessel does not translate into a government sponsored navy.
 
As for the proferring of Perry, the better explanation--despite the quaintness of the prose reflecting the 1950s--is found in this little narrative:
 
 
Now shall we get down to discuss coal!?!
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 5076
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Mar 2011 at 15:43
To add to Doc's post, naval forces that did not consist of battle lines had to be utilized for either coast defense or commerce raiding.  That was all the US had before the twentieth century.

The big frigates that constituted the basis of the first keel-up US navy were commerce raiders that were large enough, and mounted enough guns, to hold their own against other navies' ships of similar type - one on one.

In the ACW, the navy numbered somewhere around 1,000 ships (most merchant types), but the vast, vast majority were coasters that were engaged in blockade of southern ports.  Upon the end of the war the navy was pretty much gutted and neglected for twenty years.

The decades after the Civil War were pretty pathetic for both the army and the navy, and that was reflected in the quality of the fleet, and in the quality and qualifications of the army officer corps.

It was the mid 1890s before the navy had a few (very few) modern ships, and the army did not even start to catch up with the modern world until Elihu Root was Sec. of War in like 1900-1905.






Edited by pikeshot1600 - 11 Mar 2011 at 15:49
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Mar 2011 at 16:35
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Yes but wasn't the US navy in the service of the merchant fleet? If not how could one explain the Perry Japanese expedition and the annexation of Hawaii? All this happened when the US merchant fleet was prevented from trade and the US navy was used to assert US power.
What it did do was usually for the benefit of the merchant fleet. The point though is that it didn't do much. Hawaii was annexed by much the same process as Texas: it had nothing much (at that time) to do with the Navy. 
 
 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Mar 2011 at 16:43
Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

The big frigates that constituted the basis of the first keel-up US navy were commerce raiders that were large enough, and mounted enough guns, to hold their own against other navies' ships of similar type - one on one.
Sometimes Big smile
Quote The Chesapeake so bold out of Boston we've been told
Came to take the British frigate neat and handy, O.
All the people of the port they came out to see the sport,
And the bands were playing "Yankee doodle dandy, O."

The British frigate's name which for the purpose came
Of cooling Yankee courage neat and handy, O,
Was the Shannon-Captain Broke. AII her crew were hearts of oak
And at fighting they're allowed to be the dandy, O.

Now before the fight begun the Yankees with much fun
Said they'd take the British frigate neat and handy, O;
And after that they'd dine, treat their sweethearts all with wine,
And the band should play up "Yankee Doodle Dandy, O."

We no sooner had begun than from their guns they run,
Though before they thought they worked 'em neat and handy, O.
Brave Broke he waved his sword, crying, "Now, my Iads, we'll board,
And we'll stop their playing "Yankee Doodle Dandy, O."

We no sooner heard the word than we all jumped aboard,
And tore down the colours neat and handy, O;
Notwithstanding all their brag o'er the glorious British flag,
At the Yankee mizen-peak it looked the dandy, O.

Here's a health to Captain Broke and all the hearts of oak
That took the Yankee frigate neat and handy, O;
And may we always prove that in fighting and in love
The true British sailor is the dandy, O.

 
Mind you the true British sailor wasn't all that good at writing verse.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 5076
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Mar 2011 at 18:30
Gcle:

Ya win some; ya lose some.  We gave as good as we got.  Smile

Not bad for 8 frigates and 14 sloops of war against 85 RN ships in North American waters.


Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Mar 2011 at 18:46
Yes, actually the RN was completely stunned by the new US frigates. There was no question of a fleet action though.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Mar 2011 at 21:48
Penguin, First, here's hoping that Chilean cities and towns along any low lying coast escape any effect of the Japanese undersea earthquake.

Second, to get a feel for the 1920s Navy abroad, I would recommend you rent a copt of the excellent film "The Sand Pebbles", starring Steve McQueen and Candace Bergen. The original novel was written by a young officer who had served in China in the 1930s, but he wrote of a time in the 1920s, when communications were far more haphazard. The first U.S. casualties of WWII were actually suffered in 1937, when the Japanese sunk the USS Panay, one of those riverboats obtained from Spain as war reparations.
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Mar 2011 at 22:07
Opus, in re your:  "Some experts have even proposed that the actual dropping of the bombs, was not so much directed towards an already defeated opponent, but more towards our friend?, the Soviet Union!"

I'm not sure how 'expert' those experts are, considering the time line involved and the fact that the atomic bombs still had to be delivered in Theater, still had to be loaded up on planes, that still had to get to their targets, to deliver a still unseen, only reasonably guessed at, results on their targets. While an argument can be made that the U.S. could have dropped its "total surrender" policy, what real counterargument have these 'experts' given as the likely result. Not all the Japanese troops were on their home islands. They still had sizable troop formations in Korea, China, Indochina, Thailand, Malaya, and the Dutch East Indies. Were all these Japanese merely going to lay down their arms and sit idly by while the Allies blockaded Japan? Or, more reasonably, would we have been obliged to undertake further land campaigns to defeat those armies, then find ourselves saddled with their sustenance while we waited for Japan to surrender?

So, where did your 'experts' dredge up the idea that Japan was 'already defeated'?



Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Mar 2011 at 23:34
My dear Lirelou, I did not suggest that Japan was literally and figuratively defeated, but it seems that the American people did feel such!  Japan had no fleet, a small amount of aircraft capable of fighting with ours, and a nation slowly starving to death!
 
As regards those forces outside of Japan, just what could they do with no re-enforcements, no supplies, and very little ability to contact head-quarters do?  Yes it would have been difficult for local forces, but they were doomed to finally either accept defeat or die in battle!
 
It is a tough consequence of warfare!
 
My best to you!
 
Ron
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Mar 2011 at 23:50
Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:


(Latin Americans tend to be sensitive to any foreign interests of North Americans. Smile )



Very sensitive. That's why Castro suggested Khrushchev to nuke the U.S.A....Confused
Fortunately, the soviet had a colder brain than the bearded man on green suit. Otherwise, perhaps we wouldn't be here to tell the story.


Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Mar 2011 at 23:54
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

Penguin, First, here's hoping that Chilean cities and towns along any low lying coast escape any effect of the Japanese undersea earthquake.


Thanks. The warning has been issued, unlike the last year earthquake, when a tsunami wiped out our coast killing hundreds.

Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:


The first U.S. casualties of WWII were actually suffered in 1937, when the Japanese sunk the USS Panay, one of those riverboats obtained from Spain as war reparations.


Amazing twist of history.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Mar 2011 at 01:32
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

Opus, in re your:  "Some experts have even proposed that the actual dropping of the bombs, was not so much directed towards an already defeated opponent, but more towards our friend?, the Soviet Union!"

I'm not sure how 'expert' those experts are, considering the time line involved and the fact that the atomic bombs still had to be delivered in Theater, still had to be loaded up on planes, that still had to get to their targets, to deliver a still unseen, only reasonably guessed at, results on their targets. While an argument can be made that the U.S. could have dropped its "total surrender" policy, what real counterargument have these 'experts' given as the likely result. Not all the Japanese troops were on their home islands. They still had sizable troop formations in Korea, China, Indochina, Thailand, Malaya, and the Dutch East Indies. Were all these Japanese merely going to lay down their arms and sit idly by while the Allies blockaded Japan? Or, more reasonably, would we have been obliged to undertake further land campaigns to defeat those armies, then find ourselves saddled with their sustenance while we waited for Japan to surrender?

So, where did your 'experts' dredge up the idea that Japan was 'already defeated'?



 
 
True, it wasn't quite over in 1945, but I think there was also a strong motivation for Washington to Make a certain demonstration to the Soviets, who at that time were riding high on military success. If the US built and stockpiled the bomb, but did not use it, it could have left the impression that they also would not use it on the Russians, or at least would be very circumspect. Making further territorial claims in Germany, and perhaps seizing some ground, for example, might be something they would have thought they could have gotten away with. There was also the imperative to finish off Japan before sizeable Russian forces moved into place from Europe, and then demanded, or perhaps even just took, a portion of Japan for occupation. The bomb was an all around solution. It took Japan out of the picture, probably saved innumerable allied lives, and kept the Russians at a respectful distance.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Mar 2011 at 01:58
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

Penguin, First, here's hoping that Chilean cities and towns along any low lying coast escape any effect of the Japanese undersea earthquake.

Second, to get a feel for the 1920s Navy abroad, I would recommend you rent a copt of the excellent film "The Sand Pebbles", starring Steve McQueen and Candace Bergen. The original novel was written by a young officer who had served in China in the 1930s, but he wrote of a time in the 1920s, when communications were far more haphazard. The first U.S. casualties of WWII were actually suffered in 1937, when the Japanese sunk the USS Panay, one of those riverboats obtained from Spain as war reparations.
 
 
Ah, but Colonel, the Sand Pebbles was relatively unabashed in representing the colonial and racist attitudes of the time (you can't teach dem slopeheads nothin', as Steve McQueen put it). Of course it was made before the age of political correctness- today some sort of group would probably picket the theatre. Is this a representation of history that you accept, worts, wrinkles, spheres of influence and all, or are you more inclined to the good doctors assertion that it wasn't so much imperialism at play in those times as it was merely the misdeeds of some boisterous marines, or befuddled gunboat skippers?
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Mar 2011 at 16:19
My dear captain, it is a honest depiction, but those gunboat captains were hardly befuddled. I have read that the author chose to place the action of the film in the 20's, rather than the 30s, when he actually served on one, because communications between the river boats and their headquarters was quite haphazard in the 20s, and the ships captains were used to taking independent action based upon general mission statements, rather than 'going upstairs' for specific authority.

As for racist attitudes, yes, they should be displayed for all to see. Note the irony that the one character who uses the most racial epithets is the one who can see the Chinese as fellow human beings.

Not sure that a gunboat in a foreign territory with that nation's permission, or lack thereof in cases where there is no clear national authority, constitutes per se colonialism, especially when taking action to safeguard one's own nationals in times of upheaval, as China was in the War Lord period. Sending in military aircraft to evacuate foreign nationals from Libya is merely a technologically advanced version of the same mission. N'est-ce pas?
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Mar 2011 at 02:59
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

My dear captain, it is a honest depiction, but those gunboat captains were hardly befuddled. I have read that the author chose to place the action of the film in the 20's, rather than the 30s, when he actually served on one, because communications between the river boats and their headquarters was quite haphazard in the 20s, and the ships captains were used to taking independent action based upon general mission statements, rather than 'going upstairs' for specific authority.

As for racist attitudes, yes, they should be displayed for all to see. Note the irony that the one character who uses the most racial epithets is the one who can see the Chinese as fellow human beings.

Not sure that a gunboat in a foreign territory with that nation's permission, or lack thereof in cases where there is no clear national authority, constitutes per se colonialism, especially when taking action to safeguard one's own nationals in times of upheaval, as China was in the War Lord period. Sending in military aircraft to evacuate foreign nationals from Libya is merely a technologically advanced version of the same mission. N'est-ce pas?
 
Yes, the McQueen character eventually gained some insights.
 
As for a parallel with Libya, let's try a little thought experiment. It's 50 years into the future, and neo-con elements have been in conflict with the remnants of progressive forces in the US for so long that the country is in steep decline. The military is in tatters, and the country owes buckets of money to all and sundry. Chinese frigates are now stationed in San Francisco Bay, New York Harbour, and cruise up and down the Potomac. In fact a mulitnational police force, consisting of the major powers of China, India, Brazil, and Russia, now patrols New York, and Wall Street in particular, in an effort to "protect its nationals", and also to protect their trade interests, and rather considerable investments.
 
What do you think- would you chafe at the experience, as an American? Would you be "not sure" whether this is akin to colonialism?
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Mar 2011 at 05:08
Captain Vancouver, is the country in your scenario better off having signed a treaty that allowed such to happen, or not?  Hey, if we have sunk to that level, then I would be for whatever could stabilize the nation and allow it to pull itself up.
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 5076
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Mar 2011 at 14:50
While it can be a thread of its own, what may or may not happen fifty years from now does not have much to do with US naval power in the late 19th century.

Let's return to the topic.


Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Mar 2011 at 15:31
I believe such an appeal is hopeless, Pike, we are now in the thrall of the "usual suspects" and their misapplication of historical data for the sake of contemporary rhetoric on behalf of notions divorced from historical reality. The US was an incidental player in the consequences of the Open Door in China between 1868-1928, and the blather about "progressive forces" can only evoke the ejaculation of nebulous bunkum! 
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Mar 2011 at 07:30
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

Captain Vancouver, is the country in your scenario better off having signed a treaty that allowed such to happen, or not?  Hey, if we have sunk to that level, then I would be for whatever could stabilize the nation and allow it to pull itself up.
 
Well, was China better off for having a neo-colonial experience? What was gained, do you think?
 
As for sinking, are you saying that foreign intervention in the US would be quite acceptable if other nations saw advantage in that? To carry our scenario slightly further, if the US for example, defaulted on its foreign debt by instigating a round of hyperinflation, or perhaps by just refusing to pay, you would then be ok with Chinese marines landing to extract their pound of flesh?
 
This is a more accurate parallel to the events of a hundred years ago, is it not? Unless you are saying that the Western powers were in China out of an altruistic urge to stabilize and then elevate the nation, before all else.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Mar 2011 at 07:36
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

I believe such an appeal is hopeless, Pike, we are now in the thrall of the "usual suspects" and their misapplication of historical data for the sake of contemporary rhetoric on behalf of notions divorced from historical reality. The US was an incidental player in the consequences of the Open Door in China between 1868-1928, and the blather about "progressive forces" can only evoke the ejaculation of nebulous bunkum! 
 
Doctor, I believe this category of "usual suspects" could grow quite large, and include all who urge a different course from nationalism and its associated hubris.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.