America--great--so fast
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: History of the Americas
Forum Discription: The Americas: History from pre-Colombian times to the present
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=28777
Printed Date: 28-Apr-2024 at 05:31
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: America--great--so fast
Posted By: BIG D
Subject: America--great--so fast
Date Posted: 28-Oct-2010 at 13:27
| what's your thoughts on how America became so great SO FAST...was it more about people with zeal/know how to make a better life/adventure/etc or the great and vast resources of the land??? |
Replies:
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 28-Oct-2010 at 13:44
After World War II, the only industrialized nation not touched by the war was the United States. While Europe and Japan were devastated, this allowed the United States to take the lead. Thats the shortest explanation. ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 28-Oct-2010 at 13:55
|
The USA was not only mostly untouched by most of the horrow of war in WW II but all from the same in WW I!
So I would include these two great conflicts as the reason(s) for America's later dominance! But, in general I would agree with TGS! Editing this post, I would also suggest that America's own Civil War, and its earlier conflict with Napolean/Mexico, also gave America as a potential powerful opponent to all of the world! It is even potentially true to suppose that if America had not retreated behind its walls of Oceans, that at least one of these great World Wars might well have not occurred! Of course being blessed with a nation of abundant natural resources, as well as a religiously inspired work ethic, helped also! Regards, ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: BIG D
Date Posted: 29-Oct-2010 at 07:57
|
Posted By: BIG D
Date Posted: 29-Oct-2010 at 08:04
|
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 29-Oct-2010 at 11:23
And also the Napoleonic wars.
With the exception of the War of 1812 and the Civil War, the United States has never been invaded and never needed to maintain large standing armies for use against capable opponents. Even the "invasion" during the War of 1812 was more like a well planned and well excecuted raid than a true invasion.
|
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 29-Oct-2010 at 12:22
No, the United States did not maintain large armies or large navies because it never needed to. There was never a real threat of invasion of the US mainland. The United States is protected by two massive oceans and its neighbors to the north and south were very weak. The US has become the power it is only since WWII. Economically however, the US was a power house because it had advantages no other country possessed (i.e no need for large armies, no major devastating wars, large territory full of natural resources, etc...) ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: BIG D
Date Posted: 29-Oct-2010 at 13:12
|
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 29-Oct-2010 at 13:52
I believe it had the biggest economy in the world, unless you include the British and French Empires as a whole (as opposed to just the economy of Britain or just the economy of France).
I dont think the United States had as big a navy as Britain or France prior to WWI. I could be wrong on this.
The United States did attract a lot of immigrants which provided a work force for its factories and other economic sectors. But I dont think this is the main reason for the United States' economic and industrial growth. ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: BIG D
Date Posted: 29-Oct-2010 at 18:00
|
Posted By: BIG D
Date Posted: 29-Oct-2010 at 18:09
|
maybe not as many ships, but I believe more carriers than the French, and the US navy was not small |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 29-Oct-2010 at 18:26
|
I beleive America had a pretty good fleet before WW I, do any of you remember the "Great White Fleet" and Dewey?
And, yes America had a pretty good sized fleet in 1939! It was though probably second to Japans in the Pacific, and second or third in the Atlantic! ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: BIG D
Date Posted: 30-Oct-2010 at 10:07
|
Posted By: Athena
Date Posted: 30-Oct-2010 at 15:52
|
I will vote for the greatness of the US being the vast resources, which are now depleted. How wonderful it would be to have everything free for the taking, at the same human consciousness was developed enough to advance technologies and world markets. Surely the US's geographical position, outside of the fighting common to Europe, was a huge advantage, but this would not have been that great of an advantage if it had not been for the vast farm lands that could feed both the US and Europe, and the industry dependent on mineral resources that could be locally obtained. The advantage here is two fold. The first is the psychological advantage of having the much abundance provided by god/nature. Second, is the the material and economy reality that achieving the good possible. People didn't have to sell their children to the factory, because they could move west and own enough land to be self sufficient. That is one hack of an advantage. No one told them want to do, or denied them a livelihood because of the human problems that divided management from laborers. Mother nature is a tyrant and she doesn't care if who dies. You play by her rules or you are dead. But something is something a whole lot cleaner and empowering in dealing with her, then in dealing with humans in the city. |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 30-Oct-2010 at 17:00
|
Athena/Carol wrote above;
"I will vote for the greatness of the US being the vast resources, which are now depleted." I would suggest that our vast resources are still mostly available! Vast amounts of "coal" and "shale oil" as well as the old fashioned variants still exist in N. America! Depletion is merely in the eye of the "Green Eyed Monster", like Al Gore and his crew!! 
It is people who believe that the Republicans stole the election from Gore, in Florida, when in truth, if Gore had just been able to collect the "Electorial Votes" of his home state of Tennessee he would have been elected! I wonder why his own home state deserted him? Just guess? Historicallly stolen or illegal voting is mostly in the vanguard of the Democrats rather than the Repubilicans! If Dick Nixon had challegned the vote when Kennedy was declared president, then all of those dead / illegal Democrat votes, in both Illinois and Texas might well have been thrown out, and there would never have been President J. F. Kennedy? 
Sorry! He is not a hero of mine! But, neither is Nixon! ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 30-Oct-2010 at 17:53
This is true, The United States vast abundance of natural resources is a major factor of why its the economic power house it is. Also, you are correct in mentioning that the large "available" territories helped as well in terms of population growth. Countries such as Japan and German are limited in their growth do to their size/lack of lots of natural resources. China's growth will eventually become constrained when they start finding it hard to feed their economy due to lack of natural resources. Today we are seeing a new type of imperialism, where powerful nation states are doing whatever they can to secure natural resources for the future. China is already very successful in Africa. ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: BIG D
Date Posted: 01-Nov-2010 at 13:03
|
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 01-Nov-2010 at 17:18
|
Japan and Germany are powerhouses, but their growth is limited to their size and amount of natural resources they poses. For example, Japan is severely lacking in major natural resources such as oil, minerals, etc... This limits their capacity for growth (and was a major factor of why they attacked the United States and expanded in Asia in the first place). For example, just recently, Japan had to sign a deal with vietnam for rare earth minerals because China, the largest supplier of this important natural resources (used to make high tech equipment) refused to sell any to Japan due to territorial disputes. ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 01-Nov-2010 at 19:27
|
Yes, yes, all of the above postings are mostly correct!
Good work from all of you!!! Regards, ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: BIG D
Date Posted: 02-Nov-2010 at 13:06
|
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 02-Nov-2010 at 13:12
Japan and Germany are both export reliant countries. As long as they export goods, they prosper. Both make high tech and luxury equipment, which is why their economies do so well. For example, prior to WWI, Germany was a leading exporter. What the British did was they blockaded Germany during WWI to prevent any natural resources going to Germany and prevent any exports going out, therefore the German economy collapse. Its the same with Japan, Japan needs to export goods for its economy to do well. ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: BIG D
Date Posted: 03-Nov-2010 at 13:31
|
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 03-Nov-2010 at 14:21
The United States is both a producer of natural resources and a producer of manufactured and high tech goods.
Better management, less corruption, better infrastructure, more educated public, stability, etc... there are mny factors and this is in fact a very important and interesting question which many people have and are currently discussing. Why is it that, for example, Vietnam is poor, while South Korea is rich? Its an interesting question really. ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 04-Nov-2010 at 09:25
|
TGS wrote;
"Why is it that, for example, Vietnam is poor, while South Korea is rich? Its an interesting question really." Yes it is a really interesting question! And, I suppose the only real answer is the fact that S. Korea was occupied and restored by the USA as an allied nation! Thus American aid was passed to its allies in more ways than military aid, developement grants or loans became available, and the nations government held a pro-American stance! One can only compare the situation in Vietnam after America retreated from it! Aid was eliminated, the Viet rulers were violently anti-Amercian and Pro Soviet or Chinese, and pro-Communist, anti-Capitalist, etc.! Surely that is the most easily accepted explanation? Regards, ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 04-Nov-2010 at 10:05
Actually: South Korea was the poorest country in the world in the and a dictatorship after the end of the Korean War. During the 1960's the South Korean government made a decision to force its companies to focus on high tech manufacturing and exporting, therefore forcing its companies to compete on international markets. It paid off.
The credit goes to the Koreans themselves. ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 04-Nov-2010 at 10:48
|
One of the reasons why Germany is so big economy is that Americans likes to buy German goods, especially cars. In the technology France is more advanced than Germany ;) ------------- "I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche |
Posted By: shadowshine
Date Posted: 10-Nov-2010 at 21:21
Who are you referring to, here? The settlers or the founders? The founders were secularists, first and foremost. Maybe you're talking about the ideals that were ultimately adopted later. Oops. Looks like I've potentially started one of those 'debates' I told myself I wouldn't get mixed up in.
 |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 10-Nov-2010 at 23:07
|
Shadowshine! Wow what an entrance!
No sir and yes sir, what I was referring to can be found on this site as well as others; http://www.coe.uga.edu/~rhill/workethic/hist.htm From the above site; "With the Reformation, a period of religious and political upheaval in western Europe during the sixteenth century, came a new perspective on work. Two key religious leaders who influenced the development of western culture during this period were Martin Luther and John Calvin. Luther was an Augustinian friar who became discontent with the Catholic church and was a leader within the Protestant movement. He believed that people could serve God through their work, that the professions were useful, that work was the universal base of society and the cause of differing social classes, and that a person should work diligently in their own occupation and should not try to change from the profession to which he was born. To do so would be to go against God's laws since God assigned each person to his own place in the social hierarchy (Lipset, 1990; Tilgher, 1930). The major point at which Luther differed from the medieval concept of work was regarding the superiority of one form of work over another. Luther regarded the monastic and contemplative life, held up as the ideal during the middle ages, as an egotistic and unaffectionate exercise on the part of the monks, and he accused them of evading their duty to their neighbors (Tilgher, 1930). For Luther, a person's vocation was equated as his calling, but all calling's were of equal spiritual dignity. This tenant was significant because it affirmed manual labor. Luther still did not pave the way for a profit-oriented economic system because he disapproved of commerce as an occupation (Lipset, 1990; Tilgher, 1930). From his perspective, commerce did not involve any real work. Luther also believed that each person should earn an income which would meet his basic needs, but to accumulate or horde wealth was sinful. According to Weber (1904, 1905), it was John Calvin who introduced the theological doctrines which combined with those of Martin Luther to form a significant new attitude toward work. Calvin was a French theologian whose concept of predestination was revolutionary. Central to Calvinist belief was the Elect, those persons chosen by God to inherit eternal life. All other people were damned and nothing could change that since God was unchanging. While it was impossible to know for certain whether a person was one of the Elect, one could have a sense of it based on his own personal encounters with God. Outwardly the only evidence was in the person's daily life and deeds, and success in one's worldly endeavors was a sign of possible inclusion as one of the Elect. A person who was indifferent and displayed idleness was most certainly one of the damned, but a person who was active, austere, and hard-working gave evidence to himself and to others that he was one of God's chosen ones (Tilgher, 1930). Calvin taught that all men must work, even the rich, because to work was the will of God. It was the duty of men to serve as God's instruments here on earth, to reshape the world in the fashion of the Kingdom of God, and to become a part of the continuing process of His creation (Braude, 1975). Men were not to lust after wealth, possessions, or easy living, but were to reinvest the profits of their labor into financing further ventures. Earnings were thus to be reinvested over and over again, ad infinitum, or to the end of time (Lipset, 1990). Using profits to help others rise from a lessor level of subsistence violated God's will since persons could only demonstrate that they were among the Elect through their own labor (Lipset, 1990). Selection of an occupation and pursuing it to achieve the greatest profit possible was considered by Calvinists to be a religious duty. Not only condoning, but encouraging the pursuit of unlimited profit was a radical departure from the Christian beliefs of the middle ages. In addition, unlike Luther, Calvin considered it appropriate to seek an occupation which would provide the greatest earnings possible. If that meant abandoning the family trade or profession, the change was not only allowed, but it was considered to be one's religious duty (Tilgher, 1930). The norms regarding work which developed out of the Protestant Reformation, based on the combined theological teachings of Luther and Calvin, encouraged work in a chosen occupation with an attitude of service to God, viewed work as a calling and avoided placing greater spiritual dignity on one job than another, approved of working diligently to achieve maximum profits, required reinvestment of profits back into one's business, allowed a person to change from the craft or profession of his father, and associated success in one's work with the likelihood of being one of God's Elect." So I hope you now understand what I meant? Regards, ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: shadowshine
Date Posted: 11-Nov-2010 at 00:08
Yes, I see what you were referring to, now. Thanks for the references.
 |