How could the USA become the first power to dominate the world by being located outside the Eurasian continent?

[Julie4]

[nightdrot]

In brief, since it is Christmas after all. There are a variety of factors at play.

Some of them being demographic - population size and growth, including a younger population than Europe's even as early as the 19th century. This gave the USA a larger workforce, a larger recruiting base for its armed forces, etc. Also a dynamic economy, a gift for technological innovation - including being able to profit from European discoveries and to implement them unhindered. Indeed, Europe itself offered the USA a template of "what to do and what not to do." Not only in the economic realm, but the political and so on.

All of these were factors. However, in strategic terms, perhaps the largest was the simple fact of the USA's geographic location. In the Western Hemisphere, protected by two oceans with - after the decline of the Spanish and Portuguese empires - no comparable great power rival in the region. The USA was able to build its political system, its economy and - when necessary - its' armed forces comparatively free and unhindered by rival powers.

Protected by two oceans and with weaker powers in the hemisphere, the USA was able to develop its resources and - ironically, with the often unintentional aid of the British Royal Navy - project its' power across the seas with only minimal risk to its homeland. This at the same time that the other European powers - with the partial exception of Britain - were developing their resources but facing threats from near neighbors and rival alliances.

This came to a head at the end of the two world wars. The European powers, plus China, Japan, etc., had torn themselves to pieces and even the victors were in flaming ruins. By contrast, the USA had been largely physically untouched by the war and thus had a secure base from which to project its own power.

This, by the way, why the USA's foreign policy known as the Monroe Doctrine is so vital. That doctrine stipulates that there may be no other dominant imperial power in the Western Hemisphere and that where one arises, the USA must step in to the aid of the native states - and not coincidentally weaker states - of the hemisphere.

indeed, the sinking of the Lusitania is often credited as the reason why the USA entered WWI. To be sure, freedom of the seas is important to the USA. It must have the ability to project its power across the oceans and to trade with the advanced economies of Europe.

Those are vital interests to be sure. However, the real reason the USA intervene in the Great War was the publication of the Zimmermann Telegram. That document revealed that the German Empire was seeking an alliance with Mexico to intervene on Berlin's side if the USA entered the war. In return, in any peace settlement, Mexico would be given the American states of Texas, New Mexico and Arizona.

It was arguably not really a plausible strategy, but for the Americans, to see a great European power intervening in the western hemisphere was an unacceptable threat. Thus the USA, upon publication of the telegram, broke relations with the German Empire and declared war.

This also why the Cuban Missile Crisis so nearly came to a head. It was not just the threat of nuclear weapons - though that was not an inconsiderable factor. Rather, it was to see the USSR in direct military alliance with Cuba. The USA could tolerate a Cuba friendly to the USSR. What it could not tolerate was a Cuba acting as a military base for the USSR at America's hemispheric doorstep. Hence, the world came within a whisper of nuclear world war.

The bottom line, there are a multiplicity of factors to attribute to American power. However, the simple fact of geography and the shielding the hemisphere and the two oceans to either side of it that they provided the USA must be put at the top of the list.

To be sure, had the US population not grown. Had the other states in the hemisphere not been relatively weak, had the USA economy not been as dynamic as it was and has been and had the American constitutional system not proved as durable as it has, things might still have been different. That said, there can be little doubt that the mere accident of geography - and the internal rivalries that kept Europe out of the hemisphere - were the sine qua non of the USA's great power status.

[Matthias345]

The United States is just better and smarter than all its little European states.

The Europeans are truly uncontrollable children, without us Americans providing security of Europe through NATO, you can be sure that the various European nations would be at war again and one of them would seek to dominate the continent.

Europe is a real burden for us, we pay for the security of the Europeans and what do we get in return? Nothing! Our real interests are in the Pacific, let's abandon Europe which is ruining us.

[nightdrot]

@Matthias345 That is the stereotype, but just imagine the costs to the United States absent our European allies. Draw the front line absent Europe as a shield.

Moreover, do recall that it was the United States, especially after the world wars, that pushed for the demobilization of Europe. This in the belief that it would conduce to a more stable Europe.
Then along came Nazi Germany post-WW1 and the USSR post-WWII and suddenly saw it as more efficacious to have European allies than not.

[Matthias345]

@nightdrot Without our European allies, we would have won both world wars anyway. The real question is what would have happened to Europe without the United States during and after the two world wars.

[nightdrot]

@Matthias345 Probably not. Recall that the aim of American foreign policy has been to assure that there is no one hegemon on the continent. As such a power would not only be all but strategically invincible - the mirror of our own situation in this hemisphere - but as the nation's largest overseas market, the effects on our economy would have been pronounced.

Also it is well to recall that - basically - the United States relied on the UK to assure freedom of the seas and, by default, secure our position in this hemisphere at minimal cost. This especially during our civil war when the danger of outside intervention by other powers would have grown exponentially had not the UK, in effect, secured the position of the Union.

[Sixgunsound]

The bank of England was just protecting its investments in North America.

[nightdrot]

@Sixgunsound All nations and their institutions operate first in their own interests. That is the nature of the international arena.

As Theodore Roosevelt said, "World peace comes not from human kindness or moral restraint, but from balanced power; equilibriums of force restraining the selfish aims of nation-states."

Parallel to that are the words of Lord Palmerston: "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."

Also, the words of John Quincy Adams - speaking of the United States: "Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

Bottom line, no nation - including the USA - conducts its' foreign policy on the basis of altruism and idealism alone, let alone on the basis of loyalty to allies. See also, lastly, the words of Camillo di Cavour, the man who united Italy, when asked what he would do for the liberal revolutionaries who helped him unite the country - "Astonish them with my ingratitude."

So it was then, so it is now.

[Sixgunsound]

At the present moment in time I have to disagree with the esteemed statesmen of the past. I believe the people controlling the US leadership are foreign, and so the US is acting out of loyalty to foreigners against its own interests. Billionaires in the US with lots to lose are resisting, to protect their own interests.

[nightdrot]

@Sixgunsound Do you have examples and can you be specific? In any case, also clarify how what the individuals I quoted above have said is contradicted by the actions of the "billionaires." (Again, please identify specifics both in terms of individuals and in terms of the aims they are pursuing.)

Just to add, two points are worth noting. First, the United States won the Cold War in the popular imagination and to some extent in actual reality, by emphasizing freedom, specifically free markets and free trade. Societies that emerge triumphant from contests like the world wars and the Cold War will tend to continue to apply the methods they believe brought them victory in the past.

Thus, for example, the emphasis on continued trade with China. In strictest terms, applying free trade to China - a country that is, as one wag put it, "less interested in Marx in theory than Lenin in practice" is somewhat mistaken. It is applying the tools that won the Cold War in a context where that model does not necessarily apply.

That said, as noted, that is understandable. Societies will tend to recur to the tools that won them victory in the past.

Secondly, also at this time there has been something of a breakdown in the consensus on what constitutes the national interests. For some - the kind I tend to - it is narrowly defined. For others, it tends to be the application of universal principles - free markets, free economics, democracy - to the global stage on the assumption that such principles will conduce to the furthering of specific national interests.

CONT.

[nightdrot]

The United States experienced a breakdown in its Cold War consensus in the 1970s - hence, detente. Ultimately though, in the wake of humiliations in Iran and Afghanistan, the nation rallied to the Reaganite consensus that ultimately won the Cold War. That consensus, as noted, still being operative in the post-Cold War era if not always appropriate.

Bottom line, this is more complicated, and has more historical precedents, than your thesis - its' vague generalities aside - suggests. In any case, nothing in the gentlemen I quoted above is refuted by your argument, such as it is.

[Sixgunsound]

The billionaires I claim are resisting are Trump and Musk. Most of their resistance is public knowledge, so I'll leave that aside. The establishment right is led by a man married to and compromised by one of the most powerful families in China. McConnel was also shown to have profited by the 100 billion dollars congress sent to Ukraine for, among other operators, FTX to launder and send home US taxpayer dollars to corrupt politicians. The establishment left is led by a man whose family has been publicly shown to be compromised by both China and Ukraine. It's almost like Trump warned us to pay attention to Ukraine on his way out. Just those few examples show US political leadership compromised by and putting the interests of foreigners ahead of their constituents. You quote Lord Palmerston regarding it being the duty of national leaders to protect national interests, and it is that duty which I claim is not being fulfilled by US leadership. I was mistake in disagreeing with him, I disagree with how people who don't represent me are destroying my country and sacrificing my children's futures to their foreign masters and their globalist marxist ideologies.

[nightdrot]

@Sixgunsound Sorry, resistance to what? Please articulate your argument beginning with a thesis statement and then make your case.

As regards Ukraine, what would be the likely geopolitical implications for US interests in Europe - economic and strategic - if the USA made no effort to sustain Ukraine? As I have argued elsewhere, while the USA does not have any particular investment in a Ukrainian victory, by the same token we cannot allow it to be defeated.

If the states of eastern Europe come to the conclusion that the USA will not protect them - and oh by the way, meet its NATO treaty obligations - the viability of the alliance would collapse. The states of eastern Europe would then engage in a desperate gamble to insure their own security and with their conflicting ambitions among each other, the result would be a strategic vacuum not unlike those we saw in 1914 and 1939. Of course, you know how that ended.

Bottom line, though, how this relates to billionaires, corruption and all the rest I cannot fathom. Nations are made of imperfect and imperfectible beings. That fact does not negate the principles I have articulated here.

[Sixgunsound]

Ukraine is not a NATO member thus we have no treaty obligations to them.

[Sixgunsound]

We let African, Arab, and Asian powers fight each other all the time? What obligation do we have to white Europeans that we don't have to black or brown people elsewhere?

[Sixgunsound]

Also, cannot or will not understand are two very different things. I respect your demonstrated intelligence enough to expect that you understand more than you are willing to admit of what I have said, though what that gains you by publicly pretending not to is where you've lost me. Is it because we seem to be on opposite sides of the politics involved and you must remain on narrative?

[nightdrot]

@Sixgunsound On your last point, no, I don't think you are making valid points. You are conflating an argument over principle with certain specifics. The specifics are debatable - though even on these I think you are in error on several points. However, I think my general principle stands.

As to your former points. No Ukraine is not a NATO member,. but several NATO members have direct security interests in Ukraine that we ignore at our peril. Suffice to add, that if those NATO allies come to the conclusion that the USA will not support them, they will come to doubt the USA's commitment to NATO. Bad things to follow.

As to your point regarding Arab and African states, we have no comparable security interests in much of Africa. As to the Middle East, we intervened against Iraq to protect Kuwait - this notwithstanding that we had no treaty obligations to Kuwait.

This we did for Kuwait? No. We did it to secure and reassure Saudi Arabia with whom we have very direct interests.

Suffice to add, international relations are far more complicated than the treaties that are one of its' instruments. You would do better to think in three dimensional terms.

[Sixgunsound]

This was me trying to respect and work with you, yet you still chose the route of superiority complex and condescension. Good night.

[nightdrot]

@Sixgunsound Oh good grief. We are debating. I have no feelings about you one way or the other. I don't even know you.

All I am doing is trying to extrapolate from what you said your intent and meaning and make counterarguments. If that is a superiority complex, I don't know what to tell you.

Other than to repeat that I don't have any personal feelings about you one way or the other. I am simply having a debate with an anonymous person on a Q & A website designed for debate. Good night.

[nightdrot]

P. S. Just to add, while I will admit that I found your writing somewhat unclear in places, overall I enjoyed the discussion and harbor no ill will toward you. As I say, we seem to disagree in places, but that is what this site is about.

In any case, please be assured that I wish you well.

[NamerOfStars]

It wasn't being separate from Eurasia; it was being separate from EVERYWHERE with developed infrastructure and a population base that, at the time serious expansion began, was basically already dead.

I don't know how they teach American history in Europe, but here, it's basically that when European colonists arrived, they found a bunch of tribes of natives who interacted with them in various ways, some friendly, some not (which is true). They also teach (nowadays) that the native nations were advanced in technology (true, but not up to European standards) and developed in infrastructure (true; in 1400, Cahokia had more people than London or Paris), and were defeated by the evil settlers deliberately infecting them with disease (utter horseshit). The peoples of the eastern coast of what would become the US were wracked with a plague (or a combination of them, more likely) in the early sixteenth century that wiped out 90% of the population. The ensuing damage to food production and security drove them out of the cities, and into tribal bands for survival; they were living in a post-apocalypse before the settlers even arrived.

Kids today are also told that the "noble savage" Indians lived in harmony with nature and each other, which I don't even need to bother labeling, if you have the slightest knowledge of human nature or history (which you do). Humans are human, and the Amerind peoples were just as wondrously kind and inhumanly awful to one another as people anywhere else. Now, that doesn't justify the horrible things the settlers (and later, the Americans) did do to the native peoples; don't think I'm claiming that, but a lot of it is stripped of context: the Trail of Tears was a horrible forced displacement, driving people from their ancestral homes- but given the relations between the US and the "Five civilized tribes", as the Americans called them, the alternative wasn't "leave them alone and have them leave us alone"; neither side would've accepted that. The alternative was GENOCIDE.

Anyway, expansion into a land that had already been developed was like a dream, and the isolation (in an era when crossing the oceans took WEEKS, at best) meant that the country could develop in peace. And it did- but isolation breeds isolationism, and so the US was content to stay out of Eurasia's wars. The US had no major involvement in wars outside of the Americans until 1898, and none in Europe until 1917. Meanwhile, the major powers of Europe and Asia tore each other (and themselves) apart. The US was so far away that nobody was in a position to seriously threaten them, so they were left to pick up the pieces.

[trina_x]

the US literally is one of the least convenient places to attack with it's geography and having more military spending than the next 10 countries combined and borders exclusively with allies or if central america decided to attack it just wouldn't go well

it influences Europe heavily through NATO

it has the world's largest everything

and for years theyve been manipulating so much and successsfully bring down their enemies like russia and china

this was all set up by the world wars when Europe was destroyed

[Massageman]

The US is not the easiest place to attack- I'll grant you that, and yes, plenty of Europe was left in shambles after two World Wars. but- - - - -
The US influence in Europe is shrinking whether or not via NATO,
The US does NOT have the biggest buildings any more, not since the Middle East oil producing countries wanted to just build a bunch of really tall buildings- just because- they could AFFORD to build really tall buildings. The prez doesn't even want the country to build a stinking 10 foot wall at the southern border.
And, it's really Russia and China who are manipulating the current "leadership" in the US.

[FreyaRed]

Europe lost its supremacy with two unnecessary world wars. Bismarck said once "War is the drive of progress" but he didn't take under account a country that participates in wars but doesn't lose any infrastructure and land like US. Countries who actively fight in war lose a lot of assets and are forced to replace those with gold won't gain anything despite one of them will win.

[OlderAndWiser]

It happened because Europe was too afraid of Hitler to take action against him in the 1930's.

[Pyrofox]

Geographically the US is unforgiving. There's 50 to a 100 fire arms per person. Not counting military. The US has plenty of wild life while the majority are now rare sightings. We still got plenty that I'm pretty sure much of the rest of the world would just run like hell from.

And then there's the US military that for most of its life it's been making the worlds largest military in both spending and actual operations. We dumped several THOUSANDS of tons of bombs in like a a week time in Cambodia 😞 and that was with past aircraft lol. Modern newer ones... I sort of don't want to even think about that lol.

[Anonymous]

Ww1 and ww2 basically is what allowed it. Not only was the new world a vast expanse of untouched wilderness 500 years. Ago but European wars thrust all of Europe into chaos and smashed thier economies. The United States was not only brought out of the depression by ww2, but the war had also brought all our industries to life by the war effort. So the United States had a unfair competitive advantage to supply the world for a few decades. This allowed us unprecedented growth never before seen in history. By the 70's the rest of the world's nation economies had recovered and this is why America is desperately trying to hang onto that ever since. Just like we had an unfair advantage then China has an unfair advantage now. The only thing that holds China back is it's internal strife. Freedom is a basic human right. And as much as China tries it cannot stop the free exchange of ideas.

[exitseven]

Part of it is the fact the US is outside the European continent. There is an ocean on both sides of the country to act a a natural barrier to protect the US from invaders. Then there is the natural resources that are in the US. Also the US has a free economy and a population that has a stake in protecting it.

[socair]

I do not think the United States as we know it will continue to exist for much longer
perhaps a number of small collections of states may continue to exist
And that by renaming and reforming themselves they may avoid having to repay any money to present governing body which calls itselfy the US of A
So I don't think they have any aspirations towards dominating Europe

[LiamJHayden]

By being isolated and thus very hard to invade or even bomb prior to long range bombers. Because of this industrial infrastructure remained undamaged during the last World War while the rest of the industrial world's factories were mostly bombed out and what production still remained in those nations had to focus upon rebuilding.

[Dargil]

By being surrounded by two oceans when it took weeks to cross by ship. The USSR never had land invasion plans not only because of that but because they feared there would be an armed American behind every tree. They were right.

[Lary_11770]

if the US doesn't give protection and money in exchange of like everything they would simply be a 3rd world country as a local war will take place if not the government have what it takes to make that not happen.. you're 330 million with million opinions and guns more than people so that's why I am saying it's highly possible

[Guy13]

The US Constitution provided much more opportunity and people flock to opportunity and freedom such as are contained in the Bill of Rights. It is not a great mystery to me...

[Emii_Urashima]

There are 97 other countries with full democracy. Many more have guaranteed rights for its citizens. There are very few tyrannical governments left that people are desperately trying to flee. The freedoms in the USA are rapidly fading, and right now it is not even in the top 10. Your schools probably teach the propaganda that the USA is the last and only bastion of freedom in the world. You have been lied to. The USA is on the verge of being taken over by one far-left political party. This party has already taken full control of the public schools, colleges, and the teachers unions. A person with a teaching degree will have a very difficult, if not impossible, task of getting hired as a teacher if they don't prove they are hyper-woke. The party has also managed to take control of most of the media in the US. Nearly every major tv network, and most big-tech social media companies. They had a big setback when they lost control of Twitter and are currently in meltdown mode over that. It is just a matter of time, though. Look at what is happening at your southern border. Why do you think the ruling party is desperate to bring these poor immigrants into the country? Over 5 million have illegally entered since your president took office. Those people will soon be granted the right to vote. They have been told that the ruling party supports them, and the mean opposition party wants to deport them. These people will be used to counter 5 million votes of the opposition party. One party rule is coming. Remember, your party loves Socialism. Take a look at Venezuela. That is your future.

[Guy13]

@Emii_Urashima You’re a fool and uninformed. USA is a republic not a Democratic Socialist political formed Communist nation. Get educated before spewing 💩 everywhere

[Staximus]

@Emii_Urashima is right. The fucking liberals are ruining everything.

[NathanDavis]

simply put... always best to trash other's garden than yours...

which is what the USA has done for decades now

[KostasKouvalis]

Honestly, we need to put a strong, intelligent and well-spoken leader in office who will put America first and will put an end to all this woke nonsense.

[AnUglyBarnacle]

Location location location. Having tons of natural resources helped too.

[RyanEC]

Because we has so much untapped resources.
Because we haven’t had a large war taking place on our territory since 1865.

[msc545]

I hope not.

[Fuentes]

Cause we're the BEST