re: What’s an American history hot take you’ve got?

quote:

---

While morally abhorrent, chattel slavery wasn't as bad as history makes it out to be.

The slaves lived in better conditions in the American south than they would have in Africa or even in any of the European colonies in the Caribbean.

---

This can only be written by someone who puts very little value on freedom.

When the choice is to die free on your feet or live on your knees, I guess you are going to want knee pads.

quote:

---

What else do you want to be part of the US? New Zealand?

---

In the 19th century, I would have started with Canada and Mexico, but sure

England was foolish for ever entering WW1. They didn't have anything at stake, and nothing to gain. They went from the financial hub of the world and largest creditor nation to the largest debtor nation in the span of four years. It set the stage for their empire breaking up. The war almost completely bankrupted them and, in turn, transformed America into the world superpower.

quote:

---

Does that take into account how much of our GDP is directly related to defense spending? That would massively skew the numbers to make it seem like we aren't running a Military Industrial Complex. You should have a job in defense lobbying.

---

The development and use of nuclear weapons didn't cause the post WWII increase in defense spending. The Cold War did. We had to maintain a permanent military bases to counter the Soviet Union, and nuclear weapons became one component of that deterrence strategy. The graph shows it clearly. Defense spending remained elevated throughout the Cold War and then dropped dramatically after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 90s. If nuclear weapons themselves were the primary driver, you'd expect spending to remain at those Cold War levels after our primary nuclear adversary disappeared. It didn't. (Granted the are some drops in defense spending after the 1970 Nuclear non poliferation treaty).



And yes, the posted graph of GDP comparison takes defense spending into account. Defense-related economic activity is included in GDP. It is not subtracted from GDP before calculating defense spending as a percentage of GDP. The point of the graph is to show how much of the nation's total economic output we were devoting to defense in modern times vs WWII. Back then it was extraordinary share of the economy (the highest in US history), and we're nowhere near that today (around 1/10 of WWII spending).

quote:

---

Spoken like a defense lobbyist.

---

Come on. dude. My make an observation as to the nature of your previous comment(s) has ZERO to do with me being "a defense lobbyist" or my opinions on the devlopment of nuclear weapons during WWII. If you disagree with the point, address the point. Labeling someone a "defense lobbyist" because they don't share your conclusion isn't an argument, it's an ad hominin attack. And when someone can't address the argument, attacking the person making it is usually what comes next. I'll let everyone else draw their own conclusions as to the nature and intent of your comment...

It is still happening today.

I don't think this is a hot take, but the Feds knew about Pearl Harbor and let US Servicemen die to facilitate popular approval into a previously very unpopular WWII.

quote:

---

The founding fathers didn't choose Democracy. The United States is not a Democracy!

---

They didn't? Alexander Hamilton didn't explicitly call the proposed government “a representative democracy?” James Wilson never called it “purely democratical” in principle? James Madison didn't call it a “democratic form of government,” and Jefferson never wrote Americans were “constitutionally and conscientiously democratic?”

Democracy: a system of government in which political authority derives from the people and is exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

How is the United States not one? I assume you’re going with the usual “muh constitutional republic” routine, which is like insisting that you don’t own a Labrador, you own a dog. “Constitutional,” “republic,” and “democracy” are not antonyms. They describe different characteristics of the same government.

“Constitutional” means the government operates under a constitution that establishes its institutions, distributes their powers, limits what they may do, and protects certain rights from ordinary political majorities.

“Republic” means the country is a public political entity rather than the personal possession of a monarch. Public offices are filled under law rather than inherited through a royal bloodline.

“Democracy” describes where legitimate political authority originates: the people. Citizens choose the officials who govern them and can remove those officials through elections.

“Representative” explains how our democracy functions. We generally do not vote directly on every law or policy. We elect representatives to make those decisions for us. That makes the United States a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. Direct democracy is one form of democracy, not the definition of democracy itself.

“Federal” describes how power is divided between the national government and the states. That also does not contradict democracy or republican government.

So the United States is simultaneously constitutional, federal, republican, representative, and democratic. Those classifications answer different questions about limits on power, distribution of power, institutional structure, and the source of political legitimacy.

I challenge you to explain how the United States is not a democracy without defining “democracy” exclusively as direct democracy, which we are not and which no serious definition treats as its only form.

Honestly, I suspect much of this recent talking point comes from idiots making a childish word association: “republic” sounds like Republican, so it must be good, while “democracy” sounds like Democrat, so it must be bad. Political party names are not definitions of systems of government. You do not become more loyal to the Constitution by pretending one of its foundational principles belongs to the opposing party.

Also it wasn't "the Russians". It was the Soviets which was inclusive of large non Russian peoples

I/m not so sure opening China for business when the rest of the world was in shambles would lead to the exponential growth the US saw as an economic Superpower in the 40's-60's. Cheap labor would have been very detrimental to our economy as it is today. Also, the Chinese were an economic Superpower for thousands of years prior to the Japanese invasion. I don't think even the Japanese even realized how far they had fallen. An economically viable China would definitely not have led to the technical innovations from our rise as a Superpower.

The isolationism of China was very beneficial to the US. What we should have done is severely restricted commerce with the Communists. However, we would eventually have lost world markets with an influx of cheap Chinese crap. It would just have taken a lot longer without US investment.

quote:

---

Nope

The biggest armor battle was Kursk (Germany VS Russia)

Biggest "turn the tide" battles were Stalingrad / Kursk, not D Day or Bulge

Russia had the bodies to die throwing them at the Germans

Russia had the 2nd best tanks in the war (Germany had the best) but unlike the Germans, they could mass produce them and did so at a much lower cost.

Only thing the Russians wanted from us was our trucks

Hitler let too many escape at Dunkirk by moving too slow

Hitler attacked Russia before he finished off UK. Had he waited till after capturing the UK, he takes Russia in a 1 front war and now we would all be speaking German.

---

I agree with most of that, but why would people in the US be speaking German? We had been an English speaking country for several hundred years before WWII, and there is no way that Germany would have been able to take on the US 1 on 1.