The Other War: FDR's Battle Against Churchill and the British Empire

[Joe McCarthy]

The Other War: FDR's Battle Against Churchill and the British Empire (http://american_almanac.tripod.com/FDRlw95.htm)

[The Lawspeaker]

America= backstabbing friends and allies since 1776.

[Joe McCarthy]

America= backstabbing friends and allies since 1776.

Given your supposed anti-imperialist stance, I'd think you'd approve of FDR's position here, Civis.

At any rate, the old cripple kicked the bucket before most of his schemes could be brought into being, and the US reversed course with regard to the empire under Truman as the article makes clear in the end.

[The Lawspeaker]

Not particularly no as he was a hypocrite of the worst kind. What about the countless "interventions" that took place in the West Indies and Latin America under his rule ?

Or what about the Lend-Lease Act where America took bases from the British in an extortion racket for weapons and money they so badly needed?

Besides: the United States (under Truman) back-stabbed us too in the Netherlands East Indies when they supported communist and Islamist fundamentalist rebels under the traitor Sukarno (who had collaborated with the Japs during WW II) against the Dutch. (my own grandfather fought in that war)

Amd the United States even forced us to go to Korea and fight or we wouldn't get any money to rebuild our country which had been devastated. We have nothing to be grateful for, frankly.

[Joe McCarthy]

Originally Posted by Civis Batavi
Besides: the United States (under Truman) back-stabbed us too in the Netherlands East Indies when they supported communist and Islamist fundamentalist rebels under the traitor Sukarno (who had collaborated with the Japs during WW II) against the Dutch.

Though this is a tad overheated it's actually true that the real anti-imperialism was directed at Holland. But it's rather more complicated than you seem to appreciate. Though I don't defend the US action, Holland didn't help itself in its various political blunders, including attacking the Indonesian nationalists in defiance of agreed to UN resolutions. Prior to that, the US was inclined to support the Dutch.

Much the same can be said about Suez actually. The French and British betrayed Eisenhower in invading Egypt.


Amd the United States even forced us to go to Korea and fight or we wouldn't get any money to rebuild our country which had been devastated.

That doesn't seem particularly unusual or untoward. At least it was money well spent - unlike much of the funds dispensed previously, which were diverted to wage the war in Indonesia.

[The Lawspeaker]

And learn to understand that it isn't Holland.. but the Netherlands.
Or should I call the United States New York from now on ?

[Joe McCarthy]

And learn to understand that it isn't Holland.. but the Netherlands.
Or should I call the United States New York from now on ?

When it becomes fashionable to call America New York, as it is to call the Netherlands Holland, then feel free.

Anyhow, I'm genuinely curious why you seem to be defending imperialism all of a sudden. :)

[The Lawspeaker]

Because frankly.. the East Indies were a bit more then "just a colony". There is a whole history of cultural exchange attached to it.

America had colonies too but they never left a real legacy. I only have to open a dictionary to see the influence that 400 years of Dutch-Indo relations had on both the Indonesians and the Dutch. Also economically they were vital for us. We couldn't give a toss about the West Indies but the East Indies were different as around 10 percent of our GDP came from the East Indies. So it would be very to say that this was a direct move of the United States to undermine Dutch economic and therefore political independence. And just to stress the important the East Indies had for us: our military and navel presence was always much more focussed on the Indies then it was on the Netherlands itself.

Besides: It is a sign of being uneducated to call the Netherlands Holland when you know better. Holland is just two provinces and I am living in a completely different province.

[Joe McCarthy]

Originally Posted by Civis Batavi
Because frankly.. the East Indies were a bit more then "just a colony". There is a whole history of cultural exchange attached to it.


It was certainly more of a colony than, say, Iraq or Afghanistan.

It seems your opposition to imperialism is less a principled position than it is a rhetorical hammer to use against the United States.

I can't say I'm surprised on that score. ;)


So it would be very to say that this was a direct move of the United States to undermine Dutch economic and therefore political independence. And just to stress the important the East Indies had for us: our military and navel presence was always much more focussed on the Indies then it was on the Netherlands itself.


It's true that Dutch imperialism and American business had conflicting interests as the Dutch employed artificially favorable trade agreements with the Dutch East Indies. But it should be noted that after the rise of Japan, the maintenance of the colony could only be kept up with the assistance of US or British sea power. In smashing Japan, the US actually assisted the Netherlands in a big way. Unfortunately things went aground afterwards.

[The Lawspeaker]

I have no problems with something like the British Commonwealth and as a matter of fact the Dutch were after following that model after the war. And it came into full fruition in the 1954 Statuut voor het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_for_the_Kingdom_of_the_Netherlands) Even before WW II the Dutch realised that the old situation was not going to continue. So what the US did was interrupting a situation that could have ended in a similar situation as Great Britain --- Australia by willingly supporting the most extreme of all factions (as there were several factions involved with moderates like Hatta and extremists like Sharir and Sukarno.

Besides the American support during the war is negligible at best as we were helped by Britain and Australia in that particular region. And mainly by Canada, Britain and Poland here in Europe. The American contributions doesn't go much further then some engagements in the south and Market Garden.

The American contribution is overrated at best. The Netherlands was liberated by the 1st Canadian Army with mainly British, Free French, Dutch and Polish units attached to it. The East Indies were liberated by British (and Indians), and Australians. No American soldier has set foot on the East Indies to die for it's liberation and the sole American engagements in the East Indies theatre took place in the seas surrounding it in 1942 and in Papua New Guinea.

[2DREZQ]

Besides the American support during the war is negligible at best as we were helped by Britain and Australia in that particular region. And mainly by Canada, Britain and Poland here in Europe. The American contributions doesn't go much further then some engagements in the south and Market Garden.

The American contribution is overrated at best. The Netherlands was liberated by the 1st Canadian Army with mainly British, Free French, Dutch and Polish units attached to it. The East Indies were liberated by British (and Indians), and Australians. No American soldier has set foot on the East Indies to die for it's liberation and the sole American engagements in the East Indies theatre took place in the seas surrounding it in 1942 and in Papua New Guinea.

Well, we couldn't be everywhere, now could we? I suppose I could point out that none of those liberations would have happened without Americans being just about everywhere else, but we know where that discussion will wind up, don't we? So I won't mention it.;)

[Joe McCarthy]

The man who tried to save the British Empire:

http://www.shmoop.com/media/images/large/harry-truman.jpeg

http://american_almanac.tripod.com/FDRlw95.htm


On April 12, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 32nd President of the United States ... and enemy of the British Empire, died of a cerebral hemorrhage in Warm Springs, Georgia...

Orders that were being prepared for U.S. ships and marines to take Hong Kong and turn it over to the Chinese, were aborted. Other plans to prevent the French from retaking Indochina were cancelled, and American troops in the area were told to stand aside. The imperial flags went back up, as Churchill had been demanding, all over the world.

Later that same month, in San Francisco, the American delegation to the United Nations conference voted against proposals that were aimed at placing the British and French colonial possessions under international supervision and with a definite timetable for independence. America, said delegation leader Harold Stassen, had but one true ally, the British, and we must always stand by her side.

[2DREZQ]

Or what about the Lend-Lease Act where America took bases from the British in an extortion racket for weapons and money they so badly needed?


I get in the habit of skimming right over Civis' anti-American rants that I sometimes miss gems.

In another thread he goes to great lengths to point out how useless America was to the allies in the war, then drops this on us all.

And here I thought you didn't need us at all.

Had FDR gotten his way the Vietnam war would never have been fought.

[The Lawspeaker]

Had FDR gotten his way the Vietnam war would never have been fought.
And why that ? Vietnam was French.

[Joe McCarthy]

And why that ? Vietnam was French.

Truman tried to save the French Empire too.

[The Lawspeaker]

Truman tried to save the French Empire too.
By destroying it.

[Joe McCarthy]

By destroying it.

You prove continuously that ignorance isn't bliss:

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1888.html


Ho’s attempt to garner support from the United States was useless because, unknown by him, the fate of Indochina had already been decided at the Potsdam Conference. The Allies had agreed to a Japanese surrender of their occupation of Indochina above the 17th parallel and the British surrender south of that line. Instead of supporting Ho, the United States gave their support to France, which demanded to re-colonize Vietnam under threats of France’s non-cooperation in helping to rebuild Europe if the U.S. refused. Secretary of State Dean Acheson stated that France’s demand was nothing short of "blackmail." The United States also saw the Indochina situation as a potential example of the Domino Theory, which holds that if a country falls to communism, weaker surrounding nations also eventually fall. Due to political pressure from anti-communist Republican Joseph McCarthy and others in Washington, D.C., against Democrats who were seen as soft on communism’s spread throughout the world, President Harry S. Truman stepped up America’s involvement in the French re-colonization of Indochina under the Truman Doctrine.



The United States had funded approximately one third of France’s attempt to retain control of Indochina. After inheriting the engagement from Truman, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, continued to support French occupation without much deviation from Truman’s policy. Eisenhower surmised that continued support would eventually lead to the liberation of the Vietnamese people from communism. The tide of U.S. support receded when the hopelessness of a full-scale occupation of Indochina against the Viet Minh was realized in 1953. The French also had requested an additional $400 million in assistance but, due to pressure from Washington for the French to make good on their promise to cooperate in Europe, they received only $385 million.

[The Lawspeaker]

You prove continuously that ignorance isn't bliss:

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1888.html
That's what the Americans say. But they supported the communist rebels in Indonesia so what Americans say can't be trusted.

[2DREZQ]

I would refer you to the book Overthrow by Stephan Kinzer. A Very unflattering and hostile look at U.S. activities in regime change for over a century (You would love it.)

Where the exact same story is to be found. The history is not in dispute. We could have told the French to stick it, and supported Ho. Very possibly this would have led to Vietnam being more inclined to the west. We could have won over hearts and minds without shooting them first. The entire sorry mess might have been avoided. Political dynamics in Asia might be very different today if we had.

This is bizarre; I'm trying to convince Civis that the U.S. screwed the pooch! I need to go lie down.

[Albion]

Given the chance I think the European empires could have gathered strength again.
France and Britain did try to keep some semblance of an empire by giving nations independence and trying to keep them in a sort of sphere of influence (Commonwealth as an example), but these attempts have failed miserably.
Both nations do still have influence in the former colonies, but America and the Soviet union undermined any real control as the third and fourth superpowers at Yalta largely disbanded.

An old saying goes that you could tell when the British were going to leave when the began building lots of government buildings. I suppose at least we attempted to leave some sort of framework behind.


That's what the Americans say. But they supported the communist rebels in Indonesia so what Americans say can't be trusted.

Meanwhile we were stuck helping Greeks fight them, stopping newly independent Indonesia from taking the whole of Borneo and trying to keep Malaya from falling to the Chinese communists.

Oh these forgotten wars...

[Joe McCarthy]

There were a lot of different factors that brought down the French, British, and Dutch Empires, and on the whole the US was pro-imperialism, even if ideologically it didn't much like empires. FDR, though I disagree with his view on imperialism, did have a point. European squabbling over territory in the colonies was a major cause of war, particularly the First World War.

The Dutch case in the East Indies is a special case because it's the one where the US did ultimately deep six the Dutch, and ironically the co-sponsor of the bill that did it was my namesake, the same guy that demanded we assist the French. The US State Department though did support Holland for most of the way.

The Dutch, however, violated a UN ceasefire against the rebels and created an international incident in a ship boarding. This caused public opinion in the US to turn on them as they didn't act prudently. It's also true that Japan's activities, as they did in Indochina, spurred the colonials to revolt.

The general American view was one of anti-imperialism, in principle, but in practice it usually supported imperialism, as it did in Indochina, knowing the Communism that replaced it would be worse. One exception to this was Algeria where Eisenhower was firmly neutral and was attacked by then Senator John F. Kennedy for being so. Only when Kennedy became President did the US take a firmly anti-imperialist line, as JFK did against Portugal.