@ orathaic

Fair point on the War of 1812, I am sure that any territorial gains in Canada would probably have been added to the U.S.A.; at least there would be little reason to believe otherwise. It doesn't make sense though that the war was to kick the British off of the continent. British policy as seen in the Exeter case, was to limit the sovereignty of the U.S. (impressment of U.S. sailors and boarding of U.S. merchant vessels). If you believe that the U.S. was baiting Japan into war to further its own ends; than it should be obvious that this is exactly what Britain was doing to the U.S. in 1812.

I am confused about Italy.

Are you speaking of Italy in Eritrea or Ethiopia?

Eritrea happened in 1890, so FDR was in no position to do anything about it since he was only eight years old.

Ethiopia was in 1935 and the U.S.A. wasn't an ally of Benito Mussolini's fascist Italy at that time as far as I am aware. It was Nazi Germany that supported the invasion.

Interesting discussion in the last couple pages – Japanese racist militarism was a direct result of diplomatic efforts Taft and Theodore Roosevelt championed at the turn of the century. See The Imperial Cruise, a great read by James Bradley.

Sorry, i am talking about Ethiopia, i misspoke early on in this conversation. My bad.

Also, Nazi germany sent arms to the Rthiopians. In 1935 Italy was still one of the allies, had opposed the unification of Germany and Austria, and neither Britain nor France wanted to lose them as an ally...

Ethiopia was only a colony from 1936 until ~1941 (when the british kicked the italians out) or 1947, when the British recognised Ethiopia as an independent nation (unlike say, egypt, sudan, kenya.... Oh so many other places...)

As for 1812.

Total troops involved seemed to be about 7,000. Meanwhile Napolean had nearly a million men under arms in europe. Britian wasn't trying to do anything... They were too busy focusing on the big scarey anti-monarchy alliance that Napoleon was forming in Europe. They don't even remember the war of 1812.

Though i don't have the parlimentary records to prove it.

The war of 1812 was partially the result of the British policy of impressment. The British, in order to beat Napoleon, trampled on the Freedom of the Seas and did not end the practice until it was too late. They don't remember the War of 1812 because it ended rather badly for them. The "Canadians" won the War of 1812, the Americans and British had a rather unsatisfying tie.

And might I say Ora made quite a mess of American History

There was no war to claim Spanish Florida, West Florida came over in the Louisiana purchase, East Florida was purchased in the Adams Onis Treaty.

There was also no war with native Americans to claim the continent. The continent was obtained through treaties following two wars (Mexican, American Rev) and several purchases from Britain, France, Spain, Russia, and Mexico. And by peaceful treaties with Britain. The genocidal war against the natives wasn't about claiming any land, it was about ridding it of its prior inhabitants.

Also, you "read" that the Korean War was initiated by Kim Il Sung? Did you find that in a basic world history text book?

And to settle this, yes, elements of the US congress, a majority, wanted to annex Canada and it was a major objective of the war

I don't know why you feel the need to put read in quotation marks.

My point was the the Soviets and PRC came to support the North Koreans only after they decided to invade and attempt to take over Korea. Not that this was some Communist plot controlled from Moscow.

So the US decided to use the UN to prevent Koreans fighting a civil war in Korea from being decided by the Koreans. And there is no doubt that US involvement encouraged the USSR and PRC to support the North Koreans even more... Cause for all they didn't agree on, none of the communists wanted the US establishing another 'ally' in Asia.

North Korea was heavily armed by communists neighbors before the war while South Korea was not armed to the same extent. That is why the Civil War would hardly have been decided fairly by Koreans.

@SC - rhere was a war for Florida. Look it up, the Spainish were not able to defend it, because good old Napoleon had conquered Spain and installed his borther as King, so by the time the US army entered Spainish Florida, even with their monarchy restored, there was nothing they could do. (The Spainish also lost almost all of their South American empire around the same time)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seminole_Wars

Now you can say there wasn't a war 'with Spain' if you want. But it remains an example of the US expanding its borders by use of the army to take territory and kill people... I'm sure the Spainish wouldn't have just given Florida over if they had had a choice.

I mean Santa, technically Florida was more or less conquered by Andrew Jackson in the Seminole Wars.

And how can you consider Andrew Jackson's unilateral actions as the actions of the United States?

"Cause for all they didn't agree on, none of the communists wanted the US establishing another 'ally' in Asia."

You bet they didn't. That's why Russia and China green lighted the invasion of South Korea. That is, by definition, external interference into something you otherwise term to be a civil war. The communists were supporting the establishment of an entirely communist Korean peninsula.

SantaClausowitz: Don't be dense. There were countless filibustering efforts carried out by U. S. nationals in American colonies and countries throughout the 19th Century. Sometimes the United States government condemned such violations of international law, but all too often the U. S. government would follow up filibustering with annexation. This happens to be the case for both East and West Florida. So yes, you can blame the United States for occupying land stolen by U. S. citizens. The U. S. government could have refused to condone the illegal behavior, as it did under Grover Cleveland with Hawaiʻi.

"There was also no war with native Americans to claim the continent. . . . The genocidal war against the natives wasn't about claiming any land, it was about ridding it of its prior inhabitants."
I'm sorry to say this, but that is very ignorant of you. There were many wars and treaties with Native American tribes whereby land was ceded. These treaties were signed under duress and military occupation just like those signed with Spain and Mexico. To claim that tribal nations had no legal rights to land under international law was preposterous even to contemporaries in the Anglo-Saxon United States. There were simply enough U. S. citizens who believed in their so-called 'manifest destiny' that genocide was a convenient way to silence these nations.

"Don't be dense. There were countless filibustering efforts carried out by U. S. nationals in American colonies and countries throughout the 19th Century. Sometimes the United States government condemned such violations of international law, but all too often the U. S. government would follow up filibustering with annexation. This happens to be the case for both East and West Florida. So yes, you can blame the United States for occupying land stolen by U. S. citizens. The U. S. government could have refused to condone the illegal behavior, as it did under Grover Cleveland with Hawaiʻi."

How am I being dense, do you honestly agree with Oras conclusion that The Seminole War was "The War to Claim Florida from the Spanish," give me a break.

And the President did, in fact, refuse to condone illegal behavior, see Monroe to Jackson 19 July 1818 if you want to quit being dense yourself.

"I'm sorry to say this, but that is very ignorant of you. There were many wars and treaties with Native American tribes whereby land was ceded. These treaties were signed under duress and military occupation just like those signed with Spain and Mexico. To claim that tribal nations had no legal rights to land under international law was preposterous even to contemporaries in the Anglo-Saxon United States. There were simply enough U. S. citizens who believed in their so-called 'manifest destiny' that genocide was a convenient way to silence these nations. "

I argue nothing of the sort, what I am saying is that the Unites States did not fight for to "claim" the continent, the world order at the time recognized the US claim on the territory. Am I saying that the Natives did not have a legitimate claim on the land? Not at all. I'm saying contemporary powers recognized the US claim, so to suggest that the US fought Native Americans to claim the land is categorically false.

The contemporary powers were Mexico and European nations that took the land from the American Indians and sold or handed over the land to the US after wars with them. The US fought the Indians who didn't recognize their claims.

Custer didn't die at Little Bighorn of old age. Geronimo fought in the Southwest. There were plenty of Indian Wars to take land even after making treaties to give up land to the Indians. Gold discoveries in the Dakotas ended previous treaties there.

@"You bet they didn't. That's why Russia and China green lighted the invasion of South Korea. That is, by definition, external interference into something you otherwise term to be a civil war. The communists were supporting the establishment of an entirely communist Korean peninsula."

Yeah, fair enough, both North and South Korea went from being an internal civil war to being pawns in an international game of claim the land. The evidence seems to point toward Moscow being unhappy with the North's decision to invade, but supporting them anyway, while the US was busy assuming a Global communist conspiracy directed from Moscow.

@Florida, i was wrong in my first statement. Misunderstood the brief overview of history that i had read (we don't cover US history in School, apart from the war of independence... Because it helped inspire 1798) And yet, the US army occupied Florida, and the government eventually 'accepted' the land.

I'm sure if Spain had been in a more powerful position they could have pressed for a treaty recognising the previous border and removing the US occupation - would that have meant sending troops to Florida to force their claim? All we know is that when push came to shove the US forced Spain to sign a treaty giving up a Florida whih was occupied by the US army.

Entirely in line with my 'US as an expansionist power' perspective, i just missed some of the finer details. Maybe more relevant was that the US signed a treaty with Spain which recognised most of the Western US as Spainish territory. Later they decided, 'fuck that' and took Texas, ad everythig to California.

What happened to talking about the Axis? We are a little off the rails here.

Dakota Access Pipeline last year. Seems to be a violation of treaties, because white people in the local area objected to the route and Native Americans don't count as people... Ended with violence, journalists being targeted by law enforcement, army vers siding with the native peoples, mobile phone towers being setup by law enforcement to capture all mobile phone communications, presumably to help them target journalists...

Sounds a lot like this 'the world order recognised the US claim' - sure, the 'world order' was racist and about to engage in the colonisation of Africa, they didn't give a shit about native peoples. Russia is rhe same, it expanded east all the way to Alaska; ignoring rights and conquering peoples along the way.

European nations conquered South America, parts of Asia, Australia, islands across the pacific - ignoring the rights of native peoples and subjugating them by force where necessary. Meanwhile at the very same time the US conquered the continental US and then kept going to Hawaii and the Phillipines... same deal. Canada did pretty much the same, except sligthly further north.

Ok, back to the question at hand. Japan.

So Japan was an Imperialist nation, and the US was annoyed with their behaviour in China.

Japan wanted to create a 'Greater Asian Co-prosperity Sphere' - ie an Empire in Asia where the European didn't have colonies.

The US couldn't stand for this. Their ambitions were to be a great power, and to spread the whole way across the pacific. But they also couldn't declare war with Japan over the invasion and human rights absues in China.

Europeans were busy, so there was an opportunity to expand into east asia. And the result of the war was a defeated Japan leaving a power vacumn in Asia. It would be filled by the US and by various Communists.

Infact, from what i'm reading, most of the later wars in East Asia/South East Asia, were a result of the former major colonial powers (Japan, France, and the British and Dutch) being unable to hold onto their empires.

The US swept in, occupied Japan, allied with Some Koreans, invaded Vietnam (on the pretext of preventing the spread of Communism, when the Vietnamese probably hated China more than anyone else, and certainly weren't going to kow-tow to the PRC... Infact, China invaded Vietnam after the Americans left, and were likewise defeated)

I never really saw this little bit of history in such terms.