World history question that came to mind...

[fj1200]

Wikipedia says so.
you posted it.
Are saying you don't believe that it ended in 1946?
If you believe Wikipedia own it. You said it.

The Britannica definition draws the line a bit broader than wikipedias's.
Seems pretty obvious to me that after 1946 the US influence grew rather than shrank.
Overtly & Covertly, NATO, Germany, Japan, Philippines, South America, the middle east
Only the Chinese & Soviets weren't practically under the overt or covert domination of the US.
After the USSR fell we were/are the lone "superpower" in the world. With bases and ships all over the world "protecting" the current system based on the us dollar.
1946 doesn't make sense to me.
Some may not like the term "empire" but seems to me the shoe fits .

I care not a whit about the definition of empire except as it relates to what you're trying to get to. You seem to want the US to fit a definition of empire.

[revelarts]

I care not a whit about the definition of empire except as it relates to what you're trying to get to. You seem to want the US to fit a definition of empire.

Yes, the U.S. is an empire.
It's just a statement of reality.
If we read about it in a world history book from Lithuania, I suspect that's what it'd be called.

The questions I asked are, what I was getting at.

If Empires fall mostly via conquest or decline?
& the fate of the average people at the decline & fall of empires?

[Gunny]

@Gunny. Taking good and evil out of it, (i want troops in Afghanistan permanently and the world can't afford to lose taiwan) when you have troops in 100+ countries how is that not an empire?

I don't recall stating the US is or is not an "empire".

I responded to Rev's question regarding the fate of empires. I further stated the US is in decline. FJ picked as good a date as any and away we go down the rabbit hole arguing "when".

Empires fall when they go into decline. Doesn't happen in a day. There is truth to both opinions as to "when", depending on one's focal point. We in fact have done little to attain and a lot more to maintain since WWII. Hungry people build empires. Fat people watch them crumble. We've been fat for a long time while stupidity has stolen the show.

"When" to me is second fiddle to the chickens coming home to roost now for trying to rest on our laurels since the end of WWII

[Gunny]

Yes, the U.S. is an empire.
It's just a statement of reality.
If we read about it in a world history book from Lithuania, I suspect that's what it'd be called.

The questions I asked are, what I was getting at.

If Empires fall mostly via conquest or decline?
& the fate of the average people at the decline & fall of empires?

Your question was answered.

The fate of the "average people" is determined by who succeeds the empire. Looks like we got a bunch of pussies with big mouths taking of the US. Few if any want to destroy the US. They want to control it. The German Empire/Weimar Republic and the resulting aftermath appear a good example of what's happening to the US.

If you're asking can Joe Average who is affected little by government hide out in his basement and maybe not be bothered, cowards and sheep usually survive regime change They just kiss a different ass.

[fj1200]

Yes, the U.S. is an empire.
It's just a statement of reality.
If we read about it in a world history book from Lithuania, I suspect that's what it'd be called.

The questions I asked are, what I was getting at.

If Empires fall mostly via conquest or decline?
& the fate of the average people at the decline & fall of empires?

I'm sure someone has done a study.

[Kathianne]

I'm sure someone has done a study.

Made me look:

https://www.khanacademy.org/humaniti...all-of-empires



https://www.khanacademy.org/humaniti...ires-fall-beta

https://www.vaia.com/en-us/explanati...ne-of-empires/

[fj1200]

Made me look:

https://www.khanacademy.org/humaniti...all-of-empires



https://www.khanacademy.org/humaniti...ires-fall-beta

https://www.vaia.com/en-us/explanati...ne-of-empires/

Many a tangled web... This question raised reminds me of a clip of that great historian Rick Steves talking about some village somewhere that would have it announced to them, "you are now French," and then eventually, "you are now British," as they went about their daily lives.

[Gunny]

Many a tangled web... This question raised reminds me of a clip of that great historian Rick Steves talking about some village somewhere that would have it announced to them, "you are now French," and then eventually, "you are now British," as they went about their daily lives.

Interesting take. What always comes to my mind is Vietnam. You're a poor rice farmer and that's what you know. Go to the 'ville every so often to hang out with other rice farmers. Meantime, China, France, N Vietnam, South Vietnam and finally the US have been traipsing back and forth across your paddy blowing each other up. Stealing your rice as "taxes" when they aren't blowing up your paddy. They've all got their high-minded ideas about what you're supposed to think and don't care who they have to kill or destroy to ensure you do.

All you're thinking is if they'd quit blowing up my rice paddy and killing my kids we could eat. Doesn't matter who's doing it at the rice farmer level.

[revelarts]

Made me look:

https://www.khanacademy.org/humaniti...all-of-empires



https://www.khanacademy.org/humaniti...ires-fall-beta

https://www.vaia.com/en-us/explanati...ne-of-empires/

Many reasons why empires fall...
...The first is money. Empires were really expensive, and as time went on in any empire, the expenses would go way up (armies, food and resources, education, propaganda, etc.). Eventually, there would be a financial breaking point where the usual problems that arise in such a complex system are too expensive to deal with. Some event will occur and the empire would collapse. How important is that event? If a delicate house of cards collapses because a fly landed on it, is it really the fly's fault?
Healthy empires with adequate resources could respond to invasion, natural disasters, and even temporary shortages of money. However, over time each problem would become an increased burden on the empire and eventually, something would happen that the empire could no longer overcome. That "something" could be anything, but we have to see it as the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back (remember Alphonse?).

The second measure is cohesion. As an empire aged over time, people in the center lost their sense of cohesion (unity) with the empire. Elites became more interested in their own wealth and local reputation than with the empire. Peripheral people and even groups located just beyond the borders of the empire developed a stronger sense of group identity, separate from those within the empire's borders. As the emperor became increasingly unable to rely upon elites for help and taxes, the peripheral and border groups became more cohesive. New groups rose up on the edges while the center lost its power.

These two factors of cost and cohesion fed off each other in a way that sped up the empire's collapse. As the empire struggled to meet growing expenses, the elites in the center were less motivated to help the emperor maintain control. When a crisis hit—such as rebellion, plague, or attack from outside groups—the emperor was eventually unable to respond and the empire itself would begin to collapse.

Connected to cost and cohesion is the inconsistent number of people in the empire. The growth, decline, or reorganization of populations could dramatically affect the course of an empire. If the tax-paying population decreased too much, or if peasants moved out of reach of the tax collectors, the empire would suffer from lack of funds. A population that grew too much put pressure on available resources. And that's no fun because when an empire couldn't provide what its people needed, they usually rebelled. Peasant uprisings could bring down empires just as fast as invading armies or plagues...

FYI anyone been following the Series of events where parts of the world are/have stopped trading in dollars or petro-dollars.
As in the saudis always wanted other countries to pay them with dollars to buy their oil now, not so much.
And Russia, because of all the U.S. sanctions, is not trading with dollars if it can help it.
Russia, hit by new US sanctions, halts dollar and euro trade on main bourse
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/china-russia-trade/

.
...In March 2023, China settled a payment for UAE gas in its own currency rather than US dollars for the first time. Then in November, China and Saudi Arabia signed a currency swap agreement, citing a desire to expand the use of their currencies...
theconversation.com/why-the-world-is-turning-away-from-the-us-dollar-220093

I'm not a financial guru scientist so I'm not sure if or how bad news this is, at the very least is means less subtle or symbolic dominance of world commerce.

[fj1200]

These seem to be things that we are doing to ourselves by being the arbiter of good vs evil in the world and attempting capitulation by kicking countries out of SWIFT for example. Countries are not going to be thrilled about holding currencies that are not stable in value and my guess is that they may settle trades in their own currency but quickly buy something that is more stable.