Debates
02 May 10
Originally posted by Teinosukestill, the japanese became and remain socialist-capitalists, not just socialists. like the US!
Japan's done amazingly well in 1945, but that doesn't mean we can regard it as evidence of the success of the kind of neo-liberal capitalism that has been in vogue in the United States during the past thirties years. The people in charge of the Occupation of Japan worked mainly under the influence of the New Deal and pursued redistributive and egalitarian ...[text shortened]... and China. Had he been successful, China's postwar history might have been much gentler.
p.s.,
from someone who was around (and aware) when the Marshall Plan was invoked. i was looking for his column on Dean Acheson (from his third hardcopy collection, The Americans) but apparently it's not online.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/letter_from_america/2557967.stm
Originally posted by FMFCuba, for instance. Although those weren't just marines -- regular infantry and cavalry as well.
Didn't the U.S. put Marines into several Latin American countries over thelast 150 years in an effort to exert some guiding handery to their incompatible economies?
A lot of that was ugly. But they are missing from the OP selection. Oh.
Now, at that time, popular opinion was aligned against the cruel atrocities of the evil Catholic Spanish Empire. I don't think Hearst would have drummed up much support by asserting the need for a "guiding hand" in an independent Cuban economy. Just doesn't have much of a ring to it.
Originally posted by twhiteheadder alvays vill be a Deutschland und Deutschland vill be free.........OOPS scratch that....
Considering that they were doing well before the invasions, it is most likely that their current success is a shadow of what they could have been. Both Germany and Japan were set to take over the world!