Worst President of the 20th Century

Woodrow Wilson.

During the Versailles treaty negotiations he emphasized self-determination for small nations which created a mess out of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, as well as alienating the French and British Empires in the process. He should have been dealing with the war debt, reparations, and the war guilt clause.Wilson just had to talk crap about small nations and their right to exist in a world full of decaying empires.

Failure to emphasis those issues resulted in most of the Fourteen Points being rejected by the French and British. Along with the US rejecting the Versailles treaty. Which if ratified would've kept the United States involved in any sort of collective security arrangement that could have possibly stopped a second World War. The inability of the British and French to trust each other, (without having America hold their hands) and their unwillingness to negotiate with the Soviet Union sealed the deal for World War II.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

the United States as an imperial, or interventionist global power, which set the tone for T. Roosevelt, Wilson, and the Cold War.

You make that sound like a bad thing. I call bullshit.

Are you seriously saying that the world would be better off today under Soviet or Nazi hegemony, instead of American leadership/Empire?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Of course, without American participation in the First World War, there likely wouldn't have been a second, or at least not one in which Fascism would come to the forefront. McKinley's expansion of US imperialism marred our history with the war in the Phillipines, which was definitely a bad thing, and even with the Soviets controlling Russia, there's nothing to suggest that at any point it would have been capable of expanding and controlling other nations in the way that the Great Patriotic War enabled them to.

Couple of points:

American isolationism was bound to be broken by Europe. They could just not go a generation without having a major war. Luckily the World Wars killed off or discredited the crazy/mean ones. Unfortunately this made America play the part of Rome bringing peace to the Greek City-States.

Trying to compare American abuses to Spain, French, British, or pretty much any other abuses committed by other Empires is laughable. American abuses were relatively mild. Genocide was never a policy. So if it did take place, it can easily be chalked up to unintended consequences of Filipinos resisting occupation. We only wanted the coaling stations and access to Asian markets anyhow.

By it's sheer virtue of resources, population, and potential industrial capacity Russia was destined to be a world power. It was just realized under the Soviets.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Third, our policy of containment was sound in the sense of checking Soviet aggression, but our involvement in Vietnam specifically did not have anything to do with the Soviets or even the Chinese, since Ho Chi Minh led a movement of national communism in order to free Vietnam from French imperialism, which was another problem in part created by Wilson since once the chips were down he chose the maintenance of French and British empires over the self-determination of their subjected peoples, suggesting that in the end he only cared about the self-determination of whites.

Eh, the Ottomans (Turks rather) were forced to come to an accord with the Kurds by some Wilsonian treaty. So it wasn't only about the whites. The fact the Turks pissed all over it doesn't make it any less of an annoyance for them to have to had deal with it in the first place.

I'm not even gonna touch the Vietnam was a mistake argument. That came way past Wilson and his bullshit. Had more to do with mistakes made during the Cold War.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

And fourth, our strong-arming of latin American nations at the turn of the century is what led to their strong distrust of American power in the first place, and our support of kleptocrats is what led people to support communist movements which we later deposed, leading to further harmed relations, or do I have to bring up Iran-Contra and the College of the Americas?

Again, not that bad of a thing.

During the Guano War the Chileans happily told America to fuck off and mind our own business or they would send our Navy to Davy Jone's locker when we tried to mediate that war. They could've done it too. Since they had two modern warships and we still had a navy made of wood.

This event in itself might've inspired Theodore Roosevelt's actions with the naval fleet.

America only wanted to bring and maintain peace in our hemisphere. As well as "free trade" access for United Fruit of course...... In any case war is bad for business, and that's what Americans are good at.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

So you're saying that it was ok that we murdered Phillipinos because we wanted their stuff?

You tell me. The Philippines agreed to the naval base leases and trade treaty upon becoming independent of the US. That in itself made the made the Filipino-American war completely unnecessary.

That's really the only thing I can name that Wilson got right. Granting independence to the Philippines. Not enough to lose him my vote for worse president of the past century though.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

White attitudes to Middle Eastern peoples tended to be widely different from their attitudes to blacks and gooks. At least in America, the fiction tended to treat Arabs with a romantic air, Robert E. Howard being a classic example.

That just serves to reinforce my point. The Turks pissed on the treaty and went to town on the Kurds. Still do to this day. Lotta good Wilson did there.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

And this is precisely what sticks in the minds of latin Americans, as well as US soldiers. It was no secret that they were risking their lives for corporate interests, and that would in turn certainly breed a resentment of capitalism and the attraction of communism. (in Latin America)

This comes way to close to modern issues then I'd like to admit or even really think about.

I'd rather like to think it's all in the past....

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

No. No it's not ok. It was possibly the worst war we've ever fought in terms of American brutality.

I'm not saying it wasn't. Maybe you're misunderstanding me. I'm saying we could've gotten what we wanted from the Filipinos if Commodore Dewey hadn't pissed them off in the first place. Ending all Filipino-American cooperation. The war, occupation, and resistance was largely unnecessary/unintentional because America's primary corporate/imperial concerns were fulfilled with the bases. Which the Filipinos willingly seceded upon independence.

That's not the same as intentionally butchering them like the Spanish or Japanese did. Even though, yes that's what it ended up as.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

I bet you think you're real cute, huh?

No, I'm just not to keen on reflecting massacres or genocide. Past or present. Kinda like how everyone is okay with talking about the holocaust, but nobody wants to talk about what happened to the tribe that occupied their land 400 years ago.

Which is also why I chose to use the Guano War example as opposed to say the War of the Triple Alliance where Paraguay lost between 75%-90% of their total population. No government or corporate intervention needed. The "Free Market" took care of everything, or rather everyone.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Vestin

Herbert Hoover was worse because he failed to do anything about the depression.

How much control did Hoover have over the depression? The British Empire jumping off the gold standard in '31 and the failure of German/Austrian banks in '32 prevented any chance of an American economic recovery.

Really, the only thing I can blame Hoover for is blocking progressive efforts like unemployment insurance which only would've provided temporary relief and/or the Bonus Army fiasco.

There's no magic wand.

I was speaking idiomatically.