 | This articlepossibly containsoriginal research. Many of the sources do not refer to "imperialism". Pleaseimprove it byverifying the claims made and addinginline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed.(August 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
| History of the United States expansion and influence |
|---|
| Colonialism |
| Militarism |
| Foreign policy |
|
| Concepts |
US imperialism orAmerican imperialism is the expansion of political, economic, cultural, media, and military influence beyond the boundaries of theUnited States of America. Depending on the commentator, it may include imperialism through outright military conquest; military protection;gunboat diplomacy;unequal treaties; subsidization of preferred factions;regime change; economic or diplomatic support; or economic penetration through private companies, potentially followed bydiplomatic or forceful intervention when those interests are threatened.[1][2]
The policies perpetuating American imperialism and expansionism are usually considered to have begun with "New Imperialism" in the late 19th century,[3] though some considerAmerican territorial expansion andsettler colonialism at the expense ofIndigenous Americans to be similar enough in nature to be identified with the same term.[4] While the United States has never officially identified itself and its territorial possessions as an empire, some commentators have referred to the country as such, includingMax Boot,Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., andNiall Ferguson.[5] Other commentators have accused the United States of practicingneocolonialism—sometimes defined as a modern form ofhegemony—which leverages economic power rather than military force in aninformal empire; the term "neocolonialism" has occasionally been used as a contemporary synonym formodern-day imperialism.
The question of whether the United States should intervene in the affairs of foreign countries has been a much-debated topic in domestic politics for the country's entire history.Opponents of interventionism have pointed to the country's origin asa former colony that rebelled against an overseas king, as well as the American values of democracy, freedom, and independence.[citation needed]Conversely, supporters of interventionism and of American presidents who have attacked foreign countries — most notablyAndrew Jackson,James K. Polk,William McKinley,Woodrow Wilson,Theodore Roosevelt, andWilliam Howard Taft — have justified their interventions in (or whole seizures of) various countries by citing the necessity of advancing American economic interests, such as trade and debt management; preventing European intervention (colonial or otherwise) in theWestern Hemisphere, manifested in the anti-EuropeanMonroe Doctrine of 1823; and the benefits of keeping "good order" around the world.[citation needed]
Despite periods of peaceful co-existence in the early 1600s,wars with Native Americans resulted in substantial territorial gains for American colonists who were expanding into native land. Wars with the Native Americans continued intermittentlyafter independence, and anethnic cleansing campaign known asIndian removal gained forEuropean Americansettlers more valuable territory on the eastern side of the continent.
George Washington, a founding father and first president of the United States, began a policy ofUnited States non-interventionism which lasted into the 1800s. The United States promulgated theMonroe Doctrine in 1823, in order to stop further European colonialism in the Latin America. Desire for territorial expansion to the Pacific Ocean was explicit in the idea ofmanifest destiny. The giantLouisiana Purchase was peaceful, but theannexation of 525,000 square miles (1,360,000 km2) of Mexican territory was the result of theMexican–American War of 1846.
TheCold War reoriented American foreign policy towards opposing communism, and prevailing U.S. foreign policy embraced its role as a nuclear-armed global superpower. Through theTruman Doctrine andReagan Doctrine the United States framed the mission as protecting free peoples against an undemocratic system, anti-Soviet foreign policy became coercive and occasionally covert.United States involvement in regime change includedoverthrowing the democratically elected government of Iran, theBay of Pigs invasion in Cuba, occupation ofGrenada, and interference in various foreign elections. The long and bloodyVietnam War led to widespread criticism of an "arrogance of power" andviolations of international law emerging from an "imperial presidency," withMartin Luther King Jr., among others, accusing the US of anew form of colonialism.[6]
In terms of territorial acquisition, the United States has integrated (with voting rights) all of its acquisitions on the North American continent, including the non-contiguousAlaska. Hawaii has also become a state with equal representation to the mainland, but other island jurisdictions acquired during wartime remain territories, namelyGuam,Puerto Rico, theUnited States Virgin Islands,American Samoa, and theNorthern Mariana Islands. (The federal government officiallyapologized for the overthrow of the Hawaiian government in 1993.) The remainder of acquired territories have become independent with varying degrees of cooperation, ranging from threefreely associated states which participate in federal government programs in exchange for military basing rights, to Cuba which severed diplomatic relations during the Cold War. The United States was a public advocate for Europeandecolonization after World War II (having started a ten-year independence transition for the Philippines in 1934 with theTydings–McDuffie Act). Even so, the US desire for an informal system of globalprimacy in an "American Century" often brought them into conflict withnational liberation movements.[7] The United States has nowgranted citizenship to Native Americans and recognizes some degree oftribal sovereignty.
.jpg)
Yale historianPaul Kennedy has asserted, "From the time the first settlers arrived inVirginia fromEngland and started moving westward, this was an imperial nation, a conquering nation."[8] Expanding on George Washington's description of the early United States as an "infant empire",[9] Benjamin Franklin wrote: "Hence the Prince that acquires new Territory, if he finds it vacant, or removes the Natives to give his own People Room; the Legislator that makes effectual Laws for promoting of Trade, increasing Employment, improving Land by more or better Tillage; providing more Food by Fisheries; securing Property, etc. and the Man that invents new Trades, Arts or Manufactures, or new Improvements in Husbandry, may be properly called Fathers of their Nation, as they are the Cause of the Generation of Multitudes, by the Encouragement they afford to Marriage."[10] Thomas Jefferson asserted in 1786 that the United States "must be viewed as the nest from which all America, North & South is to be peopled. [...] The navigation of the Mississippi we must have. This is all we are as yet ready to receive.".[11] From the leftNoam Chomsky writes that "the United States is the one country that exists, as far as I know, and ever has, that was founded as an empire explicitly".[12][13]
A national drive for territorial acquisition across the continent was popularized in the 19th century as the ideology of manifest destiny.[14] The policy of settlement of land was a foundational goal of the United States of America, with one of the driving factors of discontent with British rule originating from theRoyal Proclamation of 1763, which barred settlement west of theAppalachian Mountains.[15] As part of the desire of Manifest Destiny to open up land for American settlement came campaigns in the Great Lakes region which saw the United States fight theNorthwestern Confederacy resulting in theNorthwest Indian War. Subsequent treaties such as theTreaty of Greenville and theTreaty of Fort Wayne (1809) resulted in a rise of Anti-American sentiment among the Native Americans in the Great Lakes region, which helped to createTecumseh's Confederacy which was defeated by the end of theWar of 1812. TheIndian Removal Act of 1830 culminated in the deportation of 60,000 Native Americans in an event known as theTrail of Tears, where up to 16,700 people died in an act ofethnic cleansing. The deportation of Natives West of the Mississippi, resulted in significant economic gains for settlers. For example, theArkansas firm, Byrd and Belding earned up to $27,000 in two years through supplying food.[16] The policy of Manifest Destiny would continue to be realized with theMexican–American War of 1846, which resulted in thecession of 525,000 square miles (1,360,000 km2) of Mexican territory to the United States, stretching up to the Pacific coast.[17][18] TheWhig Party strongly opposed this war and expansionism generally.[19]
Following the American victory over Mexico, colonization and settlement of California would begin which would soon lead to theCalifornia genocide. Estimates of total deaths in the genocide vary greatly from 2,000[20] to 100,000.[21] The discovery of Gold in California resulted in an influx of settlers, who formed militias to kill and displace Indigenous peoples.[22] The government of California supported expansion and settlement through the passage of theAct for the Government and Protection of Indians which legalized the enslavement of Native Americans and allowed settlers to capture and force them into labor.[23][24] California further offered and paid bounties for the killing of Native Americans.[25]
%2c_the_Indian_territories.jpg)
American expansion in the Great Plains resulted in conflict between many tribes West of the Mississippi and the United States. In 1851, theTreaty of Fort Laramie was signed, which gave the Cheyenne and Arapaho tribes territory from the North Platte River in present-day Wyoming and Nebraska southward to the Arkansas River in present-day Colorado and Kansas. The land was initially not wanted by White settlers, but following the discovery of gold in the region, settlers began to pour into the territory. In 1861, six chiefs of the Southern Cheyenne and four of the Arapaho signed theTreaty of Fort Wise which saw the loss of 90% of their land.[26] The refusal of various warriors to recognise the treaty resulted in white settlers starting to believe that war was coming. The subsequentColorado War would result in theSand Creek Massacre in which up to 600 Cheyenne were killed, most of whom were children and women. On October 14, 1865, the chiefs of what remained of the Southern Cheyennes and Arapahos agreed to live south of the Arkansas, sharing land that belonged to the Kiowas,[27] and thereby relinquish all claims in the Colorado territory.
Following the victory ofRed Cloud inRed Cloud's War over the United States, theTreaty of Fort Laramie (1868) was signed. This treaty led to the creation of theGreat Sioux Reservation. However, the discovery of gold in the Black Hills resulted in a surge of White settlement in the region. The gold rush was very profitable for the White settlers and the American government, with just one of the Black Hill Mines yielding $500 Million in gold.[28] Attempts to purchase the land failed, and theGreat Sioux War began as a result. Despite initial success by Native Americans in the war's first few battles, most notably theBattle of the Little Bighorn, the United States eventually won and ended the reservation, carving it up into smaller reservations. The reservation system did not just serve as a way to facilitate American settlement and expansion of land, but also enriched local merchants and businesses who held significant economic power over the Native tribes. Traders would often accept payment for goods via annuity money from land sales[29] contributing to further poverty.
In the South-West, various settlements and communities had been established thanks to profits from theAmerican Civil War. In order to maintain revenue and profit, settlers often waged war against native tribes.[30] By 1871, the settlement ofTucson for example had a population of three thousand, including saloon-keepers, traders and contractors who had made fortunes during the Civil War and were hopeful of continuing their profits with an Indian war. Desire to fight resulted in theCamp Grant Massacre of 1871 where up to 144Apache were killed, most being women and children. Up to 27 Apache children were captured and sold into slavery inMexico.[31] In the 1860s, theNavajo faced deportation in an attempted act ofethnic cleansing under theLong Walk of the Navajo. The "Long Walk" started at the beginning of spring 1864. Bands of Navajo led by the Army were relocated from their traditional lands in eastern Arizona Territory and western New Mexico Territory to Fort Sumner. Around 200 died during the march. During the march, New Mexican slavers, assisted by the Ute often attacked isolated bands, killing the men, taking the women and children captive, and capturing horses and livestock. As part of these raids, a large number of slaves were taken and sold throughout the region.[32]
Starting in 1820, theAmerican Colonization Society began subsidizing free black people to colonize the west coast of Africa. In 1822, it declared the colony ofLiberia, which became independent in 1847. By 1857, Liberia had merged with other colonies formed by state societies, including theRepublic of Maryland,Mississippi-in-Africa, andKentucky in Africa.
President James Monroe presented his famousdoctrine for the western hemisphere in 1823. Historians have observed that while the Monroe Doctrine contained a commitment to resist colonialism from Europe, it had some aggressive implications for American policy, since there were no limitations on the US's actions mentioned within it. Historian Jay Sexton notes that the tactics used to implement the doctrine were modeled after those employed by European imperial powers during the 17th and 18th centuries.[33] From the left historianWilliam Appleman Williams described it as "imperial anti-colonialism."[34]
In the older historiographyWilliam Walker's filibustering represented the high tide of antebellum American imperialism. His brief seizure of Nicaragua in 1855 is typically called a representative expression ofManifest destiny with the added factor of trying to expand slavery into Central America. Walker failed in all his escapades and never had official U.S. backing. Historian Michel Gobat, however, presents a strongly revisionist interpretation. He argues that Walker was invited in by Nicaraguan liberals who were trying to force economic modernization and political liberalism. Walker's government comprised those liberals, as well as Yankee colonizers, and European radicals. Walker even included some local Catholics as well as indigenous peoples, Cuban revolutionaries, and local peasants. His coalition was much too complex and diverse to survive long, but it was not the attempted projection of American power, concludes Gobat.[35]
TheIndian Wars against theindigenous peoples of the Americas began in thecolonial era. Their escalation under the federal republic allowed the US to dominate North America and carve out the 48contiguous states. This can be considered to be an explicitly colonial process in light of arguments that Native American nations were sovereign entities prior to annexation.[36] Their sovereignty was systematically undermined by US state policy (usually involving unequal orbroken treaties) andwhite settler-colonialism.[37] Furthermore, following the Dawes Act of 1887 native american systems of land tenure and communal ownership were ended, in favour of private property andcapitalism.[38] This resulted in the loss of around 100 Million acres of land from 1887 to 1934.
A variety of factors converged during the "New Imperialism" of the late 19th century, when the United States and the othergreat powers rapidly expanded their overseas territorial possessions. One of these factors was the prevalence of overt racism, notablyJohn Fiske's conception of "Anglo-Saxon" racial superiority andJosiah Strong's call to "civilize and Christianize." The concepts were manifestations of a growingSocial Darwinism and racism in some schools of American political thought.[40][41][42]
Early in his career, as Assistant Secretary of the Navy,Theodore Roosevelt was instrumental in preparing the Navy for theSpanish–American War[43] and was an enthusiastic proponent of testing the U.S. military in battle, at one point stating "I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one."[44][45][46] Roosevelt claimed that he rejected imperialism, but he embraced the near-identical doctrine ofexpansionism.[47] WhenRudyard Kipling wrote the imperialist poem "The White Man's Burden" for Roosevelt, the politician told colleagues that it was "rather poor poetry, but good sense from the expansion point of view."[48] Roosevelt proclaimed his owncorollary to the Monroe Doctrine as justification,[49] although his ambitions extended even further, into the Far East.
Scholars have noted the resemblance between U.S. policies in the Philippines and European actions in theircolonies in Asia andAfrica during this period.[50] By one contrast, however, the United States claimed to colonize in the name of anti-colonialism: "We are coming, Cuba, coming; we are bound to set you free! We are coming from the mountains, from the plains and inland sea! We are coming with the wrath of God to make the Spaniards flee! We are coming, Cuba, coming; coming now!"[51] Filipino revolutionary GeneralEmilio Aguinaldo wondered: "The Filipinos fighting for Liberty, the American people fighting them to give them liberty. The two peoples are fighting on parallel lines for the same object."[52] However, from 1898 until theCuban revolution, The United States of America had significant influence over the economy of Cuba. By 1950, US investors owned 44 of the 161 sugar mills in Cuba, and slightly over 47% of total sugar output.[53] By 1906, up to 15% of Cuba was owned by American landowners.[54] This consisted of 632,000 acres of sugar lands, 225,000 acres of tobacco, 700,000 of fruits and 2,750,000 acres of mining land, along with a quarter of the banking industry.[54]
Industry and trade were two of the most prevalent justifications of imperialism.American intervention in both Latin America and Hawaii resulted in multiple industrial investments, including the popular industry ofDole bananas. If the United States was able to annex a territory, in turn they were granted access to the trade and capital of those territories. In 1898, SenatorAlbert Beveridge proclaimed that an expansion of markets was absolutely necessary, "American factories are making more than the American people can use; American soil is producing more than they can consume. Fate has written our policy for us; the trade of the world must and shall be ours."[55][56]
American rule of ceded Spanish territory was not uncontested. ThePhilippine Revolution had begun in August 1896 against Spain, and after the defeat of Spain in theBattle of Manila Bay, began again in earnest, culminating in thePhilippine Declaration of Independence and the establishment of theFirst Philippine Republic. ThePhilippine–American War ensued, with extensive damage and death, ultimately resulting in the defeat of the Philippine Republic.[57][58][59]
The United States' interests in Hawaii began in the 1800s with the United States becoming concerned that Great Britain or France might have colonial ambitions on the Hawaiian Kingdom. In 1849 the United States and The Kingdom of Hawaii signed a treaty of friendship removing any colonial ambitions Great Britain or France might have had. In 1885, King David Kalākaua, last king of Hawaii, signed a trade reciprocity treaty with the United States allowing for tariff free trade of sugar to the United States. The treaty was renewed in 1887 and with it came the overrunning of Hawaiian politics by rich, white, plantation owners. On July 6, 1887, the Hawaiian League, a non-native political group, threatened the king and forced him to sign a new constitution stripping him of much of his power. King Kalākaua would die in 1891 and be succeeded by his sister Lili'uokalani. In 1893 with support from marines from the USSBoston Queen Lili'uokalani would be deposed in a bloodless coup. Hawaii has been under US control ever since and became the 50th US state on August 21, 1959 in a joint resolution with Alaska.
Stuart Creighton Miller says that the public's sense of innocence aboutRealpolitik impairs popular recognition of U.S. imperial conduct.[60] The resistance to actively occupying foreign territory has led to policies of exerting influence via other means, including governing other countries via surrogates orpuppet regimes, where domestically unpopular governments survive only through U.S. support.[61]
The Philippines is sometimes cited as an example. After Philippine independence, the US continued to direct the country through Central Intelligence Agency operatives likeEdward Lansdale. AsRaymond Bonner and other historians note, Lansdale controlled the career of PresidentRamon Magsaysay, going so far as to physically beat him when the Philippine leader attempted to reject a speech the CIA had written for him.[citation needed] American agents also drugged sitting PresidentElpidio Quirino and prepared to assassinate SenatorClaro Recto.[62][63] Prominent Filipino historian Roland G. Simbulan has called the CIA "US imperialism'sclandestine apparatus in the Philippines".[64]
The U.S. retained dozens of military bases, including a few major ones. In addition, Philippine independence was qualified by legislation passed by theU.S. Congress. For example, theBell Trade Act provided a mechanism whereby U.S. import quotas might be established on Philippine articles which "are coming, or are likely to come, into substantial competition with like articles the product of the United States". It further required U.S. citizens and corporations be granted equal access to Philippine minerals, forests, and other natural resources.[65] In hearings before the Senate Committee on Finance, Assistant Secretary of State for Economic AffairsWilliam L. Clayton described the law as "clearly inconsistent with the basic foreign economic policy of this country" and "clearly inconsistent with our promise to grant the Philippines genuine independence."[66]
WhenWorld War I broke out in Europe, PresidentWoodrow Wilson promised American neutrality throughout the war. This promise was broken when the United States entered the war after theZimmermann Telegram. This was "a war for empire" to control vast raw materials in Africa and other colonized areas, according to the contemporary historian and civil rights leaderW. E. B. Du Bois.[67] More recently historianHoward Zinn argues that Wilson entered the war in order to open international markets to surplus US production. He quotes Wilson's own declaration that
Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process... the doors of the nations which are closed must be battered down.
In a memo to Secretary of State Bryan, the president described his aim as "anopen door to the world".[68]Lloyd Gardner notes that Wilson's original avoidance of world war was not motivated by anti-imperialism; his fear was that "white civilization and its domination in the world" were threatened by "the great white nations" destroying each other in endless battle.[69]
Despite President Wilson's official doctrine ofmoral diplomacy seeking to "make the world safe for democracy," some of hisactivities at the time can be viewed as imperialism to stop the advance of democracy in countries such asHaiti.[70] The United States invadedHaiti on July 28, 1915, and American rule continued until August 1, 1934. The historian Mary Renda in her book,Taking Haiti, talks about the American invasion of Haiti to bring about political stability through U.S. control. The American government did not believe Haiti was ready for self-government or democracy, according to Renda. In order to bring about political stability in Haiti, the United States secured control and integrated the country into the international capitalist economy, while preventing Haiti from practicing self-governance or democracy. While Haiti had been running their own government for many years before American intervention, the U.S. government regarded Haiti as unfit for self-rule. In order to convince the American public of the justice in intervening, the United States government usedpaternalist propaganda, depicting the Haitian political process as uncivilized. The Haitian government would come to agree to U.S. terms, including American overseeing of the Haitian economy. This direct supervision of the Haitian economy would reinforce U.S. propaganda and further entrench the perception of Haitians' being incompetent of self-governance.[71]
In World War I, the US, Britain, and Russia had been allies for seven months, from April 1917 until theBolsheviks seized power in Russia in November. Active distrust surfaced immediately, as even before theOctober Revolution British officers had been involved in theKornilov Affair, an attemptedcoup d'état by the Russian Army against the Provisional Government.[72] Nonetheless, once the Bolsheviks took Moscow, the British government began talks to try and keep them in the war effort. British diplomatBruce Lockhart cultivated a relationship with several Soviet officials, includingLeon Trotsky, and the latter approved the initial Allied military mission to secure theEastern Front, which was collapsing in the revolutionary upheaval. Ultimately, Soviet head of stateV.I. Lenin decided the Bolsheviks would settle peacefully with theCentral Powers at theTreaty of Brest-Litovsk. This separate peace led to Allied disdain for the Soviets, since it left theWestern Allies to fight Germany without a strong Eastern partner. TheSecret Intelligence Service, supported by US diplomat Dewitt C. Poole, sponsored an attempted coup in Moscow involving Bruce Lockhart andSidney Reilly, which involved an attempted assassination of Lenin. The Bolsheviks proceeded to shut down the British and U.S. embassies.[73][74]
Tensions between Russia (including its allies) and the West turned intensely ideological. Horrified by mass executions of White forces, land expropriations, and widespread repression, the Allied military expedition nowassisted the anti-Bolshevik Whites in theRussian Civil War, with the US covertly giving support[75] to the autocratic and antisemiticGeneral Alexander Kolchak.[76]Over 30,000 Western troops were deployed in Russia overall.[77] This was the first event that made Russian–American relations a matter of major, long-term concern to the leaders in each country. Some historians, includingWilliam Appleman Williams andRonald Powaski, trace the origins of theCold War to this conflict.[78]
Wilson launched seven armed interventions, more than any other president.[79] Looking back on the Wilson era, GeneralSmedley Butler, a leader of the Haiti expedition and the highest-decorated Marine of that time, considered virtually all of the operations to have been economically motivated.[80] In a1933 speech he said:
I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it...I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street ... Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.[81]
Following World War I, the British maintained occupation of the Middle East, most notably Turkey and portions of formerly Ottoman territory following the empire's collapse.[82] The occupation led to rapid industrialization, which resulted in the discovery of crude oil in Persia in 1908, sparking a boom in the Middle Eastern economy.[83]
By the 1930s, the United States had cemented itself in the Middle East via a series of acquisitions through theStandard Oil of California (SOCAL), which saw US control over Saudi oil.[82]
It was clear to the US that further expansion in Middle Eastern oil would not be possible without diplomatic representation. In 1939, CASOC appealed to the US State Department about increasing political relations withSaudi Arabia. This appeal was ignored until Germany and Japan made similar attempts following the start ofWorld War II.[82]
At the start ofWorld War II, the US had multiple territories in the Pacific. The majority of these territories were military bases like Midway, Guam, Wake Island and Hawaii. Japan's surprise attack onPearl Harbor was what ended up bringing the United States into the war. Japan also launched multiple attacks on other American Territories like Guam and Wake Island. By early 1942 Japan also was able to take over the Philippine islands. At the end of the Philippine island campaign the generalMacArthur stated "I came through and I shall return" in response to the Americans losing the island to the Japanese.[84] The loss of American territories ended the decisiveBattle of Midway. The Battle of Midway was the American offensive to stop Midway Island from falling into Japanese control. This led to the pushback of American forces and the recapturing of American territories. There were many battles that were fought against the Japanese which retook both allied territory as well as took over Japanese territories. In October 1944 American started their plan to retake the Philippine islands. Japanese troops on the island ended up surrendering in August 1945. After the Japanese surrender on September 2, 1945, the United States occupied and reformed Japan up until 1952. The maximum geographical extension of American direct political and military control happened in theaftermath of World War II, in the period after the surrender and occupations ofGermany andAustria in May and laterJapan andKorea inSeptember 1945 and before the United States granted the Philippines independence onJuly 4, 1946.[85]
In an October 1940 report to Franklin Roosevelt, Bowman wrote that "the US government is interested in any solution anywhere in the world that affects American trade. In a wide sense, commerce is the mother of all wars." In 1942 this economic globalism was articulated as the "Grand Area" concept in secret documents. The US would have to have control over the "Western Hemisphere, Continental Europe and Mediterranean Basin (excluding Russia), the Pacific Area and the Far East, and theBritish Empire (excluding Canada)." The Grand Area encompassed all known major oil-bearing areas outside the Soviet Union, largely at the behest of corporate partners like the Foreign Oil Committee and the Petroleum Industry War Council.[86] The US thus avoided overt territorial acquisition, like that of the European colonial empires, as being too costly, choosing the cheaper option of forcing countries to open their door to American business interests.[87]
Although the United States was the last major belligerent to join theSecond World War, it began planning for the post-war world from the conflict's outset. This postwar vision originated in theCouncil on Foreign Relations (CFR), an economic elite-led organization that became integrated into the government leadership. CFR'sWar and Peace Studies group offered its services to the State Department in 1939 and a secret partnership for post-war planning developed. CFR leadersHamilton Fish Armstrong and Walter H. Mallory saw World War II as a "grand opportunity" for the U.S. to emerge as "the premier power in the world."[88]
This vision of empire assumed the necessity of the US to "police the world" in the aftermath of the war. This was not done primarily out of altruism, but out of economic interest.Isaiah Bowman, a key liaison between the CFR and the State Department, proposed an "American economicLebensraum." This built upon the ideas ofTime-Life publisherHenry Luce, who (in his "American Century" essay) wrote, "Tyrannies may require a large amount of living space [but] freedom requires and will require far greater living space than Tyranny." According to Bowman's biographer,Neil Smith:
Better than the American Century or the Pax Americana, the notion of an American Lebensraum captures the specific and global historical geography of U.S. ascension to power. After World War II, global power would no longer be measured in terms of colonized land or power over territory. Rather, global power was measured in directly economic terms. Trade and markets now figured as the economic nexuses of global power, a shift confirmed in the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement, which not only inaugurated an international currency system but also established two central banking institutions—the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank—to oversee the global economy. These represented the first planks of the economic infrastructure of the postwar American Lebensraum.[89]
FDR promised: Hitler will get lebensraum, a global American one.[90]
_overzichten%2c_Bestanddeelnr_253-8821.jpg)
Prior to his death in 1945, President Roosevelt was planning to withdraw all U.S. forces from Europe as soon as possible. Soviet actions in Poland and Czechoslovakia led his successor Harry Truman to reconsider. Heavily influenced byGeorge Kennan, Washington policymakers believed that the Soviet Union was an expansionary dictatorship that threatened American interests. In their theory, Moscow's weakness was that it had to keep expanding to survive; and that, by containing or stopping its growth, stability could be achieved in Europe. The result was theTruman Doctrine (1947). Initially regarding only Greece and Turkey, theNSC-68 (1951) extended the Truman Doctrine to the whole non-Communist world. The United States could no longer distinguish between national and global security.[91] Hence, the Truman Doctrine was described as "globalizing" the Monroe Doctrine.[92][93]
A second equally important consideration was the need to restore the world economy, which required the rebuilding and reorganizing of Europe for growth. This matter, more than the Soviet threat, was the main impetus behind theMarshall Plan of 1948.
A third factor was the realization, especially by Britain and the threeBenelux nations, that American military involvement was needed.[clarification needed]Geir Lundestad has commented on the importance of "the eagerness with which America's friendship was sought and its leadership welcomed.... In Western Europe, America built an empire 'by invitation'"[94] According to Lundestad, theU.S. interfered in Italian and French politics in order topurge elected communist officials who might oppose such invitations.[95]
The end of the Second World War and start of the Cold War saw increased US interest inLatin America. Since theGuatemalan Revolution, Guatemala saw the expansion of labour rights andland reforms which granted property to landless peasants.[96] Lobbying by theUnited Fruit Company, whose profits were affected by these policies, as well as fear of Communist influence in Guatemala culminated in the USA supportingOperation PBFortune to overthrow Guatemalan PresidentJacobo Árbenz in 1952. The plan involved providing weapons to the exiled Guatemalan military officerCarlos Castillo Armas, who was to lead an invasion from Nicaragua.[97]This culminated in the1954 Guatemalan coup d'état. The subsequent military junta assumed dictatorial powers, banned opposition parties and reversed the social reforms of the revolution. The USA would continue to support Guatemala through the Cold War, including during theGuatemalan genocide[98] in which up to 200,000 people were killed. After the coup, American enterprises saw a return of influence in the country, in both the public level of government but also in the economy.[99]
On the March 15, 1951 the Iranian parliament, passed legislation that was proposed byMohammad Mosaddegh to nationalize theAnglo-Persian Oil Company, which gained significant revenues from Iranian oil, more so than the Iranian government itself. Mosaddegh was elected Prime Minister by the Majlis later in 1952. Mosadeggh's support by theTudeh as well as a boycott by various businesses against the nationalised industry resulted in fears by theUnited Kingdom and the United States that Iran would turn to Communism. America would officially remain neutral, but the CIA supported various candidates in the1952 Iranian legislative election.[100]
In late 1952, with Mosaddegh remaining in power, the CIA launchedOperation Ajax with support by the United Kingdom to overthrow Mosaddegh.[101][102][103] The coup saw an increase in power of the monarchy, which went from a constitutional monarchy to an authoritarian nation. In the aftermath of the coup, the Shah agreed to replace the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company with a consortium—British Petroleum and eight European and American oil companies. In August 2013, the U.S. government formally acknowledged the U.S. role in the coup by releasing a bulk of previously classified government documents that show it was in charge of both the planning and the execution of the coup, including the bribing of Iranian politicians, security and army high-ranking officials, as well as pro-coup propaganda.[104]
In Korea, the U.S. occupied the Southern half of the peninsula in 1945 and dissolved the SocialistPeople's Republic of Korea. After which, the USA quickly allied withSyngman Rhee, leader of the fight against thePeople's Republic of Korea that proclaimed a provisional government. There was a lot of opposition to thedivision of Korea, including rebellions by communists such as theJeju uprising in 1948 and furtherCommunist partisans in the Korean War. The Jeju Uprising was violently suppressed and led to the deaths of 30,000 people, the majority of them civilians. North Korea invaded South Korea in June 1950, starting theKorean War.[105][106] WithNational Security Council document 68 and the subsequent Korean War, the U.S. adopted a policy of "rollback" against communism in Asia.John Tirman, an American political theorist has claimed that this policy was heavily influenced by America's imperialistic policy in Asia in the 19th century, with its goals toChristianize andAmericanize the peasant masses.[107] In the following conflict, the USA oversaw a large bombing campaign overNorth Korea. A total of 635,000 tons of bombs, including 32,557 tons of napalm, were dropped on Korea.[108]
In Vietnam, the U.S. eschewed its anti-imperialist rhetoric by materially supporting theFrench Empire in a colonialcounterinsurgency. Influenced by the Grand Area policy, the U.S. eventually assumed military and financial support for the South Vietnamese state against theVietnamese communists following the firstFirst Indochina war. The US and South Vietnam fearedHo Chi Minh would win nationwide elections. They both refused to sign agreements at the1954 Geneva Conference arguing that fair elections weren't possible in North Vietnam.[109][110] Beginning in 1965, the US sent many combat units to fightViet Cong and North Vietnamese soldiers in South Vietnam, with fighting extending toNorth Vietnam,Laos, andCambodia. During the warMartin Luther King Jr. called the American government "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today."[111] Initially based on stopping the spread of Communism into South Vietnam, the war and its motivations slowly began to lose its momentum in justifying the damage the war was causing to both sides. Particularly on the home front, where by 1970, two thirds of the American public advocated against the war.
The Vietnam War also saw expansion of conflict into neighbouringLaos andCambodia. Both of which saw extensive bombing campaigns underOperation Barrel Roll, which made Laos "the most heavily bombed nation in history",[112]Operation Menu andOperation Freedom Deal.
After the deaths of six generals in the Indonesian Army, whichSuharto blamed on theCommunist Party of Indonesia and a failed coup attempt by the30 September Movement, an Anti-Communist purge began across the country led by Suharto and the army. The subsequent killings resulted in the deaths of up to 1,000,000 people. Though some estimates claim a death toll of 2 or 3 Million. Ethnic Chinese, trade unionists, teachers, activists, artists, ethnic JavaneseAbangan,ethnic Chinese,atheists, so-called "unbelievers", and allegedleftists were also among targeted groups in the killings.Geoffrey B. Robinson, professor of history atUCLA, argued that powerful foreign states, in particular the United States, Great Britain and their allies, were instrumental in facilitating and encouraging the Indonesian Army's campaign of mass killing, and without such support, the killings would not have happened.[113] The political changes that came with the mass-killings not only resulted in the purge of the Communist Party, but also a shift in Indonesia's foreign policy towards the West and capitalism.[114] Furthermore, the mass-killings resulted in the expansion of American markets into Indonesia. By 1967, companies such asFreeport Sulphur,Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company,General Electric,American Express,Caterpillar Inc.,StarKist,Raytheon Technologies andLockheed Martin, began to explore business opportunities in Indonesia.[115]Declassified documents released by the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta in October 2017 stated that the U.S. government had detailed knowledge of the massacres from the start. The documents revealed that the U.S. government actively encouraged and facilitated the Indonesian Army's massacres to further its geopolitical interests in the region.[116]
From 1968 until 1989, the United States of America supported a campaign ofpolitical repression andstate terrorism involvingintelligence operations,CIA-backedcoup d'états, and assassinations ofleft-wing andsocialist leaders inSouth America as part ofOperation Condor.[117][118] It was officially implemented in November 1975 by theright-wing dictatorships of theSouthern Cone of South America in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay.[119]
ProfessorGeorge Klay Kieh Jr. argued that part of the motivation for theGulf War was derived from a desire to distract from the various crisis' in America at the time, such as theKeating Five, national debt rising to $3 Trillion, an increasing trade deficit, unemployment, rising crime and growing wealth inequality.[120] He also argued that other very significant motivating factors for the war were strategic factors, such as a fear of subsequent invasion ofSaudi Arabia and other Pro-American monarchies in Arabia.[121] Iraqi control over the Gulf region was also feared to harm access to the United States to a major corridor of international trade. Professor Kieh also argued for various economic factors behind the invasion. The Bush Administration calculated that Iraq's annexation of Kuwait would result in it controlling up to 45% of global oil production[121] and since major banks such asBank of America had significant stakes in the oil industry (various Gulf states saved more than $75 Billion in American banks), there were fears of a potential economic crisis due to the annexation.[122]
The Americaninvasion of Iraq has been cited by William Robinson as an instance of imperialism in which the beneficiaries of imperial conquest were transnationalcapitalist groups where the goal of the Iraq war was not political annexation, but rather the economic subjugation of Iraq and its incorporation into the global economy. Robinson draws specific attention toOrder 39 where after taking control of Iraq in 2003, the America occupation force dismantled the previous Iraqi economy in favour of full privatization in Iraq and the permitting of 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi assets thereby strengthening the positions of foreign businesses and investors.[123]
In 2011, as part of the widerArab Spring, protests erupted inLibya againstMuammar Gaddafi, which soon spiralled into a civil war. In the ensuing conflict, a NATO-led coalition began a military intervention in Libya to implementUnited Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. While the effort was initially largely led byFrance and theUnited Kingdom, command was shared with the United States, as part ofOperation Odyssey Dawn. According to the Libyan Health Ministry, the attacks saw 114 civilians killed and 445 civilians wounded.[124]
Matteo Capasso argued that the2011 military intervention in Libya was "US-led imperialism" and the final conclusion in a wider war on Libya since the 1970s via 'gunboat diplomacy,military bombings, international sanctions and arbitrary use of international law'.[125] Capasso argued that the war in Libya acted to strip Libya of its autonomy and resources and the 'overall weakening and fragmentation of the African and Arab political position, and the cheapening and/or direct annihilation of human lives in Third World countries'.[126]
.svg)
| ||
|---|---|---|
Business and personal 45th and 47th President of the United States Incumbent Tenure
Impeachments Civil and criminal prosecutions   | ||
| History of the United States expansion and influence |
|---|
| Colonialism |
| Militarism |
| Foreign policy |
|
| Concepts |
Donald Trump, the currentpresident of theUnited States since 2025, has proposed various plans and ideas in the lead-up to and since hissecond inauguration that would expand the United States' political influence and territory.[127] In his second inauguration speech, Trump directly referenced the potential territorial expansion of the United States and became the first president to use the phrasemanifest destiny during aninaugural address.[128][129] Thelast territory acquired by the United States came in 1947 with the acquisition of theNorthern Mariana Islands,Caroline, andMarshall Islands. Of these islands, only the Northern Mariana Islands would become aU.S. territory, with the others becoming independent in the 1980s and 1990s underCompacts of Free Association.
Since being elected to a second term, Trump has said at various points that he wants to annexCanada,Greenland, and thePanama Canal. He has also suggestedinvading Venezuela, annexingMexico, andtaking over the Gaza Strip. Trump's determination to treat the Western Hemisphere as a U.S.sphere of influence has been characterized as a revival of theMonroe Doctrine.[130][131]
According to a February 2025 poll byYouGov, only 4% of Americans support American expansion if it requires military force, 33% of Americans support expansion without the use of military or economic force, and 48% of Americans oppose expansion all together.[132]The architect ofContainment,George Kennan, designed in 1948 a globe-circling system of anti-Russian alliances embracing all non-Communist countries of the Old World.[133] The design was met by the US administration with enthusiasm. Disregarding George Washington's dictum of avoiding entangling alliances, in the early Cold War the United States contracted 44 formal alliances and many other forms of commitment with nearly 100 countries, most of the world countries.[134] Some observers described the process as "pactomania."[135]
According toMax Ostrovsky, these are not alliances in the Westphalian sense characterized bybalance of power and impermanence. Instead, they were associated with theRoman client system during the late Republic.[136] Scholars label the US network of alliances as "hub-and-spokes" system where the United States is the "hub." Spokes do not directly interrelate between and among themselves, but all are bound to the same hub.[137][138] The "hub-and-spokes" analogy is used in the comparative studies of empires.[139][140] By contrast to earlier empires, however, the American "imperial" presence was largely welcome.[141][142][143] Ostrovsky says that although all earlier empires, especially persistent empires, were in a measure by bargain, cooperation and invitation, in the post-1945 world this took an extreme form. Disregarding national pride, large number of states, some of them recent great powers, "surrender their strategic sovereigntyen mass[sic]." According to Ostrovsky, they host hegemonic bases, partly cover the expenses for running them, integrate their strategic forces under the hegemonic command, contribute 1-2% of their GDP to those forces, and tip military, economic and humanitarian contributions in case of the hegemonic operations worldwide.[144]
During World War II, Franklin Roosevelt promised that the American eagle will "fly high and strike hard." But he can only do so if he has safe perches around the world.[148] Initially, the Army and Navy disagreed. But the leading expert on "flying high and striking hard,"Curtis LeMay, endorsed: "We needed to establish bases within reasonable range; then we could bomb and burn them until they quit."[149] After the War, a global network of bases emerged. NCS-162/2 of 1953 stated: "The military striking power necessary to retaliate depends for the foreseeable future on having bases in allied countries." The bases were defined as nation's strategic frontier defining a sphere of American inviolate military predominance.[150]Chalmers Johnson argued in 2004 that America's version of the colony is the military base.[151]Chip Pitts argued similarly in 2006 that enduring U.S. bases inIraq suggested a vision of "Iraq as a colony."[152]
In hisNew Frontier speech in 1960, John F. Kennedy noted that America's frontiers are on every continent. Circling the Sino-Soviet bloc with bases resulted in a network of global dimensions. Contemplating its genesis, an observer wondered: What two places in the world have less in common than the frozenThule and tropicalGuam half a way around the world? Both happened to be principal operating areas of theStrategic Air Command.[153] On Guam, a common joke had it that few people other than nuclear targeters in the Kremlin know where their island is.[154]
While territories such asGuam, theUnited States Virgin Islands, theNorthern Mariana Islands,American Samoa, andPuerto Rico remain under U.S. control, the U.S. allowed many of its overseas territories or occupations to gain independence afterWorld War II. Examples include thePhilippines (1946), thePanama Canal Zone (1979),Palau (1981), theFederated States of Micronesia (1986), and theMarshall Islands (1986). Most of them still have U.S. bases within their territories. In the case ofOkinawa, which came under U.S. administration after theBattle of Okinawa during the Second World War, this happened despite local popular opinion on the island.[155] In 2003, aDepartment of Defense distribution found the United States had bases in over 36 countries worldwide,[156] including theCamp Bondsteel base in the disputed territory ofKosovo.[157] Since 1959,Cuba has regarded the U.S. presence inGuantánamo Bay as illegal.[158]
As of 2024, theUnited States deploys approximately 160,000 of its active-duty personnel outside the United States and its territories.[159] In 2015 the Department of Defense reported the number of bases that had any military or civilians stationed or employed was 587. This includes land only (where no facilities are present), facility or facilities only (where there the underlying land is neither owned nor controlled by the government), and land with facilities (where both are present).[160] Also in 2015, David Vine's bookBase Nation, found 800 U.S. military bases located outside of the U.S., including 174 bases in Germany, 113 in Japan, and 83 inSouth Korea. The total cost was estimated at $100 billion a year.[161]
Similarly, associates American authorRobert D. Kaplan, the Roman garrisons were established to defend the frontiers of the empire and for surveillance of the areas beyond.[162] For Historian Max Ostrovsky and International Law scholarRichard A. Falk, this is contrast rather than similarity: "this time there are no frontiers and no areas beyond. The global strategic reach is unprecedented in world history phenomenon."[163] "The United States is by circumstance and design an emerging global empire, the first in the history of the world."[164]Robert Kagan inscribed over the map of US global deployments: "The Sun never sets."[165]
The global network of military alliances and bases is coordinated by the Unified combatant command (UCC).[166][167]As of 2024, the world is divided between six geographic "commands." The origins of the UCC is rooted in World War II with its global scale and two main theaters half-a-world apart. As in the case of military alliances and bases, the UCC was founded to wage the Cold War but long outlived this confrontation and expanded.[168]
Dick Cheney, who served as Secretary of Defense during the end of the Cold War, announced: "The strategic command, control and communication system should continue to evolve toward a joint global structure…"[169] The continuation of the strategic pattern implied for some that "the United States would hold to its accidental hegemony."[170] In 1998, the UCC determined the Soviet "succession": the former Soviet Republics in Europe and the whole of Russia were assigned to theUSEUCOM and those of the Central Asia to theUSCENTCOM. USEUCOM stretched from the Atlantic to the Pacific.[171]
In 2002, for the first time, the entire surface of the Earth was divided among the US commands. The last unassigned region—Antarctica—entered theUSPACOM which stretched from Pole to Pole and covered half of the globe; the rest of geographic commands covered the other half. Historian Christopher Kelly asked in 2002: What America needs to consider is "what is the optimum size for a non-territorial empire."[172] His colleague, Max Ostrovsky, replied: "Precisely that year, the UCC supplied a precise answer:510 million km2…"[173]
Canadian Historian,Michael Ignatieff, claims that the UCC map conveys the idea of the architecture underlying the entire global order and explaining how this order is sustained.[174] The US national defense evolves into global defense. TheQuadrennial Defense Review of 2014 refers to "our global Combatant Commanders," that is "our" and "global" at the same time.[175] These Commanders exercise heavy international influence and sometimes are associated with theRoman proconsuls (chapter "'Empire' and alternative terms" below).
"Command," translated into Latin, renders "imperium." The Romans used the word "command" for their sphere of rule containing nominally independent states. Later, the word "imperium" lost its original meaning of "command" and obtained the meaning of "empire."[176]
On the ideological level, one motif for theglobal leadership is the notion ofAmerican exceptionalism. The United States occupies a special position among the nations of the world[177] in terms of its nationalcredo, historical evolution, and political and religious institutions and origins. PhilosopherDouglas Kellner traces the identification of American exceptionalism as a distinct phenomenon back to 19th-century French observerAlexis de Tocqueville, who concluded by agreeing that the U.S., uniquely, was "proceeding along a path to which no limit can be perceived".[178] As aMonthly Review editorial opines on the phenomenon, "In Britain, empire was justified as a benevolent'white man's burden.' And in the United States, empire does not even exist; 'we' are merely protecting the causes of freedom, democracy and justice worldwide."[179]Fareed Zakaria stressed one element not exceptional for the American Empire—the concept of exceptionalism. All dominant empires thought they were special.[180]
A "social-democratic" theory says that imperialistic U.S. policies are the products of the excessive influence of certain sectors of U.S. business and government—thearms industry in alliance with military and political bureaucracies and sometimes other industries such as oil and finance, a combination often referred to as the "military–industrial complex." The complex is said to benefit fromwar profiteering and lootingnatural resources, often at the expense of the public interest.[181] The proposed solution is typically unceasing popular vigilance in order to apply counter-pressure.[182]Chalmers Johnson holds a version of this view.[183]
Alfred Thayer Mahan, who served as an officer in theU.S. Navy during the late 19th century, supported the notion of American imperialism in his 1890 book titledThe Influence of Sea Power upon History. Mahan argued that modern industrial nations must secure foreign markets for the purpose of exchanging goods and, consequently, they must maintain a maritime force that is capable of protecting thesetrade routes.[184][185]
A theory of "super-imperialism" argues that imperialistic U.S. policies are not driven solely by the interests of American businesses, but also by the interests of a larger apparatus of a global alliance among the economic elite in developed countries.[citation needed] The argument asserts thatcapitalism in theGlobal North (Europe, Japan, Canada, and the U.S.) has become too entangled to permit military or geopolitical conflict between these countries, and the central conflict in modern imperialism is between the Global North (also referred to as theglobal core) and the Global South (also referred to as theglobal periphery), rather than between the imperialist powers.[citation needed] A conservative, anti-interventionist view as expressed by American journalistJohn T. Flynn:
The enemy aggressor is always pursuing a course of larceny, murder, rapine and barbarism. We are always moving forward with high mission, a destiny imposed by theDeity to regenerate our victims, while incidentally capturing their markets; to civilise savage and senile and paranoid peoples, while blundering accidentally into their oil wells.[186]
The last period of the US Isolationist policy ended with World War II. Due to the progress of military technology, it was argued, the Oceans stopped protecting. Ever since, this War is invoked as a lesson for permanent involvement in world politics. Harry Truman,[187] John Kennedy[188] and Bill Clinton[189] repeated close versions of this lesson. If hostile powers are not checked from the beginning, the paradigm tells, they would gain control over vaster resources and eventually the United States would have to fight them when they are stronger.
The focus of this policy is on Eurasia. SinceAlfred Thayer Mahan and untilHenry Kissinger andZbigniew Brzezinski, theAmerican geopolitical school claims it vital to prevent the Eurasian land mass from coming under control of any single power or combination of powers.[190][191][192][193] Some scholars explain the Cold War by geopolitics rather than ideology.[194][195] They stress that the US grand strategy designed for the Cold War long outlived the Soviet Communism.[196]
September 11 is another example of security crisis which triggered greater intervention as well as unleashed mass publications on the "American Empire" accompanied by heated debates (see "Post-September-11 debates" below). The pattern of increasing involvement responding to security crises or threats is known as "defensive imperialism" in the Roman studies[197][198][199] and Historian Max Ostrovsky applied the concept also toQin and the United States. All three, he finds, began with isolationism using geographic barriers and gradually built their empires responding to growing external threats. The three strategic transformations are analogous—from isolationism to hegemony to empire—with the modern process being currently uncompleted.[200]
 | This sectionmay need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia'squality standards.You can help. Thetalk page may contain suggestions.(January 2014) |
Annexation is a crucial instrument in the expansion of a nation, due to the fact that once a territory is annexed it must act within the confines of its superior counterpart. The United States Congress' ability to annex a foreign territory is explained in a report from the Congressional Committee on Foreign Relations, "If, in the judgment of Congress, such a measure is supported by a safe and wise policy, or is based upon a natural duty that we owe to the people of Hawaii, or is necessary for our national development and security, that is enough to justify annexation, with the consent of the recognized government of the country to be annexed."[201]
Prior to annexing a territory, the American government still held immense power through the various legislations passed in the late 1800s. ThePlatt Amendment was utilized to prevent Cuba from entering into any agreement with foreign nations and also granted the Americans the right to build naval stations on their soil.[51] Executive officials in the American government began to determine themselves the supreme authority in matters regarding the recognition or restriction of independence.[51]
HistorianDonald W. Meinig says imperial behavior by the United States dates at least to theLouisiana Purchase, which he describes as an "imperial acquisition—imperial in the sense of the aggressive encroachment of one people upon the territory of another, resulting in the subjugation of that people to alien rule." The U.S. policies towards the Native Americans, he said, were "designed to remold them into a people more appropriately conformed to imperial desires."[202]
Writers and academics of the early 20th century, likeCharles A. Beard, in support ofnon-interventionism (sometimes referred to as "isolationism"), discussed American policy as being driven by self-interested expansionism going back as far as the writing of the Constitution. Many politicians today do not agree.Pat Buchanan claims that the modern United States' drive to empire is "far removed from what the Founding Fathers had intended the young Republic to become."[203]
InManufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, the political activistNoam Chomsky argues that exceptionalism and the denials of imperialism are the result of a systematic strategy of propaganda, to "manufacture opinion" as the process has long been described in other countries.[204] One of the earliest historians of American Empire,William Appleman Williams, wrote, "The routine lust for land, markets or security became justifications for noble rhetoric about prosperity, liberty and security."[205]
Andrew Bacevich argues that the U.S. did not fundamentally change itsforeign policy after theCold War, and remains focused on an effort to expand its control across the world.[206] As the surviving superpower at the end of the Cold War, the U.S. could focus its assets in new directions, the future being "up for grabs," according to former Under Secretary of Defense for PolicyPaul Wolfowitz in 1991.[207]
Since 2001,[208]Emmanuel Todd assumes the U.S. cannot hold for long the status of mondial hegemonic power, due to limited resources. Instead, the U.S. is going to become just one of the major regional powers along with European Union, China, Russia, etc. Reviewing Todd'sAfter the Empire,G. John Ikenberry found that it had been written in "a fit of French wishful thinking."[209]
.jpg)
Following September 11, publications on the "American Empire" grew exponentially, accompanied by heated debates.[210]Harvard historianCharles S. Maier states:
Since September 11, 2001 ... if not earlier, the idea of American empire is back ... Now ... for the first time since the early Twentieth century, it has become acceptable to ask whether the United States has become or is becoming an empire in some classic sense."[211]
Harvard professorNiall Ferguson states:
It used to be that only the critics of American foreign policy referred to the American empire ... In the past three or four years [2001–2004], however, a growing number of commentators have begun to use the term American empire less pejoratively, if still ambivalently, and in some cases with genuine enthusiasm.[212]
French political scientist Philip Golub argues:
U.S. historians have generally considered the late 19th century imperialist urge as an aberration in an otherwise smooth democratic trajectory ... Yet a century later, as the U.S. empire engages in a new period of global expansion, Rome is once more a distant but essential mirror for American elites ... Now, with military mobilisation on an exceptional scale after September 2001, the United States is openly affirming and parading its imperial power. For the first time since the 1890s, the naked display of force is backed by explicitly imperialist discourse.[213]
Following theinvasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the idea of American imperialism was re-examined. In November 2001, jubilant marines hoisted an American flag over Kandahar and in a stage display referred to the moment as the third after those onSan Juan Hill andIwo Jima. All moments, writesNeil Smith, express U.S. global ambition. "Labelled aWar on Terrorism, the new war represents an unprecedented quickening of the American Empire, a third chance at global power."[214]
On October 15, 2001, the cover ofBill Kristol'sWeekly Standard carried the headline, "The Case for American Empire".[215]Rich Lowry, editor in chief of theNational Review, called for "a kind of low-gradecolonialism" to topple dangerous regimes beyond Afghanistan.[216] The columnistCharles Krauthammer declared that, given complete U.S. domination "culturally, economically, technologically and militarily", people were "now coming out of the closet on the word 'empire'".[8] TheNew York Times Sunday magazine cover for January 5, 2003, read "American Empire: Get Used To It". The phrase "American empire" appeared more than 1000 times in news stories during November 2002 – April 2003.[217]
A leading spokesman for America-as-Empire, British historianA. G. Hopkins,[218] argues that by the 21st century traditional economic imperialism was no longer in play, noting that the oil companies opposed the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. Instead, anxieties about the negative impact of globalization on rural and rust-belt America were at work, says Hopkins:
These anxieties prepared the way for a conservative revival based on family, faith and flag that enabled the neo-conservatives to transform conservative patriotism into assertive nationalism after 9/11. In the short term, the invasion of Iraq was a manifestation of national unity. Placed in a longer perspective, it reveals a growing divergence between new globalised interests, which rely on cross-border negotiation, and insular nationalist interests, which seek to rebuild fortress America.[219]
Harvard professor Niall Ferguson concludes that worldwide military and economic power have combined to make the U.S. the most powerful empire in history. It is a good idea he thinks, because like the successfulBritish Empire in the 19th century it works to globalize free markets, enhance the rule of law and promote representative government. He fears, however, that Americans lack the long-term commitment in manpower and money to keep the Empire operating.[221] Head of the Olin Institute for Strategic Studies at Harvard University,Stephen Peter Rosen, maintains:
A political unit that has overwhelming superiority in military power, and uses that power to influence the internal behavior of other states, is called an empire. Because the United States does not seek to control territory or govern the overseas citizens of the empire, we are an indirect empire, to be sure, but an empire nonetheless. If this is correct, our goal is not combating a rival, but maintaining our imperial position and maintaining imperial order.[222]
The U.S. dollar is thede factoworld currency.[223] The termpetrodollar warfare refers to the alleged motivation of U.S. foreign policy as preserving by force the status of the United States dollar as the world's dominantreserve currency and as the currency in whichoil is priced. The term was coined by William R. Clark, who has written a book with the same title. The phraseoilcurrency war is sometimes used with the same meaning.[224]
When asked on April 28, 2003, onAl Jazeera whether the United States was "empire building," Secretary of DefenseDonald Rumsfeld replied, "We don't seek empires. We're not imperialistic. We never have been."[225] Many – perhaps most – scholars[who?] have decided that the United States lacks the key essentials of an empire. For example, while there are American military bases around the world, the American soldiers do not rule over the local people, and the United States government does not send out governors or permanent settlers like all the historic empires did.[226] Harvard historianCharles S. Maier has examined the America-as-Empire issue at length. He says the traditional understanding of the word "empire" does not apply, because the United States does not exert formal control over other nations or engage in systematic conquest. The best term is that the United States is a "hegemon." Its enormous influence through high technology, economic power, and impact on popular culture gives it an international outreach that stands in sharp contrast to the inward direction of historic empires.[227][228]
World historianAnthony Pagden asks, Is the United States really an empire?
I think if we look at the history of the European empires, the answer must be no. It is often assumed that because America possesses the military capability to become an empire, any overseas interest it does have must necessarily be imperial. ...In a number of crucial respects, the United States is, indeed, very un-imperial.... America bears not the slightest resemblance to ancient Rome. Unlike all previous European empires, it has no significant overseas settler populations in any of its formal dependencies and no obvious desire to acquire any. ...It exercises no direct rule anywhere outside these areas, and it has always attempted to extricate itself as swiftly as possible from anything that looks as if it were about to develop into even indirect rule.[229]
In the bookEmpire (2000),Michael Hardt andAntonio Negri argue that "the decline of Empire has begun".[230][231] Hardt says theIraq War is a classically imperialist war and is the last gasp of a doomed strategy.[232] They expand on this, claiming that in the new era of imperialism, the classical imperialists retain a colonizing power of sorts, but the strategy shifts from military occupation of economies based on physical goods to a networkedbiopower based on an informational andaffective economies. They go on to say that the U.S. is central to the development of this new regime ofinternational power andsovereignty, termed "Empire", but that it is decentralized and global, and not ruled by one sovereign state: "The United States does indeed occupy a privileged position in Empire, but this privilege derives not from its similarities to the old European imperialist powers, but from its differences."[233] Hardt and Negri draw on the theories ofBaruch Spinoza,Michel Foucault,Gilles Deleuze, and ItalianAutonomist Marxists.[234][235]
GeographerDavid Harvey says there has emerged a new type of imperialism due to geographical distinctions as well as unequal rates of development.[236] He says there have emerged three new global economic and political blocs: the United States, theEuropean Union, and Asia centered on China and Russia.[237][verification needed] He says there are tensions between the three major blocs over resources and economic power, citing the2003 invasion of Iraq, the motive of which, he argues, was to prevent rival blocs from controlling oil.[238] Furthermore, Harvey argues that there can arise conflict within the major blocs between business interests and the politicians due to their sometimes incongruent economic interests.[239] Politicians live in geographically fixed locations and are, in the U.S. and Europe,[verification needed] accountable to an electorate. The 'new' imperialism, then, has led to an alignment of the interests of capitalists and politicians in order to prevent the rise and expansion of possible economic and political rivals from challenging America's dominance.[240]
_and_USS_Frank_Cable_(AS-40)_at_Apra_Harbor%2c_Guam%2c_on_23_May_2002_(6640652).jpg)
In one point of view, United States expansion overseas in the late 1890s has indeed been imperialistic, but that this imperialism is only a temporary phenomenon, a corruption of American ideals, or the relic of a past era. HistorianSamuel Flagg Bemis argues thatSpanish–American War expansionism was a short-lived imperialistic impulse and "a great aberration in American history," a very different form of territorial growth than that of earlier American history.[241] HistorianWalter LaFeber sees the Spanish–American War expansionism not as an aberration, but as a culmination of United States expansion westward.[242]
Thorton wrote that "[...] imperialism is more often the name of the emotion that reacts to a series of events than a definition of the events themselves. Where colonization finds analysts and analogies, imperialism must contend with crusaders for and against."[243]Liberal internationalists argue that even though the present world order is dominated by the United States, the form taken by that dominance is not imperial. International relations scholarJohn Ikenberry argues that international institutions have taken the place of empire.[209]
Classics professor and war historianVictor Davis Hanson argues that the U.S. does not pursueworld domination, but maintains worldwide influence by a system of mutually beneficial exchanges.[244] He dismisses the notion of an American Empire altogether, with a mocking comparison to historical empires: "We do not send out proconsuls to reside over client states, which in turn impose taxes on coerced subjects to pay for the legions. Instead, American bases are predicated on contractual obligations — costly to us and profitable to their hosts. We do not see any profits in Korea, but instead accept the risk of losing almost 40,000 of our youth to ensure that Kias can flood our shores and that shaggy students can protest outside our embassy in Seoul."[244]
The existence of "proconsuls", however, has been recognized by many since the early Cold War. In 1957, French HistorianAmaury de Riencourt associated the American "proconsul" with "the Roman of our time."[245] Expert on recent American history,Arthur M. Schlesinger, detected several contemporary imperial features, including "proconsuls." Washington does not directly run many parts of the world. Rather, its "informal empire" was one "richly equipped with imperial paraphernalia: troops, ships, planes, bases, proconsuls, local collaborators, all spread wide around the luckless planet."[246] "TheSupreme Allied Commander, always an American, was an appropriate title for the American proconsul whose reputation and influence outweighed those of European premiers, presidents, and chancellors."[247] U.S. "combatant commanders ... have served as its proconsuls. Their standing in their regions has usually dwarfed that of ambassadors and assistant secretaries of state."[248]
Harvard professor Niall Ferguson callsthe regional combatant commanders, among whom the whole globe is divided, the "pro-consuls" of this "imperium."[249]Günter Bischof calls them "the all powerful proconsuls of the new American empire. Like the proconsuls of Rome they were supposed to bring order and law to the unruly and anarchical world."[250] In September 2000,Washington Post reporterDana Priest published a series of articles whose central premise was Combatant Commanders' inordinate amount of political influence within the countries in their areas of responsibility. They "had evolved into the modern-day equivalent of the Roman Empire's proconsuls—well-funded, semi-autonomous, unconventional centers of U.S. foreign policy."[251] The Romans often preferred to exercise power through friendly client regimes, rather than direct rule: "Until Jay Garner and L. Paul Bremer became U.S. proconsuls in Baghdad, that was the American method, too".[252]
FormerNSC employer, Carnes Lord, devoted a book to comparison between the Roman proconsuls, British colonial officials and US combatant commanders. The latter for him also associate with the Persiansatraps and Spanishviceroys. He found the American version most similar to the Roman proconsular model. As they contributed importantly to the policy on the marches of empire, all of them qualify as proconsuls in proper sense of the term. With all due qualification, he confessed, his study is about imperial governance in the imperial periphery.[253]
Another distinction ofVictor Davis Hanson—that US bases, contrary to the legions, are costly to America and profitable for their hosts—expresses the American view. The hosts express a diametrically opposite view. Japan pays for 25,000 Japanese working on US bases. 20% of those workers provide entertainment: a list drawn up by the Japanese Ministry of Defense included 76 bartenders, 48 vending machine personnel, 47 golf course maintenance personnel, 25 club managers, 20 commercial artists, 9 leisure-boat operators, 6 theater directors, 5 cake decorators, 4 bowling alley clerks, 3 tour guides and 1 animal caretaker. Shu Watanabe of theDemocratic Party of Japan asks: "Why does Japan need to pay the costs for US service members' entertainment on their holidays?"[254] One research on host nations support concludes:
At an alliance-level analysis, case studies of South Korea and Japan show that the necessity of the alliance relationship with the U.S. and their relative capabilities to achieve security purposes lead them to increase the size of direct economic investment to support the U.S. forces stationed in their territories, as well as to facilitate the US global defense posture. In addition, these two countries have increased their political and economic contribution to the U.S.-led military operations beyond the geographic scope of the alliance in the post-Cold War period ... Behavioral changes among the U.S. allies in response to demands for sharing alliance burdens directly indicate the changed nature of unipolar alliances. In order to maintain its power preponderance and primacy, the unipole has imposed greater pressure on its allies to devote much of their resources and energy to contributing to its global defense posture ... [It] is expected that the systemic properties of unipolarity–non-structural threat and a power preponderance of the unipole–gradually increase the political and economic burdens of the allies in need of maintaining alliance relationships with the unipole.[255]
Increasing the "economic burdens of the allies" is one of the major priorities of PresidentDonald Trump.[256][257][258][259] Classicist Eric Adler notes that Hanson earlier had written about the decline of the classical studies in the United States and insufficient attention devoted to the classical experience. "When writing about American foreign policy for a lay audience, however, Hanson himself chose to castigate Roman imperialism in order to portray the modern United States as different from—and superior to—the Roman state."[260] As a supporter of a hawkish unilateral American foreign policy, Hanson's "distinctly negative view of Roman imperialism is particularly noteworthy, since it demonstrates the importance a contemporary supporter of a hawkish American foreign policy places on criticizing Rome."[260]
Political theoristMichael Walzer argues that the termhegemony is better than empire to describe the U.S.'s role in the world.[261] Hegemony is distinguished from empire as ruling only external but not internal affairs of other states.[262] Political scientistRobert Keohane argues a "balanced and nuanced analysis is not aided ... by the use of the word 'empire' to describe United States hegemony, since 'empire' obscures rather than illuminates the differences in form of governance between the United States and other Great Powers, such asGreat Britain in the 19th century or theSoviet Union in the twentieth".[263] Other political scientists, such as Daniel Nexon and Thomas Wright, argue that neither term exclusively describesforeign relations of the United States. The U.S. can be, and has been, simultaneously an empire and a hegemonic power. They claim that the general trend in U.S. foreign relations has been away from imperial modes of control.[264]
Max Boot defends U.S. imperialism, writing, "U.S. imperialism has been the greatest force for good in the world during the past century. It has defeated communism and Nazism and has intervened against the Taliban and Serbian ethnic cleansing."[265] Boot used "imperialism" to describe United States policy, not only in the early 20th century but "since at least 1803."[265][266] This embrace of empire is made by otherneoconservatives, including British historianPaul Johnson, and writersDinesh D'Souza andMark Steyn. It is also made by someliberal hawks, such as political scientistsZbigniew Brzezinski andMichael Ignatieff.[267]
Scottish-American historianNiall Ferguson argues that the United States is an empire and believes that this is a good thing: "What is not allowed is to say that the United States is an empire and that this might not be wholly bad."[268] Ferguson has drawn parallels between theBritish Empire and the global role of the United States in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, though he describes the United States' political and social structures as more like those of theRoman Empire than of the British. Ferguson argues that all of these empires have had both positive and negative aspects, but that the positive aspects of the U.S. empire will, if it learns from history and its mistakes, greatly outweigh its negative aspects.[269]
Within the United States, women played important roles in both advocating for and protesting against American imperialism. Women's organisations and prominent figures actively supported and promoted the expansion of American influence overseas and saw imperialism as an opportunity to extend American values, culture, and civilization to other nations. These women believed in the superiority of American ideals and saw it as their duty to uplift and educate what they often perceived as 'lesser' peoples. By endorsing imperialist policies, women aimed to spread democracy,Christianity, and Western progress to territories beyond American borders: their domestic advocacy created a narrative that framed imperialism as a mission of benevolence, wherein the United States had a responsibility to guide and shape the destiny of other nations.[270]
During the era of American imperialism, women played a significant role inmissionary work. Missionary societies sent women to various parts of the world, particularly in Asia, Africa, and the Pacific, with the aim of spreading Christianity and Western values. These women saw themselves as agents of cultural and religious transformation, seeking to "civilize" and "Christianize" indigenous populations. Their missionary efforts involved establishing schools, churches, hospitals, and orphanages in imperial territories; through these institutions, women aimed to improve the lives of local people, provide education, healthcare, and social services. Their work intertwined religious and imperialistic motives, as they believed that the spread of Christianity and Western values would uplift and transform the "heathen" populations they encountered.[271]
Women played a crucial role in educational and social reform initiatives within imperial territories during the era of American imperialism. They established schools, hospitals, and orphanages, aiming to improve the lives of indigenous populations – initiatives reflecting a belief in the superiority ofWestern values and a desire to assimilate native cultures into American norms. Women also sought to provide education, healthcare, and social services that aligned with American ideals of progress and civilisation, and by promoting Western education and introducing social reforms, they hoped to shape the lives and future of the people they encountered in imperial territories. These efforts often entailed the imposition of Western cultural norms, as women saw themselves as agents of transformation and viewedindigenous practices as in need of improvement and "upliftment".[272]
Women also played important roles as nurses and medical practitioners during the era of American imperialism. Particularly during the Spanish–American War and subsequent American occupations, women provided healthcare services to soldiers, both American and local, and worked to improve public health conditions in occupied territories. These women played a vital role in caring for the wounded, preventing the spread of diseases, and providing medical assistance to communities affected by the conflicts. Their work as nurses and medical practitioners contributed to the establishment of healthcare infrastructure and the improvement of public health in imperial territories. These women worked tirelessly in often challenging conditions, dedicating themselves to the well-being and recovery of those affected by the conflicts.[273]
While some women supported American imperialism, others actively participated in anti-imperialist movements and expressed opposition to expansionist policies. Women, including suffragists and progressive activists, criticized the imperialist practices of the United States. They challenged the notion that spreadingdemocracy and civilization abroad could be achieved through theoppression andcolonization of other peoples. These women believed in the principles of self-determination, sovereignty, and equality for all nations. They argued that true progress and justice could not be achieved through the subjugation of others, emphasising the need for cooperation and respect among nations. By raising their voices against imperialism, these women sought to promote a vision ofglobal justice and equality.[274]
Ultimately women's activism played a significant role in challenging and shaping American imperialism. Throughout history, women activists have been at the forefront of anti-imperialist movements, questioning the motives and consequences of U.S. expansionism. Women's organisations and prominent figures raised their voices against the injustices of imperialism, advocating for peace, human rights, and the self-determination of colonised peoples. They criticized the exploitation and oppression inherent in imperialistic practices, highlighting the disproportionate impact on marginalised communities. Women activists collaborated across borders, forging transnational alliances to challenge American dominance and promote global solidarity. By engaging in social and political activism, women contributed to a more nuanced understanding of imperialism, exposing its complexities and fostering dialogue on the ethical implications of empire.
Moreover, sexuality and attitudes towards gender roles and behaviour played an important role in American expansionism. Regarding the war in Vietnam, the idea of American 'manliness' entered the conscience of those in support of ground involvement, pushing ideas of gender roles and that manly, American men shouldn't avoid conflict. These ideas of sexuality extended as far as President Johnson, who wanted to be presented as a 'hero statesman' to his people, highlighting further the effect of gender roles on both American domestic attitudes as well as foreign policy.[275]
Writers likeWilliam I. Robinson have characterised American empire since the 1980s and 1990s as one which is a front for the imperial designs of the American capitalist class, arguing that Washington D.C. has become the seat of the 'empire of capital' from which nations are colonised and re-colonised.[276]
American imperialism has long had a media dimension (media imperialism) and cultural dimension (cultural imperialism).
InMass Communication and American Empire,Herbert I. Schiller emphasized the significance of the mass media andcultural industry to American imperialism,[277] arguing that "each new electronic development widens the perimeter of American influence," and declaring that "American power, expressed industrially, militarily and culturally has become the most potent force on earth and communications have become a decisive element in the extension of United States world power."[278]
InCommunication and Cultural Domination, Schiller presented the premier definition of cultural imperialism as
the sum processes by which a society is brought into the modern [U.S.-centered] world system and how its dominating stratum is attracted, pressured, forced, and sometimes bribed into shaping social institutions to correspond to, or even promote, the values and structures of the dominating centres of the system.[279]
In Schiller's formulation of the concept, cultural imperialism refers to the American Empire's "coercive and persuasive agencies, and their capacity to promote and universalize an American 'way of life' in other countries without any reciprocation of influence."[280] According to Schiller, cultural imperialism "pressured, forced and bribed" societies to integrate with the U.S.'s expansive capitalist model but also incorporated them with attraction and persuasion by winning "the mutual consent, even solicitation of the indigenous rulers."
Newer research on cultural imperialism sheds light on how the US national security state partners with media corporations to spread US foreign policy and military-promoting media goods around the world. InHearts and Mines: The US Empire's Culture Industry, Tanner Mirrlees builds upon the work ofHerbert I. Schiller to argue that the US government and media corporations pursue different interests on the world stage (the former, national security, and the latter, profit), but structural alliances and the synergistic relationships between them support the co-production and global flow of Empire-extolling cultural and entertainment goods.[281]
Some researchers argue that military andcultural imperialism are interdependent. Every war of Empire has relied upon a culture or "way of life" that supports it, and most often, with the idea that a country has a unique or special mission to spread its way of life around the world.Edward Said, one of the founders ofpost-colonial theory, said,
... so influential has been the discourse insisting on American specialness, altruism and opportunity, that imperialism in the United States as a word or ideology has turned up only rarely and recently in accounts of the United States culture, politics and history. But the connection between imperial politics and culture in North America, and in particular in the United States, is astonishingly direct.[282]
International relations scholar David Rothkopf disagrees with the notion that cultural imperialism is an intentional political or military process, and instead argues that it is the innocent result of economicglobalization, which allows access to numerous U.S. and Western ideas and products that many non-U.S. and non-Western consumers across the world voluntarily choose to consume.[283] Many countries with American brands have incorporated these into their own local culture. An example of this would be the self-styled "Maccas," an Australian derivation of "McDonald's" with a tinge of Australian culture.[284]
International relations scholarJoseph Nye argues that U.S. power is more and more based on "soft power," which comes fromcultural hegemony rather than raw military or economic force. This includes such factors as the widespread desire to emigrate to the United States, the prestige and corresponding high proportion of foreign students at U.S. universities, and the spread of U.S. styles of popular music and cinema. Mass immigration into America may justify this theory, but it is hard to know whether the United States would still maintain its prestige without its military and economic superiority.,[285] In terms of soft power,Giles Scott-Smith, argues that American universities:[286]
Matthew Fraser argues that the American "soft power" and American global cultural influence is a good thing for other countries, and good for the world as a whole.[289] Tanner Mirrlees argues that the discourse of "soft power" used by Matthew Fraser and others to promote American global cultural influence represents an "apologia" for cultural imperialism, a way of rationalizing it (while denying it).[290]
America's imperial mission was the subject of much critique and praise to the contemporary American, and this is evident through the art and media which emerged in the 1800s as a result of this expansion. The disparities in the art produced in this period show the differences in public opinion, thus allowing us to identify how different social spheres responded to America's imperial endeavors.
TheHudson River School, a romantic-inspired art movement which emerged in 1826 at the height of nineteenth-century American expansion depictedsublime landscapes and grand natural scenes. These paintings which admired the marvels of unexplored American territory emphasized this idea of America as a promised land.[291] Common themes explored among paintings within the Hudson River School include: discovery; exploration; settlement and promise.
These themes were recurrent in other displays of artistic expression at this time.John Gast, famously known for his 1872 painting titledAmerican Progress similarly displays themes of discovery and the hopeful prospects of American expansion.[292] Notions ofmanifest destiny is also emulated in art created in this time, with art often used to justify this belief that the White Man was inevitably destined to spread across the American continent.[293]
.jpg)
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)The foremost of these critics is Gary Clayton Anderson, a professor at the University of Oklahoma. Anderson insists that what happened to Native Americans during colonization was ethnic cleansing, not genocide. "If we get to the point where the mass murder of 50 Indians in California is considered genocide, then genocide has no more meaning," he says. Anderson tells me that, by his estimate, no more than 2,000 Native Americans were killed in California.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)grand opportunity.
lebensraum.
lebensraum., p 27-28.
The U.S. played a very powerful and direct role in the life of this institution, the army, that went on to commit genocide
Mahan, Alfred Thayer (1890).The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660–1783 . Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company.Chapter I: Discussion of the Elements of Sea Power .OCLC 2553178..{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
