How did US expansion help the US?
Territorial expansion was taking place during the days of the British colonies. British policy limited expansion and compelled colonial residents from seizing land from the native population. Since those times territorial expansion has enhanced the extent to which the US plays a dominant role in North America. After the Louisiana Purchase; there was no longer French territory bordering the US. After the war against Mexico US territory ran from ocean to ocean. Every expansion provides this benefit. The Spanish American war came with US expansion over the Caribbean, Philippines. These are examples. There are others. Territorial expansion also gave the US control over more resources including potential and already cultivated farmland, gold, oil, routes of travel and water. Many resource benefits were not apparent when the territory in question was taken by the US. Territorial expansion also gave the US a larger population and a larger capacity for population. Along with larger population comes a larger industrial capacity and the capacity to raise larger armies. Becoming the strongest economic and military power in the Americas also makes the US the dominant power on two continents capable of persuading European powers to treat North and South America as the US sphere of influence.
Which country is the worst expansionist in the modern world? Was India the same size at its start?
By the word is I take it you mean now in the present day.Really there are four candidates, China, Israel, Russia and Pakistan.Historically China has laid claim to the area of the South China Sea even though they never actually owned the islands there and the whole area is much nearer to other countries. They are now tring to enforce this claim by building artificial islands of their own and sticking military bases on them.Israel for the past decades has been building settlements on land it has occupied in the palestinian territories. Having built them it then expands them. The idea behind them is that by changing reality on the ground these settlements will eventually become a recognised part of israel itself. Similar practices are occuring in East Jerusalem which is international recognised as part of the palestinian territories but presently under Israeli control. If a palestinian living there wants to build a new house then all kind of legal obstructions are used to prevent it while if an israeli wants to build there it’s encouraged. Once again the tactic is all about changing reality on the ground.Russia is governed by a president mourning the breakup of the Soviet Union. He has so far encouraged 2 regions in Georgia to break away and become part of the Russian Federation. He has also annexed Crimea from Ukraine and encouraged pro-Russia separatists in the Donbass region.Pakistan has for 70 years been obsessed with gaining control over the disputed territory of Kashmir. To that end it has trained and funded islamist insurgents to fight as proxies. Like Israel it’s pretty much the trick forcing others to accept the claim by altering facts down on the ground. Such is the obsession of certain elements of the pakistani state with getting kashmir, notably the army and intelligence service, that it/they have even sponsored groups that carried out bombings in India thus almost risking nuclear war.
Epansionist policies: Russia VS Britain?
Well, British conquests had to be done overseas (obviously) while France sort've varied a bit; they were doing some land expansionism in Europe, but after Napoleon was beaten for a second time those gains were reversed and France never really gained new land in Europe. Instead, they focused on colonizing pretty much wherever the British hadn't already; extensive territories in Africa (especially west Africa), southeast Asia, tons of pacific islands... that sort of stuff. Now, the British Empire was extremely powerful and generally would follow a specific pattern; they would conquer up a valuable area with important resources or trade goods, and then they would be worried that that area would be threatened by nearby natives. To protect that area, they would invade more of the surrounding land to establish a buffer... then they would conquer out a buffer for that. The Russians used their superior technology and fearsome Cossock warriors to harry the nomadic peoples to their east into submission. This establish an interesting state in which the populous and Russian west was controlling a ridiculous mass of land filled with all sorts of other minor ethnic groups, though it certainly was straining the Russian administration. A railroad throughout Siberia was eventually established and much of the Russian presence in the region became concentrated along that route. Russia applied rather extensive Russification attempts to assimilate the natives to their culture; this and the fact that their holdings were on land connected to them in mostly unpopulated areas barely inhabited by nomads meant that they would keep onto their colonial conquests (well, most of them, anyway. Some of the stans have recently fallen out of Russian control, but the current state of Russia is certainly far larger than the predecessor state of Muscowy and the other Russian principalities ever were) while most of what France and the UK were able to hang onto were generally tiny islands and a small chunk of South America for France. You might find it interesting to read up on how Russia and the UK competed for influence in central Asia; this process was called the great game, and it makes for really good reading (it was also probably the area that Russians and the British were most hostile towards each other).
Can you compare China's expansionist outreach to Nazi Germany?
These kind of comparison aren’t really very apt. Both are dictatorships and nation-states of course. But expansionist tendencies in both are more like other nation-states in history, i.e. not so dependent on the form of government. Russia expanded across a continent under kings (tsars) and the US under partial democracies (since all males couldn’t vote at first and there was both race and sex discrimination). France did under a general (dictator). The UK under various kings and partial democracies. Indonesia under a colonial power and military governments.Modern concepts of self-determination are just that: modern. How much evil expanding states do of course can vary, and those subject to their rule can differ in how much they care about what nation-state rules. Peasants and townspeople in many European countries experienced changing official borders for centuries without much difference in their lives. Ethno-nationalism has arisen in different places at different times. Citations to mythic history are common self-justifications for nation-state’s political and military moves.Some of Germany’s expansion was into areas where some of the absorbed were happy to think of themselves as part of Greater Germany; others were in horror. The same with China.The idea of consulting with the dominated was not the ideology of either, but that wasn’t atypical.
The USSR is gone: Are Russian expansionist ambitions gone as well?
Does Russian expansionist ambitions gone as well?Ernest W. Adams in his answer to: “Does it make any financial sense for the US to stay in NATO?” - states (quote): “The USSR is gone; Russia and Russian expansionist ambitions are not.” Honestly, I do not understand what this statement means. Obviously, I’m not alone who is confused by this statement, cause I got the notification: The question was marked as needing improvement. Could it be that the mighty USA maintains all those military installations all over the world and continue to support the obsolete and anachronistic NATO with the sole purpose to contain the vague expansionist ambitions of certain unidentified snaky Russian expansionist?Or maybe (hypothetically, just hypothetically) it is the NATO expansionism what in reality the USA encourages hoping that time is here to fulfill the century old Anglo-American hopes of grabbing control over the EurAsian heartland at last?Edit.הנבואה ניתנה לשוטים [The prophecy given to fools], says Talmud.I’m not going to play a fool and give a prognosis on the future, but currently the Russian Federation is not showing any signs of expansionist ambitions. On the contrary: the peaceful, bloodless dissolution of the USSR and Warsaw Pact proves the opposite. Unfortunately, we cannot make such a statement in regard to the USA. One must pretend to be deaf and blind not to notice that today only two formations are really chasing and actively trying to implement the expansionist agenda. It is NATO and the Islamic Caliphate (DA'EŠ). With the active backing of the United States, who would have doubted.
US History opinion?
During the European expansion to America, Spain, Portugal, and later England dominated the expansionist movement. Why do you think these countries were able to move so quickly compared to other European powers into the New World, and what motivations did they have to expand?
What are recent (past 20 years) examples of territorial conquest or expansion in the world?
There aren't many, especially compared to the preceding hundred years. In most cases, nations have lost territory to new independent states, like Kosovo separating from Serbia and East Timor separating from Indonesia. A couple examples do come to mind. The first and most obvious is Russia seizing Crimea. That's a pretty obvious example of territorial expansion. Many observers think that seizing part of Ukraine is also on Russia's agenda. Less obvious is China, which has made expansive claims on the South China Sea and made efforts to solidify those claims by building structures and patrolling with their military. But no maps have changed, at least for now. There's plenty of ongoing border disputes that could result in land changing hands, but most of these have been remarkably stable over the last 20 years. ISIS is peculiar case. Few would qualify the territory controlled by ISIS as a "nation", but it is an expansionist power for the time being. If you go back a little more than 20 years, the unification of Germany is a nation that increased its territory, though reunification probably doesn't qualify as expansion. There's certainly plenty of nations that want to expand their territory, especially in cases of ongoing border disputes, though in most cases action is very unlikely.