| |
| ▲ | deepsun 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | And because of the very convenient geographical location USA is unlikely to be invaded. You'd want your gold to be safe. | |
| ▲ | roenxi an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In this context "trust" is something of a euphemism. The US had a big enough military relatively speaking that if they came for your gold then it wasn't feasible to stop them unless you were part of a competing bloc. So, you know. Keep the gold somewhere the US is happy with. Best shot of getting to a good outcome, and the US was pretty reasonable in the 1900s. That all appears to have changed. They may already have lost the ability to physically coerce even medium powers and at any rate look like they have to retreat the boundaries of their global Not-An-Empire. So it makes sense to start rethinking the gold's physical location. | |
| ▲ | rjzzleep 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think you should look up the Morgenthau plan and look at the state of Germany today. Of course people will say that it's all because of Germany's own decisions. To which I would counter that Germany doesn't any sovereign decisions and the last time it did that was in 2011. | | |
| ▲ | gregorygoc 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | What happened in 2011 and why were there no sovereign decisions afterwards? | |
| ▲ | mschuster91 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I think you should look up the Morgenthau plan and look at the state of Germany today. That plan never got implemented. |
| |
| ▲ | kergonath 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Also to note, why was the US trusted before? Trust was never absolute. What we trusted was that the US would act rationally to further their interests. The US benefited tremendously from economic development across the world (industrialisation, free trade, rebuilding after the wars, etc). Sometimes the US government miscalculated (like in Iraq), but there was nothing really destructive like what Trump is doing. Even when we disagreed we could still talk things through and agree on other things. Now, you have Trump insulting allies and praising ennemies every day. Of course there is no trust. | |
| ▲ | matkoniecz 42 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > why was the US trusted before? because risk of US stealing gold was lower and potential usefulness in case of being invaded by Russia et all was higher? | |
| ▲ | FjordWarden 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There is a very awkward episode in Belgium national history, at the eve of WWII, the then minister of finance Camille Gutt, had the foresight to move tonnes of gold from the national bank to America and France but for some reason our king did not manage to pack his bags in time and was captured by the Nazis. | | |
| ▲ | koonsolo 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Do you have any reference to your story? Because this is not the historically accepted one. From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_III_of_Belgium#World_W...): "On 24 May 1940, Leopold, having assumed command of the Belgian Army, met with his ministers for the final time. The ministers urged the king to leave the country with the government. Prime Minister Hubert Pierlot reminded him that capitulation was a decision for the Belgian government, not for the king, to make. The king indicated that he had decided to remain in Belgium with his troops, whatever the outcome. The ministers took this to mean that he would establish a new government under the direction of Hitler, potentially a treasonous act. Leopold thought that he might be seen as a deserter if he were to leave the country: "He was resolved to remain with his army and amidst his people so as to share their fate."[6] Leopold had long had a difficult and contentious relationship with his ministers, acting independently of government influence whenever possible, and seeking to circumvent and even limit the ministers' powers, while expanding his own." |
| |
| ▲ | lovich 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I mean, we were trusted but also not fully. This isnt the first time European powers repatriated gold from the US. In 1971 France sent their navy to take their gold back because of another conservative US leader who decided to try and leverage our power at the expense of international trust and lost us a portion of said power[1]. I am an American. I preferred when we were stronger because we sweetened the deal enough with everyone else that they let us be world financier/police/anti piracy force/etc. This fucking machismo theory taking over the older conservatives and the "The Torment Nexus was actually an awesome idea" taking over the tech bros and younger conservatives is fucking destroying us. Both groups seem incapable of believing in a win/win deal. Its also zero sum game to these fuckers and thus our soft power, and eventually our hard power, is being lost. [1]https://www.helleniscope.com/2025/07/31/august-1971-the-day-... | | |
| ▲ | ElProlactin 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's not really "eventually" for our hard power. Iran has exposed many limitations and weaknesses in America's defense capabilities, and it's a fraction of the threat China is. We have 0 carrier strike groups in the Indo-Pacific right now. | | |
| ▲ | mft_ 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Iran has exposed many limitations and weaknesses in America's defense capabilities I'm far from a fan of current US policy nor an apologist, but this is a flawed analysis. The war with Iran has exposed the stupidity of entering into that particular conflict, where: * the goal (if there was one?) was something like regime change at arm's length * 'arm's length' means using expensive long distance precision weapons, as there was/is very little taste for an invasion * the target (Iran) is situated next to US allies which also happen to be hugely important as oil producers/exporters * the target can also threaten a hugely important global shipping channel - the Strait of Hormuz * the target has prepared for this action for years if not decades, and has good-enough drone technology to hand to threaten its neighbours and the Strait of Hormuz This is an almost unique case in the world, and as such, its lessons of "US weakness" of "US failure" simply can't be assumed to translate more broadly. Iran is/was far more a strategic blunder which could/should have been foreseen, than a sign of America's weakness. Yes, America currently has low stocks of long-range precision munitions and Patriots, but it still has the most powerful conventional military by far, and a globally-unrivalled ability to project that power around the world, if it chooses to. --- "But what about Ukraine? What about drone warfare? America is far behind there." This may have changed the game. The heavy usage of drones in Ukraine evolved, noting Russia didn't initially invade with swarms of drones. If the US had had a strong reason to support Ukraine (imagine Russia had instead invaded Florida) they could likely have used conventional means (air superiority, tanks, men) and ended the war within a few weeks. Admittedly, now it's far less certain how those tanks and men would fare in current drone battlefield. > and it's a fraction of the threat China is It depends entirely on the nature of the war envisaged (see the points about Iran being a unique situation.). In particular, China does not have anything like the US Navy to project power in the way that the US still can. | |
| ▲ | wood_spirit 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan all also exposed the weakness of American might? Was the last big war that the US won WW2? | | |
| ▲ | kergonath 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The US lost these wars politically. This has always been the US weakness rather than pure military power. The US was better at getting what they wanted through either soft power or threat of military action than as a result of actual intervention. Which is why it’s really counterproductive when the government does not believe in soft power anymore. It’s the one thing you did well and that allowed you to get your way most of the time. | | |
| ▲ | x______________ 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The US lost these wars (>... Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and now Iran) politically... These were not wars! These were American offensive aggressions against sovereign countries that lasted years if not decades for the people in power to suck resources into and out of the military complex andfor their own agenda. Interest peters out after a while when people realize the true nature of the offensive. A war has two or more participating countries and a dialect between the two to resolve the conflict. A war has casualties and losses on both sides of the border (preferably not from local flight equipment but actual military hardware). |
| |
| ▲ | jfengel 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | America won Iraq and Afghanistan in a walk. They didn't do a great job of nation building afterwards, but the actual war part was very successful. | | |
| ▲ | otherme123 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You go to war because you want an strategic outcome you can't get with other means. I doubt the strategic outcome of the USA in Irak or Afghanistan was "kill a lot, lose not that many, leave the country in shambles, achieve nothing in return". The strategic outcome in both wars was to replace the goverment for a friendlier one, and in both cases the USA didn't get it, not even close. But if you view wars as an sport where people kills other people and the winner is the one who kills better/more, then war is declared over and "teams" look for another war to "play", indeed USA won both wars in a walk. | | |
| ▲ | 0xDEAFBEAD an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | "The strategic outcome in both wars was to replace the goverment for a friendlier one, and in both cases the USA didn't get it, not even close." The current Iraqi government is considerably more friendly to the US. | |
| ▲ | red_admiral an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | We achieved "get the Iraqis out of Kuwait" back in the day. |
| |
| ▲ | defrost 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Bit lost here, to be honest - What exactly did the US win in these engagements? You might make a case for increased control of and importance in the middle east for Iraq, sure - that declined somewhat after a forced fumbling backwards out of Afghanistan and tanked on contact with Iran, so if that was the take home stuffed panda prize to write home about it's been well and truly run over by a road train and left in a ditch. Clearly big wins for the USofA PMCs, but that's a little more narrow than "America". | |
| ▲ | tstrimple an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | What the fuck are you talking about? Afghanistan was handed back over to the Taliban. That's a victory? Kill them and chase them for decades and then release a bunch of their prisoners and return control of the country to them and declare victory? |
|
| |
| ▲ | lovich 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think its eventually in that if we put our might behind it we could take probably any 2-3 major military powers on the planet at the current moment, but that's with the caveat that putting our might behind it means tens to hundreds of thousands of dead military members which we as a nation have lost the stomach for. I am saying eventually in that I think we will not even be able to do that if we found our grit again in the coming years as long as we are prioritizing raising testosterone in individual soldiers and removing qualified women and minorities from our military over having competent leaders and prioritizing logistics. | | |
| ▲ | ElProlactin 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sorry, the ship has already sailed. 1. In Iran alone, the US has depleted stocks of some of its most advanced and important weapons systems. 2. The US does not have the manufacturing capacity for an extended conflict (China does) and the US is in fact dependent on Chinese components and raw materials. 3. As it relates to a China contingency in the Taiwan Strait: the Strait is ~140 miles at its widest point, and the Chinese have spent 20+ years investing in A2/AD capabilities. Given the state of the US military right now, it's hard to see how the US could overcome China's geographic advantage. 4. Our most important allies don't trust us (and we're even threatening some of them) so don't expect them to help. 5. Some of the most experienced and competent military leaders have been pushed out by an unqualified alcoholic who is more interested in how many pushups the cannon fodder can do than he is in how many ships America can build. |
|
| |
| ▲ | 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
