"The high-water mark of the American Empire was...." Pretend you're a historian and fill in the

[raccoon]

blank.

My answer: "July 20, 1969, when Apollo 11 astronauts landed on the moon."

[Cooley Hurd]

1. WW2 - saved the world from Fascism...

...only to allow a insidious form of it here. x-(

[edhopper]

23. Russia

was more important to the defeat of Hitler than the US.

[Kwarg]

58. Russia couldn't have withstood Operation Barbarossa

Without the Lend-lease act. The Germans were a whisper away from victory in 1941 and had a chance in 1942 also.

15% of all Russian tanks in 1941-1942 were lend-lease tanks from the US and Britain.

[edhopper]

60. I did not say the US had nothing to do with the victory

I simply said the Russians had more to do with it.
Most of Germany's army was on the Eastern front.
http://www.angelfire.com/ct/ww2europe/stats.html

As were most of the casualties for both sides.
Do you think Normandy would have succeed if they faced 100 more divisions?

Just saying holding this up as America's high water mark seems a bit nationalistic.

[RZM]

65. No

Lend Lease didn't really start arriving in large amounts until 1943-44. It was important, but played almost no role in the Soviet victory in front of Moscow in 1941. And its main benefits were not military equipment, but things like clothing, food, and trucks etc.

[Kwarg]

76. So nice to see others interested in this...

That's not true entirely either.

YES. It was mostly Russian weapons and blood that stopped Germany in front of Moscow in 1941. The last time I was there and I was traveling from Domodedovo into Moscow I drove by the large "tank obstacle" monuments near the highway and realized just how close to Moscow the Germans reached.

But look at the non-Russian history. I spent a glorious week reading Barbarossa, by Alan Clark mostly in Moscow. The Germans smashed their way across Western Russia. Alan Clarke hit it right on the head... he said the Germans basically "Victored themselves to Death". In the first 6 months of the invasion, Russia lost 72% of their tanks, 34% of their combat aircraft, 69% of their anti tank guns and 56% of their small arms.

The Germans used a strategy of bypassing large Russian armies and encircling them on their way to the East. The Germans killed the Russians in numbers unprecedented in military history. German heavy and small arms were literally falling apart by the end of the year from killing so many Russians.

The Germans pulled up in front of Moscow with Army Group Center early enough to take Moscow. Hitler made strategic mistakes including transferring Army Group Center divisions to the Northern Sector to assist Army Group North. By the time Army Group Center made a stab at Moscow many German units were maybe 40% of their original strength and Winter came early in 1941.

The Russians were fortunate in 1941. Stalin pondered an exodus to the Urals as the Germans approached. They decided to stay and fight it out and Zhukov and the Siberians showed up to save the day.

Many historians claim that any number of strategies could have taken Moscow in 1941. The most prominent one being a classic "pincer movement" coordinated between Army Groups North, Center and South.


But regarding Lend Lease supplies...

from another forum I inhabit:

On December 1st, Red Army tank strength stood at 6347, with only about 1400 being medium or heavy. Thus, British Lend-Lease vehicles represented 25% of all available Russian medium/heavy tanks. The importance of Lend-Lease vehicles becomes even more evident when the situation in front of Moscow is examined in more detail. According to Soviet sources, the Red Army had a total of 670 tanks, of which 205 were medium or heavy. Of the integrated and Independent tanks units operating in the Battle for Moscow, Hill asserts that 30 – 40% of their medium/heavy tanks were of British origin!

During the spring and early summer of 1942, tanks from the UK continued to play a valuable role in Soviet formations. While the ratio of LL to domestic vehicles steadily declined as Russian production began to kick in, LL vehicles still amounted to 16% of total available strength.

So there you go... in front of Moscow in 1941, approximately 30-40% of Russian tanks were LL.

And of course... it was the nearly 500,000 motor vehicles that flowed later that allowed Russia to travel West to defeat Germany.

[LanternWaste]

69. Soviet Union's counter-offensive in the spring of 42 was dramatically successful

Soviet Union's counter-offensive in the spring of 42 was dramatically successful-- regardless of the Lend Lease which at that time, was sending less than 01.1% of all Russian military hardware also known as The First Protocol prior to being called the Lend Lease). Prior to that, the failed German Moscow offensive was countered not by Allied hardware (which was but a mere trickle at the time of the offensive), but by the reinforcements of the Soviet Far East armies.

Additionally, over 70% of the "tanks" you reference were Grants and Lee's, those being merely light tanks-- smaller than the M4 Sherman and the British-variant Firelfy (which the Russians referred to "steel coffins" due to the mismatch between them and the standard Pfwg III and soon to be IVs). In fact, over a third of all allied supplies took four forms-- boots, trucks, 40mmAA, and small caliber ammunition; while another third was dedicated to rail repair, locomotive engines and track.

Source: Utopia In Power by Mikhail Geller.


There's more than a grain of truth to Vlasov's truism that "the victory was paid for with American spam, and bought with Russian blood"

Allied lend-Lease certainly helped, but more than not, the valid, peer-reviewed sources state that without Allied lend lease aid, the Soviets would have emerged victorious-- it would have taken approximately 18 months later than what had in fact, happened.

[Kwarg]

78. I answered most of this above...

but just a quick note. The German Panzer divisions of 1941 were quite light. The Germans didn't even have a tank with a long caliber cannon capable of knocking out a T-34 in a head to head fight in 1941. IMHO the Germans didn't have a superior tank on the battlefield until 1943. Remember the first Pz.Kpfw. IV to arrive on scene were armed with a short barreled 75mm gun primarily used for infantry support. In fact, the Germans never had an advantage in tanks in Russia. The Germans destroyed OBSCENE amounts of Russian AND LL tanks using artillery, Flak (88mm) and Pionere Ground Troops.

So... in 1941 a British Matilda tank in front of Moscow was HUGE as it probably faced light weapons and outgunned the Pz.Kpfw II and III's it may have encountered.

Having said that... YES the LL tanks and combat aircraft were outdated and inadequate by 1944. I've also read histories of the German withdrawal from Eastern Europe and it's common to hear stories of individual AT crews or tank crews taking out 10 Russian tanks per engagement.

And what a thought provoking sentence regarding an additional 18 months of WW2. I can think of a few million Europeans that WISH that Russia would have reached the Polish border after it was controlled by American/British forces.

[Rhiannon12866]

89. But they paid a terrible price.

I've been there and the tragedies of WWII are still uppermost on people's minds. They talk about it all the time, there are statues and placques all over and it's a huge subject in the schools. It's not unusual to have a special "museum" kind of room devoted to WWII where the children can go and study. Then there are the reminders of the Siege of Leningrad...

[Romulox]

30. I don't think so. We fought for the right to be head fascist.

60 years on, Germans live much better--and freer!-- than Americans.

[XemaSab]

47. Yeah, because everything would have turned out better

had we allowed Hitler to keep Europe and take over God knows what else.

[Romulox]

48. And yet the grandchildren of the allied "heroes" undeniably live worse than the grandchildren

of those Nazis.

It's a crazy world, isn't it?

[zipplewrath]

3. 1964 Civil Rights Act

That was my first thought. It is a convienent marker, because of all of the other things going on at the same time, as well as being the culmination of the "original promise" of the Constitution. Unfortunately, when you think about it, it was also when we were being warned about the future. Between Kennedy's comment about "being the world's policeman" and Eisenhowers "Military Industrial Defense Complex" not to mention the Bay of Pigs fiasco and Cuban Missile Crisis, there were plenty of warnings about where we were headed.

[Demstud]

21. + 1

When thinking about the U.S. as a military/economic empire though, I'd have to say sometime during the Clinton administration would be the high point, with the Bush administration's decisions leading us down a long and possibly permanent decline. Of course there were many warning signs before hand and other corrupt politicians that set everything in motion before either Bush was in office, but jr. is when things really started to materialize as the full on deterioration of the American Empire (if we are indeed on the way out permanently).

[zipplewrath]

36. Lessons unlearned

I guess I see that period as one of "the lessons unlearned". We should have learned by the time of N. Korea, the dangers of involving ourselves in local civil wars. I thought we had truly learned the lesson in Vietnam. But Jr. never learned that lesson and we found ourselves in both Afghanistan AND Iraq re-learning the limited powers of an Empire. Clinton was a period of post Cold War change in which there were short term opportunities to be had as the Soviet Empire collapsed. Kosovo, Croatia and the general collapse of eastern europe gave us 1 time, short term, opportunities. There may have been some misunderstanding about what we were able to accomplish there that shouldn't have been transferred to the Middle East. The success in N. Ireland was attempted to be repeated in Israel/Palestine to no avail.

It is hard to imagine where we might be if the 2000 election had been in line with the popular vote. Would 9/11 even happened? Would we be in Iraq at all? Would we be more engaged in Yemen and Somalia? Would Katrina have been the impetus for an entirely different infrastructure effort that would have been leveraged with the economic collapse? Would the push for a medicare drug plan have morphed into a larger "medicare for all"?

We could be "on the rise" so to speak, especially if we had been in a better position to deal with the economic collapse, and leverage the economic situation instead of treading water. So in that respect, one could at least argue that Jr. was responsible for tilting the curve severely down, not to mention squandering more opportunities than can be imagined.

[WCGreen]

4. The day Fonzie Jumped the Shark....

[Bok_Tukalo]

5. February 14, 2012

Exact time subject to change in infinitely small increments.

[liberal N proud]

6. The period from WW2 to Landing on the Moon

[izquierdista]

7. I've said that same date for a long time

Didn't really suspect it as I was watching it live on TV, wondered what better things lay in store, but after the last moon landing, any thoughts of better got pushed away by Vietnam and Watergate.

[CanonRay]

8. During the Marshall Plan

after that we lost our way, using our power to overthrow democratically elected governments in Iran, Nicaragua and elsewhere in the early 50's, supposedly fighting "communism" but really in support of big oil and big ag corporations.

[jschurchin]

9. Great minds think alike there raccoon

It was the first thought that went through my mind, The day we walked on the moon. It was all uphill until then, and it's been downhill ever since.

[RevStPatrick]

12. Beat me to it.

Great minds, indeed...

[RevStPatrick]

10. Yep, the moon landing.

I've said that many times, in many contexts.

And not just the high water mark of the American empire, but the high water mark of human existence. That was the best thing this species has ever done. Period.

And it's all been downhill from there...

[lastlib]

11. my entries would be:

a) May 4, 1970 (Kent State massacre)

b) 1973 Yom Kippur War followed by Arab oil embargo

c) January 20, 1981 (inauguration of Ronald Reagan)

[AngryAmish]

13. After Gulf War I

Largest economy, ran the UN, Communism failed, China still largely a backwater, EU still finding it's legs.

IMHO, things are starting to revert to historical averages. China will be the regional hegemon and the US will also be one. The middle east will (once the oil runs out or we can figure out a way to be quit of those assholes) be constantly riven by wars and feuds. Europe will be Europe, with a common market and fewer wars. Russia shall be Russia and another regional hegemon. Africa will remain the dark continent. South America -- that is the wild card.

[greytdemocrat]

14. Last I looked...

We weren't an "Empire" regardless of what the USA haters here say.

[the other one]

18. military bases in nearly every country

no foreign bases on our soil.

sounds like empire to me.

[dmallind]

19. Both Singapore and Germany to my knowledge - probably more - have military here. nt

[Demstud]

22. Where are their bases?

[Demstud]

28. Also, "Empire" refers to more than simply military occupation.

Though our military actively operates in over 100 different nations, we've directly caused regime change in 2 middle eastern countries in a decade, created the nation of Israel and made it the most powerful country in the Middle East, and been involved in other major regime changes, our economic empire is more far reaching than any other in the history of the world. The U.S. dollar is the primary currency on the world market, U.S. companies change and control the economies of many other nations, and just look at the far reaching global effects our domestic mortgage crises has had.

[ieoeja]

41. Last I knew Germany had a base outside Chicago near O'Hare airport.

We *are* an empire. We occupy and control numerous territories outside the United States: Wake, Guam, Puerto Rico, etc. They do mostly have self-rule, and we would likely vacate any of them if asked. But I would say we are technically an empire.

That said, having a military base somewhere doesn't mean shit. If you don't control the country where that base resides, then that country is not part of your empire.

[Kellerfeller]

71. Except for the fact that most

of those countries lobby frantically to keep our bases there when we talk about moving out.

[Romulox]

25. Oh brother. nt

[think]

31. I love America but that doesn't mean I won't call a spade a spade.

Our American military has intervened on behalf of multi national corporations for over a century. Retired United States Marine Corps Major General Smedley D. Butler said it best in his book War is a Racket :

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers.

In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and 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 benefit of Wall Street.

I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916.

I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_is_a_Racket

Here's a link to a list of of our US military "interventions" since 1890. It's a very long list:

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html

[GeorgeGist]

15. October 11, 1492

[Blue_Tires]

57. I was going here as well, lol

[Javaman]

16. Took the words out of my mouth. The moon landing. nt

[the other one]

17. JFK assassination

at least from the viewpoint of the ptb. a brilliant coup staged in broad daylight in front of its own people. the official myth survives to this day.

from a people's perspective I would say Woodstock.

[bluedigger]

20. November 9th, 1989.

With the fall of the Berlin Wall our enemies were vanquished and our ideology unchallenged. With no external threats, our own inconsistencies were allowed to develop unchecked until they led to our inevitable decline.

[Romulox]

26. Nah. Much of the industrial midwest was already ruined by then. We've been in decline

since the early '70s.

[bluedigger]

32. You are just looking at a small segment of our "Empire".

Different segments of society, such as industrial capacity, don't necessarily peak at the same time, but overall, there was only one moment when we were unchallenged in might. Our military, political, economic, and cultural dominance at the end of the Cold War was unrivaled.

[Romulox]

46. You're confused. If the metric is military power, or international pop stars, or GDP,

we are still "unchallenged".

On the other hand, the stagnation in income growth began in the 1970s, well before your "morning in America" moment.

[bluedigger]

64. Are you just playing Devil's advocate today?

If so, you play it poorly.

You have been dismissive of everybody's thoughts on this topic throughout the thread, and have contributed little.

The "morning in America" campaign preceded this event by a number of years, and you are needlessly conflating them.

Other than your contention that our economy went in the tank in the 1970's, do you have anything to add?

[Romulox]

70. No. Objective facts simply don't support your argument. Nice smilies, though. nt

[Tomay]

52. I agree

if by "high water mark" we mean "global high point", though economically our decline began in the early 1970s. The USSR collapsed first, though, leaving us essentially unchallenged for most of the 1990s. That decade contained the seeds of our present decline, as we enacted NAFTA and created the "derivatives market"out of a misguided sense of the perfection of free market capitalism, and began our ultimately fatal series of military expeditions out of the false lesson of Gulf War 1, namely, that we were militarily invincible. Starting in 2001 we began to clearly decline by practically every measure.

[Elric]

24. The best days are still in front of us

[Romulox]

27. Oh brother. nt

[Demstud]

29. Is this just positive thinking, or will you give reasons why you think this is true?

[hughee99]

61. I'm sorry to see there's not more of this sentiment

I thought the plan was to "Win the Future", but I guess even most progressives weren't buying that.

[libtodeath]

33. The New Deal

If only it could have been finished.

“The Economic Bill of Rights”

Excerpt from President Roosevelt's January 11, 1944 message to the Congress of the United States on the State of the Union

It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.

[think]

34. +1

[rurallib]

35. The end of WW2.

[denverbill]

37. I think we peaked during WWII.

Although the moon landing was a highlight as well, the Korean and especially Vietnam wars had already begun to drag us down.

WWII showed Americas astounding productive capacity. We went from virtually no military and a decimated Pacific Fleet in early 1942 to one of, if not the, most powerful military in the world 2 years later, launching invasions of North Africa, Italy, northern and southern France, and dozens of Pacific islands. We built several atomic bombs, for better or worse, still quite and achievement in 3 years. It's still remarkable to me, considering we've been in Afghanistan for 10 years and have no end in sight for that 'war'.

[SidDithers]

38. Gotta go with moon landing too...

And for some strange reason, I found the phrase "Pretend you are a historian" hilarious.



Sid

[sofa king]

39. I'd say it was the Clinton Era

After World War II and for pretty much every moment since, the American empire has held the rest of the world under its sway by threat of total annihilation, not just through its nuclear arsenal or its war machine, but also through its control of the international markets and its ability to set worldwide exchange rates, through the debts other nations owed it, and by worldwide control of the seas and international commerce.

Only in the Clinton years did we see our strategic weapons systems partially stood down and its readiness system restructured so that a series of mistakes could not destroy humanity in one night.

Only in the Clinton years did we see our armed forces largely redirected to standby and peacekeeping duties.

Only in the Clinton years did the United States conduct its finances responsibly, reducing the risk of market destabilization and global famine, and protecting global commerce.

Only in the Clinton years was a completely new system of commerce and communication put in place--the Internet--which improved the lives of billions of humans.

In other words, only President Bill Clinton created a "benign empire" that actually worked as a force for good in the world. As a result, our nation's influence grew, our ability to control the pace of international conflicts grew

Eight years of George Bush was enough to ensure such a thing can never happen again.

[hughee99]

62. In the Clinton years, they protected global commerce?

Weren't many of the laws and policies that led to the near global financial collapse more than a decade later enacted during the Clinton years?

[sofa king]

73. That's a little like blaming WWII on the Weimar Republic

Something pretty damned important happened in between those things.

[hughee99]

90. Seriously?

Blaming the near global financial collapse on the deregulation that occurred in the 90's is like blaming WWII on the Weimar Republic? I see it more as blaming the demolition of the dam for the flood in the lands below it.

[L. Coyote]

77. Based on gas prices, that would be correct

Retail Gasoline Price
(current dollars/gallon)

[pre]1993 1.07
1994 1.07
1995 1.11
1996 1.20
1997 1.20
1998 1.03
1999 1.14

[pampango]

40. Militarily: August 29, 1949 - the date of USSR's first atomic bomb test

Prior to that date the US had a nuclear bomb monopoly for 4 years and had shown the willingness to use them. That was a very potent combination.

Politically: FDR's New Deal programs during the Great Depression, the groundwork he laid for a more open, interdependent world after WWII and LBJ's achievement of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Economically: The New Deal (again), the multilateral organizations after WWII (again) and the Marshall Plan for Europe.

Civil Rights: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 obviously and, second, the Immigration Act of 1965 which reversed the racist restrictions of the 1924 Act and contributed greatly to the multicultural society we have today.

[The Midway Rebel]

42. The day W landed on the aircraft carrier.

Mission Accomplished.

[Bezukhov]

43. The Glorious Victory of mighty Grenada.

[L. Coyote]

75. At least Reagan knew how to pick a war!

[WilliamPitt]

44. The fall of the Berlin Wall

...which happened, wierdly enough, on my 18th birthday. I went to go register for the draft that day as required by law, thinking that there would now be fewer wars.



But not that funny at all.

[EFerrari]

63. I would say under Eisenhower before the wall went up

before we "lost" Indochina, after we stole Hawaii. I was in kindergarten, learning how to turn egg cartons into caterpillars and to speak English. I felt pretty damn colonized. lol

So, that would be 1959.

[Odin2005]

45. 1990s

[Johonny]

49. but are space technology is so much better now

why stop at Apollo when are total space infrastructure is so much more advance today. I mean walking on the moon was fun and all but today we have thing like GPS and Rovers driving around Mars. We sent crafts to explore Saturn, Jupiter and beyond. Certainly in space the only thing holding us back is what is holding everything back these days. Huge pointless spending on foreign wars. So I guess I have to go to pre-WII. Ever since WWII while the US has done and hit many high points, it has also wasted a huge amount of its resources on totally pointless combat.

I've read before Thomas Edison's invention of the light bulb as the high point in US history. A) because it showed US innovative and manufacturing power B) because at that point the older powers in Europe totally expected the US and Edison to succeed. basically passing the mantel of technological revolution from Europe to the US. From Edison on ward the US was expected and looked at as a place of innovation.

[Dreamer Tatum]

50. The seepage of postmodernism into American political economy

which made it cool and in vogue to hate the living shit out of the US no matter what it does, and no matter how well it compares to other countries.

I reckon that'd be around the early 40's or so - compare Henry Miller, for example.

[Arkana]

51. When Elvis stopped cutting records.

[hack89]

53. Invention of the bacon cheeseburger. nt

[hunter]

54. November 3, 1971

Publication date of The UNIX Programmer's Manual.

I'm serious.

The zero time of Unix, Thursday, January 1, 1970, will come to be regarded as the start time of modern civilization.

Some historians will describe this time period as the peak of the USA empire.

Like it or not, Richard Nixon sits at a pivotal position in world history, and will long be remembered, just as many of the ancient Roman emperors are.

Popular histories will focus on the Kennedys, but Nixon will be the object of interest for meat-and-potatoes academic historians of this time period.

[Dirty Socialist]

55. High Water Mark

The day before the 2000 election.

[Kwarg]

59. Easy... The day that Bill Clinton left the White house

It's been circling the toilet ever since. The mid to late 90's were awesome

[Beacool]

68. I was thinking about that a couple of days ago.

I remember getting my current job when I was quite young in 1998. I was thinking how so many things have changed for the worse since then.

Very depressing.

I think that most people would give anything to have the economy of the 90s. Unfortunately, that economy will not return. Yesterday I read an article written by various economists that stated that the current economy is the new normal. That companies will make do with less people and that consumers are not going to spend at the same level as before the recession.

[Uncle Joe]

66. "Operation Little Vittles"

of the Berlin Airlift.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_airlift#The_start_of_the_Berlin_Airlift

"Operation Little Vittles"

"US Air Force pilot Gail Halvorsen, who pioneered the idea of dropping candy bars and bubble gum with handmade miniature parachutes, which later became known as "Operation Little Vittles".Gail Halvorsen, one of the many Airlift pilots, decided to use his off time to fly into Berlin and make movies with his hand-held camera. He arrived at Tempelhof on 17 July on one of the C-54s and walked over to a crowd of children who had gathered at the end of the runway to watch the aircraft. He introduced himself and they started to ask him questions about the aircraft and their flights. As a goodwill gesture, he handed out his only two sticks of Wrigley's Doublemint Gum, and promised that, if they did not fight over them, the next time he returned he would drop off more. The children quickly divided up the pieces as best they could. Before he left them, a child asked him how they would know it was him flying over, and he replied, "I'll wiggle my wings."[43]

The next day, on his approach to Berlin, he rocked the aircraft and dropped some chocolate bars attached to a handkerchief parachute to the children waiting below. Every day after that the number of children increased and he made several more drops. Soon there was a stack of mail in Base Ops addressed to "Uncle Wiggly Wings", "The Chocolate Uncle" and "The Chocolate Flier". His commanding officer was upset when the story appeared in the news, but when Tunner heard about it he approved of the gesture and immediately expanded it into "Operation Little Vittles". Other pilots participated, and when news reached the US, children all over the country sent in their own candy to help out. Soon, the major manufacturers joined in. In the end, over three tons of candy were dropped on Berlin,[43] and the "operation" became a major propaganda success. The candy-dropping aircraft were christened "raisin bombers" by the German children.[60]"

Thanks for the thread, raccoon.

[DCBob]

67. Mid 1950s.

We were on top of world back then... at least we thought we were.

[KamaAina]

72. "What future historians may well note about JFK's presidency"

"is that, like the Roman emperor Trajan, he presided at the high-water mark of empire."

Forgot where I read that.

[L. Coyote]

74. When President Taft said the USA would rule from pole to pole

because of the moral superiority of old, white men

[Muskypundit]

79. The american empire may have hit a high water mark

But it won't be replaced by another single country. EU style governance blocks are the next step in world government

[nadinbrzezinski]

80. I'd say an era

Starting with Ike and the Redstone program, capped with the Apolo Program.

[Eddie Haskell]

81. The faked moon landing.

For sure.

[deucemagnet]

82. Right before internet bubble burst.

It will never be that good again.

[flexnor]

86. it was for me personally

interestingly, both my answer 1965 and yours have the similarity of being right before the beginning of a terrible bear market

but, while the 190s felt good at the time, in the 1990s clinton screwed the middle and working classes so hard with NAFTA, WTO, MFN-China and H-1bs/outsourcing that it probably never can be unscrewed

[northoftheborder]

83. The day the Berlin Wall was torn down. It has been downhill since then.

[JoePhilly]

84. Empire??

An "empire" expands adding "states" which are under the direct control of the "empire".

The last "new" US states were Alaska and Hawaii, both added in 1959.

Other "empires" took control of distant lands, claimed them as "states under the jurisdiction of the empire".

The US has not tried to incorporate a distant land into the "empire" since 1959.

The Soviet Empire has stopped trying to ADD states, and ended up allowing a few to separate.

Iraq and Afghanistan will never be US states. Nor will Israel. Iraq might break into 3 distinct states ... or not.

Empires created satellite states in regions where there was no formidable government, but they also tried to make those new satellite states into actual states of the empire.

This is simply no longer possible.

And so, unless the plan is to incorporate Afghanistan and Iraq, the high water mark of the US "empire" ended in 1959 when we added Hawaii, and Alaska. I suppose we could add to the US empire by making Puerto Rico and other US territories actual states, but I don't see us doing that any time soon.

[flexnor]

85. 1965

the slide into vietnam overrode apollo 11, no disrespect to those brave astronauts

[Ikonoklast]

87. November 10, 1963.

The day before the corporate coup, the agenda of which has been relentlessly implemented ever since.

[flexnor]

88. the day her daddy took the T-bird away

she had fun fun fun, until then

[hifiguy]

91. The moon landing is as good a point as any.

It was certainly one of humanity's greatest achievements.