AHC/WI: More cautious US intervention in the cold war

Saphroneth

Banned
On a number of occasions in the cold war, the US intervened "early" - that is, before the nation in question had aligned itself with the Eastern Bloc. (One example is Cuba.)
Would it be possible to have a US which doesn't do this during the cold war - limiting interventions to cases where the nation in question has known links to the East? And if so, what would the knock-on effects be? (It might, for example, more effectively paint NATO as "pro Freedom").
 

oreocruncher

Saphroneth said:
On a number of occasions in the cold war, the US intervened "early" - that is, before the nation in question had aligned itself with the Eastern Bloc. (One example is Cuba.)
Would it be possible to have a US which doesn't do this during the cold war - limiting interventions to cases where the nation in question has known links to the East? And if so, what would the knock-on effects be? (It might, for example, more effectively paint NATO as "pro Freedom").
Click to expand...

Well...it depends on the case...sometimes the intervening is good, other times it isn't...

I think with Grenada...maybe UK would do so instead because Commonwealth...
 

Saphroneth

Banned
oreocruncher said:
Well...it depends on the case...sometimes the intervening is good, other times it isn't...

I think with Grenada...maybe UK would do so instead because Commonwealth...
Click to expand...
Cuba is the first case I was thinking of. It's hard to argue the Batista regime was worth much.
The idea here would be that the US would come down like a ton of bricks on oppressive regimes - not necessarily communist/leftie ones. Basically "It's not that they're socialist, it's that they killed a hundred thousand people" type thing or whatever - aiming for the moral high ground.
 

oreocruncher

Saphroneth said:
Cuba is the first case I was thinking of. It's hard to argue the Batista regime was worth much.
The idea here would be that the US would come down like a ton of bricks on oppressive regimes - not necessarily communist/leftie ones. Basically "It's not that they're socialist, it's that they killed a hundred thousand people" type thing or whatever - aiming for the moral high ground.
Click to expand...

I think there would be less backlash in Latin America, and Islamism would be less prevalent in the Middle East (due to Operation Ajax not happening).
Anti-Americanism would be less...
I think this could be earlier South Korean democratization, which might mean that there could be a more "organic" reconciliation with Japan (helping US interests in forming common front against Communists, akin to France and Germany in NATO...).
Of course, this can't be done 100% of the time...but if more was done than OTL then maybe the Communists would have less opportunities to exploit (lots of these independence people, particularly in Africa, went more towards Communists after being rejected aid from the US).
 

asnys

Something I've wondered about, is: what if one of the Eisenhower interventions blew up in their face? As in, really, really blew up - e.g., Mossadegh not only manages to hold onto power, but captures a couple of CIA agents, who are forced to testify publicly about what they had been doing. Something where the US can't just deny it happened, and really gets their face rubbed in it. That might sour the US foreign policy community on further adventures, at least for a little while.
 

oreocruncher

Asnys said:
Something I've wondered about, is: what if one of the Eisenhower interventions blew up in their face? As in, really, really blew up - e.g., Mossadegh not only manages to hold onto power, but captures a couple of CIA agents, who are forced to testify publicly about what they had been doing. Something where the US can't just deny it happened, and really gets their face rubbed in it. That might sour the US foreign policy community on further adventures, at least for a little while.
Click to expand...

Or Truman somehow stays longer...so that Operation Ajax never happens in the first place (though PBSUCCESS might)
 

Dave Howery

Saphroneth said:
On a number of occasions in the cold war, the US intervened "early" - that is, before the nation in question had aligned itself with the Eastern Bloc. (One example is Cuba.)
Would it be possible to have a US which doesn't do this during the cold war - limiting interventions to cases where the nation in question has known links to the East? And if so, what would the knock-on effects be? (It might, for example, more effectively paint NATO as "pro Freedom").
Click to expand...

along with this, refusing to intervene in areas that just aren't that important... Vietnam being the main example. This would have the double affect of saving the US's blood and treasure, and likely draining the Soviet coffers even more, as they prop up those 'useless' places...
 

Hades

Perhaps have the Guatemala coup d'etat fail spectacularly, discrediting the more hawkish faction of the CIA?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Given the way the CIA tended to push nations into the Soviet camp by attempting to take them out and failing, thus making it a self fulfilling prophecy, I'm wondering whether a good name for a TL on this would be "The horse before the cart - a more reserved CIA".
Not that I know enough to write it.
 

xie323

Saphroneth said:
On a number of occasions in the cold war, the US intervened "early" - that is, before the nation in question had aligned itself with the Eastern Bloc. (One example is Cuba.)
Would it be possible to have a US which doesn't do this during the cold war - limiting interventions to cases where the nation in question has known links to the East? And if so, what would the knock-on effects be? (It might, for example, more effectively paint NATO as "pro Freedom").
Click to expand...


The world might probably be more stable in TTL present day and US might actually tolerate Communism in Vietnam as they promised to help Ho before Cold War mentality set in, through it might need for the hawkish mentality of the CIA to have less influence and cooler heads to take over, probably with Operation AJAX or PBSUCESS failing HARD.
 

oreocruncher

DanielXie said:
The world might probably be more stable in TTL present day and US might actually tolerate Communism in Vietnam as they promised to help Ho before Cold War mentality set in, through it might need for the hawkish mentality of the CIA to have less influence and cooler heads to take over, probably with Operation AJAX or PBSUCESS failing HARD.
Click to expand...

Hi Daniel...I would agree that the Middle East would be less of a clusterfuck...and South America would hate US less...so people like Chavez would be less prevalent...:eek:

And with Vietnam...IMO at the very least, we get a similar situation to today...unified, Communist, pro-US Vietnam...
 

Johnrankins

I think part of the reason the Cold War happened like it did is WWII or more importantly the appeasement policy of the Western powers just before it. It got the US in the mind frame that if it didn't stop the Soviets early the Soviets would push and push until they had at least all of Europe under its thumb if not more. The idea that WWII never would have happened if the Western Powers intervened earlier.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Johnrankins said:
I think part of the reason the Cold War happened like it did is WWII or more importantly the appeasement policy of the Western powers just before it. It got the US in the mind frame that if it didn't stop the Soviets early the Soviets would push and push until they had at least all of Europe under its thumb if not more. The idea that WWII never would have happened if the Western Powers intervened earlier.
Click to expand...
True, yes, though that still doesn't excuse (e.g.) Cuba.
The country's still under embargo! North Korea isn't under a US embargo any more!
 

oreocruncher

Saphroneth said:
True, yes, though that still doesn't excuse (e.g.) Cuba.
The country's still under embargo! North Korea isn't under a US embargo any more!
Click to expand...

That's because of not being able to get over the past...you see this in East Asia too ("Asian Paradox", as Park Geun-hye called it).

I think it's like how China/South Korea wants Japan to apologize sincerely for the past (basically for Japanese leaders to "pull a Willy Brandt"), which isn't possible...it is the same for Cuba and US...:(

It's really hard to move beyond...you need to have someone who can do a "Nixon to China" (ex. Cuban-American descendant of exiles).
This also applies to US and Iran, BTW...
 

Realpolitik

Banned
oreocruncher said:
That's because of not being able to get over the past...you see this in East Asia too ("Asian Paradox", as Park Geun-hye called it).

I think it's like how China/South Korea wants Japan to apologize sincerely for the past (basically for Japanese leaders to "pull a Willy Brandt"), which isn't possible...it is the same for Cuba and US...:(

It's really hard to move beyond...you need to have someone who can do a "Nixon to China" (ex. Cuban-American descendant of exiles).
This also applies to US and Iran, BTW...
Click to expand...

In Cuba's case, I think it's really mostly because there is a crucial lobby in a swing state, in addition to bureaucratic inertia and the like. And nobody has the stomach to do what is necessary for critical strokes anymore.

However, Cuba is still more realistic than Iran, I think. I'll bet the populace as a whole would welcome it.
 

Realpolitik

Banned
oreocruncher said:
Yep...which really necessitates a "Nixon in China" moment...:eek:
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. There isn't the same strategic weight on Cuba than with China and diplomacy with Cuba would probably not necessitate the Nixon methods that China did, and Iran would.

The main problem is that Obama is currently a pseudo lame duck with a far right inflamed against him. Obama probably could have done it in 2009 and gotten away with it. The populace isn't against the idea in large measure. It's just a lot of indifference and bureaucratic inertia.
 
jpj1421

jpj1421

Realpolitik said:
Not necessarily. There isn't the same strategic weight on Cuba than with China and diplomacy with Cuba would probably not necessitate the Nixon methods that China did, and Iran would.

The main problem is that Obama is currently a pseudo lame duck with a far right inflamed against him. Obama probably could have done it in 2009 and gotten away with it. The populace isn't against the idea in large measure. It's just a lot of indifference and bureaucratic inertia.
Click to expand...

I thought that I read that the Cuban Embargo is actually an active policy. That every year the Preident has to sign a paper asking calling for its extension. Though, I may have just skimmed an article from a couple months ago that I'm not remembering properly.
 

Johnrankins

Realpolitik said:
In Cuba's case, I think it's really mostly because there is a crucial lobby in a swing state, in addition to bureaucratic inertia and the like. And nobody has the stomach to do what is necessary for critical strokes anymore.

However, Cuba is still more realistic than Iran, I think. I'll bet the populace as a whole would welcome it.
Click to expand...

The populace as a whole couldn't care less about Cuba one way or another. To most people Cuba ranks under "Should I have eggs for breakfast this morning?". It would less welcome it than greet it with a collective shrug.
 

Johnrankins

jpj1421 said:
I thought that I read that the Cuban Embargo is actually an active policy. That every year the Preident has to sign a paper asking calling for its extension. Though, I may have just skimmed an article from a couple months ago that I'm not remembering properly.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the Democrats gain nothing by ending the embargo. Their base isn't going to turn out more if they end the embargo. A much larger part of the Republican base WILL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top