Any consequences for US politics and policy is Smedley retires as an obedient jarhead, either proud of his record or politically inactive?
Any consequences for US politics and policy is Smedley retires as an obedient jarhead, either proud of his record or politically inactive?
He actually wasn't that far from the mainstream of the Republican Party. The Republican Party was the party of non-interventionism in the 1930s. It only came to have the military views it has today after the Berlin Blockade, collapse of the RoC, and Korean War. The Republican Party of the 1930s (much like libertarians today) is closer to socialists in international views. He wasn't trying to be ironic when he ran as a Republican.
Yes and no. We do have to note the Bannana Wars were at their height during the administration of Republican Presidents.
after the Great Depression hit, many South and Latin American countries had coups where Rightist, Authoritarian Juntas took over.
No need then, for US interventions, since most were simpatico with US corporate interests.
do you really think that FDR wouldn't have sent troops to Cuba had a *Castro started a successful looking Leftist Revolution in say, 1934?
You lost me here. Are you trying to support my point about Republican politicians favoring the Bannana Wars.