AHC: Best possible US international reputation by the modern day?

jenalysis

Did the public know about the Manhatten project and what it was before the nukes were used? If they did not, I suspect the US would try to keep it secret as long as possible, and that would change public perception.

There's also a slight chance the Soviets or US start WWIII earlier due to being more aggressive in the 40s or early 50s.
 
Wesley_Lewt

Wesley_Lewt

jenalysis said:
Did the public know about the Manhatten project and what it was before the nukes were used? If they did not, I suspect the US would try to keep it secret as long as possible, and that would change public perception.

There's also a slight chance the Soviets or US start WWIII earlier due to being more aggressive in the 40s or early 50s.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the top brass might want it secret but I very much doubt they could have muzzled all the scientists many of whom were only willing to be involved because of their fear of the Nazis getting there first, were very strongly against any other use of Nukes, and would have wanted public knowledge to prevent the use of these weapons.

Leo Szilard's Fight to Stop the Bomb - Nuclear Museum

Hungarian-American physicist Leo Szilard's petition sought to avert use of the atomic bombs against Japan.
www.atomicheritage.org www.atomicheritage.org

After all they had been through, the Soviets really did not want another major war. The American public really didn't want one either.
 

NAF

I know this thread lost steam more than a year ago, but recently my mind has been set on a scenario that I feel ties quite nicely into this one -- namely, a scenario in which the Cold War is avoided and communism is largely confined to the borders of the USSR. The more I think about, the more I'm convinced that the Cold War and its effects (namely the US' embracing of interventionism and the rise in anti-American sentiment both domestic and abroad) are largely responsible for the heavy hits the US has taken to its reputation over the decades. If you can somehow find a way to come to an agreement with the Soviets that Finlandizes Eastern Europe and Germany and allows for free elections there, while also reaching a workable settlement regarding Korea, then I think the seeds are planted for a notably less tense global situation, one in which the US doesn't feel the need to re-arm after its post-war demobilization and is instead content to retreat into (relative) isolationism.

I'm inclined to believe that much of the goodwill the US had attained through its efforts in WW2 and subsequent relief campaigns in Europe were to some extent squandered by the general Cold War ugliness they later partook in. Absent the Cold War, I think a more inward-looking US is more successful in portraying itself in a positive light and an example to be followed by the rest of the world. There's also the matter of a lessened/no second Red Scare making social democratic policies and the like more palatable. I think it's very likely in such a scenario we'd eventually see universal healthcare passed in the US (thus removing one of the more common criticisms many foreigners and Americans themselves have of the country). The US will still have many of the domestic issues it had OTL of course, especially with regard to racial discrimination, but I think the world at large would be less inclined to lob criticisms at a US that likely never took up the "leader of the free world" mantle.

And so, if you can just find a way to prevent the Cold War and have the US opt instead to go down a path of more "inward perfection" as opposed to interventionism, then I think anti-Americanism will end up a far less prevalent phenomenon than it did OTL. In any case, even in the most optimistic of scenarios the US is bound to have quite a few detractors, both due to the aforementioned domestic issues and the fact that any country the size and scale of the US is going to step on somebody's toes. For example, a friendly policy toward Israel as in OTL is going to see them gain the ire of the Arab world.

Would love to hear anyone's thoughts on the matter.
 
AltoRegnant

AltoRegnant

NAF said:
And so, if you can just find a way to prevent the Cold War and have the US opt instead to go down a path of more "inward perfection" as opposed to interventionism, then I think anti-Americanism will end up a far less prevalent phenomenon than it did OTL. In any case, even in the most optimistic of scenarios the US is bound to have quite a few detractors, both due to the aforementioned domestic issues and the fact that any country the size and scale of the US is going to step on somebody's toes. For example, a friendly policy toward Israel as in OTL is going to see them gain the ire of the Arab world.
Click to expand...
honestly, the only way to prevent the cold war is to craft a scenario where Russia is too weak to fight it. Because the US was always going to be untouched by ww2 except like 5 forts in the PNW, and thus was always going to become a superpower. Meaning it's going to want to secure its interests in LatAm for economics, and in Europe and Asia because they would be our allies (which is why we couldn't give up all of Korea- we were building allied japan, so we needed a friendly Korea and oh look that's why we have troops in Korea to defend our new ally.)

The Soviets then played the role of the expansionist prick who funded revolts against our allies and also had serious ideological opposition to free market capitalism, while also having a dictatorship.

If Russia is weakened to the point where the US has all of Korea, and Russia can't spend money funding revolutions, insurrections, and the like, it's a lot harder to craft a scenario where the US gives a shit about Southeast Asia or even most of Africa and the Middle East. We'd stick to LatAm and the Pacific. One for economics and in case someone did stick a nuke somewhere, and the other because we've built those nations back up as client states for both economic reasons and to make sure Tokyo doesn't start another war.
 

Hugh Third of Five

NAF said:
If you can somehow find a way to come to an agreement with the Soviets that Finlandizes Eastern Europe and Germany and allows for free elections there, while also reaching a workable settlement regarding Korea, then I think the seeds are planted for a notably less tense global situation, one in which the US doesn't feel the need to re-arm after its post-war demobilization and is instead content to retreat into (relative) isolationism.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's plausible to get the Soviets to play ball like that. You might be able to get the USSR to collapse (or be much weaker) if the USA pursued a Pacific first strategy, but that obviously requires a POD before 1945; it would also probably mean a KMT victory in the Chinese Civil War, so no Mao to deal with. Alternatively, I guess you could try having France (Corsica and the colonies) fight on. Maybe then the Free French could get Lend-Lease Aid that would have otherwise gone to the Soviets.
 

Furry Fractal Multitude

Banned
A bit difficult if you don't create a growth mechanism that eliminates fossil fuel use to half, with something like Hydropower plus Nuclear power on steroids.

With that, you could pull a China like growth rates while eliminating the use of external force to control the resources (not involved as a factor in all US aggressions but most, for example, Iraq and Syria in the 21st Century, and Iran under Mossadegh who was removed by the Eisenhower's administration back in 1953). Would also avoid the clash with the Soviets with a quasi-isolationist and an internally focused system in the USA.

The best reputation in my opinion is to not be seen as an invader or an aggressor (China is one but mostly limited to Tibet, Aksai Chin, Arunachal Pradesh, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Not saying that these are good. Never). Also subtract the negatives of China, such as the highly anti-freedom government and the aggressions on the places mentioned above. Could be done.
 

Beatriz

It has been argued that the US use(s) a hub and spokes model where the US has bilateral relations with individual countries which it serves as protector and (occasionally) source of economic aid to. For example, US-Japan bilateral defense treaty and US-UK Special relationship as well as US aid to ROK. In east Asia, this model served to prevent rogue allies from launching wars of aggression that it wanted no part in.

If say, India turned communist, could this model be extended to the Indian Ocean region as well? I know East Asia and Western Europe were important areas of US influence due to industrial build-up, and as centers of financial and cultural influence due to many of these states having been former colonial empires themselves, but could we have also tried to establish/back clients in the Indian ocean as the "third ocean" like Sri Lanka or Burma or Aden or Malaysia?
 
Last edited:

Beatriz

Henry Kissinger OTL 1969: "
No, and I don't care,” Kissinger replied. “Nothing important can come from the [Global] south. History has never been produced in the south. The axis of history starts in Moscow, goes to Bonn, crosses over to Washington, and then goes to Tokyo. What happens in the south is of no importance.”
Somehow get the deliberate ignorance and (racial in some terms) contempt out and maybe better relations with the global South (nonwhite and non-East Asian nations at least) can result
BlankMap-World - Copy.png
 
Last edited:

LeoII

Banned
Get involved in World War 1 early, and help win the war before Lenin gets sent back to Russia. Ideally this prevents the rise of Communism. Russia remains a European power, and an ally of the USA. This in turn prevents or severly handicaps the rise of Communism. China and thus Korea have their Communist uprisings quashed. Without the whole Cold War and its conflicts, America can be more peaceful in general.
Bonus if Germany is beaten quickly maybe the Nazis don't come to power too, and World War 2 gets prevented. Though America's participation in World War 2 is a good part of its reputation so it's not relevant to the question itself.
 
Last edited:

vetinari

The best thing the US can do? Is be true to it's claims of supporting freedom and democracy and accepting what people vote for. If a society votes for Communism, Washington must learn to accept their decision in good grace. If a society decides to become socialist, Washington has to learn to accept their decision. They must reign in their intelligence agencies and not let them have free reign over societies. Never going to happen, though, is it?
 
Gillan1220

Gillan1220

Beatriz said:
Henry Kissinger OTL 1969: "
No, and I don't care,” Kissinger replied. “Nothing important can come from the [Global] south. History has never been produced in the south. The axis of history starts in Moscow, goes to Bonn, crosses over to Washington, and then goes to Tokyo. What happens in the south is of no importance.”
Somehow get the deliberate ignorance and (racial in some terms) contempt out and maybe better relations with the global South (nonwhite and non-East Asian nations at least) can result
View attachment 792675
Click to expand...
This is like the international community according to Western standards.
https://www.reddit.com/r/memes/comments/tolt13
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1409411529779384325
LeoII said:
Get involved in World War 1 early, and help win the war before Lenin gets sent back to Russia. Ideally this prevents the rise of Communism. Russia remains a European power, and an ally of the USA. This in turn prevents or severly handicaps the rise of Communism. China and thus Korea have their Communist uprisings quashed. Without the whole Cold War and its conflicts, America can be more peaceful in general.
Click to expand...
That requires a POD of Teddy Roosevelt winning the 1912 elections. Roosevelt gets the U.S. involved in WWI by either 1914-1915, which presents a lot of butterflies for the 20th century and beyond.
 

Riain

Banned
Insane Ranter said:
Amazing for who? You generally aren't intervening to make things sunshine and roses for who you are intervening. You are intervening because your national interest is being threatened.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say North Korea won the Korean war, or Eastern Europe wanted to remain under the Soviet Union.
 

Red_Neptune

Riain said:
A lot of the time a good portion of the people in the country that the US intervened supported interventions, and sometimes the interventions worked out well in the long run.
Click to expand...
This is true, but also keep in mind that even if there was support for interventions in the countries that the US intervened it, a) that support did not necessarily exist amongst a "good portion of the people," but was often generally confined to a couple groups in the country and b) while yes, some interventions worked out fine, many of these regimes were also responsible for human rights abuses. One could easily point out the "Chilean Miracle," for instance, but even if Chile is "better in the long run," throwing tens of thousands of political opponents into concentration camps isn't justified, and certainly doesn't excuse the US intervention that lead to his rise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top