AHC: Cold War US administrations opposed to Socialists/Social Democrats, even in Europe

[raharris1973]

To paint with a broad brush, during the Cold War the U.S. had a very hard time accepting socialist regimes in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. But the U.S. was far more willing to partner with Socialists/Social Democrats/Labour in Britain and Europe and tolerate Communist electoral participation as long as the Communists were not given Ministries with guns.

How could Washington end up in a place post-WWII where it is more disturbed by the Labour party and European social democracy, and inclined to use the full range of anticommunist and third world dirty tricks to sabotage those governments?

What would be the result for the Cold War over the long term?

 

[jerseyguy]

This only seems possible if the NATO countries of OTL are run by 1961 Algiers-putsh style military juntas, or some kind of right wing emergency powers, non-democratic regime. In that situation, the opposition could be a broad coalition of social democrats, trade unions, and actual communists.

If the US throws its weight around to cancel post-war elections, then tars the opposition with a broad brush as mostly or all communists. That would just empower the communists at socdems expense, similar to like the Syrian government's self-fulfilling prophecy that all its opponents were jihadists.

This probably means that the US would be much more supportive of non-democratic governments, and raise the costs of the Euro-American alliance. The US would probably have to do Warsaw-pact style interventions to maintain its power, and couldn't claim a moral standard of democracy promotion.

Ultimately, this would require decades of McCarthyists or Objectivists in the white house that view all center-left politics as proto-Stalinism (Socialism leads to communism, socialism is when the government does stuff type thinking).

 

[David T]

To paint with a broad brush, during the Cold War the U.S. had a very hard time accepting socialist regimes in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. But the U.S. was far more willing to partner with Socialists/Social Democrats/Labour in Britain and Europe and tolerate Communist electoral participation as long as the Communists were not given Ministries with guns.

I think US attitudes toward socialist/social democratic parties depended on the Cold War attitude of the particular party, not geography. The US after 1947 could accept a Saragat participating in the Italian government but not a Nenni--until Nenni broke with the Communists after 1956. The SFIO was acceptable because of its anti-Communism--Guy Mollet famously said that the PCF was "not on the Left but in the East." Anti-Communist Social Democrats were also acceptable in Asia and Latin America: in Japan for example, someone like Katayama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetsu_Katayama would be an acceptable Premier, but a more left-wing Socialist would not. In Venezuela, the Kennedy administration strongly supported the social democrat Betancourt who was fighting communist insurgents. In the Third World as in Europe, Socialists were disapproved of when they seemed to be pro-Soviet (Allende) and to a lesser extent when they were neutralist (Nehru).

 

[Tzaero]

I think it would take some pre-WWII pods to get the US into a position to be like this.

The most obvious thought might be a stronger populist left in the US, but one not enough to take power or to do major reform leaving more conservative democratic and republican parties who take a harder stance towards them post WWII. Cracking down at home and abroad.

Perhaps a more chaotic 1930s in which FDR dies, Huey elected in 1936 and is kicked out as he's exposed as engaged in massive corruption and the establishment looks to avoid such a thing happening again.

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

US goes communist instead of Russia. Comrade-worker Nixon once he replaces Capone in the 50s opposes the social democratic parties of various bits of Europe as being "Social Fascists" and "right-deviationists"...

 

[jerseyguy]

The US and the Soviet Union both made the mistake of assuming ideological similarity equals geopolitical affinity. The US could've made more of an effort to "Tito-ize" Ho Chi Minh or other leaders vis-a-vis Soviet and Maoist influence. Even a KMT China would probably result in a similar geopolitical environment to OTL, just with the Sino-Soviet split and a "3-sided" cold war emerging earlier.

Is there a chance of social democracy being seen as more anti-American if a non-aligned power becomes the world's biggest supporter of social democracy? (Swedish-led non aligned movement, idk)

 

[Pangur]

What would be the result for the Cold War over the long term? BADLY, short term BADLY. Take to UK as an example, they voted Labour big time in 1945, the US deciding that they dont want to deal with the UK creates no end of problems if they want to contain the USSR, if they use force be that covert or overt then thats even worse. You just may have come up with a way for USSR to win the cold war

 

[Maeglin]

I think it's rather hard to claim that European social democracy is Red when Attlee's Labour Government played an integral role in the formation of NATO. An additional complication is many in Washington had no inherent objection to left-wing government in general (hey, it's the foreign version of the New Deal...) - and the sort of people who did, tended to be fairly isolationist..

 

[DrakonFin]

I think it's rather hard to claim that European social democracy is Red when Attlee's Labour Government played an integral role in the formation of NATO. An additional complication is many in Washington had no inherent objection to left-wing government in general (hey, it's the foreign version of the New Deal...) - and the sort of people who did, tended to be fairly isolationist..

There's also the point to be made than in several countries, the Social Democrats were after the war seen as a force against Communism - parties that were likely to tacitly cooperate with conservative or, say, Christian Democrat parties to curb the rise of Communist (and thus Soviet) influence. The Nordic countries are a case in point, in Finland for example the US government supported the SDP economically while the USSR sent money (and orders) to the far-left SKDL. There was a general consensus here among the "bourgeois" parties and the SDP in the postwar decades that they need to continue to work as "brothers in arms" (many of the men involved being war veterans) to keep the pro-Soviet left as marginalized as possible. If and where this kind of a dynamic exists, the US would practically shoot anti-Communist efforts in the foot by opposing the Social Democrats as well as the far left.

 

[jerseyguy]

There's also the point to be made than in several countries, the Social Democrats were after the war seen as a force against Communism - parties that were likely to tacitly cooperate with conservative or, say, Christian Democrat parties to curb the rise of Communist (and thus Soviet) influence. The Nordic countries are a case in point, in Finland for example the US government supported the SDP economically while the USSR sent money (and orders) to the far-left SKDL. There was a general consensus here among the "bourgeois" parties and the SDP in the postwar decades that they need to continue to work as "brothers in arms" (many of the men involved being war veterans) to keep the pro-Soviet left as marginalized as possible. If and where this kind of a dynamic exists, the US would practically shoot anti-Communist efforts in the foot by opposing the Social Democrats as well as the far left.

You guys are amazing, there're few stories as inspiring as Finland's David and Goliath struggle during the Winter War. Any situation similar to the foreign policy tightrope that Finland had to walk along during the Cold War would be considered ASB in a TL on this site.