With a POD of 1953, how could America plausibly adopt a "Sargeist" (i.e, using democracy rather than capitalism as a litmus test for its allies, reining in its multinationals, and keeping a short leash on the CIA), without ASB intervention?
It's the shortest accurate one-word descriptor that I know of which is remotely familiar to denizens of this site.Why is this called "sargeist"?
Been on this site for quite some time, very active, have a master's in history. Never heard that word, ever.It's the shortest accurate one-word descriptor that I know of which is remotely familiar to denizens of this site.
Good analysis, although the US would probably influence its influence so that SK, Thailand, China, and the Philippines democratize.Ironically then several democratically elected people would be Soviet allies. Or would they if the US refuses to support dictators? Castro might be pro-US since the US won't be supporting Batista; Allende doesn't turn to the Soviets and Pinochet doesn't come to power. South Africa turns to the USSR since the US won't support it due to your requirement of democracy (I assume apartheid disqualifies it as a democracy? Please nobody argue that it doesn't). Even South Korea and the RoC would not in 1953 qualify as democracies, something would have to change there. At many times Thailand and the Philippines have not qualified (seriously don't want arguments, you don't agree, fine, that's your opinion, don't want to be tagged, responded to, or hear it!)
Been on this site for quite some time, very active, have a master's in history. Never heard that word, ever.
Specifically, it refers to the foreign policy adopted (with ASB/Janet influence) in The ISOTed House TL.Unless I'm missing something, I think maybe it's meant to refer to the late and beloved AltHist user SergeantHeretic? Maybe? Because I've never heard of it otherwise.
Specifically, it refers to the foreign policy adopted (with ASB/Janet influence) in The ISOTed House TL.
Maybe if we take the high road because it's viewed as better poker?(i.e, using democracy rather than capitalism as a litmus test for its allies, reining in its multinationals, . . . )
In general, probably the only way. But I wonder whether there's a good, specific POD for it.Maybe if we take the high road because it's viewed as better poker?
With a POD of 1953, how could America plausibly adopt a "Sargeist" (i.e, using democracy rather than capitalism as a litmus test for its allies, reining in its multinationals, and keeping a short leash on the CIA), without ASB intervention?
JFK is not shot and purges the CIA
His brother succeeds him in 68
Presumably you meant to say "democracy", rather than "capitalism?"Main PODs probably have to be early.
Maybe the Americans take a good long look at the British in the Greek Civil War in 1944. Wow, the British are siding with former Nazi collaborators against former partisans who fought on their side, even at the cost of slowing the war effort.
And within the American state department and defense community there's a general understanding, that this is what ideological fanaticism will get you. Maybe an American two-star general with a good reputation quips, Are you sure the Brits believe capitalism is the better system? Because they sure aren't acting like it. (and this rather becomes a meme of the time, at least for a while within some foreign policy circles)
With a POD of 1953, how could America plausibly adopt a "Sargeist" (i.e, using democracy rather than capitalism as a litmus test for its allies, reining in its multinationals, and keeping a short leash on the CIA), without ASB intervention?