AHC: Have America Adopt a "Sargeist" Foreign Policy From the 50s Onwards

If you count apartheid South Africa as not a democracy because of a non white disenfranchised majority then in 1953 Britain and France don't count as democratic.

It's ASB to think that America will end their alliances with France and Britain.

America would limit its allies to a very small pool of countries, why would America do this?

How would Britain and France not count as democratic here? Because they have large empires?

The British colonies were not part of Britain itself. France had integrated many of its colonies into itself, which allowed non-whites to vote (just with malapportioned districts).
 
France's colonial subjects voted for parliament members like black Rhodesians voted for members of parliament.
sure British colonies were not part of Britain but they essentailly were just as the South African bantustans were essentially part of South Africa.

I'm not arguing that these countries weren't all democratic in some ways, what I'm saying is that by the standards apartheid= not a democracy.
You discount most of Western Europe and all of Africa from a list of American potential allies
 
Yes, I do agree a "democracies only" foreign-policy strategy would be a extremely restrictive and, in the end, doomed to fail.
I think a more flexible, and probably kinder, but still realistic strategy (and that could have ended way better than OTL, even in purely pragmatic terms) would be if the Americans were more disposed to work with "pink" Third World movements not linked to Moscow, like they did just after WWII with Yugoslavia. Exemples of this would be governments like Arbenz's Guatemala, Mossadegh's Iran, or even Ho's Vietnam just after independence (the last two were, in fact, quite pro-American at the start).
 
Yes, I do agree a "democracies only" foreign-policy strategy would be a extremely restrictive . . .
That's why you need honest trade policies to build people up. For example, and picking two oil rich nations, in the late 1940s we invite students from Nigeria and Venezuela to attend American universities, including older students with some life and work experience who might more readily step into managerial positions.

And even while Nigeria is still a British colony, we're just matter-of-factly insistent that we have fair trade access.
 

Wallet

Banned
This policy has good intentions and is well meaning. And I think the US should follow it in 2017. But I acknowledge that it isn't realistic during the Cold War.

Don't support a genocidal dictator committing genocide like in Chile. But many crucial allies weren't democratic. Absolutely encourage them to be democratic but abandoning them doesn't make sense.

Hell, pulling Communist China completely out of the Soviet's orbit was a great help.
 
Jack Kemp: The Bleeding-Heart Conservative Who Changed America, Morton Kondracke, Fred Barnes, New York: Sentinel (Penguin Random House), 2015.

https://books.google.com/books?id=E...urn over their economies to planners"&f=false

"We told them that roads, steel mills and power plants are the secret . . . . . So we advised them to turn over their economies to planners . . . "
Was Jack Kemp right about the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in the early 1980s? If so, that's what we had and that's we were stuck with at the time, so the question becomes how to bend the path.
 
Top