America the Anti-Imperialist?

No Philippine-American War( maybe McKinley sells the claim to the Dutch)
Wilson doesn't enter WWI(Let's just say Germany still loses)
No Korean War( Easy, just no Northern Korean aggression)
No Afghanistan War(No 9/11, no War on Terror)

But U.S. still enters WW2, still engages in coups in S. America, supports anti-communist dictators, and Vietnam War and both Gulf Wars still happen. The Soviet Union was precieved as anti-imperialist because they supported revolutions and rebellions everywhere. Could the U.S. support more rebellions or revolutionary leaders/groups or were there just not enough to support? Or is it just impossible? When the Soviets supported militias and groups that killed people destabilized countries they were perceived by third worlders as revolutionary/anti-imperialists but when the U.S. did it (Contras) they were seen as war criminals/terrorists.

Is the U.S. still perceived as an imperialist country without those four wars? If so is it possible to win the Cold War and be a hyper power and not be perceived fairly or not as an Imperialist power?
 
Last edited:
I think the thing that really cements the imperialist impression is the near-constant military interventions in Latin America in the first half of the century. That kept going even when the US was isolationist. You will have to do something about the way the US views its "backyard".
 
No Philippine-American War( maybe McKinley sells the claim to the Dutch)
Wilson doesn't enter WWI(Let's just say Germany still loses)
No Korean War( Easy, just no Northern Korean aggression)
No Afghanistan War(No 9/11, no War on Terror)

But U.S. still enters WW2, still engages in coups in S. America, supports anti-communist dictators, and Vietnam War and both Gulf Wars still happen. The Soviet Union was precieved as anti-imperialist because they supported revolutions and rebellions everywhere. Could the U.S. support more rebellions or revolutionary leaders/groups or were there just not enough to support? Or is it just impossible? When the Soviets supported militias and groups that killed people destabilized countries they were perceived by third worlders as revolutionary/anti-imperialists but when the U.S. did it (Contras) they were seen as war criminals/terrorists.

Is the U.S. still perceived as an imperialist country without those four wars? If so is it possible to win the Cold War and be a hyper power and not be perceived fairly or not as an Imperialist power?


Points

1.Philapine war may have an effect
2. world war one did not shape public opinion in the third world by that much
3. Korea was done as a action to protect a country from an invading power, afterwards Korea was able to control its own destiny for the most part.
4. Afganistan did not impact our reputation as being an imperial power a bunch of terrorists publically hit civilian's and our milatary headquarters it was a act of war and was treated as such. Now Iraq thats a differnt story.

Really only the Philapine war had an effect on our reputation out of the listed wars. If you want america to be precieved as anti Imperialist your going to have to have the US square off against a imperialist power. A cold war against an allance of european empires with said empires intact would do it.
 
I think the thing that really cements the imperialist impression is the near-constant military interventions in Latin America in the first half of the century. That kept going even when the US was isolationist. You will have to do something about the way the US views its "backyard".

No shit, it's a major offender indeed, who made all claims of 'we are not imperialists!' junk in the eyes of the world...
 
You could argue the U.S. would still be an imperialist power, though "neo-imperialist". That's the view that's argued OTL. This stems from the fact that the U.S. profited from the revolutions and coups it sponsored.

I would argue that even without those interventions, the U.S. is still characterized as imperialist. The Soviet Union was perceived differently because it was a fundamentally different state, based on emancipation in theory and anti-colonialism. It was birthed in a different age than the U.S. and to try and make a comparison without fundamentally altering the U.S. of OTL is difficult to say the least.

The Soviet Union may have profited from revolutions abroad, but it was based on revolution and emancipation itself (the legitimacy of this being up to debate). The U.S. is different in this respect. The Founding Fathers established freedom and liberty as rights for all men, but could care less about exporting them. Its insular nature from its creation ultimately paints itself.
 
Really only the Philapine war had an effect on our reputation out of the listed wars.

Agreed. I would add that the really big problem for the US being seen as imperialist is that it found itself supporting dying imperial powers; the choice to support French interests in Vietnam was particularly damaging. If the US could perhaps support an independent Vietnam from the start -- even if it somehow still ends up still propping up a puppet government in the South that fights the Communist north -- that could be a big help toward the OP...
 
Agreed. I would add that the really big problem for the US being seen as imperialist is that it found itself supporting dying imperial powers; the choice to support French interests in Vietnam was particularly damaging.

So even if the U.S. had more policies like supporting the Indonesians against the Dutch and and against UK/France/Israel against Egyptians, or supporting Venezulea against the UK (1895) it doesn't help? Also I'm guessing the Israeli occupation doesn't help the U.S. image.
 
Also since the Communist ideology believes in world revolution but the Soviet Union still is perceived as an anti-imperialist power. Is there any way of having a modern "democratic republican nation states" world revolution or exporting democracy that isn't seen as imperialism or is that just a neoconservative wet dream? Also was Bush a Trotskyite?
 

RousseauX

Donor
Also since the Communist ideology believes in world revolution but the Soviet Union still is perceived as an anti-imperialist power. Is there any way of having a modern "democratic republican nation states" world revolution or exporting democracy that isn't seen as imperialism or is that just a neoconservative wet dream? Also was Bush a Trotskyite?
The Soviet Union is in every sense an imperialistic power. If your definition says they arn't, then your definition of imperialism is pretty worthless.

And also: Neoconservatism had its roots in Trotskyite internationalism: they basically just switched world revolution for American liberal hegemony.
 
The Soviet Union is in every sense an imperialistic power. If your definition says they arn't, then your definition of imperialism is pretty worthless.

And also: Neoconservatism had its roots in Trotskyite internationalism: they basically just switched world revolution for American liberal hegemony.

from Left to Right, basically.
 
Top