DBWI:Could Someone Explain The Wallace Doctrine To Me?

Could someone explain the Wallace Doctrine to me? I've been hearing about it for ages, but I Just don't get what it is/was.Obviously it was put in place by President Henry A. Wallace.I'll never know how he was elected in '48. I'm sure he had good intentions, but even so...
 
The Wallace Doctrine was basically a reaction to the racism that was dominating the Nazi-controlled Europe. It said that any attempt to exterminate a peoples(genocide) would result in war with the US in order to stop it, or something alont those lines.
You see, around '46 and '47, people were mad at their government(read: Democrat President and Republican Congress) for letting the Nazis overrun almost all of Europe, all the way to the Urals. And around this time, reports were coming out about the horrible racial policies of the Nazis.(The Holocaust). This created a significant feeling in the US of anti-racism, so to speak. There were still some hold-outs, but most people didn't want to be associated with anything like Nazi ideas. The progressives combined this, the dislike of mainstream parties, and the support of the more liberal factions(including the communists, but nobody really cared, b/c the idea of communist nation vanished after the fall of Moscow) to win by a small margin in '48.
 
One corrolary that people forget about the Wallace Doctrine is the idea that the United States would recognize the democratic and nationalist aspirations, especially of people of color. This served to drive a wedge between Wallace and British P.M. Oswald Mosely. This also led directly to American recognition of the independence movements led by Muhammad Neguib in Egypt in 1950, Lin Biao in China in 1951, Sukarno in Indonesia in 1955, Kwame Nkrumah in 1954 in Gold Coast, and General Fulgencio Batista in 1952 with Cuba....
 
History is so quirky - Crazy Far Rights in Europe made America go Left but Britain go Right.

The Wallace doctrine basically stated that any genocide of attempt of Genocide would lead to the United States going to war with the county that tried it. When the British Empire completely buckled under the weight in the rebellions of 64' this led the US, then led by President Bob Kennedy of the Progressives into an never-ending Crusade in Sub-saharan Africa. The British, then led by Prime Minister Bevan of the RDSLP (Radical Democratic Socialist and Labour Party) were dragged into it, the US demanding the aid for symbolic purposes and fulfulling their 'colonial debt'.

Of course, Bevan had only been elected in 64', so he was spending the budget on massive Socialist Programs, which sent it into Deficit. The Americans gave him a bottomless pot of gold to spend to get the armed forces up to scratch.

Bevan probably would have let the Defence forces decay, but with the American funds he was able to make the British Forces 2nd best in the world, after America and just ahead of Nazi Germany - of course we all know though, he spent much more of domestic programs - known now as 'The Artificial Socialist State' which kept the RDSLP in power for 25 years.

When Racist regime in South Africa was sorted out in 71', the Alliance of America, South Africa, Australia and Britain has spent the last 35 years driving around policing Africa and South East Asia - More effectively when India and Indonesia were finally on side in 80s.
 
Has anyone considered that the Helms Corollary to the Wallace Doctrine is a dangerous portion to the foreign policy? Just consider how the world nearly went into a full-scale nuclear war in 1983 in an effort to back the Zionist guerillas led by Meir Kahane. Kacj and Kahance Chai guerillas have been one of the biggest stumbling blocks to peace in the Middle East since their formation in 1974. The fact, that the Jesse Helms administration was so willing to recognize the illegal terrorist state of Palestine in 1981 is one of the great tragedies of the past 50 years.
 
It seems odd that the Jews in Palestine didn't hold out. Most of them wound up here after the USA backed off to not have a nuclear war. Kahane is a psycho, and he's now in jail here in South Africa for his stupidity.

I don't think it's odd that Germany eventually sank into being a crumbling mess by the 1970s, whereas the Americas, Britain, much of Africa and parts of Asia became economic superpowers. Guess that'll teach those damn fascists, eh?
 
Well, that is to be expected when your country is basically the enemy of almost every person on the continent! But the thing about the Wallace doctrine is that it's good in theory, but it's gotten the US into too many little undeclared 'police actions' to count!
 
The reasons for the collapse of the German fascist state are numerous. To say that it was simply because of their racist policies is certainly nice to believe, but the fact that the nation-state continued until 1995 seems to counter your beliefs. Germany was certainly weakened politically by its nuclear standoff against its former ally, Japan in 1975, but you also have to consider the nuclear accidents in Wackersdorf (1987) and Hanau (1992) served to show the bakruptcy and corruption in the regime.

As proof, please consider the rise of the anti-Semitic and racist Middle Eastern states of Iran (1989), Iraq (1991), Kuwait (1992), and Mahdiist Republic of Arabia (1998). Who could have guessed that religious fundamentalism and racism would serve as the fundamentals of states in this day and age...
 
Top