Western Hemisphere becomes a Capitalist/American Version of the Eastern Bloc

BigBlueBox

Banned
why?

During the cold war, we were against land reform in Latin America, against labor unions, against New Deal-style governments, and against some other pretty good stuff.

why?

I think because we had a clearly winning hand and so we had the luxury of going paranoid. Like a football team playing a prevent defense, we went super risk-averse. And we were against anything that might even conceivably lead to communism.

=========

In a cold war in which we’re clearly in second place, we don’t have the luxury of going paranoid.
Lol no. We were against land reform, labor unions, and government regulation in Latin America because it harmed US business interests. The US didn’t give a shit about Social Democrats and moderate socialists running countries in Europe or Israel as long as they didn’t go against American foreign policy. In any case, your entire argument is completely against human nature because being in a position of weakness causes more paranoia, not less.
 
. . . The answer to me seems obvious (dismissive racism/general sense of cultural superiority) but maybe I'm just giving the US intelligence apparatus too much credit in Europe/Japan/ME. . .
I agree that racism and prejudice is a huge part of it, often cloaked with beliefs about poverty such as “just where these people are in their development,” or “not advanced,” etc.
 
The Soviet experience would seem to indicate otherwise-a sense of being besieged and losing ground tends to make paranoia and desperation worse among decision-makers, not better. . .
. . . your entire argument is completely against human nature because being in a position of weakness causes more paranoia, not less.
many routes to hell! :p

I agree that being in a weak position can lead to paranoia. But also, essentially having it won but not quite. I know from my own teenage struggles with OCD decades ago, that sometimes when things were going too well, I’d start worrying that something would go wrong.

I kind of learned to make peace with it and a couple of zen trucks which might sometimes work but of course not always.

———-

* interestingly, at least one study has shown that about 50% of cases of rapid-onset OCD are likely caused by an autoimmune reaction to strep called PANDAS
 
Last edited:
I think that here, you would have Atlanticism be a major stabilizing force. I think that the so called White Dominions, plus other democratic states of the Americas or what has remained in Europe, would be fiercely pro-US, to the point where you could have a much, much more integrated NATO like alliance, with many EU elements around, perhaps going even further. A common currency, a common army. Expect things like a Western Political/Economic/Defence Community being set up, directly analogous to what Western Europe was trying to do, only this time, with American bases everywhere. Given that Britain is also something of a powerful player here, you either get something analogous to the Sinosoviet split, with Britain turning more and more pacifistic & social democratic, or the opposite, where Deep integration between Britain & the U effectively leads to a single Anglosphere nation, with an overarching government structure, in practice if not in paper. That, in my view, would also be the only way out of a staggering economic slump the loss of Europe would mean: more integration, perhaps Africa is governed by huge Apartheid like states, with a French Government in Exile being propped up and either adopting a twisted Lusotropicalism or going genocidal on the natives. Replicate that across africa, with rump Belgiums, Italys, and so on. As for Asia, I guess that Japan or South Korea(if they still exist) are going to be heavily involved in this alliance/union/community.

"America props up the Belgian Congo with as many soldiers as necessary" just seems like you're reading Stalin's christmass list, really. :p

And Japan-almost certainly. I expect you'd see a much faster rehabilitation of former imperial officials and officers, probably no Article 9. Depending on how the last phases of the war went, there might not be a partition of Korea-the Soviets might need the soldiers to take Italy or such (hell, there might be a partition of Italy, if there's still an Operation Avalanche.)

On the plus side, with the French Empire a dead letter, the US won't feel the need to piss away all the goodwill they built up with the Viet Minh and similar groups after the end of the war. Vietnam as a SE-Asian Yugoslavia?

many routes to hell! :p

I agree that being in a weak position can lead to paranoia. But also, essentially having it won but not quite. I know from my own teenage struggles with OCD decades ago, that sometimes when things were going too well, I’d start worrying that something would go wrong.

I kind of learned to make peace with it and a couple of zen trucks which might sometimes work but of course not always.

———-

* interestingly, at least one study has shown that about 50% of cases of rapid-onset OCD are likely caused by an autoimmune reaction to strep called PANDAS

At least by the poli sci literature, it's not being weak per se that usually leads to paranoia and desperate action-it's the sensation that you are weakening, either in absolute terms or relative to your rivals. The Domain of Loss, and all that.
 
. . . Considering the intel/statecraft community tended to stick around longer than US political leaders, maybe we can look through the personnel files and find a person or two to "Hoover" up the place. Basically go in and remake US institutions in their image. It was a bad thing when J Edgar did it, but finding someone or a few someones with a more sophisticated outlook and the will to dominate a bureaucracy could be a fun AH exercise.
maybe a little like George Shultz?

Around 1970, Shultz was one of persons who convinced southern politicians that the Nixon administration would enforce the law and move forward with school de-segregation.
https://books.google.com/books?id=Z...e:Nixon inauthor:Evan inauthor:Thomas&f=false

And when Shultz became Secretary of Treasury in 1972, he refused to allow the IRS to be used to harass persons on Nixon’s “enemies list.” Which had first been used just as a list of people not to invite to White House social events, for crying out loud.

And then as Secretary of State in the Reagan administration from 1982 to 1989, Shultz was viewed as one of the moderates within the administration. And he generally thought Reagan meeting with Gorbachev was a positive thing, and in fact it led to the INF Treaty in ‘87.

But I think you mean someone posted overseas who is even less well known . . . and yes, it sounds like it would make for some interesting AH. :cool:
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
I think that here, you would have Atlanticism be a major stabilizing force. I think that the so called White Dominions, plus other democratic states of the Americas or what has remained in Europe, would be fiercely pro-US, to the point where you could have a much, much more integrated NATO like alliance, with many EU elements around, perhaps going even further. A common currency, a common army. Expect things like a Western Political/Economic/Defence Community being set up, directly analogous to what Western Europe was trying to do, only this time, with American bases everywhere. Given that Britain is also something of a powerful player here, you either get something analogous to the Sinosoviet split, with Britain turning more and more pacifistic & social democratic, or the opposite, where Deep integration between Britain & the U effectively leads to a single Anglosphere nation, with an overarching government structure, in practice if not in paper. That, in my view, would also be the only way out of a staggering economic slump the loss of Europe would mean: more integration, perhaps Africa is governed by huge Apartheid like states, with a French Government in Exile being propped up and either adopting a twisted Lusotropicalism or going genocidal on the natives. Replicate that across africa, with rump Belgiums, Italys, and so on. As for Asia, I guess that Japan or South Korea(if they still exist) are going to be heavily involved in this alliance/union/community.
I can’t really imagine that happening unless you get an extreme white supremacist in the White House. Most of Africa is still being decolonized, although the French in Algeria and the Portuguese in Angola and Mozambique will be backed up to the hilt, and the Rhodesians and South Africans will also be supported.
 
With most of Europe lost, the United States reenforces the Monroe Doctrine but with communism being the center threat to it.

You mean in this ATL, the US would get the OAS to resolve that "The purpose of this [Communist] offensive is the destruction of democratic institutions and the establishment of totalitarian dictatorships at the service of extra-continental powers." and "That adherence by any member of the Organization of American States to Marxism–Leninism is incompatible with the inter-American system and the alignment of such a government with the communist bloc breaks the unity and solidarity of the hemisphere"? http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/intam17.asp

OK, that wasn't until 1962 and was a reaction to Castro's Cuba. So let's go back to 1954:

***
Whereas:

The American republics at the Ninth International Conference of American States declared that international communism, by its antidemocratic nature and its interventionist tendency, is incompatible with the concept of American freedom and resolved to adopt within their respective territories the measures necessary to eradicate and prevent subversive activities;

The Fourth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs recognized that, in addition to adequate internal measures in each state, a high degree of international cooperation is required to eradicate the danger which the subversive activities of international communism pose for the American States; and

The aggressive character of the international communist movement continues to constitute, in the context of world affairs, a special and immediate threat to the national institutions and the peace and security of the American States, and to the right of each state to develop its cultural, political, and economic life freely and naturally without intervention in its internal or external affairs by other States,

The Tenth Inter-American Conference

Condemns:

The activities of the international communist movement as constituting intervention in American aiffairs;

Expresses:

The determination of the American States to take the necessary measures to protect their political independence against the intervention of international communism, acting in the interests of an alien despotism;

Reiterates:

The faith of the peoples of America in the effective exercise of representative democracy as the best means to promote their social and poetical progress; and

Declares:

That the domination or control of the political institutions of any American State by the international communist movement extending to this Hemisphere the political system of an extra continental power, would constitute a threat to the sovereignty and political independence of the American States, endangering the peace of America, and would call for a meeting of consultation to consider the adoption of appropriate action In accordance with existing treaties.

https://www.jus.uio.no/ior/personer...kristian/uaktuelle/declaration_solidarity.xml

***

Once again: declaring that the adoption of a Marxist-Leninist government by any Latin American nation was ipso facto proof of domination by an extra-continental power was US and OAS policy in the Cold War in OTL. I just don't see how your POD changes anything in this respect. (Also, in 1951 the Fourth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of American States: "The expansionist activities of international communism require the immediate adoption of measures to safeguard the peace and the security of the Continent..." https://archive.org/details/departmentofstatx2451unit/page/606)

 
. . . declaring that the adoption of a Marxist-Leninist government by any Latin American nation was ipso facto proof of domination by an extra-continental power . . .
Excellent point. Yes, I see that on March 28, 1954, the Organization of American States adopted a resolution of solidarity against the “subversion” of international communism.
https://www.jus.uio.no/ior/personer/vit/olefa/00 working-folder/ole_kristian/uaktuelle/declaration_solidarity.xml

But . . .

What about Lincoln and Kentucky? Kentucky was a border state and in fact a slave state, but Lincoln was glad to have the help. He wrote something to the effect, the more I think about it, the more I think Kentucky is the whole game. (Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware were also slave states who stayed in the Union, as well as 50 counties in western Virginia)
 
Last edited:
You mean in this ATL, the US would get the OAS to resolve that "The purpose of this [Communist] offensive is the destruction of democratic institutions and the establishment of totalitarian dictatorships at the service of extra-continental powers." and "That adherence by any member of the Organization of American States to Marxism–Leninism is incompatible with the inter-American system and the alignment of such a government with the communist bloc breaks the unity and solidarity of the hemisphere"? http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/intam17.asp

OK, that wasn't until 1962 and was a reaction to Castro's Cuba. So let's go back to 1954:

***
Whereas:

The American republics at the Ninth International Conference of American States declared that international communism, by its antidemocratic nature and its interventionist tendency, is incompatible with the concept of American freedom and resolved to adopt within their respective territories the measures necessary to eradicate and prevent subversive activities;

The Fourth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs recognized that, in addition to adequate internal measures in each state, a high degree of international cooperation is required to eradicate the danger which the subversive activities of international communism pose for the American States; and

The aggressive character of the international communist movement continues to constitute, in the context of world affairs, a special and immediate threat to the national institutions and the peace and security of the American States, and to the right of each state to develop its cultural, political, and economic life freely and naturally without intervention in its internal or external affairs by other States,

The Tenth Inter-American Conference

Condemns:

The activities of the international communist movement as constituting intervention in American aiffairs;

Expresses:

The determination of the American States to take the necessary measures to protect their political independence against the intervention of international communism, acting in the interests of an alien despotism;

Reiterates:

The faith of the peoples of America in the effective exercise of representative democracy as the best means to promote their social and poetical progress; and

Declares:

That the domination or control of the political institutions of any American State by the international communist movement extending to this Hemisphere the political system of an extra continental power, would constitute a threat to the sovereignty and political independence of the American States, endangering the peace of America, and would call for a meeting of consultation to consider the adoption of appropriate action In accordance with existing treaties.

https://www.jus.uio.no/ior/personer/vit/olefa/00 working-folder/ole_kristian/uaktuelle/declaration_solidarity.xml

***

Once again: declaring that the adoption of a Marxist-Leninist government by any Latin American nation was ipso facto proof of domination by an extra-continental power was US and OAS policy in the Cold War in OTL. I just don't see how your POD changes anything in this respect. (Also, in 1951 the Fourth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of American States: "The expansionist activities of international communism require the immediate adoption of measures to safeguard the peace and the security of the Continent..." https://archive.org/details/departmentofstatx2451unit/page/606)
The difference is related to the amount of investment, integration, and involvement in the region. In OTL America would support any regime or group that was either pro American, anti left wing, and didn’t go against US interest or investment in the region. As long as that government didn’t lean left or Soviet and limit US economic influence America could care less on how they ran the country or who ran it during the Cold War as long as they got what they wanted. After the Cold War the US actually helps overthrow governments they originally helped installed because the communist threat was mostly gone and a lot of regimes in place were causing issues. In this world with much of the old world under Soviet or communism control, the United States becomes more paranoid like OTL Soviets. The Soviets and communist now are larger then even the Mongol or British Empire. Imagine the power and wealth that could mean if managed somewhat well. America can’t let them spread any more due to possible lost of face and a very legitimate threat of being completely outclassed by the raw numbers and resources of the communist bloc. It’s Anglo and American allies being even more vital. This is different from casually/indirectly supporting regimes or coups and right wing partisans. They will now be more direct. They will have no problem using its military in Latin and South America. They also try to build up the region like they did with Europe to help discourage left wing groups from gaining support and numbers. Someone pointed out how race played a part in the difference between Europe and the Americas in how US acted but I think that is just a narrative that can change depending on leaders and situation. Racial bias can be played both ways. Maybe America with the bigger communist threat gets more paranoid and think Latin and South American nations can’t run themselves properly without “American guidance”. America starts playing up on ideas of Pan Americanism and economic integration as a excuse or cover for straight up imperialism. Without most of Europe, that frees up a lot of military and economic resources to be used elsewhere which could be directed towards the Americas. More military bases in Latin America could make some noticeable changes. Soviet or communist interactions with the Western Hemisphere is treated the same way as American trying to interact with the Eastern Bloc in OTL. It is either cut off or very limited by US hegemony in the region.
 
Top