WI: A Less Anti-Communist U.S.

Alright, so let's say that for whatever reason the U.S. went with a more sane policy and instead of being psychotically anti-communist instead became anti-Stalinist, anti-Maoist and generally against any form of Communism that sought to get rid of the democratic system, how would this affect the world?
 
To start things, one of the things I think would be different is that more of the world would actually like us, and we'd have more international support, particularly if, while being vehemently opposed to say the USSR and PRChina we allied ourselves with the democratic communists in places like South and Central America we would be seen in a much better light globally.
 
More or less what the above said. And just as an advance thing, let's please not turn this into another dumb capitalism vs communism flamebait thread.

Anyway, people like McCarthy and others similar will be seen as drooling cretins from the getgo, and politicals will be a bit more liberiterian. On the minus side, we won't get to see Chuck Norris punch fako Cubans up. :( ;)
 

nbcman

Donor
Alright, so let's say that for whatever reason the U.S. went with a more sane policy and instead of being psychotically anti-communist instead became anti-Stalinist, anti-Maoist and generally against any form of Communism that sought to get rid of the democratic system, how would this affect the world?

I am not intending to turn this into a flame war but I fail to see lack of sanity in the opposition of Communism (defined as you stated Stalinist/Maoist/fall of Democracy) as opposed to the opposition to socialism (which is entirely different than Communism). I think that is a very significant difference.

There wouldn't have been significant changes in US policy versus the USSR/PRC/NK/NVnam/Cuba but there would be some moderation in our relations with socialist countries in Europe/South America-assuming that they were not giving aid and assistance to the USSR/PRC.
 
Simple. Abort WW2, and prolong the European Empires. These were viewed as pretty much awful by most of America, so any revolutionary groups would have better PR at least.
 
A President Henry Wallace might have made this a bit more probable. Keep him on the ticket in 1944, and you probably have more peaceful (if more technically appeasing to the Soviets and one-sided in favor of them) relations between the super powers.
 
More or less what the above said. And just as an advance thing, let's please not turn this into another dumb capitalism vs communism flamebait thread.

Anyway, people like McCarthy and others similar will be seen as drooling cretins from the getgo, and politicals will be a bit more liberiterian. On the minus side, we won't get to see Chuck Norris punch fako Cubans up. :( ;)

THe OP calls the US pyschotic and you want to avoid flamebait?:rolleyes:
 
THe OP calls the US pyschotic and you want to avoid flamebait?:rolleyes:

Yah, but put it this way.

Mention the word 'socialism' to the average US citizen, and watch their reaction.
Most Americans I have met react viscerally to the word socialism. As I understand it there is a reason for the American (mis-)use of the word liberal to mean left-wing, which is that the word socialist is completely off-limits, and a 'socialist' is beyond the political pale.
It is therefore a valid question, if inflamatorily phrased.

I would also like to amend nbcman's list. I'm not sure Cuba belongs on the list of hard-line states still covered.

The main point of issue is, does the left-wing split, between those who are 'socialists' and prepared to deal with the USA, and "the rest", thus resulting in a world more friendly to the USA - call this option 1.
OR, in option 2, does this American "weakness" encourage the spread of communism under a cover of milder 'socialism'. For example, protests take place against a Central American dictator. Since Communist influence is not apparent, and he is a rather unsavoury character, the USA turns a blind eye. The new progressive government, once it cements power, purges itself of the milder elements and turns to Moscow for arms and support.

Now, I'm no American fanboy, and there are limits to the cunning even of a regime which is pathological in it's deceit. However there is a point to be made that America was the leader of a vital struggle against a very serious enemy. It is possible that a greater toleration of what have been called "fellow travellers" would have weakened the American bloc. In other words the American intolerance to anything smacking of the left of centre may be part of the price the world paid for NATO winning the Cold War without it turning hot.
 
Right off the bat...

This does nothing to change US Relationships with the Soviet Union or Maoist China; most of the Communist Bloc is extremely undemocratic.

All this means that the USA is likely to play with left-wing democracies instead of supporting essentially Fascist/Militarist/Nationalist far-right governments.

So you'll things like the USA not going after Mussadegh, the USA being even more behind Israel than OTL, and probably no Korean War--but a Hungarian War.

That's a game changer...
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Actually the difference would be minimal. The key is the "anti-democratic" element and to a large degree anti-Stalin and anti-Mao.

None of the "communist" governments the U.S. opposed have ever even pretended to be anything like democratic. On the other hand, countries with very large Communist parties as part of their multi-party system have been American allies for decades (Italy and France in the 60's & 70's come to mind).

Now, in South America there were dictatorships (in fact, if not in name)that could have been considered to be socialist, not full on communist that the U.S. interfered with that would have been best left alone. There is, however, the reality that the Soviets were openly working to move countries from that "leftist" stance to communist. It is hard to say how many of the leftist governments would have been co-opted, might be none, might be many.
 

Neroon

Banned
Instead of blaming the U.S., those 2 changes might very vell have made for a less anti-communist US.:
- Have the Soviets finlandize Eastern Europe instead of taking over the place.
- No DPRK invasion of the South.
 
One possibility to get rid of Stalin (e.g., dies of heart attack) as soon as the Red Army secures a victory against Germany with the Allies. Now, what is the possibility the USSR will have a more allied-friendly leader? How do you keep the Russians from pushing their influence into what became the eastern-bloc countries?
 
one POD might be a softer tone from the early communist leaders of the USSR... too many of these folks loudly and angrily declared that they were going to bring bloody revolution to the entire capitalist world, yadda yadda. To be sure, the US probably overreacted to the threat, but if the early commie leaders had been milder in their speeches, it might have been enough to prevent the horrors of McCarthyism...
 
Instead of blaming the U.S., those 2 changes might very vell have made for a less anti-communist US.:
- Have the Soviets finlandize Eastern Europe instead of taking over the place.
- No DPRK invasion of the South.

That's basicly the best way for it to happen the US dosnt really dosnt care all that much if a nation is non-democratic if it dosnt effect their intrests.

You'd still have stong rivalry with the USSR, but it'd be less intense.
 
If the USA didn't oppose communism on the level of McCarthy and Reagan, we'd all be singing The Internationale. For proof, the USA didn't oppose soviet expansion to the Elbe. Everyone there had to accept Communism. If the USA didn't devote itself to stopping further spread, every country on earth would have gone red because the USSR had no problem with allying with fascists, petty tyrants, and local communists to turn the whole world red. For all those who defend the Soviet Union and think McCarthy was evil for taking a better safe than sorry approach, I want you to go to Europe and see the mass graves of those who opposed socialist oppression.
 
]If the USA didn't oppose communism on the level of McCarthy and Reagan, we'd all be singing The Internationale. For proof, the USA didn't oppose soviet expansion to the Elbe. Everyone there had to accept Communism.

The US had no choice the USSR had lost over 10 million men getting there they wernt just going to go back home afterwords. A US effort to stop them meant WW3.


If the USA didn't devote itself to stopping further spread, every country on earth would have gone red because the USSR had no problem with allying with fascists, petty tyrants, and local communists to turn the whole world red. For all those who defend the Soviet Union and think McCarthy was evil for taking a better safe than sorry approach, I want you to go to Europe and see the mass graves of those who opposed socialist oppression.

True the USSR wasnt picky about it's allies. However that shows the realpolitick approach the USSR had, just like the US they wanted to expand their influence either through deals with local leaders or communist revolts.

They may've gained hegemony in Eurasia, but taking over the world nah...
 
No, we would'nt.

Anyways, I'm not talking about not being opposed to the Soviet system, which basically stopped being Communist when Stalin came to power really, but to Communism (and Socialism) in general.
 
Now, in South America there were dictatorships (in fact, if not in name)that could have been considered to be socialist, not full on communist that the U.S. interfered with that would have been best left alone. There is, however, the reality that the Soviets were openly working to move countries from that "leftist" stance to communist. It is hard to say how many of the leftist governments would have been co-opted, might be none, might be many.
Actually dictatorships in South America (south of Panama, just in case) were typically capitalist dictatorships and, after WWII, said dictators were trained by the USA.

Now, a less paranoid and more concession prone US State Department, might have kept Cuba in the capitalist world and would have given far less propaganda to communist movements. How that plays in the cold war power struggle? Depends in which is the precise view the US State Department has on the issue. It could be a sort of "any type of government, as long as a democratic one and not aligned with the USSR" That wouldn't be a peaceful and capitalist wank in any case, as communist elements despise "bourgeois" democracy and, in the face of possible social conflicts (aka counterculture) or economical downturn and adding a nationalistic rethoric to the mix, would still gather support for armed insurrection against the democratic governments. And if they reach power by democratic means ala Salvador Allende, those are real communist and they will surely nationalize American investments in their country.

And that, and not democracy, is when conflict with the USA arises. How they act? Where the USA draws the line and how they act once the line was crossed?
 
Top