WI USA took stronger stance against colonialism after WW1 & 2

WI if after WW1 & 2, the USA took a stronger stance against European colonialism?

There was a thread on here a while back about an ATL where the opposite was discussed, ie the USA openly supporting continued colonialism after WW2. The point was made that one of the reasons that so much of the Third World after WW2 fell to Communist or otherwise pro-Soviet governments was the wishy-washy policy of the US toward colonialism, ie the US didn't fully support British and French efforts to crush independence movements (and therefore not lead to pro-Soviets movements winning), nor did it provide any substantial backing for independence movements (and promote pro-American anti-communist movements).

Would this make many Third World movements become broadly pro-Western rather than adopting Communist ideology and rhetoric?

It must be remembered here that until at least the end of WW2 many Third World independence leader viewed the USA quite positively and in a somewhat idealistic way (much like how the world views many European nations nowadays).

WI POD would be required for the USA to take a stronger anti-colonialist stance? The common objection to this ATL is that the USA wouldn't have wanted to risk an alliance with the UK and France in the Cold War context. True, but what were they going to do, they wouldn't have sided with the Soviets!

An interesting POD IMHO would be for the USA in the 1920's to be less isolationist and want to assert itself on the world stage. At this time with the UK as still a quite a formidable force the two nations could be considered rivals. Perhaps the USA starts to support Third World independence movements in an effort to create its own sphere of influence (much like the Soviets OTL after WW2).
 

Sachyriel

Banned
I'm guessing this depends a lot on the status of Canada. Had Canada remained a British Colony, instead of being an actual nation, the Americans might not really care so much about it. Seeing as we were the closest thing to a sandbox of nationalist possibilities for the US, if they learned how to stir a revolutionary pot much earlier (igniting a revolt against Britain and giving military aid to Canada, but leaving us to our own devices after), they might have a great chance at beating the Trotskyists at their own game.
 
I'm guessing this depends a lot on the status of Canada. Had Canada remained a British Colony, instead of being an actual nation, the Americans might not really care so much about it. Seeing as we were the closest thing to a sandbox of nationalist possibilities for the US, if they learned how to stir a revolutionary pot much earlier (igniting a revolt against Britain and giving military aid to Canada, but leaving us to our own devices after), they might have a great chance at beating the Trotskyists at their own game.

An interesting point and not one that I'd thought about before. If the British had refused independence to Canada in the mid-19th century and the US had funded an independence movement there (which I would say they certainly would have) it would set a precedent of the US resisting colonialism outside their own borders.
 
The anti-colonial movements viewed both the US and the Soviet Union in a similar way, at first idealistically and then with disappointment, and thus prefered non-alignment. The Soviets took advantage of this while the Americans tended to react paranoically (not always, but often enough to create a backlash, as with Lumumba). I think you can trace this back to the decision to back France in Indochina.
 

Ak-84

Banned
In essence they continue the Roosevelt foreign policy which was anti-colonialism, instead of getting into the anti-communism thing, where the colonial power was able to simply declare the locals communist and get backing and aid? It was recognized in retrospect that it had been an error, Nixon mentioned in his memoirs that Ho Chi Minh was hardly a communist, and that the policy wrt to Indo-China had been flawed.
 

Ak-84

Banned
Yes, as in OTL the colonial empires come to an end, but without 80,000 dead Frenchmen, and thousands of dead Portugese.
 
WI if after WW1 & 2, the USA took a stronger stance against European colonialism?

Why just European colonialism? Is there something particularly great about American colonialism? How about the US withdrawing from the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, Hawaii and Samoa first.

Then they can start negotiating with the Native American Indians.
 
Why just European colonialism? Is there something particularly great about American colonialism? How about the US withdrawing from the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, Hawaii and Samoa first.

Then they can start negotiating with the Native American Indians.

Because we are America and we cant let them people suffer by their own incompetence. :D
 
Well, I could certainly see the Vietnam war avoided, and pressure from the now fed-up colonial nations could see the Philippines released earlier.

Of course, it might backfire if the US keeps supporting dictators more interested in their own wealth than the people, rather than 'communists' like Ho Chi Minh.
 
Why just European colonialism? Is there something particularly great about American colonialism? How about the US withdrawing from the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, Hawaii and Samoa first.

Then they can start negotiating with the Native American Indians.

Obviously the Phillipines was a different case (although they were independent far earlier than most colonies of European nations). However I would go far as to say that in very few of the other cases would the majority of the native populations want independence from the US. Most political arguement in Puerto Rico is around whether to continue with the status quo or statehood, but not independence.
 
However I would go far as to say that in very few of the other cases would the majority of the native populations want independence from the US.

The US only gave the Territory of Hawaii the option of becoming a state or remaining a territory. The government since 1893 was controlled by non-natives and it was them has held power since. I believe the US specifically removed Hawaii from the UN list regarding self-determination for indigenous people.
 
The US only gave the Territory of Hawaii the option of becoming a state or remaining a territory. The government since 1893 was controlled by non-natives and it was them has held power since. I believe the US specifically removed Hawaii from the UN list regarding self-determination for indigenous people.

Thanks for this post, as I didn't really know the history of Hawaii before statehood. What is was getting at was that opposition ot America rule in its non-contiguous territories has mostly been fairly insignifant compared to the rule of European nations in Africa and Asia.

Whilst I'm not denying the significant levels of racism and discrimination practised by the US in places such as Hawaii and the Phillipines, the US always had a more 'integrative' approach to indigenous populations in outlying territories. In fact, on the major reasons for the US giving up any desire for statehood for the Phillipines, was the belief that such a highly populated territory would never be able to be integrated into American culture, so it was better to give them full independence.

Similarly to use an Australian example (considering I'm Australian), is Papua New Guinea. A colony of Australia until 1975, the decision to grant independence was influenced by demands in the 1960's onwards by the native elite for full statehood and/or citizenship for Papuans. By that time it was no longer acceptable to hold them in a non-citizen status due to their ethnicity. On the other hand, with (as of 2008) over 6 million citizens it was considered impossible to integrate them fully into Australia, so independence was given. If however there had only been say 250000 Papuans, I have no doubt that they would have been absorbed as an integral part of Australia.

That bit was off-topic but it shows how American and Australian colonialism was quite different to European versions. With the US's own history of being colonised by the UK, there was a distate for having too many territories without rights. So nations were either given indepdence (Phillipines) or integrated withing US culture with citizenship rights (Hawaiians).
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Hoodbhoy's point on non-alignment:

"The anti-colonial movements viewed both the US and the Soviet Union in a similar way, at first idealistically and then with disappointment, and thus prefered non-alignment. The Soviets took advantage of this while the Americans tended to react paranoically (not always, but often enough to create a backlash, as with Lumumba). I think you can trace this back to the decision to back France in Indochina."

The Indochina choice goes back to Truman, but paranoia about non-alignment reached its peak in the Eisenhower administration, where the US was pushing regional alliances when the locals were not demanding them and had a history of alliances turning into subjugation. The formula that led to NATO, an "Empire by Invitation" in Geir Lundestand's words, did not translate well in the Indian Ocean Basin or Africa.

Basically, if a place had been occupied by Germans or Soviets, the public welcomed a US alliance whether it was the forties or the nineties.

If a place had been occupied by the Japanese, the reaction to the US was a little more mixed.

If a place had been a British or French colony, the level of suspicion of the US was pretty high from early on.
 
Top