quote:

Originally posted by horseback:
If we consider that the United States went from an isolated backwater, world-power wise, in 1939 to the pre-eminent military/economic mover and shaker in the West by 1945, it is hardly a surprise that men like Truman or Marshall had a hard time adjusting to playing the Great Game at its darker levels.

This is particularly true when US politicians had spent the last 150 years denouncing the interferences of the European powers to their approving electorate.

The Soviets gravitated to movements specifically because their 'business model' was the hijacking of legitimate democratic movements and revolutions; this has the dual virtue of disguising their presence and appearing to come 'from the people'.

The US was caught in a damned if you do, damned if you don't cycle. If they supported the local strongman, the Soviets' cat's paws could accuse them of helping the 'dictator's' regime (and not all of these so-called dictators were remotely as bad as they were portrayed); if they tried to assist a 'popular' democratic movement, they were interfering in a sovereign nation's internal affairs.

Given that the US lacked the foreign intelligence infrastructure that even the British or French had, and that they did not share the same specific goals, most of their dealings in the Third World were inept to some degree.

But things were pretty dire, and there was no other option but to try and fumble through. They screwed it up a lot of times and places, and even where they did not, they managed to evade the twin burdens of gratitude and credit.

Hindsight is not only 20/20, it's an extremely selective, unforgiving, ball-busting b!tch.

cheers

horseback

quote:

Btw, american companies have been involved around the world long before even the second world war. The US also had their own political gambles in the Americas, the Spanish-American (this one is especially interesting for the darker sides in power politics)and the Mexican–American War war, heck, the US Navy has even been active against the Barbary States in the Mediterranean, not to forget WWI. I really do not buy the naive newcomer role you make the US appear to be after world war 2.

quote:

Originally posted by horseback:

quote:

Btw, american companies have been involved around the world long before even the second world war. The US also had their own political gambles in the Americas, the Spanish-American (this one is especially interesting for the darker sides in power politics)and the Mexican–American War war, heck, the US Navy has even been active against the Barbary States in the Mediterranean, not to forget WWI. I really do not buy the naive newcomer role you make the US appear to be after world war 2.

CULTURAL DISCONNECT ALERT!!! Unlike the majority of world powers prior to the end of WWII, the United States' government did not have the kind of connection with 'private enterprise' that the European powers had. There was nothing analogous to say the East India Company or any other colonial/mercantile ventures protected by the crown or the aristocracies of the European powers.

Think about it for a moment please. Most American businesses were not formed by well connected elites under the special protection of the government; they were small private ventures that rose and fell by their ability to serve their customers. The US government did not track their profits and successes for the purposes of taxation, because it made the bulk of its costs off of individual import/export duties and fees until the early 1900s.

While individuals who had become successful could depend on their state's Senators and Representatives to promote their interests, they could only rarely get the sponsorship of a majority in either legislative body to obtain the kind of protections that a European competitor might get.

The Barbary pirates episode was a simple case of deciding not to put up with a criminal enterprise when it was putting a huge crimp in trade in the Mediterranean. The pirates were suddenly flourishing because the British and the French were too busy killing each other at the time, and American merchant sailors were slectively being murdered and enslaved wholesale.

While individual Americans might have been doing business overseas, they were not supported by a vast infrastructure of diplomats, spies, and colonial governors like the British or French. When the US entered WWII, we had little in the way of preparation or infrastructure for a long Cold War afterwards.

As for 'over the top' behavior, you have every right to paranoia when the other guy is very good at what he does, and you're a rank beginner whose primary Allies are badly weakened and still nurse ulterior motives and imperial ambitions.

What we know now and what we knew then are two different things.

Can we get back to Iran?

cheers

horseback

quote:

Originally posted by K_Freddie:
As I've mentioned before...
Don't waste your time,lives, money and effort meddling in other countries affairs... They'll sort themselves out, and then it's business as usual.

Please do not come up with the Good, Bad and Ugly.. we've seen this, even in the so called 'Good West'

quote:

Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
Arthur, I edited you post, I know you well enough to know you didn't mean anything by your comment but the term you used can and is considered a racial slur, so please do not use it in the future, thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by Ba5tard5word:
I don't think you can really credit the British or French for having a better understanding of global affairs considering their excesses during colonialism and the fact that those excesses caused pretty much all of the current problems in former colonies.