Shouldn't the US have propped up the British, Spanish, Austro-Hungarian, etc. empires? (WW2, war)

[GVLNATIVE]

Look at what a mess the 20th century was, and how much of a mess the 21st century has been in some places:

* The USSR, and Communism generally, subdued a large part of the globe and led to nearly-constant small wars for the US for 40+ years, as well as oppression for citizens of Communist countries.

* The US relationship with Cuba and Puerto Rico is iffy. Is Puerto Rico best off as a US commonwealth?

* The Middle East is a region marked by continuing violence and anti-Americanism.

What if:

1. The US had propped up the British Empire? The UK probably would have gotten rid of it on its own, but what if a large part of the globe had remained more under British influence? A peaceful and prosperous democracy that spread democracy around the globe and has shared valued with the US could have remained more influential around the globe. Wouldn't that have been better for the US?

2. The US had not fought the Spanish-American War, leaving Cuba, Puerto Rico, etc. as part of Spain. Wouldn't that have been better? No Fidel Castro, and Puerto Rico could have continued under an association with another Spanish-speaking country that could have better protected its Hispanic heritage.

3. The US had not encouraged Austria-Hungary to dissolve? Austria-Hungary was a democratizing country that promoted democracy and freedom (relatively) in Eastern Europe. Plus it could have been a shield against Communism.

So weren't US efforts to get rid of the British, Spanish and Austro-Hungarian empires bad in retrospect? Having large parts of the world ruled, or influenced by, those three countries, instead of what followed their demise, would have meant a world friendlier to the US.

[NJ Brazen_3133]

When the Bolsheviks really came into their own right at the end of WW1, and the Russian Civil War, the Allied Powers and Prez Wilson sent a military expedition to the North of Russia to try and help restore a capitalist govt. That did not work out. Russians were fed up with the current admin, and needed someone new. Bolsheviks had the support of the people. The people of Russia had to learn the hard way.

If the US supported British Empire, there is no telling whether or not they will continue all the fighting they have been doing since the inception of the British Empire. The Brits were fighting all over the globe before and after WW1. They were pretty evil actors themselves.

As for the Austro Hungarians, the various different ethnics did not want to live under the Habsburg hegemony anymore. Capitalist or not, unhappy people will still exist and conflicts will happen.

Even if Spain kept Cuba, PR, and Phillipines, they probably still have their Civil War. Those the islands are insignificant. If only Spain kept Latin America will it make a difference.

[GVLNATIVE]

For Austria-Hungary, perhaps if Woodrow Wilson has preached “let’s keep people together” instead of “self-determination”, the country might not have broken up.

[Milky Way Resident]

Since all of these are hypothetical, one can only answer as such.

Originally Posted by GVLNATIVE

What if:

1. The US had propped up the British Empire? The UK probably would have gotten rid of it on its own, but what if a large part of the globe had remained more under British influence? A peaceful and prosperous democracy that spread democracy around the globe and has shared valued with the US could have remained more influential around the globe. Wouldn't that have been better for the US?

That could have worked, but there was a lot of discontent in the colonies of the British Empire. Do you think India would have wanted to remain a part of it?

2. The US had not fought the Spanish-American War, leaving Cuba, Puerto Rico, etc. as part of Spain. Wouldn't that have been better? No Fidel Castro, and Puerto Rico could have continued under an association with another Spanish-speaking country that could have better protected its Hispanic heritage.

Not necessarily. Cuba was acquired in 1898. Castro came to power following the 1959 revolution. That's a whole 60 years later. A lot can happen in politics in that period of time. The Spanish may have also pursued policies that would lead to Castro. Many countries in LatAm had already sought independence from Spain throughout the 19th century.

3. The US had not encouraged Austria-Hungary to dissolve? Austria-Hungary was a democratizing country that promoted democracy and freedom (relatively) in Eastern Europe. Plus it could have been a shield against Communism.

Just like in the above scenario, you don't know whether that would have worked as a shield against communism. Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire were already in relative decline prior to WW1, due to all the conflicts going on in the Balkans at the beginning of the 20th century.

[Brave New World]

Originally Posted by GVLNATIVE

Look at what a mess the 20th century was, and how much of a mess the 21st century has been in some places:

What if:

1. The US had propped up the British Empire? The UK probably would have gotten rid of it on its own, but what if a large part of the globe had remained more under British influence? A peaceful and prosperous democracy that spread democracy around the globe and has shared valued with the US could have remained more influential around the globe. Wouldn't that have been better for the US?

Britain's Empire was built on trade rather than military force, although Britain did keep a strong navy to defend this trade.

As for the withdrawl from Empire, it wad carried out as amicale as possible, and good relations were maintained with the Commonwealth and especially the English speaking Dominions, who already had self rule.

The Cold War was very European centered, and it was in both Western Europe's and the US interest to work together in Europe whilst maintaning good relations, and lets also not forget that Britain and many other European countries were left bankrupt after WW2.

[djsuperfly]

Originally Posted by GVLNATIVE

1. The US had propped up the British Empire? The UK probably would have gotten rid of it on its own, but what if a large part of the globe had remained more under British influence? A peaceful and prosperous democracy that spread democracy around the globe and has shared valued with the US could have remained more influential around the globe. Wouldn't that have been better for the US?

I guess if one wants to believe that's why we were out there fighting all those little wars in the 20th century that you speak of and not just to increase our own power and influence.

[banger]

These speculation questions are silly....

If Aunt Eleanor had been born with testicles.... She would have been Uncle Eleanor... And, that would have been a silly name.

History is what occurred.... Not what we wanted to have happen.

[djsuperfly]

Originally Posted by banger

These speculation questions are silly....

If Aunt Eleanor had been born with testicles.... She would have been Uncle Eleanor... And, that would have been a silly name.

History is what occurred.... Not what we wanted to have happen.

Part of understanding history is understanding what maybe could have happened had things gone slightly differently.

Don't like it. Not sure what to say. I mean, you've been a member for quite a while and haven't posted much considering the length of membership. Why pick this?

[Dd714]

Originally Posted by GVLNATIVE

Look at what a mess the 20th century was, and how much of a mess the 21st century has been in some places:

* The USSR, and Communism generally, subdued a large part of the globe and led to nearly-constant small wars for the US for 40+ years, as well as oppression for citizens of Communist countries.

* The US relationship with Cuba and Puerto Rico is iffy. Is Puerto Rico best off as a US commonwealth?

* The Middle East is a region marked by continuing violence and anti-Americanism.

What if:

1. The US had propped up the British Empire? The UK probably would have gotten rid of it on its own, but what if a large part of the globe had remained more under British influence? A peaceful and prosperous democracy that spread democracy around the globe and has shared valued with the US could have remained more influential around the globe. Wouldn't that have been better for the US?

2. The US had not fought the Spanish-American War, leaving Cuba, Puerto Rico, etc. as part of Spain. Wouldn't that have been better? No Fidel Castro, and Puerto Rico could have continued under an association with another Spanish-speaking country that could have better protected its Hispanic heritage.

3. The US had not encouraged Austria-Hungary to dissolve? Austria-Hungary was a democratizing country that promoted democracy and freedom (relatively) in Eastern Europe. Plus it could have been a shield against Communism.

So weren't US efforts to get rid of the British, Spanish and Austro-Hungarian empires bad in retrospect? Having large parts of the world ruled, or influenced by, those three countries, instead of what followed their demise, would have meant a world friendlier to the US.

This isn't as much "what if" as Monday Morning Quarterbacking. Also I have a tough time drawing the cause you attribute to the effect. Blaming US for this or that, in the cases you explain, is tenuous at best. Non-existent at worst. But regardless, let's go another direction:

• What if we hadn't "propped up" the UK empire (not sure were we propped them up by the way, as we were in war with them twice..maybe the world wars?) and they fell to the Nazi's. How does a Nazi ruled Europe work for ya?
• What if we hand't fought the Spanish-American war and not only Cuba (as they had been independent from the US for decades) but also Philippines fell to communism. Philippines as another North Korea - how does that work for ya?
• Austria-Hungary was breaking up regardless of any US influence. We are just lucky that Austria stayed outside the iron curtain. Both could have gone communist. How does that work for ya?

[jcp123]

WW1 shattered a lot of paradigms and essentially made the rest of the 20th century happen. Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History miniseries on WW1 is one of the finest pieces of historical nonfiction I have ever seen, heard or read. Plus I would argue that our stature prior to WW1 is vastly overestimated.

Had TR not broken the mold, I think we would largely be better off having followed JW Adams’ ideas about not seeking foreign monsters to slay. Playing in others’ sandboxes is what Foster Dulles and later actors love to do right up until this day, and TR set the bar for doing just that.