Would there be any significant changes to American foreign policy if Adlai Stevenson had somehow become President? Would we still have removed Mossadegh and Arbenz? Would we have taken a tough line against the Europeans on Suez?
Foreign Policy of a Stevenson Administration From 1953?
- Thread starter frustrated progressive
- Start date
I assume you're basing that on this idea of a "drop shot" war?
My personal guess is that Stevenson would worsen Soviet-American relations, but not enough to cause a war without some other major change or a run of really bad luck. Still, I'm glad you brought that to my attention. Thanks
But what are the Soviets really doing to worsen relations at this point in time, when Stalin was dying, the Korean War was coming to armistice, and the Soviet collective leadership was regrouping itself and proceeding quite cautiously?
Stevenson winning in 1953 also validates the Dems view they are the natural party of government because of the enduring New Deal coalition, so why rock that boat with radical new departures in foreign policy if what's been done so far (containment) hasn't gotten you turned out of office?
Stevenson winning in 1953 also validates the Dems view they are the natural party of government because of the enduring New Deal coalition, so why rock that boat with radical new departures in foreign policy if what's been done so far (containment) hasn't gotten you turned out of office?
It could go either way. It depends if one regards the change in US policy towards Iran and Guatemala between 1952 and 1954 as evolutionary or revolutionary.
Truman had supported a regime change attempt in Albania, anti-communist partisans behind the iron curtain, fiddling with the Italian election, and possibly a coup in Syria in the late 1940s (it is unclear if the US instigated and plotted much, or if the coup plotters gave US people in country, and they decided not to report them and then prepared to work with the post-coup regime of Husni Zaim.). So it's not like dirty tricks were beyond the pale for the most recent Democratic administration. At the same time, at the conclusion of the Truman administration, it saw Mossadegh as reliably anti-Soviet as anti-British, and thought that the British trying to dictate terms to him via sanctions was a destabilizing policy.
Probably. Not sure why Stevenson would not. And it could be butterflied before it starts, by other events. For example, if the US never comes around to the British view that Mossadegh must go.
Stevenson might try to rein in Batista's consolidation of dictatorial powers in Cuba. Although he may not bother, or any pushing might be too meager to gain any results.