Explanation: As the Cold War kicked into full swing, the USA developed a nasty habit of backing incredibly brutal dictators because they weren’t painted red.
As one might expect, the real losers in this ‘game’ of politiking was neither the USA nor USSR, but the people in developing countries who got to ‘enjoy’ the dictator tug-of-war between the superpowers.
It wasn’t usually just the US officially saying they supported a person, but secret and not secret active subversion of free and fair elections and overthrow of elected governments.
Most of the world’s countries during the Cold War were newly formed and generally not very democratic - while the US did overthrow several democratically elected governments - Mossadegh’s in Iran; Arbenz in Guatemala and Goulart in Brazil - the vast majority of situations were of the US choosing to back already-established strongmen and factions, backing new strongmen and factions against old strongmen, or else offering their support to such autocrats who were ‘feeling out’ the offers of the US and USSR.
While the CIA has a reputation for having their grubby hands in every pot, the fact of the matter is that even with Cold War era funding, the CIA had limited resources with which to perform their misdeeds, and often very limited intel. Reading Cold War histories, one is shocked by how commonly the CIA is caught off-guard by some coup or change in orientation - because they’re pouring their resources into trying to assassinate Castro for the millionth time, or fucking up a coup elsewhere and ignoring the reports from the local US embassy.
No worries. If it’s just that you want to highlight how fucking shitty the US’s conduct was, I’m 100% with you. I just don’t want to see the issue reduced to “Active US and USSR, passive victims” - the Cold War was extremely diplomatically dynamic, and the two superpowers themselves often could barely keep up with developments in the rapidly decolonizing post-WW2 world. I considered “backing” the most applicable term because the tug-of-war between the superpowers was largely played out by, well, backing pre-existing factions and strongmen. The Cold War in most countries happened very much in the context of national politics, not just the Great Power politics of the two big names.
Explanation: As the Cold War kicked into full swing, the USA developed a nasty habit of backing incredibly brutal dictators because they weren’t painted red.
As one might expect, the real losers in this ‘game’ of politiking was neither the USA nor USSR, but the people in developing countries who got to ‘enjoy’ the dictator tug-of-war between the superpowers.
“Backing” sells that whole story real short, doesn’t it?
Does it?
It wasn’t usually just the US officially saying they supported a person, but secret and not secret active subversion of free and fair elections and overthrow of elected governments.
“Backing” usually implies more than words.
Most of the world’s countries during the Cold War were newly formed and generally not very democratic - while the US did overthrow several democratically elected governments - Mossadegh’s in Iran; Arbenz in Guatemala and Goulart in Brazil - the vast majority of situations were of the US choosing to back already-established strongmen and factions, backing new strongmen and factions against old strongmen, or else offering their support to such autocrats who were ‘feeling out’ the offers of the US and USSR.
While the CIA has a reputation for having their grubby hands in every pot, the fact of the matter is that even with Cold War era funding, the CIA had limited resources with which to perform their misdeeds, and often very limited intel. Reading Cold War histories, one is shocked by how commonly the CIA is caught off-guard by some coup or change in orientation - because they’re pouring their resources into trying to assassinate Castro for the millionth time, or fucking up a coup elsewhere and ignoring the reports from the local US embassy.
Totally fair - apologies if I appeared snarky. I would have used harsher language, but yours is not incorrect.
No worries. If it’s just that you want to highlight how fucking shitty the US’s conduct was, I’m 100% with you. I just don’t want to see the issue reduced to “Active US and USSR, passive victims” - the Cold War was extremely diplomatically dynamic, and the two superpowers themselves often could barely keep up with developments in the rapidly decolonizing post-WW2 world. I considered “backing” the most applicable term because the tug-of-war between the superpowers was largely played out by, well, backing pre-existing factions and strongmen. The Cold War in most countries happened very much in the context of national politics, not just the Great Power politics of the two big names.