Why did the United States oppose so many Communist inspired rebellions and efforts at independence?

Answer 1

At the time of many of the Communist inspired rebellions and efforts at independence the U.S. was engaged with the Soviet Union (the original Communist State) in what is known as the Cold War. The Cold War was a very farcical, petty, and senseless war based on mutual fear.

The Soviet Union was the primary backer of the these revolutions, as the U.S. was the primary backer of other democratic revolutions.

The entire theme of the Cold War for the Soviet Union was ally seeking. Russian people are very paranoid about the rest of the world, particularly the west, and for good reason. Russia has been invaded by Western powers many times throughout the course of its existence, be they Swedish, French, French and English together (Crimean War), or German, they have experienced many invasions.

Marxist-Leninist Communism is like the Catholic Church of old, it actively seeks converts, it is a missionary sort ideology. The Soviets gave countries and rebels technology, resources, weapons, economic aid, and military advisers as long as they would be their ally. On the other hand U.S. Imperial democracy is not very different, in fact they would go out of their way and give very bad people these same things (many of the terrorists we fight today) just so they wouldn't be ally's with the Soviet Union.

So the U.S. opposed them because these governments would most likely become pro-Soviet, and in a world where allies were important (I mean come on we had a 1st World. 2nd World, and 3rd World, West, Communist, and non-aligned) these poor developing places like Africa were the front-lines of the Cold War, the battle for their hearts and minds.

Because they were all being financed and supplied by the Soviet Union as part of an attempt to, ultimately, reduce the entire world to subjugation under Communism. Communism is the darkest tyranny to come out of the 20th century. It is worse than, or at the very least as bad as, Naziism. There is not a single country where communists came to power except by shooting their way to it and there is not a single country where they gained power where they did not kill millions of people in order to keep it. Michael Montagne

I completely disagree with the statement given above. Comparing it to the nazi dicatorship is farcical, i would like to point out that Communism is based on the principles derived by carl marx and frediech Engels, who were fed up with capitalist ideals that they were under at the time. Commusim is where everything is state owned and not strictly owned by corparatism.Many western people have been brolght up with the idea that commuism is bad, but it is not. It is simply another method of economic and social status. I agree, that in the wriong hands communism can go wrong, but the same can be said with a capitalist economy.There can be no comparism between communism and capatalism because there fundemntal beliefs are different. At this point i would like to point out that the communist USSR was politically far left wing compared to the far right wing views of nazi dictatorship in the second world war.So comparing the two is like comparing chalk and cheese. the Nazi's stood for, mass genocide, extreme racism to ethnic minorities, aryanism and global domination. The communist parties stood for, equality amongst society, divided wealth and economic prosperity. The reason why sommunist countries are so hostile to capitalist societies is because they findementaly appose each other. The capitalist country believes there way is right and the communist society belives there way is right also. To conclude, communism is not a teriney, it is simply a political stance. Many countries in the world adopt communism including china who are now have the biggest economy in the world and they have no hostiliites with the united states.

"Because they were all being financed and supplied by the Soviet Union as part of an attempt to, ultimately, reduce the entire world to subjugation under Communism".......

Not the first to finance and supply Another Country for self interest....America?

"Communism is the darkest tyranny to come out of the 20th century"....... Really, some would say capatilism has brought the world to its knees

"It is worse than, or at the very least as bad as, Naziism"...... Previous answers rubbished that

"There is not a single country where communists came to power except by shooting their way to it"...... Except most countries and quite spectacularly America.

"and there is not a single country where they gained power where they did not kill millions of people in order to keep it"....... Again, as in keeping with any other known empire / country, just ask the natives of the lands

These responses(besides the second one), are pretty good. The bottom line in my opinion is this: communism/socialism was a major threat to American finance capital. Especially in the aftermath of World War II, Europe was in ruins and the United States sought to move into the power vacuum left by the collapsed British, French, and Japanese colonial empires in Africa and Asia, as well as maintain its sphere of influence in Latin America. It wanted to dominate these countries, or more specifically ensure that American corporations dominated their markets.

This is the real reason why Washington was so hostile to communists/socialists-wherever they came to power in Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, or Nicaragua the communists redistributed land to the peasants, nationalized the major industries, executed and/or exiled the traditional oligarchs, landlords, and capitalists, and prioritized bringing food, health care, education, shelter, housing, and employment to the vast majority of the population. They were also internationalist in outlook, and called on all workers and colonized people to join together to fight international capitalism.

To say the least, this is the last thing you want if you want large pools of cheap, uneducated labor producing your products. That is the bottom line why US foreign policy has been so anti-communist.

The claim that the US government opposed communism because it was authoritarian and non-democratic doesn't hold much water, given how many dictatorships Washington supported during the Cold War, such as Pinochet in Chile, 'Papa Doc' & 'Baby Doc' Duvalier in Haiti, Suharto in Indonesia, the Somoza family in Nicaragua, Zia al-Huq in Pakistan, and successive military juntas in Guatemala(this list is hardly exhaustive). Even communist countries like China became favored by Washington when they began to embrace capitalist reforms. These tyrants were all supported because they allowed American business to dominate the economies of their countries, as long as the local oligarchs lived in luxury themselves.

Once one has this understanding of US foreign policy, it is easy to see why the US continues to intervene in other countries long after the Soviet Union has collapsed- the supposed source of all the world's problems, the American people were repeatedly told during the Cold War. That is because the desire to dominate the world's markets remains, and in some ways is even worse then it was before because there is no rival superpower that acts as a restraint on capitalist expansionism.

None of this is to idealize or romanticize the socialist countries, btw. They often had severe internal problems with economic inefficiency, scarcity, political repression, and overall authoritarianism and regimentation of their societies. A lot of it had to do with deformities brought on by the state of economic and military siege imposed on these countries by the capitalist powers, but certainly there was a lot of internal blame to go around as well. But even had they been completely free, democratic, and prosperous societies, Washington would have opposed them. One can see this today with the relentless hostility that the US government and the mainstream media display towards the socialist government in Venezuela, in spite of the fact that it is democratically elected.

Hope this helps.