US Foreign Policy: 1918 & since 1991, Failure?

[August1991]

By intervening, you Americans did not help the world in 1917.

By intervening, you Americans did not change Europe in 1944. You changed Asia in 1945.

After 1945 and prior to 1991, I would say that Americans were successful.

[August1991]

Before 1991, Americans had an obvious opponent: Communism, Soviets.

As JFK/Reagan said: "We won."

Since 1991, American foreign policy is unstable.

[eyeball]

It's been more accurate to describe American foreign policy as geopolitical vandalism ever since 1953 when they began knocking off democratically elected governments starting with Iran's.

The ultimate if not inevitable consequences today could be described as Karmic .

“A disaster.” A “catastrophe.” The “worst strategic blunder the U.S. has made post-World War II.” Garry Kasparov, the former world chess champion and trenchant geopolitical observer, perhaps said it best: “Trump said he demanded unconditional surrender, we just didn’t know he meant America’s.”

Globe and Mail

https://archive.ph/rXlk5

[Army Guy]

On 6/16/2026 at 11:31 PM, August1991 said:

By intervening, you Americans did not help the world in 1917.

By intervening, you Americans did not change Europe in 1944. You changed Asia in 1945.

After 1945 and prior to 1991, I would say that Americans were successful.

Your version of history is unsettling....

[Michael Hardner]

On 6/16/2026 at 10:47 PM, August1991 said:

Before 1991, Americans had an obvious opponent: Communism, Soviets.

As JFK/Reagan said: "We won."

Since 1991, American foreign policy is unstable.

They won because they out produced everyone, and were able to set an incredible global neoliberal agenda that succeeded until other countries' economies started to catch up.

 

[Michael Hardner]

40 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Your version of history is unsettling....

The Soviets story of WW2 is under told, because the Western allies had Hollywood to tell their stories.

From, Gemini 

"Allied logistics were undeniably superior—with soldiers receiving luxuries like ice cream, cigarettes, and fresh rations"

[ Edited to remove false apocryphal stories of Soviet cannon fodder]

 

Edited June 21 by Michael Hardner

[SpankyMcFarland]

Versailles was beneficial in some ways although hypocritical. Mysteriously, the freedom of nations in the British and French empires was not up for discussion, eg, Ireland and Vietnam. The big error was punishing Germany. That helped deliver a fatal blow to the Weimar Republic. 

Edited June 22 by SpankyMcFarland

[Army Guy]

19 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The Soviets story of WW2 is under told, because the Western allies had Hollywood to tell their stories.

From, Gemini 

"Allied logistics were undeniably superior—with soldiers receiving luxuries like ice cream, cigarettes, and fresh rations"

[ Edited to remove false apocryphal stories of Soviet cannon fodder]

 

Lots of old Soviet war films portraying the Russian soldiers as gods of war, some still available on the web.....but you really got to search...the Russian propaganda machine was huge at the time, sure it still is, but not many have made there way over into the west...not much call for Russian movies...

With out US manufacturing i think both wars would have had different endings, certainly WWII,  Europe would be still a smoking hole in the ground if not for direct US funding, not to mention funding from various other sources....But to say they did not change Europe, is a gross error...

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

8 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Lots of old Soviet war films portraying the Russian soldiers as gods of war, some still available on the web.....but you really got to search...the Russian propaganda machine was huge at the time, sure it still is, but not many have made there way over into the west...not much call for Russian movies...

With out US manufacturing i think both wars would have had different endings, certainly WWII,  Europe would be still a smoking hole in the ground if not for direct US funding, not to mention funding from various other sources....But to say they did not change Europe, is a gross error...

 

To be fair, the Russians outfought and out thought the Nazis on the Eastern Front. Granted, they were supplied by the Yanks but they did the lion’s share of the fighting in WWII. It’s telling that the Western Allies only dared to attempt Normandy when the Wehrmacht had been reduced by the Soviet Union to a shadow of its former self. Given that we have to see so much about the relatively minor exploits of America in France, it is pathetic that Hollywood has never produced a decent movie about Kursk, the greatest tank battle in history. 

[User]

17 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

To be fair, the Russians outfought and out thought the Nazis on the Eastern Front. Granted, they were supplied by the Yanks but they did the lion’s share of the fighting in WWII. It’s telling that the Western Allies only dared to attempt Normandy when the Wehrmacht had been reduced by the Soviet Union to a shadow of its former self. Given that we have to see so much about the relatively minor exploits of America in France, it is pathetic that Hollywood has never produced a decent movie about Kursk, the greatest tank battle in history. 

Once again... hating on America. 

The US was fighting in Africa, Italy, the Atlantic, helping to defend the English across the canal, and the US Army that existed in 1944 did not exist at the start of the war. 

It took time to build up the American military, the logistics, and D-Day was no minor exploit as it was the largest amphibious landing like that ever attempted in history. 

Of course we waited to invade, as launching a premature invasion, and catastrophically losing France early in the war would have been better?

Nevermind we were also fighting a war in the Pacific... 

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

29 minutes ago, User said:

Once again... hating on America. 

The US was fighting in Africa, Italy, the Atlantic, helping to defend the English across the canal, and the US Army that existed in 1944 did not exist at the start of the war. 

It took time to build up the American military, the logistics, and D-Day was no minor exploit as it was the largest amphibious landing like that ever attempted in history. 

Of course we waited to invade, as launching a premature invasion, and catastrophically losing France early in the war would have been better?

Nevermind we were also fighting a war in the Pacific... 

 

Please, Allied casualties in the Pacific were dwarfed by those on the Eastern Front. You agree with that much, I hope? The fact remains that the Soviets did the lion’s share of the fighting against the Nazis in WWII. The Wehrmacht was gravely weakened by 1944 but one would not know that looking at Hollywood’s portrayal of the conflict. Again, why no epic film about Kursk, the greatest tank battle in human history? Is it hating on America to ask a question like that? 

There’s a very basic point to make here. Acknowledging an adversary’s achievements does not imply siding with that adversary. It’s siding with the truth. One reason why I liked Enemy at the Gates so much - a welcome change in perspective. 
 

Edited Tuesday at 10:26 PM by SpankyMcFarland

[User]

Just now, SpankyMcFarland said:

Please, Allied casualties in the Pacific were dwarfed by those on the Eastern Front. You agree with that much, I hope? The fact remains that the Soviets did the lion’s share of the fighting against the Nazis in WWII. The Wehrmacht was gravely weakened by 1944 but one would not know that looking at Hollywood’s portrayal of the conflict. Again, why no epic film about Kursk, the greatest tank battle in human history? 

The issue being discussed was not casualties, and when the Soviet battle so-called "strategy" is to literally not care about their men, as they send them off to their deaths when they are not gunning them down themselves, is a bit of a circular argument to make, citing casualties...

I never contested they lost more men or that they did less. 

The issue was your criticism of America as if they were just waiting around not doing anything until the Soviets did all of that. 

I don't work in Hollywood, but the general premise of most movies is to have characters that are relatable to the audience they are made for... kind of the same reason Independence Day was filmed from an American perpsective on the war with the aliens, with American characters, and Americans being the heroes and not the Chinese with subtitles... 

I did not grow up in another country / culture, but I have to presume Bollywood doesn't spend a lot of time making movies about Pearl Harbor...

We did make a pretty epic war movie called Enemy at the Gates. 

[Army Guy]

18 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

To be fair, the Russians outfought and out thought the Nazis on the Eastern Front. Granted, they were supplied by the Yanks but they did the lion’s share of the fighting in WWII. It’s telling that the Western Allies only dared to attempt Normandy when the Wehrmacht had been reduced by the Soviet Union to a shadow of its former self. Given that we have to see so much about the relatively minor exploits of America in France, it is pathetic that Hollywood has never produced a decent movie about Kursk, the greatest tank battle in history. 

I don't think  was so much of out fighting or out thinking the Germans, and more of just throwing Russian soldiers at the problem until the Germans depleted...something we see in Ukraine ...not saying All Russian tactics where bad, but they did depend on numbers a lot....I mean they showed that very clearly in the movies you quoted....One could say Russians weather played a huge role in defeating the Nazi's....

Allies were also busy in Africa, Italy, Pacific, all of which took vast amounts or resources and manpower....while Russia had one front to worry about....i don't think you give the US or the rest of the allies credit for their parts in defeating the Nazis...and the Japanese.

They have not made a movie about the Kursk battles, but western nations have documented it to death, every history channel and historian has covered it al least a dozen times...