he pushed or at least enabled three policies that have had devastating consequences for millions of people that continue even today.
First--he gave an okay to the CIA and various proxies to overthrow the democratically elected government of Guatemala. The result has been decades of military dictatorships that have tortured and murdered hundreds of thousands of people, along with a resultant guerrilla war that has also led to horrific suffering.
Second--and this is similar to the first--he green lighted the CIA plot to overthrow the government of Iran and reinstate the Shah, with similar results causing even more human and political damage. Iran, like Guatemala, had a democratic government that we essentially destroyed. All the misery since then, including the repression of women and girls we see today, got its genesis from our short-sighted and entirely selfish interference.
Both these actions were "justified" as a response to Communism, but that was as much BS as our going into Iraq to find WMDs. The governments of both those countries--in response to the wishes of the majority of their voters--were taking action to stop the exploitation of natural resources by foreign powers. In Guatemala's case it was fertile land that was being used to grow cash crops for US companies--United Fruit and others--while Guatemalans often were left to starve. The government was proposing to tax these foreign companies or--if they refused to be taxed--take the land while offering fair compensation. In Iran the government wanted control of the oil and the revenue it generated, which brought down the wrath of western oil companies.
The third instance was Vietnam. The Geneva Accords signed in the mid-1950s called for an internationally supervised democratic election in both the north and south regions of that country, allowing voters to choose their government. Eisenhower in his memoirs comes right out and says the US supported Diem in canceling that election because it was clear Ho Chi Minh would win by a landslide. So--no election--instead another junta in the south and a north Vietnamese government driven ever closer to the Soviets and the Chinese, which in turn was used to justify further US intervention.
The consequences of these three anti-democratic policies remain with us today, particularly in Iran. In that instance it always amazes me how most Americans believe the start of our troubles with Iran began with the hostage crisis--not even bothering to ask: why were those people so pissed at us in the first place? Oh, right, "they hate us for our freedom."
I don't know if Stevenson would have done any better, though he did seem to have a much more nuanced vision of the world than Ike.
Domestically Eisenhower did a lot of good. Not great on civil rights, but otherwise a competent and seemingly good hearted person.
Then again, he did also give us Richard Nixon...
= new reply since forum marked as read
