Talk:List of United States foreign interventions since 1945

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States (Rated Redirect-class)
WikiProject icon This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Redirect page Redirect  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.


Archives: January 2006

Survived VfD[edit]

Survived: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945. mikka (t) 04:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

21 KEEPS, 11 Deletes --Nearly a 2 to 1 vote to keep[edit]

Finally, a strong enough consensus to almost guarantee that those who only want one side of American history told no longer can no longer hold this page hostage for perpetuity (forever). Now lets work together to strive to make this article one of the most balanced and best on wikipedia.Travb

The memory hole[edit]

Following from: Travb 07:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The following has been deleted and no longer appears in the article (this is from only May 2004, when the article was created, to November 2004). Footnotes are wikipedia changes (italicized) and links with evidence which supported this deleted information.

I am going through the list and determining what events are intervention, by this definition:
To interfere, usually through force or threat of force, in the affairs of another nation.Travb 00:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


The U.S. openly backed Portugal's colonial claims, due to the strategic importance of military bases such as the one in the Portugese Azores. Salazar died in 1968, after 40 years in power. Can be included in List of dictators America has historically supported [2]


  • 1948-1951 the United States contributed both economic and technical assistance toward the recovery of European countries after World War II, known as the Marshall Plan. Sixteen countries accept the aid, but most communist countries reject it.
  • June 28 1948, the US flew supplies into the Western-held sectors of Berlin over the blockade during 1948-1949, known as the Berlin Airlift [7]
  • Occupation and rebuilding of West Germany after World War II. Merged US occupation region with the French and British ones to form the Federal Republic of Germany in 1949.


  • Korean War from 1950 until 1953: After communist North Koreans invade South Korea, the UN, with every nation voting "yea" except for Yugoslavia that abstained, approves military support for South Korea, involving over a dozen countries including the US.[18]



  • Political and economic intervention in Chile against president Salvador Allende; contacts with military officers planning to overthrow Allende.[43]
  • Alleged CIA-backed overthrow of Sukarno and subsequent support of Suharto in Indonesia in 1965. Former officials of the U.S. Embassy in Indonesia acknowledge supplying a list of 5,000 suspected communists -- given to them by the CIA -- to the Indonesian government and checking them off the list when those people were executed. The U.S. government also supplied 90% of Indonesia's military hardware.[44][45] [46]




Links deleted[edit]


Comments Deleted[edit]

As well as these military interventions the United States also pursued and gained economic controls over many developing states. It was aided in this by the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.

As well as these military interventions the United States also pursued and gained economic controls over many developing states. Some claim that the International Monetary Fund and World Bank assisted American foreign policy in this area. (If correct, this would also require implicit co-operation of other countries, as the US has only 18% of the IMF's voting rights. [80])

Furthermore, the United States has provided continued military support for repressive regimes, including those of Saudi Arabia, Colombia, Pakistan, Myanmar, Turkey, and Egypt.

Furthermore, the United States has provided continued military support for governments widely regarded as repressive, including those of Saudi Arabia, Colombia, Pakistan, and Egypt, maintaining that these nations are strategic allies of the US in their respective regions.[81]

See also: History of United States imperialism, List of Soviet actions since 1945 that have been considered imperialistic

This is a list of United States interventions, including many that have, in some circles, been considered examples of imperialism, though the evidence that there are circles that have considered the interventions as examples of imperialism is not offered. Imperialism is a pejorative word that is usually used to criticize these actions. The list is an incomplete list. The "some circles" have not been identifieed, so the criteria for inclusion in the list is not revealed. The list also does not include any historical context other than date. The strength of allegations is not referenced. Alternatives to any of the actions are not discussed. Kd4ttc 5th time

Beyond these interventions, the United States has also pursued and gained economic control over many developing states. Some claim that the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have assisted American foreign policy in this area. (If correct, this would also require the implicit co-operation of other countries, as the US has only 18% of the IMF's voting rights. [82]) [83]

Who deleted most of these entries recently[edit]

Actual written contributions to the article by CJK: Zero. Travb 07:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

If I thought there was any more, I would have made additions. You can put them all back provided that they are actually objectively sourced (i.e. not cooperative research, William Blum, z-mag, and those numerous "peace" organizations who are all known to have radical leftists affiliations), and verified, not merely "alleged". Its not my responsibility to verify every charge being made. You're the only one who has complained. And some of these cited above weren't even deleted by me, the IP belongs to User:Trey Stone. CJK 20:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
With all do respect CJK, but you are not the sole authority on what is reputable. You do not decide what is reputable news, and what is not reputable news. Just because those sources do not share your own Disney version of American history, does not mean that they are not reputable sources. Labeling something "radical leftist" is just that, a label. I could call your brand of propaganda a certain label, and I have in the past (in which I got banned for 72 hours).
What you are doing is no different, albiet less inflammitory.
If you have ever been to any of these sites, you would see they are out to push an anti-American agenda along socialist lines which, at least where I come from, is widely described as radical. CJK 01:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
If you don't want this article to cite "radical leftist organizations" then there is a very simple solution: Acutally do some research. I have followed your POV deletions across wikipedia. I have never once seen you cite a single source. Not once. Your wikipedia "editing" is actually "deleting", just as it has been in this article, over 20 deletions, and not one single contribution. From what I have seen, you have not contributed anything from Wikipedia, you have only taken information out.
The only way that this information will be deleted, is if you actually take the time and research these articles, and come up with research that contridicts the findings.
Travb, why should I go through tons of research to look up a covert operation which may not even exist? Let's put this into perspective. A google search on "William Blum" turns out, at least to the first 40 entries, entirely pro-Blum material. Why is that? Is it because his word is taken as the unconditional truth? No, its because no one takes him seriously enough to consider his loon conspiracy theories. Likewise, no one would have anything to say about these wild allegations apart from their promoters. The onus is on them to provide proof. CJK 01:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Your blanket deletions are detremential to wikipedia and you are simply pushing your own narrow Disney version POV. Another right wing POV warrior who contributed to this page was severly repremanded and booted for some time for the same POV pushing that you have exhibited. Keep it up, and you will inevitably find yourself in the smae situation.
This article has survived 2 requests for deletion, the most recent vote was by almost a 2 to 1 margin. In addition, many more people (at least a dozen) have contributed to this article, and they have all been contacted about your edits. Your Disney version of history is in the minority. This article did not survive deletion twice, to be slowly deleted, entry, by entry, by yourself. Wikipedia has spoken, and it is against your deletions.
I would say more, but you would want nothing more than to silence me so you can continue your blank deletions/borderline vandlism on wikipedia.Travb 00:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Travb, I do not wish to be your enemy. I only strive for neutrality in what is a largely anti-American community, and I do conduct research of my own on other articles, but am very lazy and don't have time for that anyway, so not much has gotten done, thus I limit myself to pretty much non-controversial changes and (rarely) deletion of poorly sourced information. I reserve the right to do so. If you any problem with any of my edits, I will discuss them on their respective pages. 99% of your article edits are perfectly fine, IMO. CJK 01:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Fabulous, lets work together to build this article to a state which we can both be proud of. I am all for sourcing information and making an article encyclopedic as possible.Travb 02:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Free Republic has made a point to subvert Wikipedia through their own biased agenda. []. I couldn't say for certain that's where this is coming from but it seems likely. Richard Cane 07:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it. CJK 20:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


I noticed, CJK, you said giving out names and weapons to Suharto's regime isn't intervening in their affairs. If a dictator came to power in the U.S. and another country armed and trained that dictator once he came to power, would you consider that intervening in the affairs of the United States? What if 5,000 U.S. citizens were hunted down and killed because a powerful outside influence helped pinpoint them. Would you say that was intervening in the affairs of the United States? Please be logical in your reply. If you don't bother to reply I'll just put it back up. Richard Cane 22:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

No, because the US merely handed over a list and just that. The US was not actively involved in hunting down these guys, many of whom would have been killed anyway in Suharto's anti-comunist massacres. CJK 22:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Man, I have already been banned for 72 hours for stating what I feel about your opinion, So I won't and I can't say anything more here. In legal terms, what you are justifying is called an accessory to a crime. If America were on trial, they would be tried and found guilty of murder of the Indonesians. Keep on deleting CJK, keep on deleting and justifying. Travb 00:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
What is your point? I never once justified anything, just asserted that it is utterly ridiculous that handing over a list should be counted as an intervention. CJK 02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I see your point, which is a good one. We need to come to a concencious on what a "intervention" is. Maybe this article needs to be renamed, it has the same name problem, to a lesser extent, as the article named History of United States imperialism. I won't elaborate on the whole justification comment...Travb 03:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Potential ground rules on the list[edit]

I think that every entry should be no more than one concise sentence each. Otherwise, it fails to be a list, and become either:

a) Long laundry list of American attrocities added by "anti-Americans"
b) Long Justification of American actions, added by "apologists"

I have researched the history of this page, and these additions to the page is where most of the contention on this page comes from (other than the apologists mass deletions). We could provide a wiki link to the full article, and apologist and Anti-Americans can fight it out on those pages.Travb 00:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

More potential ground rules for the list[edit]

I took out all of these entries, simply because they do not fit the definition of intervention: To interfere, usually through force or threat of force, in the affairs of another nation.

To be balanced, and to keep to the spirit of the word "intervention", I will also take out/keep out: ::*all of the US vote rigging entries,

  • US diplomacy in support of dictatorship,
  • General support for dictators, and
  • non-military support that America provided to other countries, including dictatorships.

Simply because these entries do not fit into the defintion of "intervention", these entries belong on another wikipage.


  • Occupation and rebuilding of Japan 1945-1952 after World War II, drafting Japan's current democratic constitution.
  • 1945, USSR occupies North Korea and U.S. occupies South Korea after the surrender of Imperial Japan in World War II. USSR denies elections in North Korea, establishing a Communist government, while the U.S. supports UN-supervised elections.
  • Occupation and rebuilding of West Germany after World War II. Merges U.S. occupation zone with the French and British zones to form the Federal Republic of Germany in 1949.
  • June 28 1948: Flies supplies into Allied-occupied West Berlin over the Soviet blockade during 1948-1949, known as the Berlin Airlift


If a wikipedian disagree with these deletion, I am okay with this, but it potentially opens up a pandora's box. The article will have to also include other items which do not fit into the strict definition of "intevention" (above). Travb 00:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Your definition leaves out instances when US personnel are invited into a country by that nation's own government. It also contradicts the numerous "supports" via foreign aid, which I don't think belongs here. CJK 02:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
CJK, it is not my definition, but one dictionary defintion. I know there are other dictionary defintions, if this one is not broad enough, please let me know.
But where does the list end? If we add foriegn aid, do we add all of the money that America gives to every country in the world, from 1945-present? Do we list influences that America has in countries via their embassies? Do we list every election that America influenced? If we add all of this, this list will become so big and it will cease to be a managable list.
Can you see the "pandora's box" that is opened here?
For example, if you insist on adding foreign humanitarian aid on the list, which is generally positive to America, in fairness, you will need to allow some negative aspects of American foreign policy/aid, which you seem to want to downplay. I dont think you can have it both ways. Either the foreign aid is listed, and the support for dictators, the vote tampering, etc is included too. Or they are both excluded. I think it is in both our best interests, and it is best for the list itself to exclude this.
My intentions
I simply want the battle between the two of us on this page to go to other pages, not on this one. If we can agree on ground rules/boundries, then we can build this list, and let the battles about the details of the particular incidents go on elsewhere.
For example: did America have a part the overthrow in Chile? We can both agree: yes. Therefore, it should be on the list. How much influence did America have? That can be argued on another wikipage, not here. I think we should simply state the event, and add a wikipage link to a page.
Every list that I have seen on wikipedia, except for this one, is sparce. It lists the events in one sentence. (I can give stark examples of this, if needed.)Travb 02:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that foreign aid should be excluded. The definition would leave out instances where the US was invited to intervene. Your suggestion that the evemts should be argued on other pages is good, but it should only occur if there is clear consensus on them, otherwise the article will be cluttered with "Allegeds". CJK 21:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Umm. . . weren't the Soviets 'invited' into Czechoslovakia? I guess it depends on who you ask. They had a list of 18 signatures before they went in. . . fact of the matter is, they secured the 'government' support they needed for that intervention, and by their own terms, that was an 'invitation'. I think it's important to make the distinction between what the US Government *perceives* (or *arranges*, for that matter) as an invitation, and what is actually an invitation. Sigma-6 01:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

wrong list[edit]

Sesel your contribution:

Palestinian legislative election, 2006: USAID contribution of $2 million to the election campaign of Fatah, intended to counter the influence of Hamas [86].

Appears not to fall within the proposed definition of "intervention" please see the "potential ground rules" above to avoid an unmanagable list and edit wars between apologists and anti-americans.

I did not erase your contribution, but simply made it invisible until we can reach a concensus here on this talk page.

Let me know what you think.Travb 19:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

merger discussion[edit]

... is going on at the talk page of List of alleged United States foreign interventions since 1945 Kalkin 20:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Suharto again[edit]

I again maintain that giving Suharto a list and ignoring his invasion of East Timor does not constitute "intervention". CJK 00:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Do you meant that we should include the invasion of East Timor, please clarify.Travb 13:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying that both aren't actually US covert "interventions". CJK 20:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Response on your talk page.Travb 23:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
At first glance, I see many interventions missing. But how is intervention defined? Any secret military dealings, or any infereference of a deliberate political nature to affect the poitical reality of a country?Giovanni33 09:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
So. . . you are a known contract killer, CJK, (for the sake of argument) and, without paying you for the specific acts, I *wink* and offer you a list of people I would like to see killed. You then kill them. In a court of law, We're both guilty of a crime. . . Now, if I get to *write* the laws, or at the very least, selectively determine which ones apply to me, I can write myself exemptions or pretend that I didn't do anything wrong, but an independent court would still find me guilty of the crime. That's pretty clearly an intervention, and it is quite in character, because there are plenty of other similar incidents which had the same result: have a look at the list provided to Saddam, for example. I suppose that if you'd like to continue splitting hairs, you can go on doing that, but I'm glad that the laws of my country aren't written that way, because we'd have a hell of a lot more violent criminals on the streets today than we do, and a lot more of the people who conspire with them. Sigma-6 01:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Your example is called the Domestic analogy a term used by liberal hawk, Michael Walzer. I use the same example with CJK. See: User_talk:CJK#Domestic_analogy Notice this conversation is very cold--the original converstaion was back in February. Travb (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I was aware that it was the domestic analogy, and I was aware that the conversation was cold. I was not aware of a resolution however, so I assumed that further arguments might still be presented. If I was wrong, then I apologize. Sigma-6 00:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, in that case, I assumed to much. Sorry. Best wishes. Travb (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Marshall Plan[edit]

Your definition of Intervention may USUALLY mean the use of force but not always. The Marhsall plan virtually defines US intervention in Europe. How pumping millions of dollars into Europe is not intervention is beyond my reconciling. I strongly suggest putting it back in.