History reveals how Authoritarianism usually develops and what one can do if facing it?

[Bootstrap]

Now let me answer the implied question: are you asking if America has allied itself with authoritarians? Certainly - here's a list. But often, our authoritarian allies have not been the mass murderers like Hitler or Stalin - most of these are a level down from that:

That's an accurate statement in the sense that most authoritarian rulers aren't mass murders quite to the degree that Hitler and Stalin were. However US supported both Stalin and Pol Pot so I don't think that your implication that the US only supports garden variety dicatators is accurate.

I think that's debatable, but I could be wrong. I don't think we endorsed either of those countries like we did the list of countries I provided above. I'm lazy, so I'll ask GPT4 here. Is anything below inaccurate? If so, what?

The U.S. relationships with Pol Pot and Stalin are complex and have been subjects of debate among historians and political analysts.

**Pol Pot**:
- The U.S. did not directly support Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge regime, which was responsible for the Cambodian Genocide in the late 1970s.
- However, after the Khmer Rouge was overthrown by Vietnamese forces in 1979, the U.S., in its effort to counter Vietnamese influence (and by extension, Soviet influence) in Southeast Asia, supported the coalition resistance against the Vietnamese occupation. This coalition included the Khmer Rouge, among other factions.
- The U.S. provided humanitarian aid to Cambodian refugee camps on the Thai border, but it's been argued that some of this aid indirectly benefited the Khmer Rouge who controlled certain camps.
- While the U.S. didn't support Pol Pot's brutal regime directly, its policy in the region during the Cold War resulted in some indirect support or at least tolerance of the Khmer Rouge in specific contexts.

**Stalin**:
- During World War II, the U.S. and the Soviet Union, under Stalin's leadership, were allies in the fight against Nazi Germany. This alliance was primarily a matter of mutual interest against a common enemy rather than an endorsement of each other's ideologies or practices.
- The U.S., under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, engaged in diplomatic and military cooperation with Stalin, supplying the USSR with weapons, equipment, and other resources through the Lend-Lease program.
- However, after the war, relations quickly soured, leading to the onset of the Cold War. The alliance during WWII was a pragmatic one, and the deep ideological differences between the U.S. and the USSR were temporarily set aside in the face of the Nazi threat.
- It's worth noting that while the U.S. allied with Stalin against the Nazis, there was significant criticism and concern about Stalin's repressive policies, purges, and other atrocities. However, the exigencies of the war led to a temporary alliance.

In both cases, U.S. actions were shaped by broader geopolitical considerations, and alliances were often formed based on strategic imperatives rather than ideological or moral alignments.

[ken_sylvania]

Now let me answer the implied question: are you asking if America has allied itself with authoritarians? Certainly - here's a list. But often, our authoritarian allies have not been the mass murderers like Hitler or Stalin - most of these are a level down from that:

That's an accurate statement in the sense that most authoritarian rulers aren't mass murders quite to the degree that Hitler and Stalin were. However US supported both Stalin and Pol Pot so I don't think that your implication that the US only supports garden variety dicatators is accurate.

I think that's debatable, but I could be wrong. I don't think we endorsed either of those countries like we did the list of countries I provided above. I'm lazy, so I'll ask GPT4 here. Is anything below inaccurate? If so, what?

The U.S. relationships with Pol Pot and Stalin are complex and have been subjects of debate among historians and political analysts.

**Pol Pot**:
- The U.S. did not directly support Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge regime, which was responsible for the Cambodian Genocide in the late 1970s.
- However, after the Khmer Rouge was overthrown by Vietnamese forces in 1979, the U.S., in its effort to counter Vietnamese influence (and by extension, Soviet influence) in Southeast Asia, supported the coalition resistance against the Vietnamese occupation. This coalition included the Khmer Rouge, among other factions.
- The U.S. provided humanitarian aid to Cambodian refugee camps on the Thai border, but it's been argued that some of this aid indirectly benefited the Khmer Rouge who controlled certain camps.
- While the U.S. didn't support Pol Pot's brutal regime directly, its policy in the region during the Cold War resulted in some indirect support or at least tolerance of the Khmer Rouge in specific contexts.

**Stalin**:
- During World War II, the U.S. and the Soviet Union, under Stalin's leadership, were allies in the fight against Nazi Germany. This alliance was primarily a matter of mutual interest against a common enemy rather than an endorsement of each other's ideologies or practices.
- The U.S., under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, engaged in diplomatic and military cooperation with Stalin, supplying the USSR with weapons, equipment, and other resources through the Lend-Lease program.
- However, after the war, relations quickly soured, leading to the onset of the Cold War. The alliance during WWII was a pragmatic one, and the deep ideological differences between the U.S. and the USSR were temporarily set aside in the face of the Nazi threat.
- It's worth noting that while the U.S. allied with Stalin against the Nazis, there was significant criticism and concern about Stalin's repressive policies, purges, and other atrocities. However, the exigencies of the war led to a temporary alliance.

In both cases, U.S. actions were shaped by broader geopolitical considerations, and alliances were often formed based on strategic imperatives rather than ideological or moral alignments.

Yea, but you're shifting the goalposts from who the US allied with, to who they endorsed. At any rate, the GPT4 computer that you asked to do your thinking for you pretty much makes it clear that the US knew full well that Stalin's dictatorship was repressive and brutal, but they allied with him anyway.

[barnhart]

Maybe a better question is how does accountable representative constitutional democracy develop. Judging from history authoritarian style government is normal, we live in a tiny bubble of exception to the norm.

[Bootstrap]

Yea, but you're shifting the goalposts from who the US allied with, to who they endorsed. At any rate, the GPT4 computer that you asked to do your thinking for you pretty much makes it clear that the US knew full well that Stalin's dictatorship was repressive and brutal, but they allied with him anyway.

I needed some facts to reason from - are the summaries GPT4 provided accurate? If not, how?

As I read those outlines, I would conclude that:

1. We did not ally with Pol Pot nor endorse him.
2. We were allies with Stalin in order to defeat Hitler, and really only for that purpose. During that time, we continued to denounce Communism and authoritarian rule.

At the end of WWII, the concentration camps built by Hitler were recycled and used for political and religious prisoners under Communism. And Russia took over Eastern Europe, which it did not control before World War II. I have no idea how to game this out - if we had not allied with Stalin, would Hitler have defeated England and taken over much of Eastern Europe? Who knows, it's hard to prove a counter-factual.

[Bootstrap]

Maybe a better question is how does accountable representative constitutional democracy develop. Judging from history authoritarian style government is normal, we live in a tiny bubble of exception to the norm.

And we have lived that way for over 200 years.

Not perfectly. We certainly did not have a constitutional democracy for most black people for most of our history. And we had a civil war. But we've had a pretty good run. I think I found the article Jazzman mentioned in the original post. It asks why America did not give in to fascism - and points out the fact that fascism did exist here too.

https://newrepublic.com/article/175736/ ... or-america

The United States was as rocked as any country by economic trouble and the collapse of authority it revealed and, in the 1930s, it had its own strong fascist movement with prominent spokespeople. Things had gone so far that in February 1939, in honor of President George Washington’s birthday, Nazis held a rally at New York City’s Madison Square Garden. More than twenty thousand people showed up for the “true Americanism” event, held on a stage that featured a huge portrait of Washington in his Continental Army uniform flanked by swastikas.

And yet, just two years later, Americans went to war against fascism. Within six years the United States was leading the defense of democracy around the world, never perfectly—indeed, often quite badly—but it had rejected authoritarianism in favor of the idea that all people are created equal.

Scholars studying the U.S. suggested that Americans were somehow different from those who had fallen to authoritarianism. They were too practical, too moderate, to embrace political extremes. They liked life in the middle.

II. The Two Warring Visions of Society

It was a lovely thought, but it wasn’t true.

America took a different course in the 1930s not because Americans were immune to authoritarianism, but because they rallied around the language of human self-determination embodied in the Declaration of Independence.

They chose to root the United States not in an imagined heroic past, but in the country’s real history: the constant struggle of all Americans, from all races, ethnicities, genders, and abilities, to make the belief that we are all created equal and that we have a right to have a say in our democracy come true. People in the United States had never lost sight of the promise of democracy because marginalized people had kept it in the forefront of the national experience. From the very first days of the new nation, minorities and women had consistently, persistently, and bravely insisted on their right to equality before the law and to a say in their government.

In the 1930s their insistence translated into a defense of democracy around the world. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt clearly and repeatedly spelled out the difference between a society based on the idea that all people are equal and a society based on the idea that some people are better than others and have a right to rule.

Except for blacks, back then.

[Josh]

“People that are the American Empire’s enemies are authoritarians”

First off, a request: I don't think it's helpful when you make things up, pretend that I said them even though you know or should know that I do not believe them, and mock me for your own words. And I think that's against board guidelines:

• Do not use extreme sarcasm to minimize another's comments or opinions.
• Do not take another's statement and distort it to an extreme.

I was expressing my opinion on what chatgpt said. It seemed to have a list of people who had one thing in common (except for the very last); they’ve been enemies of the USA (although Stalin was an ally for a while).

I hope it’s OK to mock chatgpt’s output around here.

Now let me answer the implied question: are you asking if America has allied itself with authoritarians? Certainly - here's a list. But often, our authoritarian allies have not been the mass murderers like Hitler or Stalin - most of these are a level down from that:

The United States, in pursuit of its strategic and geopolitical interests, especially during the Cold War era, has at times allied with or supported authoritarian regimes. Here's a list of some notable authoritarian governments or leaders that the U.S. has supported, either militarily, financially, or diplomatically:

1. **Saudi Arabia**: The monarchy in Saudi Arabia has had longstanding economic and strategic ties with the U.S., primarily due to oil interests and regional geopolitics.

2. **Iran (under the Shah)**: The U.S. supported Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, particularly after the 1953 coup, which was backed by the CIA and the British intelligence service. The Shah's rule was marked by modernization, but also by political repression.

3. **Egypt (under various leaders)**: Especially during the presidencies of Anwar Sadat and Hosni Mubarak, the U.S. provided significant aid to Egypt, a key ally in the Middle East peace process.

4. **Iraq (under Saddam Hussein)**: While the U.S. relationship with Saddam was complex, there was tacit support during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s.

5. **Chile (under Pinochet)**: After a 1973 coup that ousted democratically elected President Salvador Allende, the U.S. supported Augusto Pinochet's military dictatorship, which was marked by significant human rights abuses.

6. **Nicaragua (under Somoza)**: The Somoza family dictatorship received U.S. support until the late 1970s, when the Sandinistas led a revolution.

7. **Indonesia (under Suharto)**: After coming to power in the mid-1960s, Suharto's New Order regime received military and economic support from the U.S.

8. **Philippines (under Marcos)**: Ferdinand Marcos, who imposed martial law and ruled the Philippines for over two decades, was a recipient of U.S. support.

9. **South Korea (under various military rulers)**: During the Cold War, the U.S. supported successive military regimes in South Korea, seeing the country as a bulwark against communism.

10. **Zaire (now Democratic Republic of the Congo) under Mobutu**: Mobutu Sese Seko's dictatorship received considerable U.S. aid due to his anti-communist stance.

11. **El Salvador (during its civil war)**: The U.S. backed the Salvadoran government in the 1980s against leftist guerrillas, despite concerns over human rights abuses.

12. **Guatemala (under various leaders)**: Over several decades, the U.S. has supported or been involved in backing right-wing governments and military juntas in Guatemala, especially during periods of internal conflict.

It's important to note that U.S. support for these regimes often arose from complex geopolitical considerations, such as containment of communism during the Cold War, regional stability, or economic interests. Many of these relationships have been sources of controversy and criticism, given the human rights records of the supported regimes.

Yes. But the original list was much more biased from an “American imperialist” sort of view. Obviously such views dominate the corpus of texts chatgpt draws from.

[MaxPC]

From my perspective as one who actually lived that history (NOT from the artificial GPT what’s-it):
Any relationship that the Allies formed with Stalin was to create a coalition against Hitler and Mussolini; and by extension, Japan’s aggression. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” strategy. Once Hitler (and Japan) were defeated, the alliances were no longer needed.

Alliances do not imply that the Allies share the same mores; rather the alliance is formed for the sake of defeating a common enemy. Hence the beginning of the Iron Curtain.

[Bootstrap]

I was expressing my opinion on what chatgpt said. It seemed to have a list of people who had one thing in common (except for the very last); they’ve been enemies of the USA (although Stalin was an ally for a while).

When I use ChatGPT, I think it's always useful to:

1. Check it against other sources
2. Keep asking it questions from various perspectives and compare answers
3. Discuss with people

I think of it a lot like I think of Wikipedia or Google or whatever - a quick way to pull information together to think about. In this thread, we are discussing a lot of history where facts matter, and I don't know the relevant facts without looking somewhere. I'm using ChatGPT as a first step - I think it's at least as as good as making broad claims about history without providing evidence. More information is better than less information.

The first list was the top 10 worst authoritarian leaders of the 20th century. I can ask which of these were considered allies by the United States or supported by the United States:

From the list you've provided, the following leaders had times when they were considered allies or had support from the United States:

1. **Saddam Hussein (Iraq)**: During the 1980s, the U.S. supported Iraq in its war against Iran, seeing Iran as a greater threat at the time. This support included intelligence, economic aid, and weapons. However, this relationship soured after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, leading to the Gulf War.

2. **Francisco Franco (Spain)**: While the U.S. did not support Franco during the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), relations improved in the context of the Cold War. In the 1950s, the U.S. and Spain signed a series of agreements, granting the U.S. military bases in Spain in exchange for economic and military assistance. The mutual interest was primarily the containment of communism.

3. **Augusto Pinochet (Chile)**: After the 1973 coup that ousted democratically elected President Salvador Allende, Pinochet's military regime received support from the U.S., both politically and economically. The U.S. had significant concerns about Allende's socialist policies and alignment, and there is evidence of CIA involvement in efforts to destabilize his government.

4. **Hideki Tojo (Japan)**: Tojo himself was not an ally of the U.S., but post-WWII Japan, under U.S. occupation, quickly became a significant ally in the Pacific region, especially during the Cold War. The transformation of Japan from an adversary in WWII to an ally is one of the notable geopolitical shifts of the 20th century.

The others on the list (Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Kim Il-sung, Mussolini) were not allies of the U.S. It's worth noting that geopolitical relationships can be complex. Allies in one context or era can become adversaries in another, and vice versa.

[Szdfan]

I was expressing my opinion on what chatgpt said. It seemed to have a list of people who had one thing in common (except for the very last); they’ve been enemies of the USA (although Stalin was an ally for a while).

Both Franco and Pinochet are on that list. Were they enemies of the US? As you pointed out, they were both anti-Communists. You were even hand-waving away their atrocities because they were anti-Communist ("What's the matter with Franco?") You argued that these brutal authoritarian regimes were preferable to Communism. As I pointed out, the CIA sponsored and supported the coup that installed Pinochet. Both Spain and Chile seem to be part of the same US empire building that you're decrying.

[Josh]

I was expressing my opinion on what chatgpt said. It seemed to have a list of people who had one thing in common (except for the very last); they’ve been enemies of the USA (although Stalin was an ally for a while).

Both Franco and Pinochet are on that list. Were they enemies of the US? As you pointed out, they were both anti-Communists. You were even hand-waving away their atrocities because they were anti-Communist ("What's the matter with Franco?") You argued that these brutal authoritarian regimes were preferable to Communism. As I pointed out, the CIA sponsored and supported the coup that installed Pinochet. Both Spain and Chile seem to be part of the same US empire building that you're decrying.

What I take issue with is leftists who obsess over people like Pinochet or an incident like Grenada but are strangely mute about the much much worse atrocities that happened due to Communism.

It reveals that leftists really are just communists after all and would gladly kill any of us non communists given the chance.