0

The Cold War countries like the US and USSR had interests in other regions of the world which often resulted in indirect proxy wars.

I believe the funds were provided by the larger country and often fought by the people of the country.

So I was wondering about the nationalist and anti colonial sentiment arising at the time of these proxy wars.

My question mainly focuses on what these proxy countries would have thought by looking around places like Africa or the Middle East and seeing nationalist movements throwing off their controlling powers and gaining independence.

Did these proxy countries value independence like these other countries or did they value funding and military assistance from a much more powerful but controlling country while being a proxy?

  • 1
    This question would benefit from research. – Mark C. Wallace Sep 1 '17 at 20:44
  • I've taken a class a few years ago on it but knew that not all of the proxy countries had previous control by another country. I just wanted to know if they "knew what they were getting into" – The_MN_MechE Sep 1 '17 at 20:47
  • I suspect the obvious answer is true - some of them knew what they were getting into and they thought the bargain was worth the price. I think even a cursory review of colonialism on wikipedia would be sufficient to demonstrate that. – Mark C. Wallace Sep 1 '17 at 20:49
  • Fair enough! Will come back with any questions – The_MN_MechE Sep 1 '17 at 20:55
  • The issue that I have with this question is that countries hate being antropomorphized. Countries do not see, countries do not value. Contries are not people so they cannot. And people inside a country often have different agendas. For example, it is not that in 1953 Iran "did change its stance" about oil industry nationalization, it is that a different government with a different stance came to power. – SJuan76 Sep 2 '17 at 7:43
1

Obtaining, and defending, their independence was high on the agenda of most colonies after World War II. Although some took on aid from, and incurred obligations to more powerful countries to achieve this, they didn't need the extra incentive to become someone's "catspaw." It's like what Warren Buffett said about giving permission to your 16-year-old son or daughter to date. "It's a push your child doesn't need." In most cases, we aren't talking about the modern version of the 15th century Swiss Guards.

In fact, at least one "post colonial" episode, the 1965 Indo-Pakistani War. the two combatants had to be reined in by their sponsors, the Soviet Union and the United States, respectively. It was the more powerful sponsors that had to make sure that their "proteges" didn't get out of hand.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.