Reddit reviews America in the World: A History in Documents from the War with Spain to the War on Terror

> they were solved by the threat of mutually assured destruction.

That most certainly explains why we didn't go to war with the Soviet Union, but the MAD theory doesn't explain why countries became democratic (and wealthier as a result) overtime. MAD was also aimed at countries with huge arsenals, of which non-nuclear countries are excluded (in other words - rest of the world). MAD isn't a driving factor in foreign policies currently.

>Not all of the countries we overthrew were authoritarian communists, Chile's only crime was democratically electing a marxist president

Right, and it would most certainly be a negative implication of the United States to purposefully install authoritarian yes-men in its pursuit for world domination, but that wasn't the case. There's important context you're omitting. For one, the United States feared Marxist governments (even democratically elected ones) would gravitate towards authoritarian systems, so it is better to have a friendly authoritarian country than a hostile Marxist one. It's a rational choice and still in line with Democratic Peace theory. Fidel Castro used democracy as a rallying cry until he got control of the state. Later, the Cuban missile crisis happened and America was fearful the Soviet Union had nukes so close to the United States. To this day Cuba is still authoritarian.

As for Chile? It is one of the best and most developed countries in Latin America. Pinochet would eventually cave into pressures from the people and the United States to create a democracy. You gotta remember, America wasn't thinking in "nows" only, they were in it for the long game. You can dispute it could have happened differently or America overstepped, but you cannot make the argument it is not in line with the Democratic Peace theory.

South Korea had a similar path. The United States wasn't about to jeopardize its geopolitical strategy and cause havoc while the country is turbulent in democratization. It kept the authoritarian regime in power. By the time the Soviet Union crashed South Korea was well on its way to democratization.

> I think of what America did in West Germany post WW2

Heavily occupy and change its politics until we knew it was a proper democracy? Indeed, but thinking every single country will be like that, or that America has the resources to occupy and democratize every single country is a foolish pipe dream; if not colonialism. America did what it had to with the resources it had to make tough decisions it'll be criticized for regardless of the outcome. The world isn't perfect. You don't just wave a wand and pray countries will become democracies. There's nuance, context, difficulties, opponents. You gotta create norms, you gotta create laws, institutions - it's a very difficult process. And I'm not arguing America was perfect. Vietnam was most certainly botched - but that isn't a good example disproving American's commitment to the Democratic Peace theory.

I don't mean to be rude, but I don't believe you have a grasp of proper context behind US foreign policy. I recommend you buy and read this book It uses first hand documents (relating to foreign politics of the United States) from history in chronological order to explain what politicians, people, or even opponents of the United States thought when they made decisions. It includes letters, speeches, political cartoons and goes into detail explaining, for example, why America planted authoritarians in countries like Greece or Chile. It's all very much in line with the Democratic Peace theory (or Democratic Crusaders in stellaris). Nothing you've said so far suggested at US being an imperialistic hegemony. Even opponents of American policy (the only people who really call America an imperialist country) admit it's trade at best and doesn't get to actual imperialism of land grabs and such (which is what Stellaris imperialist hegemony is really about).