"A work of solid scholarship that challenges the notion of the United States as the 'rampant eagle' in its relations with Latin America . . . will appeal to specialists in Latin American studies, U.S. diplomatic history, and international relations, and will likely make the required reading lists of graduate students in these fields."--Charles D. Ameringer, Pennsylvania State University

Steven Schwartzberg reinterprets U.S. foreign policy in Latin America during the Truman presidency. He examines the dynamic interaction between American policy and political developments in Latin America to show how ideas for pursuing the common good were far more influential than notions of American economic and political interests, and that those ideas shifted with the course of ongoing political struggles in Latin America and with the convictions of individual American officials.

Contrary to analyses that emphasize the growing Cold War rivalry in examining Latin American developments after World War II, Schwartzberg demonstrates that these superpower tensions were not the only influences in the post-1945 world. He richly documents social and political developments in Latin American countries, illustrating the receptivity of politicians, journalists, and others to U.S. initiatives and interventions in support of democracy. He also provides material on the emergence of CIA support for the democratic left and shows how Cold War considerations were associated with support for democratic and reformist movements generally.

Schwartzberg challenges works that are strongly critical of U.S. policy in Latin America and documents his vision of the "civility of Yankee Imperialism" with a substantial array of archival and primary document material. He offers a new perspective on the motives of American officials and Latin American leaders, demonstrates the inadequacy of traditional conceptions of the influence of the Cold War in the region, and suggests an underlying unity in American global policy. He also shows that there was much greater autonomy in Latin American politics than diplomatic historians have previously recognized and that political leaders and developments in the region played a far more significant role in shaping American policy than Latin Americanists have previously perceived.