Take the dominance of French players during the 1920s–1930s. It was largely due to restricted international participation. Ask yourself why the last time a French player won the French Open singles title was back in '83. It wasn’t until the 1960s that the French Open became a truly 'global' event. And as soon as that happened, you either had Spaniards, Swedes, Aussies winning everything. (It actually started sooner, back in the '40s). Either way, French players were basically just playing against each other.
Same thing with Wimbledon.
You essentially had Brits playing against each other for over 50+ years and occasionally Aussies and Kiwis. (No wonder—they share historical and constitutional ties with the United Kingdom as part of the Commonwealth of Nations, i.e., an organization of countries that were mostly former territories of the British Empire.) Then it's only after WW1 that "international" players started to show up (French, Americans), and it was game over for the Brits when the Open Era started in '68. The only exception was Andy Murray, who won it twice in 2013 and 2016. Twice since 1968. Only twice in the span of the last 56 years.
Sure. But then I don't follow your argument.
Even in the (former) Eastern bloc, the strongest players historically are Lendl (who also has a comfortable winning record against both Connors and McEnroe in a period you claimed was dominated by the US) and Navratilova. Players from the 70s and 80s. Serbia has two ATGs - one from modern times, but also one from the early 90s when Yugoslavia still existed (Monica Seles). The best South American ever (Vilas) is from the 70s.
There's been change in tennis but it has long been a pretty international sport.