Compared with Argentina, Uruguay had been remarkably calm since World War II.

Between 1951 and 1966, Uruguayans implemented an executive committee instead of a one-man presidency.

Despite economic problems, Uruguayan standards of living remained the envy of the hemisphere. Then a group called the Tupamaros tried to foment revolution, just as Che attempted to do in Bolivia.

Formed in 1964, the Tupamaro urban guerilla movement, was directly inspired by the example of the Cuban Revolution.

The Tupamaros recognized the absence of revolutionary conditions in Uruguay. They carried out daring, brilliantly planned operations designed to impress public opinion.

In 1967, the Uruguayan president declared martial law to fight the Tupamaros. The military began a gradual takeover which was completed in 1973. The Tupamaros were quickly cornered once torture penetrated their cover.

Bureaucratic Authoritarianism  descended on this once privileged society.

By the end of the 1970s, Uruguay had more political prisoners, relative to its size, than any other country in the world.

For an overview of Military Juntas in the Southern Cone in the Cold War, read our just published post here.

Want to make sure you don’t miss a single installment of our new series? Why not subscribe to Cold War Studies? Just go right on over to the side bar and fill in your e-mail address. It’s absolutely free and we never share your address with others. See you next time when we talk about Chile!

Brazilian military leaders fought alongside American forces in World War II, enjoying warm ties with the United States. So when the US responded with alarm to the Cuban Revolution, the Brazilian military saw danger everywhere. In a very real sense, they went on “red alert.”

The military was especially distressed by their government’s civilian leadership and a confrontational political climate soon developed.

In 1964, with the knowledge and collaboration of American officials, and with US naval support standing by offshore, Brazilian generals seized control of the country.

The military ruled Brazil undemocratically for the next twenty years.

Brazil had no tradition of military rule, so military leaders carefully maintained the outward appearance of constitutional government. If laws got in their way, they decreed a change in the laws. For example, dissolving congress was an unconstitutional act, so before they took action, the generals decreed amendments that let them dissolve the legislative body legally.

Still, the Brazilian military wasn’t a unified organization. Moderate constitutionalists were in control of Brazil’s government from 1964 to 1967. More dictatorial hardliners took over in 1968, dominating the government until 1974. Then the regime relaxed somewhat.

Along with the group of generals who took their cues from the US, there were right wing nationalists who wanted to make Brazil into a world power. This group was afraid of losing the vast territory that made up the Amazon River basin, so they paid special attention to road building and development projects in the surrounding region.

The Brazilian military also pushed heavy industrialization, focusing on the manufacture of durable consumer goods. Additional resources were channeled into mining, transportation, steel production, and oil refining.

By the early 1970s, the economy was growing explosively. The government bragged of a Brazilian economic “miracle.” In actuality, the military government had purposely created conditions in which new industries would thrive at the expense of Brazil’s impoverished majority. The military was able to hold down wages, suppress strikes, and even “disappear” anyone who complained.

Most ordinary Brazilian citizens didn’t benefit from the “miracle.” Heavy industry used only a small portion of Brazil’s pool of unskilled labor, and production was aimed at a middle-class market. Military policies put more money and credit in the hands of those who were “better off” and likely to buy cars, electronics, and domestic appliances. In fact, the bulk of Brazil’s income gains went to the richest tenth of Brazilian society.

After constructing some of the world’s largest — and most environmentally destructive hydroelectric dams — along with highways, bridges, and airports, the economic bubble burst. The miracle was over. And Brazil was impacted in a big way!

Oil prices had been rising steeply since the early 1970s and Brazil imported a lot of oil. The military had borrowed billions of petrodollars to sustain its developmental drive. They had also borrowed petrodollars to import the petroleum they needed. When international interest rates rose dramatically in the late 1970s, Brazil’s foreign debt mushroomed. By the early 1980s, the country had the world’s largest foreign debt.

Beginning in 1978, worker strikes in Sao Paulo, Brazil’s industrial heart, broadcast the revival of popular opposition to the military’s regressive social policies. The military had used economic growth to justify its continued authoritarian rule. Now, in the early 1980s, with an economic meltdown and increasing opposition, the military was finally ready to bow out.

For an overview of Military Juntas in the Southern Cone in the Cold War, read our just published post here.

Want to make sure you don’t miss a single installment of our new series? Why not subscribe to Cold War Studies? Just go right on over to the side bar and fill in your e-mail address. It’s absolutely free and we never share your address with others. See you next time when we talk about Uruguay!

In the 1960s, the US initiated a new aid policy for Latin America in response to the Cuban Revolution. The plan was called the Alliance for Progress and was announced by President Kennedy in 1961.

Based on the Marshall Plan, the Alliance was designed to reduce revolutionary pressures by stimulating economic development and political reform. But the Alliance for Progress never really got off the ground.

By the 1970s, most Latin American generals thought that socialist revolution was imminent. They could see signs all around them. Spray painted revolutionary slogans seemed to cover every wall. Marxism was becoming the predominant political philosophy among Latin American artists, social scientists, and nationalist intellectuals, and it pervaded the cultural scene.

The 1960s New Cinema of Brazil gained critical acclaim, producing films designed “to make people aware of their own misery.”

Cuba’s film industry became one of the best, and most influential, in Latin America. One of the most famous Cuban movies was titled Memories of Underdevelopment or Memorias del Subdesarrollo. Released in 1968, the film was elected the 144th best movie of all time in 2012. It tells the story of Sergio, a wealthy bourgeois aspiring writer, who decides to stay in Cuba even though his wife and friends flee to Miami. Sergio looks back over the changes in Cuba, from the Cuban Revolution to the missile crisis, the effect of living in an underdeveloped country, and his relations with his girlfriends Elena and Hanna. Memories of Underdevelopment highlights feelings of alienation during a tumultuous period of social change.

Latin American novels were becoming famous throughout the world, and prestigious authors were speaking for revolutions. Columbia’s Gabriel Garcia Marquez, for example, traveled often to Cuba and was a good friend of Fidel Castro.

The Garcia Marquez novel One Hundred Years of Solitude (1967),one of the best known Latin American novels of the 20th century, ends with a massacre, as government machine guns fire into crowds of workers on strike against a US banana company, (Garcia Marquez used literary license, however. The real event took place in 1928 near the author’s home.)

Authors such as Mexico’s Carlos Fuentes and Peru’s Maria Vargas Llosa also admired revolutionary Cuba.

Marxist thought was most prevalent in public universities. But even the Catholic Church developed a wing in sympathy with the revolutionaries.

Many in the Latin American military believed that it was their responsibility to put an end to the revolutionary “red tide.“ Secret kidnapping, torture, and murder in the name of counterinsurgency became widespread. Anyone suspected of sympathizing with guerillas was targeted: student protestors, labor leaders, peasant organizers.

Since the 1960s,  guerillas were often urban. They lived and worked in the big cities close to government and army headquarters where they could cause disruption. They also preyed on wealthy industrialists to finance their operations. Still, the urban guerillas were vulnerable, and they were forced to rely on secrecy for protection.

“This is war,” explained the generals.

Latin American security forces subjected prisoners to a variety of horrors. Many in Latin America believed that torture techniques were taught at the US School of the Americas (see our post on  Pope Francis and the Cold War in Latin America. ) The verdict may be out on this accusation, but many believe that ‘national security doctrine’ maintained a climate of emergency that was used to justify such action.

American policy called for democracy, but the US helped trigger dictatorship by encouraging the Latin American armed forces to take an increasingly active role in national life. As officers began promoting economic development and public health, a lot of them saw civilian politicians an unnecessary hindrance.

To “save democracy from the Marxists,” the generals engaged in a series of preemptive strikes. The governments of one Latin American country after another were taken over by juntas — executive committees composed of generals and admirals.

The juntas of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s tried to keep things under collective, institutional control. They wanted to avoid the emergence of  an unpredictable leader like Argentina’s Peron. 

The nonpersonal nature of the new military dictatorships led political scientists to speak of bureaucratic authoritarianism. By the mid 1970s, a plague of bureaucratic authoritarianism had swept through South America and constitutional civilian governments were few and far between.

Want to make sure you don’t miss a single installment of our new series? Why not subscribe to Cold War Studies? Just go right on over to the side bar and fill in your e-mail address. It’s absolutely free and we never share your address with others. See you next time when we talk about Brazil!

The early Cold War years in Argentina were dominated by the personalities of the wildly popular Juan Perón and his wife, the lovely and seductive Eva, known as Evita. The couple’s followers praised their efforts to eliminate poverty and dignify labor, while their detractors accused them of dictatorship.

Perón’s first term as president lasted from 1946-1952.  Eva died in 1952, but Perón was elected to a second term, serving from 1952 until 1955. He was ousted in ’55 when the Argentine armed forces set up their version of a bureaucratic authoritarian state. The military’s goals were:

• to eliminate any revolutionary threat
• to hold down wages
• to encourage foreign investment.

Official policy also included a commitment to anti-communist repression.

This was a challenge because Argentina’s revolutionaries were ardent proponents of their Perónist heritage and their deep socialist and anarchist roots. To counter these forces, the Argentine military turned to brutality. Killing began in the late 1960s and escalated throughout the 1970s.

A number of Marxist guerrilla movements — their members often young, middle-class, and university educated — opposed the Argentine military government.

The best known guerillas were the Montaneros. Many of them came from Perónist families and still considered themselves Perónists even though their particular ideology was more dramatically leftward leaning than that of Perón.

The military responded with deathsquads that claimed the lives — or disappeared — at least 9,000 people and, perhaps, as many as 30,000 people.

This anti-communist terror was officially called the Process of National Reorganization by the military junta that ruled Argentina from 1976 to 1983. More commonly known as the Dirty War, it was a comprehensive campaign aimed at eliminating communists and others seen as “subversives.” According to Jon Lee Anderson, in a post on The New Yorker Blog

Many of the victims were held for months in official institutions, where they were repeatedly tortured before being killed, their bodies “disappeared.”

The dirty war continued even after the military finally permitted Perón to return to Argentina. He regained the presidency there in 1973 but died almost immediately. His second wife, Isabel, stepped in and became a political leader in her own right, but she was not  the leader that the Perónists craved. The movement spit apart and she was replaced by a new military president in 1976. Counterinsurgency operations moved into high gear and the military finally succeeded in eliminating their guerilla enemies. The generals proudly announced the triumph of  “Judeo-Christian civilization.” For a time, most Argentinians tried not to notice the dirty war.

In the late 1970s, however, mothers carrying photographs of their “disappeared” children began to protest in the Plaza de Mayo, the main square in downtown Buenos Aires. Gradually, the world recognized and honored the truth of their accusations. The military made a desperate attempt to change the subject and to reinforce Argentinean nationalism by identifying a new, external enemy, Great Britain.

In 1982, war erupted over the Falkland or Malvinas, Islands. The poorly trained Argentinean soldiers were quickly overwhelmed, though, and the military was disgraced. In 1983, Argentina held elections and the armed forces were defeated.

Pope Francis’ role in the Dirty War — silence, complicity, or risk taking to support those in danger — has yet to be determined. But the discussion around the Cold War tragedy in Argentina reminds us all that human rights are not to be taken lightly. Trafficking in persons is a serious crime and a grave violation of human rights. Every year, thousands of men, women and children fall into the hands of traffickers, in their own countries and abroad. The “disappeared” are with us even now with United Nations stating that the number of victims (worldwide) at any given time tops 2.4.million.

According to the New York County District Attorney’s Office:

Victims of human trafficking are often in plain sight. They may be providing you services or interacting with the public in some way. If you believe that someone may be the victim of human trafficking it is important that you try to get help. If you believe the victim is in immediate danger please call 911.

For an overview of Military Juntas in the Southern Cone in the Cold War, read our just published post here.

(If you prefer to watch rather than read be sure to take a look at our new post Host Your Own Argentina and Chile Film Festival: Just click here.)

Today, March 14, 2013, the world is celebrating the election of  Latin America’s first pope, Pope Francis. But all is not rosy. Despite worldwide celebration, snide newspaper headlines are emerging. Here’s a sample. It popped up yesterday in The Guardian. In fact, almost as soon as Jorge Bergoglio, Archbishop of Buenos Aires (Argentina), was elected, The Guardian blustered: Pope Francis: questions remain over his role during Argentina’s dictatorship.

The paper goes on to state that

the news of Latin America’s first pope was clouded by lingering concerns about the role of the church — and its new head — during Argentina’s brutal military dictatorship.

The Catholic church and Pope Francis have been accused of a complicit silence and worse during the “dirty war” of murders and abductions carried out by the junta that ruled Argentina from 1976 to 1983.

Today, the reputable New Yorker picked up the issue and is addressing it in its daily newsletter.

Well, you get the idea. If you insist, you can read the full Guardian article here and The New Yorker post here.

For quite some time, Cold War Studies has been planning a series on the Cold War in Latin America.  Today seems like a good time to start — even if it’s a bit earlier than planned. So I’ll give you a brief introduction below, and tomorrow I’ll move right into Argentina. Then we’ll backtrack for a more sequential overview of Latin America’s role in the half century superpower conflict. I hope you’ll join me for the complete series.

Introduction to the Cold War in Latin America

After the shock of the 1959 Cuban Revolution, the Cold War came to Latin America in full force. The Cuban government tried to help Marxist revolutionaries in other countries of the region, but there wasn’t much that they could do. The Cubans had their hands full with their own domestic challenges.

Although Latin American Marxists believed that Russia was on their side, the USSR played only a minor role in Latin America’s revolutionary movements. Instead Nationalism formed the bedrock of Latin America’s revolutionary fervor.

America didn’t see things this way. Even though there were no Soviet proxy guerilla forces in Latin America, the US State Department saw Soviet involvement at every turn.

Nevertheless, the counter-revolutionary violence that spread across the region in the 1960s and 1970s was actually based on support of the weak and impoverished masses in their struggle against rich minorities in their own countries as well as US multinational corporations.

The upper class and most of the middle class in Latin America were anti-communist. So were many of the poor. These anti-communists branded Marxist ideas as foreign to Latin America, emphasizing that Marxism was an imported ideology supported by radical university students who didn’t speak for the masses.

America’s most important anti-communist allies were the armed forces of Latin America. The working alliance between the US and Latin American militaries dated from World War II, and  involved permanent, large scale US military aid for Latin American armies. It also included training at the US military’s School of the Americas. Here, the basic curriculum was summed up as counterinsurgency or “how to fight guerillas.”

The overall logic of the anti-communist alliance, sometimes called “national security doctrine,” was as follows:

• Latin American armed forces are key US allies in defense of the Free World, and counterinsurgency is their special role.
• The US military will handle any communist invaders from outside of the hemisphere.
• Latin American armies should defend against the internal enemies of freedom: revolutionary organizers in factories, poor neighborhoods, and universities.

Thus, the US alliance increased the power of Latin American armies within their own countries. Doctrine also offered a glorious mission — defending the “Free World” or even “Western Civilization. This mission won them rich and powerful friends as a fringe benefit. We’ll see how this played out in Argentina tomorrow.

Want to make sure you don’t miss a single installment of our new series? Why not subscribe to Cold War Studies? Just go right on over to the side bar and fill in your e-mail address. It’s absolutely free and we never share your address with others. See you next time!

Cold War Studies is now tweeting the Cold War. I hope you’ll follow us: @coldwarstudies.

I have to admit that I borrowed the idea from a New York Times article called The Tweets of War: What’s Past is Postable.

Not everyone has time to read a blog post, but it’s easy to take just a minute to read a tweet. That’s why Cold War Studies is joining others who are tweeting politics and history: RealTimeWWII, JFK1962, CivilWarwp, and 1948War to name a few.

Please join me as I relive the Cold War snippet by snippet, tweet by tweet. There’ll be links to video, multimedia, and official sources.

I’ll continue to provide more in-depth information on the Cold War Studies blog (www.coldwarstudies.com) for those who like to dig deep. But if all you really want is an overview — without any academic gobbledygook — then @coldwarstudies will be just right for you. It’s your choice!!

We’ve just started — there are only 6 tweets so far — so you haven’t missed anything yet.  But, if you’re interested in the causes of the Cold War, now’s the time to tune in.

Do follow us. And remember — we count on your retweets!

Lots of you are asking questions about the Cold War. “WHEN” is a favorite.  But the answer to when is often very convoluted.  In fact, I’ve argued many times that “the US and Russian competition didn’t begin in 1945” as is frequently asserted.

No one over-arching event started the Cold War like Pearl Harbor started World War II or the destruction of the World Trade Center started the war in Afghanistan. Even so, today — just this once — I’m going to simplify.

When World War II ended, the US demanded an ‘open’ world marketplace. As Secretary of State Dean Acheson said:

we cannot expect domestic prosperity under our system without a constantly expanding trade with other nations.

As another official noted:

The capitalist system is essentially an international system and if it cannot function internationally, it will break down completely.

In 1944, the Americans tried to assure a friendly postwar marketplace. But there were many contradictions in US policy. Washington demanded an open Europe, but refused to recognized Stalin’s right to control large parts of Eastern Europe. Stalin wanted a Russian “sphere” to serve as a strategic buffer against the West that he could exploit economically for the rapid rebuilding of the Soviet economy.

In 1944, the West received warning of trouble to come when the Red Army began to sweep across Eastern Europe.  Stalin said:

Whoever occupies a territory also imposes on it his own social system as far as his army can reach.

A crisis developed over Poland that became the test case of Soviet intentions. As the Russians became ever more determined to control Poland, the Poles refused to open the door to American trade.  What was then called an “iron fence” was falling around Europe.

At the Potsdam Conference, held outside Berlin in July 1945, it was agreed that the West would recognize a new Polish-German boundary. The basis for an eastern and western Germany was also established with the implication that an economic division of Germany would lead to political division.

On his way home from Potsdam, Truman received news that the atomic bomb had destroyed Hiroshima. The bombing occurred on August 6, and 80,000 Japanese had died. In response, the Russians began work on their own atomic weapons. The arms race was on.

In early 1946, Stalin and Churchill issued Declarations of Cold War.

In a speech on February 9, Stalin announced his continued confidence in Marxist-Leninist dogma, and went on to argue that war was inevitable as long as capitalism existed. He asked the Soviet people to prepare by developing basic industry instead of consumer goods, and he initiated an intense ideological effort to eliminate Western influences.

The New York Times reported that Stalin believed “the stage is set for war.” Many in Washington felt that Stalin’s speech meant “The Declaration of World War III.”

In return, in a speech at Fulton, Missouri, on March 5, Prime Minister Churchill claimed that “an iron curtain had descended across the continent” allowing a “police government” to rule Eastern Europe.

What the Soviets want, he said, is “the indefinite expansion of their power and doctrine.”

Although President Truman had not yet chimed in, the Cold War was on.  The Cold War: When question was almost answered.

On March 12, 1947, Truman finally issued his own declaration of Cold War with his announcement of the Truman Doctrine. He asked Americans to join in a global commitment against communism. This doctrine became the guiding spirit of American Foreign Policy during the half century Cold War period.

On December 25, 1991, the seventy-four year old Soviet Union disappeared. America’s Cold War enemy no longer existed. Instead the US would face the new threat of a frustrated, unstable Russia. The country would also be forced to deal with the political, ethnic, religious, and economic fragmentation of the global system.

If you want more insight into the causes of the Cold War, go to our post titled The Cold War Begins in Manchuria. Also, for in-depth history and analysis be sure to listen to our podcasts:

Causes of the Cold War

More Causes of  The Cold War

LISTEN TO OUR SECOND PODCAST: MORE CAUSES OF THE COLD WAR

This podcast is the second in our series of podcasts on AMERICA, RUSSIA, AND THE COLD WAR by Walter LaFeber.

Our first podcast focused on LaFeber’s Introduction and on Chapter One, examining the beginnings of the rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union. It ended when the Americans dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, spurring the Soviets to begin production of their own atomic weapons. In other words, the arms race was on!

Our second podcast picks up with a focus on the threat of more conventional military confrontations.

A PDF of the podcast is provided. You can
access the text of  MORE CAUSES OF THE COLD WAR here.

A glossary of some terms that you will want to know follows:

TREATY OF FRIENDSHIP AND ALLIANCE: A treaty between the Soviet government and (Nationalist or ‘Old’) China signed in August 1945. According to the terms of this treaty,  Stalin received substantial territorial concessions in return for his agreement to deal with Chiang Kai-shek, not Mao Ze-dong. You can read the Treaty of Friendship and Alliance here.

DOMINO THEORY: In 1946, the theory was based on the assumption that Stalin, like Hitler, was intent on unlimited conquest. The theory was (later) formally defined by President Eisenhower who said:

You have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is the certainty that it will go over very quickly. So you could have the beginning of a disintegration that would have the most profound influences.

ACHESON-LILIENTHAL PROPOSAL: Released in March 1946 as a plan for the control of the atom. The report suggested a series of stages through which the world could pass to international control of atomic weapons. It outlines a plan for international control of atomic energy.

The report represented an attempt by the United States to maintain its superiority in the field of atomic weapons while also trying to avoid a costly and dangerous arms race with the Soviet Union.

BARUCH PLAN: Presented to the United Nations on June 15, 1946, the Baruch Plan proposed that atomic energy be controlled through international management of the necessary raw materials and inspection by international agencies. The Russians were opposed, and the plan failed to gain acceptance, setting the stage for the Cold War arms race.

ATOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY: As part of his plan, Baruch proposed the establishment of an international atomic development authority.  This group would control all activities dangerous to world security and possess the power to license and inspect all  nuclear projects. Once such an authority was established, no more bombs should be built and existing bombs should be destroyed. The authority was unacceptable to the Russians and was not established.

US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION: The United States Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) was an agency of the United States government established by the US Congress to foster and control the peace time development of atomic science and technology.

ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1946: President Truman signed the McMahon/Atomic Energy Act on August 1, 1946, transferring the control of atomic energy from military to civilian hands, effective January 1, 1947. The agency was abolished by the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.

You can listen to our first podcast here: CAUSES OF THE COLD WAR.