US Strategy in Latin America, 1939 - 1949
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 июл 2024
- Why were the 1940s considered the height of US-Latin American relations? This video looks at US strategy towards Latin America in WWII, and how both sides managed relations during a tense period of world history. Partly because of unpleasant recent history, partly because of Latin America's status as a side-theater, the US would use a variety of policy tools in its strategy to persuade Latin America to contribute, actively or not, to the Allied effort.
SCRIPT: strategosstuff.blogspot.com/2...
All errors are my own.
▬ CHAPTERS ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
0:00 - Introduction
0:31 - Strategic Goals
2:30 - Strategic Threats
6:22 - Pre-1939: Intervention & Indifference
12:14 - 1939-1941: Hemispheric Defense
22:11 - 1942-1944: Supporting Allied Offense
29:51 - 1944-1947: Return to Indifference
36:08 - Conclusion
▬ SOURCES ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Williams M. Understanding US-Latin American Relations. Routledge 2012.
Leonard T; Bratzel J. (eds.). Latin America During World War II. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers 2006.
McConahay M. The Tango War. St. Martin's Press 2018.
Department of the Army Historical Division. United States Army in World War II. history.army.mil/books/wwii/W... [Broken Link]
Conn S; Engelman R; Fairchild B. Guarding the United States and Its Outposts.
www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/U...
Conn S; Fairchild B. The Framework of Hemisphere Defense.
www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/U...
Military Operations
Woodman R. Battle of the River Plate. Pen & Sword 2012.
Faulkner M. War at Sea: A Naval Atlas 1939-1945. Naval Institute Press 2012.
Espionage
Mowry D. German Clandestine Activities in South America in World War II. US National Security Agency.
www.nsa.gov/Portals/70/docume...
Public Diplomacy
Sadlier D. Americans All. University of Texas Press 2013.
Brazil
McCann F. Brazil and the United States during World War II and its Aftermath. Palgrave Macmillan 2018.
Argentina
Goodwin P. Food, Fascism and Foreign Policy. University of Connecticut 2014.
Escude C. 'The US Destabilization and Economic Boycott of Argentina of the 1940s, revisited', Working Paper No.323. Area de Ciencia Politica Universidad del CEMA.
ucema.edu.ar/publicaciones/do...
▬ ATTRIBUTIONS ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Wikipedia (Basic facts)
Faulkner M. War at Sea: A Naval Atlas 1939-1945. Naval Institute Press 2012. (River Plate, U-Boat sinkings)
Made using Powerpoint 2013 + Audacity, processing through NCH VideoPad + WavePad.
As mod developer for HoI4 that updating ATM Second Federation of Central America really really grateful for this video. This speed up my research like 3-4 times...
I knew HOI4 people would be here
how's the mod developing going?
@@jackkennedy7436 He died
@@crosher1 wtf?
🏢✈️🏢 UwU
Us strategy in latin America during the cold war would be awesome to see next. Thanks for a great video!
basically stage coups and exerminate anything that looks red
@@juanmanuel7305 WE GOT A RED, WE GOT A COMMUNIST IN THE BASE!
@@juanmanuel7305 even if the people CHOSE them
Operation condor
And revolutionary junta of El Salvador backed by US
The Peru-Ecuador conflict had to do with overlapping territorial claims dating back to unclear border lines set since the XIX Century. By 1924 Peru and Colombia had agreed on borders, but Ecuador refused to comply.
For Peru the 1941 conflict was a mere affirmation of territorial claims, rather than an invasion.
Ecuador and Peru did not agree on border lines until the definitive 1999 peace agreement.
yup, for peruvians itis alwys extrmeely bizarre to see maps pre 1941 even depicting ecuador as it is in this map, since the ceding of acre and the colombian settlement, peru has laways had that "sea horse head" that is pretty much standards for peruvians. Imagine my surprise when i saw the map of victoria 2 , and saw half of loreto in the hands of ecuador, was about writte a strongly worded letter to paradox, lol.
@@cseijifja In Victoria 2 the territory has claims of both Peru and Ecuador and as Peru you can take it back by force.
@@quisqueyanguy120 its PERUVIAN TERRITORY not CLAIMS, they are from PERU
@@quisqueyanguy120 it should be the other way around , the provinces were ocupied by peru usually, wonder were people get the big ecuador map.
Iquitos belonged to the Real Audencia of Quito, and Ecuador, who inherited the borders of said Audencia, had every right to have that territory. Also, why was Ecuador forced to accept an agreement without her consent? Such a thing is ludicrous
You should do Napoleon grand strategy. Cause other were his plans and he did complete other things!
Yes I'll definitely be looking into it, but for now I have to admit that my understanding of Napoleonic Grand Strategy is colored by Prof. Jeremy Black's assertion that Napoleon essentially had no Grand Strategy and relied on his battlefield victories (rather than alliances, development etc) to exercise power.
In any case, I will want to do strategic overviews of his campaigns.
@@StrategyStuff Wel it is good to know that you have it on your mind.
@@StrategyStuff wouldnt his continental system say otherwise?
@@cseijifja My views on Napoleon have changed since then, but I suppose one could say that CS was not a particularly coherent grand strategy given a) the inability/impossibility of FRA to fully seal off the European coast from UK trade given 0 control of the sea; and b) FRA failed to provide any alternative to UK imports & market.
@@StrategyStuff Hey phenomenal work. Can you do a video on India sometimes? What should it do to alleviate its geopolitical problems while also focusing on effective education and healthcare? Thank you.
Intresting video, how about a continuation of the video into the 50s to 90s?
Yes that will happen at some point, but given the frequency of my postings... maybe like 20 years later (jk)
The US and Latin America in the cold war. That's really fucked up.
Current South America political environment would be interesting
@@StrategyStuff I will personally pay you to write about the 50s to 90s and then again from the 00s until now and beyond.
@@birdbirdbird1565 as a south american , it's a shit show my man , better described by getting a filtered version of the culture kampf in europe and NA, just to add to the already hard latin american baggage.Unless an augustus spontaniously apperas to lead each country, the places gonna be a "well, they are there and its not THAT bad" for the rest of human history.
You, sir, deserve at least 100 times more subscribers
I was going to call BS, then I; 1st and most importantly watched the video and 2nd; did the math...yeah 2mil is a good number
definitivamente se la rifo
During WWII, some 500,000 Mexican-America, Mexicans and Latin Americans served all the branches of the US military, including the WAVES and WACS. Also, the Bracero Program, using thousands of men from Mexico, helped the war effort by harvesting the fields and working the rail roads and factories of America.
In the late 1930's, President Cardenas of Mexico nationalized the oil fields and mines of Mexico. Many American industrialist told President Roosevelt that he must use the military and get the fields back in US hands. Today, Mexico and Canada provide over 80% of US imported oil. President Roosevelt's Good Neighbor Policy worked.
Are you aware of the bath riots as well or the zoot suit riots AGAINST THOSE SAME PEOPLE???
I don't remember the "official" date that Mexico nationalized it's oil, but wasn't said nationalization decided on fairly early in the revolution? If I remember my history correctly, Carranza threatened to destroy Mexico's oil infrastructure in case the US decided to invade (scorched earth policy and all that).
Stop making shit up to sound smart
None of Roosevelt's plans worked
That motherfucker was Satan in disguise
Really makes you think about a possible Latin America theater if WW2 continued, though it's extremely unlikely since most of Germany's priorities are toward Eurasia and Italy was toward Africa.
Roosevelt did actually think about extending the Monroe Doctrine to West Africa in order to safeguard LatAm. He also justified occupying Iceland because it was 'vital to defense of the Panama Canal'...
Germany should have focused on GB and USA, instead of invading Russia. They might have just won the war.
@@Porkeater2610957 Germany didn‘t have capability to “focus on GB and USA“. They strained their logistic by just sending few thousand troops to north Africa. And north Africa is pretty much just right there near Italy. And they didn’t even have to land on enemy shore, because they were there to support Italians that already had that territory under control.
Moving troops, and more importantly, supporting troops over ocean, is really hard. You can’t just put food, ammunition or spare parts on a truck and send it on a road. You have to create gigantic logistic operation, where you synchronize your factory output, your trucks, or railways, your ports, your defense against submarines, your ports on other side, then you put it on on trucks, because there is no railway on other side, oh and you have to also support those trucks on other side, they need oil and spare parts, and then finally those trucks will support your troops. There can be no mistake, or delay, your enemy will not wait, just because your troops run out of bullets.
Only USA and GB (with help of US) were able to move and support hundreds of thousands troops on other side of world.
For Germany to do the same, they would have to build naval infrastructure, that takes decades. They would have to have resources to support that infrastructure. They didn’t have those. That’s the reason why they invaded soviet union. Soviet union had large oil production, Germany didn’t. They had reserves for few months of conflict. After that their mechanized army went from trucks to horses. You can’t exactly hope to go conquering other continents, when your main means of moving supplies is horse.
@@stafer3 I didn't mean they would actually invade the US, but face it in Latin America in certain "Cold War tactics", like the USSR did.
I meant that they should have tried to invade England, and subsequently turn it into a Vichy-style client state. That would win them the war. Instead they tried to defeat Russia, which was never a possibility or a genuine threat to German control over Europe.
@@Porkeater2610957 Good look trying get past the world's then largest navy with a large number of Rhine River Barges, with a freeboards that were so low a minor swell, or say, the bow wave of a passing destroyer, could swamp and sink it. Good look assembling said fleet when most of the barges don't even have engines, have untrained crews, and lack the speed to overcome the tides and currents, let alone the ability to actually make it to Britain. Good luck getting past the Royal Navy, who's forces, in 1940, based in Southern England, were greater in number than the entire Kriegsmarine. Once you've got past every single MGB, MTB, armed Trawler, Corvette, Sloop, Destroyer, Cruiser and the Battleship HMS Revenge, you still have to land your troops, who have not been trained to deal with opposed landings, not to mention a very large number of panicking horses (if they've survived) against the Home Guard, who consisted of veterans of the First World War and Spanish Civil War. Did I mention whilst this was happening that Chlorine, Phosgene, Mustard Gas and Paris Green would be sprayed onto the beaches? Not of mention the flame barrages designed by the Petroleum Warfare Department. There weren't enough barges to carry all the equipment actions the channel in one go, so they had to return across the channel to collect the second wave. If a port was captured it would be sabotaged, therefore reducing its unloading capacity, and repairs would take several days, not that it would be an issue, because by then the Home Fleet, centred around Rodney, Nelson and Hood would have slipped their mororings at Rosyth, and sailed south. Both the cross-channel guns at Calais, at the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Norway and Dunkirk performed woefully when it came to sinking ships, even slow Merchant ships, and as such would be unable to prevent the Royal Navy from blocking off the Channel. The Kriegsmarine if not even worth mentioning, as their forces screening the invasion fleet would easily be brushed aside by the local Royal Navy forces in the south, let alone the entire Home Fleet.
In the air, the Germans would face Operation Banquet, where every airworthy RAF aircraft, including trainers armed with 20lb bombs. Of course, given that Britain was producing more aircraft than Germany, the latter would not have air superiority, and could of at best, forced No.11 Group to withdraw temporarily to the north. German Paratroopers of course, were dropped seperately from their weapons. Should they use gliders, every potential landing zone was crossed by trenches or abandoned cars. Airfield were defended by Picket Hamilton Forts, retractable pillboxes, and Bison mobile pillboxes. Of course usable Runways would have been demolished by Canadian Pipe mines and Runway Ploughs had the Germans desired to reinforce their airheads.
Should the German forces actually make off the beaches they would be faced by Regular Forces and multiple stop lines, such as the GHQ Line and Taunton stop line, demolished bridges and removable road blocks with every village and town having self contained defences manned by local volunteers trained by Spanish Civil War veterans. They would also face Auxiliary Units harassing their supply lines, and multiple anti-tank weapons including from 2pdrs, Smith Guns, Northover Projectors, Blacker Bombards and Flame Fougasses. Did I mention that Britain also bought large quantities of small arms from America to deal with post-Dunkirk shortages. Given that there was no way Germany could ensure that supplies across the Channel would not be cut off, any advance would have to be rapid, for if they failed to rapidly achieve victory they would be completely cut off, and forced to surrender.
This is such an interesting, yet underrated channel. Thanks for taking the time to research and make these videos, hopefully you'll get a lot more viewers over time.
Super interesting! Great in-depth view of an ignored part of the WWII.
This video explained away so many colliding perceptions in my head. I knew some of the things said, but for example I had no idea about the extent of financial aid before the end of WW2! It once again reminded me that the USA is not one thing, and has changed tremendously over time
Amateur historians often ask "would a roman citizen from the early roman republic recognise institutions from the later roman empire and what parallels would he draw". I was reminded of this question, because I started to wonder if anyone from the federal republic, citizen or not, would recognise the US, especially after the new deal and civil rights movement
Honestly the Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves because of the massive expansion of the Executive Branch that Congress has given a blessing to.
The President of the USA can currently wage wars without authorization from Congress, impose tariffs and trade restrictions without Congress, impose regulations via vague laws passed by Congress, and so on.
The last 20yrs have shown that the President has almost no checks on his power. The Iraq War was authorized by Congress. Obama overthrows the Libyan government by his own authority and signed the TPP without Congressional consent. Plus, he signed a deal with Iran without consent of Congress and gave them billions of US assets.
Trump has raised tariffs on China by his own authority, attacked a Syrian airbase, reimposed Sanctions on Iran and reversed the TPP and Iranian Nuclear Deal which wasnt a Congressionally signed deal.
Congress hasn't done anything about these actions because they have granted broad and unspecified authority to the Executive branch and they refuse to strip the President of these powers.
I truly feel sorry for the Founders because their worst fears will likely come to pass. Nobody cares that the President has been granted dictatorial powers and is being granted more and more authority by the day regardless of political party.
Unless the USA reverses its course Congress will become a vestigial organ on government.
I had come across this video in the past, but it hadn't piqued my interest.
After having watching your video on the strategy of the late Roman republic. I knew you were a gold class youtuber and this awesome video only serves to prove it! I'd love to see a follow-up video/videos of US strategy in Latin America in the following years, including the Cold War and up until the 21st century.
*Your videos are getting better and better :)*
Technically, Brazil was discarded to occupy Austria by the US. Brazil didn't decide to return the troops, Brazil was forced into returning them. That was a pivotal point in history regarding many many things.
Americans should really have built strong allies in the American continent. It wasn't the case and isn't the case now thanks to the idea of possibly building enemies at your doors.. I think that is a huge mistake.
True
¿A ti te parecería bueno que una potencia imperialista extranjera construyera bases militares en tu país?
@@VENAT0RUM we are talking about war, political strategy and historical consequences, not something as fancy as what we think should be an ideal world where everything is colorful and everyone is friends and won't start a world war over questionable ideals.
Countries in the South American continent were and are extremely weak. I see no point in forging alliances with them when they hate Americans with a fiery passion, and the USA is far more powerful than the South and North American continents combined.
I mean the US managed to become allies with some South American countries like Columbia and even today Brazil has started to lean closer towards them especially after the BRICS economic alliance didn’t go so well. I think it’s because the US focused way to much on building its alliance in Europe, ASEAN countries and the Middle East with the Saudi’s, Qatar etc
Great video! You always find great topics
Really fascinating analyses, thank you
fascinating video.. I’ve spent years thinking I knew a lot about World War II and get I never considered the role of South America! Thanks for the video.
Amazing video ,amazing channel underrated deserves more subscribers
13:05 Panamá was even threatened by the Japanese during the ww2, they wanted to blow up the Panamenian canal with undercovered submarines, but the Americans intercepted them, it would have been interesting to find out what would have happened in that scenario
Same thing tried the germans, but chile discovered the plan and arrested the nazis who planed that.
@@DerSajon ach so
@@efffiel6565 xD
Fascinating!
your content is really superb .thanks
One of my favorite quotes about America, "We were glorious and changed the world, but fucked up the endgame" -Congressman Charles Wilson, the man who financed the Afghans against the USSR.
It's very, albeit not necessarily uniquely, American to think there will be, or is supposed to be, an endgame. Though I have my own reasons for thinking the end of history hypothesis might be true, if not as Fukuyama wrote it, I have my doubts about any strategy that runs "and then we win and there is peace on our terms forever", or which assumes blowback indicates strategic failure as opposed to normality. We of the former western allies needed the Russians to beat Germany, and then used Islamists and China to beat Russia. Only natural that then Islamists and China would become the problems. That's how it works. Ideally, you don;t want the new problem to be worse than the old, but on the whole the trajectory was good. For now. Jury's out on China, but they're not likely to launch a nuclear strike or invade Europe at least. Buy it, perhaps.
@@randomobserver8168 This is actually surprisingly (for YT Comment Section) Informative and interesting.
The US is the largest terrorist organization on the planet.
"Glorious" 🤣
@@johnnyjoestar5193 ? What, the Americans weren't totalitarian enough or built enough marble statues for them to be glorious for you? 🤣
This was a pleasant surprise. Fascinating.
I love the RUclips algorithm some times, I love your channel so happy I just found it
Depressing video, and logical. It's refreshing to get a full perspective beyond US educational textbooks. Even the most honest educational textbook will avoid admitting everything.
This isn't depressing.
@@robertortiz-wilson1588 depende... si no sos capaz de dimensionar los conflictos y las secuelas historicas que provocaron estas acciones, definitivamente te va a parecer "una divertida clase de Historia"... para mucho de nosotros, es nuestro presente y futuro, el que se debatia en ese jugueteo geopolitico
In the case of Argentina, the history it's complicated due to historical relationts with UK and the role of german influence in argentine industrialization. Also, clearly represents a lesser geographical priority than Brazil. Anyway, it's a good starting point to understand what happened after. Well done.
Also, Argentina was the first country in America to propose ending neutrality: April 1940.
Rejected by UK and US
Also, the only way Argentina could keep on feeding the UK during the war (something they Brutish have never thanked us Argies about) was to avoid having the Argentine merchant ships (6th largest commercial fleet at the time, if I'm not mistaken) from sunk by Nazi U-Boats. How to achieve that if you declared war on the Axis?? Easy, declare yourself a "neutral" so Hitler leaves you the fuck alone. That was what the Brutish ambassador and the American ambassadors asked the Argentine governments to do: declare yourself neutrals, so you can safely keep on shipping your delicious meat to Bri'ain.
If Argentina had not declared itself neutral but joined the Allies, know what? All the Argentine ships bound for England, or the States, would have been sunk by the German U-Boats, and Bri'ain would have suffered much more of hunger.
@@manuelcruz836 ¡Me gustaría obtener información sobre el tema que usted señala! ¿tiene algún enlace donde buscar? ¡Muchas gracias!
Love your videos
@Strategy Stuff
I am so happy i found this channel. Such well researched and well presented. You deserve at least 100 x subs.:D
What refreshing channel. Nicely presented without the hyperbolic ranting and raving.
Very informative and insightful
American Strategy in Latin America: Break Them, Make Them Feel Pain, that any idea of Sovereignty, independence or freedom in any aspect, be it economic or social, is a sin. From the Rio Bravo to Tierra del Fuego there are only our interests
I was surprised that this video basically came to this conclusion at several points but he never really addressed it too heavily.
There's a famous saying in Mexico that goes "Mexico, so far from God yet so close to the United States." And I think it really applies to all of Latin America 😅
@@hardlo7146 That saying is also popular in Brazil. My condolences to Mexico, te amamos irmãos!
@@OnlyKarlos At least y'all got some buffer countries 😭. We got a border with them. Still, we all share the struggle...
@@OnlyKarlos As well in Honduras 😂, I think in all Latin America we say that
Different to Europe, the USA never cared about LatinAmerica and never really helped us. The USA mentality is "US first, US second, US third, everything else can die unless you have oil."
This is not aimed towards every person of the USA, but it's gorvenment.
US business interests... def not for it's population
Yeah. Latin America should rise up together and take the absolute control of South America. But I don't think that could happen anytime soon.
@@joaodorjmanolo it will !!!
Exactly, their meddling in our governments is why we have such high corruption, inflation, and economic instability
very biased statement
Really great video
Never have I woken up, brought up RUclips, and clicked on a video so fast.
Another outstandingly well-researched and comprehensive video! Great job, brother, and thank you for putting all the time and effort into making these. I commend you on your hard work. Kudos!
please do a follow up to this video explaining the 1950-2000 decades in south america
US policy towards Latin America in 1900-1928 was the Gunboat Deplomacy, where the US would invade and occupy a Latin American Country that owed money to the European or American banks or that was following a policy that did not favor American business interests. That is why the US invaded and occupied Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti and the Dominican Republic during this period. When FDR came he claimed to changed that to a "Good Neighbor" policy, but that was a lie. In reality, his policy was the "Its Our Son-of-a-Bitch" policy, where he substituted American troops with a local bloody dictator supported by an American-trained national force. That is how Somoza, Trujillo and Duvalier became the dictators of Nicaragua, Dominican Republic and Haiti, respectively.
We get it...you dont like the US
@@dariusgreysun actually I do, the Democratic US, not the imperialist neocon US.
@@dariusgreysun hard to like such nation, but we can't openly say so (at a national level) otherwise the USA military will crush our countries, yet again.
@@luisa.melendezalbizu4459 The US is ONLY the imperialist neocon US
@@celeridad6972 Wait until you see what it's like to have China as the world's Superpower. You'll wish America was the dominant power, yet again.
Here in Belém we still have the US Air Base used in WW2.
Excellent! My head is spinning. I'll have to watch it again tomorrow. The bit about Pan-Am airlines is fascinating. Can you recommend any good sources on that?
United States Army in World War II: The Western Hemisphere - The Framework of Hemisphere Defense (Official history of the US Army in WWII).
www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-WH-Frame/USA-WH-Frame-10.html
Pretty much the go-to text for US efforts during this period EXCEPT for OIAA. McCann's book regarding Brazil-US cooperation adds some detail regarding the expulsion of Italian airline LATI (Pan-Am was subsidized to create a Rio-Lisbon competitive line, then UK intel framed LATI as a participant in some coup against Vargas).
I would really like a video on post Cold War NATO strategy (1991-2014) or perhaps the modern strategy of Turkey [playing both sides to pursue regional interests]
I don't think there is much NATO strategy. The expansion was not result of some mastermind plan, but consequence of dozen of countries concluding that the best way to keep Russians out is to beg to be accepted in, even though existing members had often mixed feelings. (plus joining being treated as signal of being on pro West course, where the aims are actually mostly economical, like joining the EU)
@@useodyseeorbitchute9450 While I do agree the NATO expansion was not a masterminded conspiracy it would be nice to see what the thinking at the time was and how the strategy(if it can be called that) evolved over time as circumstances changed. As well as countries thoughts regarding defense commitments and political hot buttons like conscription, Germany and Sweden come to mind in that regard, especially Sweden's quick about face on conscription. (Yes I know Sweden is not in NATO, but it is still interesting)
@@michaelthayer5351 I have doubts whether we can talk here about some overlying strategy for top NATO powers, as for them the whole issue was very low on the priority list. On the other hand interesting strategies were played by Balts, for whom the whole point was to chain themselves to West. Like for example long before Eurozone, they bound their currency with Deutschmark using currency board.
@@useodyseeorbitchute9450 This is likely true, but the main point I'm getting at is I would be very interested in more modern strategy to help make sense of current events and understand the context in new and interesting ways
I need to do more research with regards to NATO grand strategy BUT there is definitely a tendency for 'New Europe' (i.e. the post-Warsaw Pact nations) to drag NATO strategy towards a more confrontational approach with Russia, against the intentions of 'Old Europe'. Funny how Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's (Bush era) 'gaffes' seem to make more sense with time (the other one being 'known unknowns')...
War is 99 percent logistics which is dependent on industry , demography and geography . USA has best geography with two oceans as border and a productive agricultural land that can support large population contrast it with Russia which has border with Germany , Islamic world and China with a frozen and low productive land and that is why cold war was won by USA which was also least damaged nation compared to Russia which was most damaged in ww2
Snaggle Toothed the difference of outcome in conditions was day and night . It took more than 20 years to just go back to the pre war production level . Having some small lead in one industry which was desperately needed because of deterrence since USA had a bomber fleet stationed in Europe and Asia and middle east but USSR didn't have at the time a delivery mechanism hence lead in this one field . Also USSR could only trade with limited number of countries . You can read the rand corporations report on cold war economic competition they knew it from beginning that if encirclement and majority embargo is maintained then it's inevitable that it will lead to slow reconstruction and even slower post post reconstruction progress meanwhile America and western Europe controlled most nations captive markets either through colonisation or new methods of debt and gunboat diplomacy thereby denying new economic partners to USSR . But if you want to believe that Russians who invented linear programming were retarded and Americans were smart than be my guest
@Snaggle Toothed "Russia never shared a border with Germany." look at the map of 1914 Europe. Poor Poland
Snaggle Toothed Americans or British exxageration of Soviet threat for the sake of domestic politics or policy is nothing new . Also if you give me a choice between a non destroyed economy with great unparalleled geographic advantage , a navy that can enforce encirclement globally , average growth rate with cherry on top majority of foreign markets as captive and an economy which is thoroughly destroyed , no trade partners no warm water open seas excess and above average growth then you know it's no choice at all also most economies have above average growth during post war reconstruction . You are comparing apples with oranges but if it makes you feel good then be my guest . Also my intelligent friend if hypothetically USA shared western hemisphere with a Germany next to Mexico but with no direct borders and replace Canada with China than you know full well that USA will be forced to focus on its borders and regions instead USA is phenomenally endowed geographically which allows USA to use military resources to enforce hegemony globally controlling all major choke points and that is why China will never replace USA as global hegemon because China has Russia Vietnam and India on its borders and shares maritime border with Japan all of its military resources will be tied down on its maritime and land borders unlike USA . The current anxiety about China is exxageration for the sake of domestic politics and policy . Everyone knows China cannot replace USA because of tyranny of geography
Snaggle Toothed I already mentioned above that Russia didn't have warm water port giving it a handicap and also why China will not be able to replace USA as a hegemon but thanks for reminding me
Thats not the big factors. The biggest factor is the ussr didn't own most of the worlds market and also not developing the ones it had like east germany.
11:53 good guy germany buying 90% oil from Mexico, not racist at all when it came to oil.
Hay Tanks need oil if you want to invade Mother Russia, right?
@Deborah Meltrozo no back then Latin American views to Nazi Germany was positive. There were a few political parties that had the same ideology to them. But of the support came from Germany's alignment with Spain and Italy since they are the same culture
US Strategy:
1.- Keep em poor
2.- Use their corruptible coward governments to get as much resources as possible
3.- Complain about migration
@Ferbujosbe No creo que tenga nada que ver, donde vivo es de los unicos paises Latinos en donde los gringos no hodieron, y nuestro pais es uno de los mas dessarollados de Latino America y relativamente ricos, pero nuestra gente es floja en general. La perezosedad no tiene que ver, los gringos son muy flohos pero ellos tienen el privilegio de serlo y seguir siendo ricos porque han abuzado y requeteabuzado a LatinoAmerica, sin olvidar todos los nuestros que los gringos explotaron por unos miseros platanos. El verdadero problema es que la USA nos corto las halas a muchos de nuestros paises Latinos y ahora estamos atras de todos asi que todo los otros paises poderosos del mundo viejo tienen influencia en nuestro continente. Esa es la realidad, como China tiene el control economico en Africa, algo asi nos pasa por USA, China y creo que Rusia tambien. Para ser honesto, espero un dia que la USA collapse en 3 o 4 estados nuevos, porque sone unos pesados insoportables a veces.
US citizen here. A question Strategy Stuff...
It always boggles my mind why my country would warm relations with Communist China and turn them from a third world hellhole into a middle income country by importing massive amount of goods when LatAm was right there at a better stage of development.
Was reconciling in Argentina's Peron really worse than Mao's China from a human rights perspective? Absolutely not. Additionally, it is also easier to cut trade deals with the divided LatAm countries as opposed to a unified China unless LatAm formed a trade bloc like NAFTA of course.
China has very little natural resources compared to LatAm as well. We didn't befriend China for their oil. They don't have any.
Additionally, more development in LatAm would mean fewer economic migrants and illegal immigrants. There are not overwhelming numbers of Canadians trying to enter the USA.
Fewer economic migrants. More resources. More compact supply chains which are closer to home and easier to defend. If we were to put this in MacKinder terms, we would have "added more economic value to the Outer islands and less or the same economic value to Eurasia."
Well like the Bushes, Bill Clinton et al. who imagined that a developed China would become a democratic and internationally-integrated China, we also have to be aware of excessive optimism when it comes to Latin America.
1) Would the US really want to create a counterbalancing power in the Americas? Even allies like Germany and UK have their quarrels with the US. Argentina, a wealthy country during the 1910s-40s, was a huge irritant to US policy (one reason why the US cracked down so hard on them).
2) China was a great counterbalance to the Soviet Union and Latin America wasn't... and by the time the USSR collapsed, 'End of History' thinking was in full swing.
3) China's policy in the 1980s was single-mindedly aimed at getting foreign investment into the country - so lots of perks for US corporations (and you know how big their influence on govt policy is...) By contrast, Latin America was a far less capital-friendly region (import-substitution policies) and was far more likely to expropriate US corporations than to invite them.
Yes, focusing on Latin America would probably have had significant long-term benefits. But is it worth the (opportunity) cost? Focusing on Latin America almost certainly means giving up some region in Eurasia that would be boxing in the Soviet Union. It's these sort of choices which make or break strategists I suppose.
@@StrategyStuff Thank you for your response! I apologize for calling China a hellhole. It is a very nice country with a long history of wealth and importance. What I meant was that China at that point was very underdeveloped compared to LatAm.
@@genericyoutubeaccount579 No need to apologize. I'm sure Tibetans and Uyghurs are not terribly fond of the country either.
I suppose it was a confluence of opportunities:
1. China: needed massive economic development to stuff citizens’ mouths full of food (so they can’t complain about the regime); isn’t too fond of the Soviets anymore and is wary of possible invasions
2. US: needed someone to counterbalance the Soviets, and economic opportunities seems to be free to take in China
TLDR, US and China happened to have great mutual interest, hence the ‘friendship’.
(All oversimplifications are my own :D )
I just wanted to add that immigrants isn't really problem to US, it's cheap labour after all.
Could you do a video where you recommend some books on strategy?
Did you find any and can you share?
Look video description for sources
No
At minute (10:43) the surname of the third president was Farrell, no Ferrell. Good video mate!
Interesting!!
Please consider to show Puerto Rico name in all maps showing since we already have the highest military participation rate than any state of the USA. Its right next to Dominican Republic and it has an important geographical military position in the Americas.
but you are not a country but a colony
Poor my hispanic América So far from God and so close to The United States.
Isn’t it Mexico?
@@g1g4_ch4d7 in the original yes, but this version is valid too
Oof, yeah South America really is in shambles that the US has left and kept it in for so long. Long history of keeping it under their thumb
Y mucho más cerca del socialismo, que es peor.
Unlucky 🤣
Strategy summary:
ruin everything. As simple as that.
Some condor plan video now? :P
You know, I don’t know why this is in my recommended but I’m not complaining this seems interesting
Latin America never needed U.S intervention.
Do yo have patreon ?
It will be interesting if we can to be patron to make your video better
fuck patreon!
Nice
It must feel nice to be born in a wealthy family, in a wealthy country. 😢
You should also make videos where you explain strategies of great leaders like Napoleon, Alexander, Hanibal, Wellington, Eisenhower, Rommel and others
it was not German U boat but American U boat who attack Brazil and Mexico
Even the Germans acknowledged their mistake,after the first mexican ship was sunked, but anyway there was not a formal apology for that incident.
So not, there was not need to do that kind of shady stuff
Argentina is so cute. They always want to lead Latin America but they just end up leading themselves off a cliff.
You know what's cute? Argentina being the first country to offer Britain and the US to finish neutrality in 1940 and both countries rejecting the proposal. UK because it served it, as a neutral country wouldn't be attacked by the axis when delivering supplies. And the it was the US, whose reply consisted of five points:
1. US public opinion would strongly object to an abandonment of neutrality.
2. Such a step would break inter-American unanimity.
3. If ‘non-belligerent alignment’ meant anything at all, it implied that Italy had an understanding or alliance with Germany but was not taking part in actual hostilities, although with the very definitive threat that she would do so on Germany’s side at any moment. That situation did not apply to any American republic, none of which had alliances with belligerent powers, and there was therefore no reason why any American republic should adopt a policy that was being followed by an ally of a belligerent in Europe.
4. The Argentine proposal would need congressional action in order to be adopted by the USA, in view of the revised Neutrality Act of November 4, 1939.
5. The US neutrality law permitted the sale of supplies to any belligerents who could come and get them, and the fact that the Germans were not in a position to avail themselves of this did not alter the situation, even though the practical result was that the Allies were the only ones able to buy from the USA.
we liberated half of america, go check out which countries flags are created in honor to argentina, and also california was argentinian
@@juanmanuel7305 also, los malvinas son argentinas
@@mrniceguy7168 so mature response, guess you arent particularly clever
I don’t think it’s so much that Argentina leads himself off a cliff. It’s more so that the US viewed Argentina as a threat to American hegemony in Latam, and so had to steer Argentina off the power balance. Argentina back then was extremely powerful and influential.
Why not do some videos on the strategies used during the three kingdoms era of China?
Us Strategy in Southeast Asia 1945 to 1975?
Vargas did get a formal invite to the Axis by Mussolini, but he was a smart guy and declined. He managed to take full advantage of both parties and turned Brazil into a developing country for some time, until a string of bad leaders destroyed everything leading to a military dictatorship in 1964.
Viúva do Getúlio falando sozinho kskskssksk
Very very good. Surprised how good. When I see low subscribers and likes I know I have found a good source.
Applause. I'm really impressed. Can't wait to investigate your collected worx.
Wow, "laurels'"
Genuinely impressed when I find something that increases my knowledge, with all the deficient junk food podcasts clouding the net.
I actually sleep easier when I find a good mind.
and yay, that just made my day, * going to get a snack to watch it
Very good video, can you talk about why did the US back a more pro-west goverment in Mexico and provide arms to counteract cuba?
I see a big flaw in the storytelling. Argentina did not want neutrality. That came after UK and US rejected Argentina's proposal to finish neutrality. I'll transcribe from Escudé (2006):
"I will summarily sketch out the main aspects of US-UK policy, analytically separating its diplomatic and economic facets. In December 1939, partly as a consequence of the Battle of the River Plate, the Argentine government had come to the conclusion that neutral rights were a fiction, and that the development of the war would not allow true neutrality. Thus, Argentine Foreign Minister José María Cantilo suggested to British Ambassador Sir Esmond Ovey that Argentina might abandon neutrality and side with the Allies. The British government considered the proposal embarrassing because although Britain would profit from the use of Argentine naval facilities, she was already benefiting from Argentina’s major contribution, supplies, without the need for Argentine active belligerence, and there was a danger that Argentine unilateral action in this respect might annoy the USA and prejudice UK-US relations. The British, therefore, did not respond to the proposal. The Argentine government then turned to the USA.
In April 1940 Cantilo called on US Ambassador Norman Armour, and on behalf of President Ortiz made a highly confidential proposal for the consideration of Hull and Roosevelt to the effect that Argentina and the USA - and possibly other American republics - abandon neutrality to side with the Allies without actually becoming belligerents, much in the same way as Italy sided with Germany but did not yet participate in the war. The US reply consisted of five points:
1. US public opinion would strongly object to an abandonment of neutrality.
2. Such a step would break inter-American unanimity.
3. If ‘non-belligerent alignment’ meant anything at all, it implied that Italy had an understanding or alliance with Germany but was not taking part in actual hostilities, although with the very definitive threat that she would do so on Germany’s side at any moment. That situation did not apply to any American republic, none of which had alliances with belligerent powers, and there was therefore no reason why any American republic should adopt a policy that was being followed by an ally of a belligerent in Europe.
4. The Argentine proposal would need congressional action in order to be adopted by the USA, in view of the revised Neutrality Act of November 4, 1939.
5. The US neutrality law permitted the sale of supplies to any belligerents who could come and get them, and the fact that the Germans were not in a position to avail themselves of this did not alter the situation, even though the practical result was that the Allies were the only ones able to buy from the USA.
Deplorable developments were to follow. On May 10 it was known that the Argentine proposal had been leaked to the press. Though efforts were made in Washington and Buenos Aires to avoid publication, by May 12 an article marked ‘special’ from Washington bearing the news was published in La Nación. The Argentine government attributed responsibility for the leak to Washington. By May 13 the Argentine government felt a press statement had to be issued acknowledging the Argentine initiative on the subject.
The leak had catastrophic consequences within Argentina. To some Argentines, the abandonment of neutrality would have been a betrayal of the principles and traditions of Argentine foreign policy. Nationalist elements issued posters demanding Cantilo’s resignation. On May 18 President Ortiz issued a press statement saying that Argentina maintained ‘the strictest impartiality’ in the continuing war.
Ortiz and Cantilo began to lose power, a process that was made more acute when President Roosevelt made a speech in June 1940 at Charlottesville, Virginia, stating that the extension of material resources to Britain and France was a prime US objective. This was no less and no more than the ‘non-belligerence’ Argentina had suggested, yet not only had Argentina been previously rebuffed, but Roosevelt had actually set forth publicly non-belligerence as the official policy of the USA, without an act of Congress, and without even a passing reference to the Argentine initiative. Roosevelt’s attitude was not only an unintentional blow to Argentine foreign policy generally, but also to Ortiz and Cantilo personally and the ideals for which they stood, making an Argentine rupture with the Axis due to US pressures after the US entry into the war close to politically impossible, considering the importance that an independent foreign policy had in Argentina’s political culture. Naturally, it would be naive to suggest that the USA should have followed Argentina’s lead on such an important issue. I only point to the fact that given the characteristics of Argentina’s political culture, it was not likely that she would follow the USA lead after this rebuff.
After Pearl Harbor, US rhetoric would abound with references to the Fascist Menace from Argentina. These views of Argentina coincide with neither the British, German, nor Italian views. Nevertheless, they molded US policy, which embarked on an unrelenting and forceful public and private political bombardment of Argentina’s constitutional government. Internally, US policy was justified with claims as far fetched as the pretension that if left alone, Argentina would produce the Third World War: this extravagant assertion was made by Secretary of State Hull, Vice-President Wallace, Secretary of the Treasury Morgenthau and, later, Ambassador Spruille Braden.
"
Us Strategy in Latin America, after 1949, please.
dictatorships
Quinine from South America, used for dealing with malaria, sounded like "kwiny" on this video, with a short i sound @1:30 - talking about resources the Allies needed from Latin America. It's the UK pronunciation here, and I didn't hear it too well, but I've normally heard it as "KWI-NINE" with two long i's - that's the US pronunciation. "The discovery of quinine was a major advancement that was crucial to European imperialism and expansion."
Yup, it was actually peruvians who discovered it and sold it , many cities in the US are named "Lima" becuase of this, we kind of fucked africa bad with that one.
1:14 wrong there's also the Azores Route by the middle of the North Atlantic, Hitler envisioned 2 main routes to invade USA; First the one you show at the north and the other though north Africa-Azores-USA (Without the need to conquering the Peninsula Iberia).
Nevertheless great video, congratulations.
Yeah that would had been problematic, first of all the Azores are Portuguese, and unless Germany had some sort of agreement where Spain would allow German units to invade from Spain, and not trigger an Ally Intervention against Spain. Considering all of this are non relevent between the Azores and the Americas theres absolutely nothing until you hit the Caribbean. For this route to even be plausible the UK must be out of the war, and if the UK is out of the war theres nothing stopping the Germans from going through either of the two routes mentioned in the video, which aside from having much more Supply Infrastructure and throughput.
Excellent video. Still cant understand the brazil worried about argentina though, but that is secondary. This is when shit went wrong for us (arg)
Argentina was the strongest LatAm power militarily before WWII and its forces probably had better access to southern Brazil than the Brazilian Army did (cause Brazil basically had no rail or good roads beyond Rio during this period - everything by sea). There was also the fear that since Argentina was considered 'fascist', the Germans of S Brazil (c. 1m during the 1940s), would rise up in support of an Argentine invasion.
@@StrategyStuff Wow, I had no idea about this. You know, they don't teach us these things in school. They barely teach us about the presidents and the highlights of their terms but thats about it, no real depth is given beyond the revolutionary war and the last dictatorship.
At 4:10 wrong Peru contour.
Vietnam's strategy in Vietnam war next, please
Guerrilla warfare against the south Vietnamese and US defensive troops while receiving aid, weapons, and training from China, and the USSR; also waiting out the US support of the south. When the US withdrew support of the south, the North was able to conquer the south after about two years of war.
"supporting allied offense" i don't really get it. Can someone explain it for me???????
Latin America esp Brazil was important for the Allies, because it was a corridor that US-made planes, tanks etc could use to travel to theatres of war throughout Eurasia (North Africa, Southern Europe, India and China etc)
Are you an international relations graduate or something?
I still don’t understand the post nov 1942 US stance towards Argentina. How was Argentina perceived as a threat to pseudo-allied Brazil at this time? Why was Argentina painted as a “fascist state” when meat exports to the UK proved important to its perseverance? It’s important to note this stance taken by the US further frustrated the Argentine public and proved counterintuitive to the US own agenda, which was to create a favorable opinion in Latam towards the US (especially in the post WW2 landscape). Moreover, it sort of proved many Argentine nationalist politicians right in the eyes of the Argentine public, with Perón being the headman in this anti-US movement.
Peron’s influence in Argentine internal and external affairs remains most popular to this day, primarily due to the US anti-Argentine stance post 1942 in my opinion. Perón (together with his political party and his followers) and his consequences have been a disaster for Argentina in every landscape: economic, diplomatic, political and social, and the US has some blame to his popularity.
I think there are several points to consider.
1) The US State Dept esp. under Hull already disliked Argentina for its attempts to contest US dominance of the Americas;
2) The stance of Argentina was not *that* important in the grand scheme of things (since no way for non-Allied to exploit), so the US could afford to pay less attention to it, which gave ideologues/lobby groups a large say in Argentine policy, as well as a ton of policy inertia (meaning that counterproductive anti-Argentine policy would not be reviewed or revised);
2a) One of the largest lobby groups would have been other LatAm countries esp. Brazil. After all, hyping up the Argentine "menace" would have been a good way to raise Brazil's profile within US diplomacy (especially when it came to getting the armaments Brazil most wanted);
3) As the war progressed there was increasing Allied pressure on neutral states to declare allegiance, because neutralist 'hedging' behavior was seen as giving room for Axis forces to maneuver, which in turn prolonged the war (spying, smuggling, diplomacy etc - relatively little of that in reality but the fear is what matters). And given the US perception of Argentina, Argentina was expected to go very much further than your average LatAm state re: abandonment of neutralism;
2b) The appointment of the tactless Braden (basically a caricature of a US 'imperialist') as Amb to Argentina in 1945 was an own goal. By interfering so openly on the anti-Peron side in the 1945 elections, Braden helped identify Peronism with anti-USism forever.
4) The main defender of Argentina on the Allied side would have been the UK, and it was hardly in any position to resist the US re: Americas policy - at least until after WWII.
@@StrategyStuff thank you for your response. Great insights, blowback effect certainly made an appearance in the 1945 elections.
Peron hasn't been a disaster. He wanted a sovereing Argentina. Something he was very right about considering everything we just saw in this video. Latin America would've been better off if the US had remained isolationist.
Peron was clearly one of the better presidents we've ever had, and you'd be hard pressed to find a better one. Unlike the presidents we have today, he had a clear vision of a national project, and the ability to rally people to the cause of a sovereing Argentina.
@@LautaroArgentino and he had 0 fucking skill to execute nor plan that path mate, good intetions and a goal matters not if you are simply not capable enought, wich is why arg went from USA 2 to a joke in the region.
@@cseijifjato these people, the ends justify the means. They have no concept of work ethic, ownership or responsibility.
The Pan American Airways gambit was elegant.
the map of Peru is not correct, or does it correspond to the 1939-1949?
You mean the one where Ecuador is larger? Peru took that in the Ecuador-Peru war of 1941 (before that, it was disputed territory).
@@StrategyStuff how do we determine who has what in "disputed territory?", wouldnt it make sense that the viceroyalty's authority prime over an audience's pretension of territory?
0:46 I cant believe that we have a Monroe s street of 3.41754 miles n buenos aires city
A really nice view at the specific view of the US of everyone else.
Here in Colombia we helped a lot with the war effort, despite a few incidents with the US in the 1920s, our little navy fought some U-Boats that where trying to reach the Panama Cannel. In 47, if I remember correctly, Colombia, Venezuela, Panama, Ecuador and Peru asked the US secretary of State to start a Latin American Marshall plan, they ignore us. If it wasn't for that, the South American Continent would be a more stable region, less chances of communists uprisings and less migrant population in the US from countries like Mexico.
Ignorant uneducated Latin American
Majority of you Hispanics that hop that wall are those from south, Central America, and the Caribbean
Statistics will show you that barely any Mexicans cross anymore and that there is even small reverse migration from Mexicans in the US
@@g1g4_ch4d7 son los mexicanos
@@elsenordelfuego1343 Illegals are Central Americans, Venezuelans and Mexicans, "legal" Argentines, Chileans and the , Colombians that those do not let them go
Must be a curse and a blessing at the same time being next to US of A
Well, to put it this way, Porfirio Diaz, President of Mexico from late 1880s until 1910 (taken down by a coup founded by guess who?) said "So far from God, so close to the US". I think overall Latam see the US more as a hegemon, intervening in all aspects of Latam self- determination, than as a blessing. Just think, if the American interests can extend with so much muscle all the way to middle east and beyond, where do you think they learnt and practiced how to do it? The history of Latam is full of wars, interventions, plots, coups all orchestrated and financed by the US.
it's a curse that there isn't an ocean below the border. Latin america has always been a burden on the USA
@@deprogramm true, especially when they have taken over territory from their neighbours and basically exploited the resources of all those countries. It must be such a burden.
tattabox that was long before the US was created. Blame Europe for that. The US never colonized any territory outside like Europe did
@@deprogramm I think you should learn a bit more of the history of the US, your country if that happens to be the case. Then you will be ready to give informed opinions. Take care.
OK, that first map is wrong beyond recognition, and probably only valid in Ecuador. For some reason Ecuatorians think their country occupied the entire north part of the Amazons, and then went reducing its extension to what we see there, occupying what would be the department of Loreto, and part of the south of Colombia. However, Ecuador never had this lands, as prior of its independence, it was part of "El Virreinato del Perú" until it got and separated from the domain by Simón Bolívar to join "La Gran Colombia". And even then the Ecuador didn't have the extension Ecuatorians historians claim it did.
If you didn’t realize, the map depicts the world as how it was 80 years ago. Ecuador inherited those lands when it gained its independence from Gran Colombia when this one split. So yeah, until the conflicts with Peru started, Ecuador did have access to the Amazon and even cities like Iquitos were once Ecuadorian. Not now tho
The post-war influences of Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and his brother Allen (a 'back-door diplomat', and piratical personality) cost the U.S. golden opportunity(s).
24:12 my mental math says its more like 1 plane every 15 minutes from what you said. Still same order of magnitude
I assume their calculation (it's an oft-quoted statistic in the histories) assumes that landings only took place during the day.
@@StrategyStuff that's interesting, and logical. Lool thank you very much!
1500 planes a month is about 2 per hour (1500/30 days = 50 planes a day) given the math is trivial using this quite obviously false info ( one plane per 3 minutes ) is bad form.
How to play both sides:
*costa rica*
What would Andrew Jackson's strategy be?
Do soviet strategy next.
how about the 1980s?
Please make something on a 21st century war like Iraq or Kuwait!
Kuwait was in the 90's
@@badboje6040 Ah yeah, my bad. I was more trying to generalise the bush era wars.
Post Soviet Union would be cool.
Slot it up and sell it?
why no belize in central america?
Controlled by UK???
based Argentina
Someone airfields in Southern Mexico (Ixtepec, Teran, Chetumal) are built with US financial aid to support the defense of Panama Canal from the North Sides of the Pacific and Atlantic.
Ixtepec and Teran are built to put troops residents and military station and of course, far away of the cities of Juchitan and Tuxtla.
Now days, this 3 airfields are from Mexican Air Force and this biggest space it's so perfect to make a Militar Village.
The World War it's over, but always are ready for anything.
Just in case...
Pura mamada
I thought American strategy in Latin America since the war was to keep them all, right-wing, corrupt, undemocratic and poor. Pretty much the same as America's strategy for South America and the third world in general.
well you're wrong. The US supported any government that was anti-USSR, anti-socialist, or anti-communist.
@@deprogramm yes, the right wing...
agree
@@gabriels5589 The right wing was more prominent, but it supported many left wing groups too. Most notably being the Japanese left wing that dismantled monopolies and enacted redistribution efforts to rebuild the economy. The issue was that the US was suspicious of any left wing group that MIGHT be aligned with the USSR, it had little issue with left wing groups that it knew for a fact were not.
@@deprogramm revolutionary junta of El Salvador
What the United States should have done is create strong countries in the American continent and not weaken them since their fear was always strong, Iván never really dismissed him and on the contrary LATAM could have been what Australia is to Europe somewhat demilitarized with a strong economy strong and ready to help
Perdona por revivir el comentario, pero necesito saber tu opinión: *porque crees que no lo hizo?*
a chile ni lo mencionaron jajaja
6:44 oh china with the debt trap tactic make more of these
The reason latinameric is so poor is because, england, eeuu and independes criollos
I don't know if invading the US through Brazil was a viable strategy.
The key thing was that the US was worried about the possibility. Given the low deployment ability of the US (1 division up to late-1942... they didn't even have the transports to occupy both Iceland and the Azores), even a minor force in NE Brazil might have been too strong to expel immediately, and that might trigger a domino effect causing the mass defection of South America to the Axis, and then the Panama Canal, and then...
We also have to note that Army leaders had a very exaggerated opinion of German capabilities. In 1941 they were sure that Rommel would take Suez and then Gibraltar would fall shortly thereafter. On the Navy side Admiral Stark had also, on the basis of UK shipping tonnage sunk by U-Boats, concluded that the UK would surrender by mid-41.
WTF THAT PERUVIAN MAP.... WHERE U GET THAT MAP!
I recall Oliver Stone's documentary highlighting US Vice President Wallace's visits across Latin America as a high-level VIP effort. He claimed it was a very successful trip.
Stone is partisan propagandist imbecile.