== 1. Literature/Source Review ==
- The US Army Histories are pretty much the only book you need to read here regarding the US politico-military strategy for the region. 'Latin America During World War II' (Leonard/Bratzel eds.) is good enough for the Latin American side of things. 'OIAA' is more cultural history than political/strategic history, and as far as I know there isn't a book focused on the broad sweep of US geoeconomics during this period, which is a shame.
- Amazingly, AFAIK only the US Army Histories makes the link between Hemispheric Defense and US aid to Britain, which is why they should be read first. Or else you'd end up with the impression that the US was simultaneously hugely worried and hugely complacent regarding the undefended-ness of NE Brazil.
- Unsurprisingly, the historical discussion on Argentina's role in WWII either overemphasizes its fascist tendencies or makes the country as a martyr at the hands of the US. I appreciated reading Escudé's comment that while Argentina was within its rights to pursue right-wing neutralism, trying to continue it after 1944 was suicidal.
== 2. Fascism and pre-WWII LatAm ==
Not an endorsement of the ideology, but IMHO the pre-WWII LatAm experience with fascistic ideologies best illustrates why the idea was appealing in the 1920s-30s. Nowadays fascism tends to be seen as an ideology that looks backward but the Latin American experience fully demonstrates the 'modernity' of the ideology: state centralization, industrial development, and marshalling of human/territorial resources to 'break free' of natural constraints. Of course in the end it didn't work, but one can better appreciate why so many states saw the appeal in the 20s-30s.
== 3. OIAA and Public Diplomacy ==
Can OIAA be a blueprint for future US programs at winning 'hearts and minds', an action which it arguably hasn't had a good present-day record in? Despite all the praise and love from most historians (the main complaint usually being it wasn't carried for long enough or focused on the poor etc.), I hope my video has demonstrated that we have to examine the program with much more nuance - it didn't actually achieve its goal and it created massive expectations/unintended consequences in doing so. Latin America acted similarly to a 'bully' US in WWI as it did to a 'nicer' US in WWII.
IMHO, programs like OIAA probably work best when you're not working towards some tangible goal (i.e. you're doing it to create a 'store' of goodwill that can be unleashed at some random time in some random form). Needless to say, such a program also needs to be supported by a long-term political commitment to be truly useful.
== 4. Comparing the WWII Experience with the Present==
Obviously there are differences, but when planning out this video I couldn't help but appreciate the similarities between the US position in the 1940s and the US position now. Both are facing an 'incursion' into their LatAm 'backyard' (Germany then, China now) that is primarily economic in nature but has the potential to become ideological (Chinese developmentalism) or even political (fragment US-led system in the Hemisphere). Both are also stained by an interventionist history and make regional policy based on domestic needs (primarily the economy but also immigration/drugs for present-day). A couple of LatAm countries now trade more with China than the US.
Even before WWII, LatAm countries figured out that geographic/strategic/political realities meant that they would eventually have to side with the US - the issue lay in the price they could extract for it. I wonder if leaders today, if pressed, will come to the same conclusions.
No comments:
Post a Comment