Modification de 第二次世界大战期间的拉丁美洲

''根据 Aline Helg 的演讲改编''<ref>[https://www.unige.ch/lettres/istge/unites/hco/anciens-collaborateurs/helg/ Aline Helg] - [https://www.unige.ch/ UNIGE]</ref><ref>[https://unige.academia.edu/AlineHelg Aline Helg] - [https://www.academia.edu/ Academia.edu]</ref><ref>[https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aline_Helg Aline Helg] - Wikipedia</ref><ref>[http://www.afrocubaweb.com/helg.htm Aline Helg] - [http://www.afrocubaweb.com/ Afrocubaweb.com]</ref><ref>[https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Aline_Helg Aline Helg] - [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Aline_Helg Researchgate.net]</ref><ref>[https://www.cairn.info/publications-de-Aline-Helg--670782.htm Aline Helg] - [https://www.cairn.info Cairn.info]</ref><ref>[https://scholar.google.fr/citations?user=h3hUuPgAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao Aline Helg] - [https://scholar.google.fr/schhp?hl=en Google Scholar]</ref>

{{Translations
| fr = L’Amérique latine pendant la Deuxième guerre mondiale
| es = América Latina durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial
| it = America Latina durante la seconda guerra mondiale
| pt = A América Latina durante a Segunda Guerra Mundial
| de = Lateinamerika während des Zweiten Weltkriegs
| en = Latin America during the Second World War
}}

{{hidden
|[[美国和拉丁美洲：18 世纪末和 20 世纪]]
|[[美洲独立前夕]] ● [[美国的独立]] ● [[美国宪法和 19 世纪早期社会]] ● [[海地革命及其对美洲的影响]] ● [[拉丁美洲国家的独立]] ● [[1850年前后的拉丁美洲：社会、经济、政策]] ● [[1850年前后的美国南北部：移民与奴隶制]] ● [[美国内战和重建：1861-1877 年]] ● [[美国（重建）：1877 - 1900年]] ● [[拉丁美洲的秩序与进步：1875 - 1910年]] ● [[墨西哥革命：1910 - 1940年]] ● [[20世纪20年代的美国社会]] ● [[大萧条与新政：1929 - 1940年]] ● [[从大棒政策到睦邻政策]] ● [[政变与拉丁美洲的民粹主义]] ● [[美国与第二次世界大战]] ● [[第二次世界大战期间的拉丁美洲]] ● [[美国战后社会：冷战与富裕社会]] ● [[拉丁美洲冷战与古巴革命]] ● [[美国的民权运动]]
|headerstyle=background:#ffffff
|style=text-align:center;
}}

尽管拉丁美洲国家在第二次世界大战期间正式宣布中立，但它们的贡献不容忽视。许多国家站在盟军一边，不仅提供了原材料和食品等基本资源，而且还提供了人力支持，尽管墨西哥和巴西等国提供的人力支持并不多。

墨西哥在拉萨罗-卡德纳斯（Lazaro Cardenas）总统高瞻远瞩的领导下，以其坚定的反法西斯立场尤其引人注目。卡德纳斯对西班牙内战的爆发以及德国和意大利等法西斯势力的干预感到震惊，曾试图通过国际联盟动员国际社会做出反应，但未果，法国和英国对此无动于衷。尽管遭遇了这些挫折，卡德纳斯仍然是抵抗运动的代表人物，因为他大胆坚持社会改革，坚定不移地致力于民主和反对法西斯主义。

没有一个拉美国家选择与轴心国正式结盟。中立是主流立场，但这一立场掩盖了对盟国的潜在支持。尤其是墨西哥和巴西，虽然与当时的军事巨头相比，它们的直接参与仍只是象征性的，但它们通过派兵参战而脱颖而出。

拉美国家虽然在大国面前黯然失色，但在战争经济中却发挥了决定性作用。它们提供的原材料和食品支持了盟军的战争努力，这表明，虽然在军事方面拉丁美洲的作用有限，但在第二次世界大战期间，拉丁美洲在世界舞台上的重要性是不可否认的。这为战后的社会政治变革奠定了基础，标志着该地区历史上的重要篇章。

= 拉丁美洲的欧洲难民：1934-1939 年 =

20 世纪 30 年代，欧洲出现了以法西斯和纳粹政权崛起为特征的动荡浪潮。动荡的时代迫使艺术家、知识分子和政治活动家等有才华、有影响力的人士大规模外流，寻求躲避迫害的庇护所。拉丁美洲张开双臂，成为许多人的避难所。阿根廷和巴西尤其热情。它们不仅提供了安全，还提供了重建因战争和迫害而支离破碎的生活的机会。这些国家的慷慨和热情使许多难民得以重新建立自己的事业，在许多情况下，他们在各自的领域达到了新的高度。就利益而言，这种大规模移民并非是单向的。难民为当地文化注入了丰富的创新、思想和艺术表现力。他们在该地区的文化和知识演变中发挥了催化作用，引进了欧洲元素，并与当地传统和谐地融合在一起。每个新来者都带着自己独特的技能、知识和观点，帮助塑造了一个丰富多样的环境。拉丁美洲各国不仅提供了避难所，还见证了文化和知识的复兴。难民留下了不可磨灭的印记，在欢迎他们的国家的历史上留下了光辉的篇章。当地人和新来者之间的合作产生了丰富的创造力和创新力，使拉丁美洲成为文化和知识交流的堡垒。这一遗产仍在延续，证明了即使在世界历史最黑暗的时刻也能迸发出的韧性和人类的丰富性。

== 欧洲犹太人的迁徙 ==
1938 年的埃维昂会议仍然是国际社会未能充分应对逃离纳粹迫害的欧洲犹太难民危机的一个令人痛心的例子。在这黑暗的历史篇章中，各国不愿开放边界，加剧了数百万寻求庇护者的痛苦和绝望。在与会各国中，拉斐尔-特鲁希略政权统治下的多米尼加共和国脱颖而出，因为它不同寻常地表示愿意接纳多达 10 万名犹太难民。尽管这一提议是黑暗时期的一缕曙光，但它远非利他主义；特鲁希略是为了洗刷该国在 1937 年屠杀海地人之后的国际声誉。复杂的移民限制、配额以及往往漠不关心或充满敌意的公众舆论让许多难民别无选择。尽管拉丁美洲离海地很近，而且有可能成为避难所，但在很大程度上，难民仍然无法进入拉丁美洲。那些设法穿越官僚主义和偏见迷宫的人在阿根廷和巴西等国找到了新的开始。然而，他们只是例外，而不是常态。大多数犹太难民面对的是紧闭的大门，这是大屠杀难以想象的恐怖之前的悲惨现实。

在埃维昂会议上，拉斐尔-特鲁希略表面上对犹太难民慷慨大方，实则别有用心。特鲁希略是一位以残暴和无视人权而臭名昭著的独裁者，他利用这次机会策划了一场公关噱头，试图在一年前对海地人进行了骇人听闻的大屠杀（被称为帕斯利大屠杀）之后，恢复他在国际舞台上的形象。特鲁希略对欧洲犹太人的所谓仁慈与对海地人的冷酷无情形成了鲜明对比，这揭示了其复杂的动机。有选择性和操纵性的外交是摆脱国际贱民地位和重获青睐的工具，尤其是对美国而言，因为美国越来越关注这位独裁者的声誉。阴险的国内政治也是这次盛情款待的原因之一。特鲁希略沉迷于 "粉饰 "多米尼加共和国的想法。他对犹太难民的邀请虽然打着宽宏大量的幌子，但也是为了按照他扭曲的种族意识形态和建立一个更白、更欧洲化的国家的愿望重新调整国家人口结构。这个故事的悲剧不仅在于特鲁希略扭曲的动机，还在于世界拒绝帮助犹太难民。特鲁希略的提议虽然带有不纯的意图，但对成千上万的人来说可能是一条生命线，但它在很大程度上被忽视了。

美国犹太人组织，特别是美国犹太人联合分配委员会（JDC）在 20 世纪 30 年代欧洲犹太难民危机期间的干预是揭示跨国团结力量的重要篇章。尽管许多国家的大门依然紧闭，但多米尼加共和国出于各种动机，成为了一小部分德国犹太人的临时避难所，而这一可能性的实现得益于美国犹太人联合分配委员会和其他类似组织的积极支持。JDC 的作用不仅仅是资金方面的，它还包括帮助难民应对重新安置的复杂挑战的整体方法。从流离失所的后勤工作到适应新环境和重新融入社会经济生活，每一步都经过精心安排，以减轻被迫流离失所所固有的创伤和不确定性。虽然与欧洲大规模的绝望和流离失所相比，在多米尼加共和国获得相对安全的难民人数很少，但这次救援行动的象征意义和实际影响不容低估。每拯救一条生命，都是对世界大部分地区普遍存在的冷漠和无所作为的直接挑战。这一事件虽然在全球范围内规模较小，但也是欧洲正在发生的人道主义危机的一个展示。它表明，即使在最困难的情况下，国际社会也有能力为共同利益团结起来。

阿根廷拥有丰富多样的文化景观，作为逃离欧洲迫害的犹太人的避难所发挥了独特的作用。该国相对开放的移民政策与其他国家的限制性政策形成了鲜明对比，对于那些迫切寻求一个安全的地方重新开始的人来说，这是希望的灯塔。阿根廷有一个蓬勃发展的犹太社区，它植根于早先逃离俄罗斯和其他地方迫害的犹太人的移民浪潮，这为新移民的融入提供了便利。他们不仅来到了一个提供安全和机会的国家，还来到了一个社区基础设施和支持网络已经到位的地方。新难民与阿根廷已有的犹太社区之间的协同作用创造了一个充满活力的环境。尽管难民在过去遭受了创伤和损失，但他们在阿根廷不仅找到了避难所，而且还找到了一个平台，可以为阿根廷的文化、知识和经济财富做出贡献。然而，必须指出的是，虽然阿根廷是许多犹太人的绿洲，但并非所有人的经历都是积极的。融入社会的挑战、语言和文化障碍以及欧洲创伤的后遗症都是无法回避的现实。

== 政治难民 ==
20 世纪 30 年代和 40 年代，欧洲政治难民涌入拉丁美洲，这是一个动荡嬗变的时期。在法西斯和纳粹政权的恐怖驱使下，知识分子、活动家和学者离开故土，前往阿根廷等国避难。这些国家虽然在地理上远离动荡的欧洲，但却成为庇护的堡垒和知识与政治复兴的沃土。每个难民不仅带来了个人经历和创伤，还带来了丰富多样的思想，这些思想将渗入他们新家园的文化和知识底层。著名思想家和教育家的到来使拉丁美洲的大学和教育机构焕发出新的活力，开创了一个思想交流和观点多元化的繁荣时期。该地区的政治光谱也发生了变化。在欧洲反抗压迫的难民带来的社会主义和共产主义思想在拉丁美洲引起了特别的共鸣。这些意识形态推动了人民运动，激发了革命，并影响了数十年来塑造该地区政治特征的政策。然而，这种融合并非没有摩擦。新思想往往与既有的保守意识形态发生冲突，从而产生了一种生动活泼、有时甚至是对抗性的政治活力。难民本身也常常在悼念过去和适应新现实之间徘徊，这是一个复杂而微妙的过程。政治难民对拉丁美洲的贡献不容低估。除了对知识和政治话语的影响之外，他们还成为大西洋两岸世界之间的桥梁，建立了丰富全球对话的联系。他们的遗产体现在当代拉丁美洲政治的复杂性、思想的活跃性和文化的丰富性，活生生地证明了世界、思想和历史的交汇所带来的变革。

== 西班牙共和党人 ==
墨西哥接待逃离西班牙内战的难民是国际团结的一个令人难忘的例子。拉萨罗-卡德纳斯总统不顾内部挑战和外部压力，向佛朗哥获胜后被剥夺财产和遭受迫害的人们敞开了国门。西班牙难民的涌入不仅象征着人性和同情心，也为墨西哥的文化和知识多样性做出了重要贡献。难民中的知识分子、艺术家、教师和其他专业人士为墨西哥社会注入了丰富的思想、专业知识和观点。女性难民约占难民总数的 40%，她们发挥的作用尤为显著。她们的存在和积极参与有助于扩大墨西哥的社会和文化结构并使之多样化。女性难民通常受过良好教育并具有奉献精神，她们在教育、艺术和政治等领域做出了宝贵贡献。这段历史还加强了墨西哥与西班牙语世界之间的联系。文化和语言上的团结意识得到了加强，形成了理解与合作的桥梁，这种桥梁在动荡年代之后依然存在。共同的传统、历史和价值观为双边和多边关系的发展提供了肥沃的土壤。

20 世纪中期，西班牙共和党和社会主义难民融入墨西哥，改变了墨西哥的文化、知识和政治面貌。为了躲避西班牙内战后佛朗哥独裁政权的镇压，这些人在墨西哥找到了避难所，这个国家不仅为他们提供了安全，还为他们提供了重建和自由表达其身份和思想的机会。这对教育和学术界的影响是显著的。许多难民都是知名学者和知识分子，他们带着新的活力和专业知识进入墨西哥教育机构。他们引入了创新思想和先进方法，提高了学术水平，丰富了知识讨论。艺术和文学领域也感受到了他们的影响。西班牙艺术家、作家和诗人振兴了墨西哥的艺术界，将欧洲的影响与墨西哥的传统相融合，形成了新一轮充满活力的混合文化表现形式。在政治方面，共和党人和社会党人的到来为墨西哥的左翼运动注入了新的动力。他们的进步思想和抵抗经验为现有的政治团体注入了活力和动力。此外，墨西哥通过慷慨接纳难民，巩固了其作为西班牙语世界领导者和避难所的地位。墨西哥、西班牙和其他西班牙语国家之间的文化和知识交流不断加强，形成了不可磨灭的合作和兄弟情谊。

墨西哥政府拒绝承认佛朗哥政权的立场是一种重要的反抗行为，也是其民主和反法西斯原则的证明。与在墨西哥领土上避难的西班牙流亡政府结盟，不仅仅是一项政治决定，更是一种象征性的行为，肯定了墨西哥的人权和社会正义等基本价值观。它标志着墨西哥不仅憎恶法西斯主义，而且准备采取具体措施支持那些被专制政权剥夺权利的人。这一决定在树立墨西哥作为反抗暴政堡垒的形象方面发挥了作用。墨西哥不再是国际政治戏剧的旁观者，而是致力于捍卫民主理想的积极参与者。反对佛朗哥政权和支持西班牙共和党不仅在国际舞台上意义重大，在国内也产生了影响。它们加强了墨西哥在意识形态和道德上的一致性，强调了墨西哥对超越国界的原则的承诺。它还有助于巩固墨西哥与西班牙语世界之间的联系，在共同价值观和对正义与民主的共同承诺基础上建立起团结关系。通过拒绝承认佛朗哥的独裁统治并公开支持流亡政府，墨西哥巩固了其作为一个致力于全球民主和反压迫斗争的国家的身份。这一立场丰富了墨西哥的历史遗产，表明墨西哥有能力协调国家政治与更广泛的道德和伦理要求，这些要求决定了一个国家在世界舞台上的特征。

欢迎西班牙共和党人和社会主义者来到多米尼加共和国，是特鲁希略精心策划的双重机会主义和远见战略的一部分。这位独裁者有着复杂的种族和政治愿望，有着非常具体的议程。通过向西班牙难民敞开大门，他的目的不仅仅是为了人道主义行动，更是为了多米尼加共和国的人口和文化转型。特鲁希略渴望建立一个以西班牙裔和白人文化和种族元素为主的国家。在他看来，多米尼加人口中的非洲-加勒比根源不是一种文化资产，而是多米尼加在国际舞台上崛起的障碍。对他来说，西班牙难民是 "美化 "国家的一种手段，可以让多米尼加文化受到欧洲的影响，使国家与西班牙语世界更加紧密地联系在一起。这并不是一种孤立的姿态。特鲁希略也在努力提升多米尼加共和国的国际形象。他假扮成被压迫者和难民的捍卫者，希望以此缓和国际社会对其独裁政权及其侵犯人权行为的批评。这一策略旨在将多米尼加共和国塑造成一个进步和开放的国家，能够吸引投资并结成战略联盟。因此，西班牙和社会主义难民的到来是特鲁希略复杂政策拼图中的关键一环。这是一项巧妙的战略，它重塑了多米尼加的国家认同，吸引了投资和国际支持，并将多米尼加定位为西班牙语世界的重要一员，同时淡化并进一步边缘化了多米尼加人口中的非洲-加勒比群体。多米尼加历史上的这一篇章让人们深入了解了专制政权按照自己的意识形态和种族观念巩固政权和塑造国家认同的微妙且往往相互矛盾的机制。

特鲁希略行为的两面性在于，他的内部独裁政权与他对西班牙难民表面上的慷慨姿态并存。收容这些难民与其说是出于同情，不如说是特鲁希略有意为自己的政治和社会利益服务的策略。1937 年对海地人的屠杀凸显了他政权的残暴，揭示了他不是一个人道主义者。这就提出了一个关键问题，即他欢迎欧洲难民的真正动机。特鲁希略正在寻求合法性和国际认可。通过欢迎西班牙难民，他试图重塑多米尼加共和国的国际形象。这一姿态反衬了其政权的残暴，在世界舞台上塑造了一个开放和慷慨的形象。这也是多米尼加与那些在危机时刻不愿意接纳难民的国家区别开来并使自己处于有利地位的一种方式。此外，西班牙共和党人和社会党人的到来也对该国的文化和思想活力产生了积极影响。他们带来了多种多样的思想、才智和技能，丰富了多米尼加共和国的文化景观。他们的到来加强了多米尼加与西班牙和西班牙语世界的联系，为扩大文化、教育和政治交流开辟了道路。

内战之后，西班牙共和党人和社会主义者纷纷出走，掀起了一场散居运动，他们的文化、知识和政治影响遍及整个拉丁美洲。除墨西哥和多米尼加共和国外，智利、古巴和阿根廷等国也成为这些流离失所者的收容国。在智利，西班牙难民的到来恰逢政治和文化蓬勃发展的时期。难民的进步思想和文化活力引起了智利社会的共鸣。他们受到欢迎，不仅因为他们具有人性，还因为他们带来了不同的观点和专业知识，丰富了智利的政治和文化对话。在古巴，难民们融入了一个本身就在复杂的政治环境中摸爬滚打的国家。西班牙共和党人和社会主义者为古巴岛丰富的文化和知识做出了贡献，他们引入了欧洲传统元素，融合并丰富了古巴独特的文化。难民的到来对阿根廷的影响尤为显著。阿根廷已经是一个充满活力的国家，拥有丰富的文化和知识生活，西班牙共和党人和社会主义者是阿根廷加强民族认同感的天然伙伴。他们融入了教育、艺术和政治领域，他们的影响帮助塑造了阿根廷社会的演变。

西班牙共和主义者和社会主义者对智利的影响深深扎根于该国的社会政治和文化结构之中。这些难民带来了多种多样的进步思想、文化表现形式和争取民主的斗争经验，帮助智利开创了一个思想和政治复兴的时代。在文化方面，西班牙的影响为智利的艺术、文学和教育注入了新的活力。西班牙艺术家、作家和知识分子与智利同行合作，巧妙地将智利丰富的历史与西班牙传统融合在一起，创造出一种独特的融合文化表现形式。这催生了创造力之花，增强了民族文化认同感。在政治上，西班牙难民的影响同样具有变革性。他们引入并加强了左翼意识形态，丰富了智利的政治光谱，使其对民主、人权和社会正义有了不同的看法。他们在进步政治运动的发展中成为具有影响力的人物，为智利的政治方向留下了持久的印记。通过加强智利与其他西班牙语国家（尤其是古巴）之间的联系，这些难民还促进了跨国文化和政治交流。他们帮助编织了一个跨越国界的团结与合作网络，将具有不同历史和文化的国家团结在共同目标和共同价值观的周围。

西班牙共和党人和社会主义者在拉丁美洲的影响雄辩地证明了人口运动改变和丰富东道国社会的能力。这些人逃离佛朗哥统治下的西班牙，不仅仅是为了安全，而是标志着不同文化和意识形态之间激烈而富有成效的互动时期的开始。在东道国，西班牙难民的影响体现在许多方面。在文化方面，他们引进了一系列艺术和文学表现形式，将西班牙丰富多样的遗产与拉丁美洲当地的传统相融合。这产生了丰富的创造力，出现了新形式的艺术、音乐和文学，展示了文化交融所带来的丰富多彩。在政治上，西班牙共和党人和社会主义者的贡献同样深远。他们带来了进步思想、抵抗经验以及民主和社会正义的愿景。他们帮助培育和加强了现有的政治运动，为拉丁美洲的政治讨论注入了新的活力和完善的观点。在知识方面，难民在拓展学术视野方面发挥了关键作用。许多难民是学者、思想家和创新者，他们进入大学和研究机构，分享他们的知识，为知识启蒙时代做出了贡献。此外，西班牙难民的到来加强了拉丁美洲与西班牙语世界之间的跨大西洋联系。一种团结和社区感油然而生，它超越了地理边界，将各国人民团结在共同的语言、历史和文化周围。

= 战争对拉丁美洲经济的影响 =

第二次世界大战出人意料地推动了拉丁美洲的经济转型。当冲突在欧洲和亚洲肆虐时，拉美国家面临着一系列新的挑战和机遇。贸易路线中断，欧洲市场无法进入，商品和服务进口受阻，迫使这些国家转向自给自足，探索经济发展的新途径。这种自给自足的必要性刺激了国内的工业革命。纺织和冶金等行业出现了显著增长。由于没有进口产品，当地工业被要求满足国内需求，从而刺激了当地的生产和制造。这种工业增长不仅仅是对战争的暂时反应，它还为长期的经济转型奠定了基础，开创了一个工业化和经济多样化的时代。战争还创造了对拉美原材料的强劲需求。协约国尤其渴望获得资源来支持其战争努力。拉丁美洲以出口为导向的经济蓬勃发展，农业和矿业等部门也蓬勃发展。需求的增长不仅推动了经济的发展，也使拉美更加深入地融入了全球经济体系。工业化的快速转型和出口的扩大产生了持久的影响。战后，拉丁美洲在世界舞台上的地位发生了变化。该地区的国家不再是简单的原材料出口国，而是拥有多元化经济和不断扩大的国内市场的新兴工业参与者。

第二次世界大战对巴西和墨西哥这两个拉美经济巨人来说是一个重要的关键时刻。它们在此期间的发展轨迹受到了全球冲突态势的强烈影响。对巴西而言，战争引发了一个显著的工业转型期。随着欧洲停止进口，巴西制造业迎来了前所未有的机遇。创新和扩张的浪潮席卷了纺织、食品加工和冶金等行业。这个曾经依赖外国制成品的国家开始发挥其作为工业强国的潜力。与欧洲贸易的中断不仅刺激了工业的有机增长，还促使巴西政府采取更具干预性的方法来推动工业化。进口替代已成为一项关键战略，推动巴西向更加自给自足、更具弹性的经济迈进。创建国有企业等政府举措为这一转型提供了支持，投资于关键基础设施并促进战略行业的发展。墨西哥的发展轨迹与巴西类似，其经济格局也发生了转变。与巴西一样，墨西哥也利用进口减少的机会促进国内产业发展。这导致了经济的多样化，墨西哥不再仅仅是原材料出口国，同时也是制成品生产国。

第二次世界大战给墨西哥经济带来了复杂的机遇和挑战。石油是墨西哥的主要商品，战争对石油的超高需求带来了可观的繁荣。石油出口不仅加强了国民经济，还强化了墨西哥在全球冲突中的战略角色，凸显了其作为能源供应国的重要性。除了石油行业的繁荣，美国对劳动力的需求也为经济增长开辟了另一条道路。墨西哥工人向北方移民创造了双重机遇：既满足了美国对劳动力的需求，又以汇款的形式为墨西哥经济注入了大量资金。这些汇款在支持墨西哥家庭和社区、缓解国内经济压力方面发挥了重要作用。然而，这种积极的局面与重大的经济挑战形成了平衡。通货膨胀已成为一个长期存在的问题。快速上涨的物价给家庭带来了压力，阻碍了墨西哥最大限度地利用战争带来的经济效益的能力。由于资源被转用于战争和国际供应链的中断，加剧了商品短缺，给国家经济增加了另一层复杂性。因此，第二次世界大战期间墨西哥经济的特点是推拉并存。一方面，石油出口的扩大和汇款的增加是经济增长的重要推动力。另一方面，通货膨胀和商品短缺带来了挑战，需要娴熟和适应性强的经济战略来应对。这一时期留下的经济经验塑造了墨西哥未来的发展轨迹，展示了墨西哥在瞬息万变的全球环境中驾驭复杂经济动态的韧性和能力。

第二次世界大战重塑了全球经济动态，拉丁美洲处于这些重大变化的交汇点。随着欧洲陷入冲突，西方盟国将目光转向其他地区，以满足其对原材料和基本产品的迫切需求。拉丁美洲拥有丰富的自然资源，地理位置靠近美国，因此成为重要的贸易伙伴。巴西等国的出口大幅增加。橡胶对战争至关重要，因为它可用于从汽车制造到军事装备等多种产品，需求量空前巨大。这增加了巴西的战略重要性，使该国成为支持盟军努力的关键角色。阿根廷拥有广袤的牛群繁衍生息的潘帕斯草原，成为盟军的主要肉类供应国。对阿根廷牛肉需求的增加不仅为该国带来了可观的收入，还巩固了其世界农业领导者的地位。除了贸易，战争的影响还延伸到了外国投资。随着欧洲陷入危机，拉丁美洲作为贸易伙伴的重要性日益增加，美国大幅增加了在该地区的投资。这些投资不仅集中于原材料的开采和出口，还促进了基础设施的现代化。公路、港口、铁路和其他关键基础设施得到了改善或扩建，为战后经济的持续增长和一体化奠定了基础。

尽管第二次世界大战为拉丁美洲带来了巨大的经济机遇，但也并非没有负担。由于对商品和原材料的需求旺盛，该地区各国在享受暂时繁荣的同时，也面临着冲突结束后长期存在的显著挑战。通货膨胀和物资短缺因战争优先事项的变化而加剧，直接影响了公民的生活质量和经济稳定。价格波动和缺乏必需品造成了社会和经济压力，该地区各国政府必须巧妙应对，以维持稳定。战争结束后，对拉美产品的需求也随之下降。为满足战争需求而迅速调整的经济体发现自己面临着再次调整生产和贸易结构的挑战。通货紧缩和失业的威胁要求迅速进行经济调整。更为深远的是，全球经济体系的重组也产生了长期影响。随着经济力量向美国转移，美国成为全球超级大国，拉丁美洲国家面临着新的依赖和结盟动态。战后的经济体系以国际机构的建立和美元作为世界储备货币的崛起为标志，为该地区的经济提供了机遇，但也施加了限制。在这一不断变化的环境中，拉丁美洲必须谨慎行事，在日益相互关联的世界所带来的机遇与这种一体化所固有的挑战之间保持平衡。因此，第二次世界大战给拉丁美洲留下的经济遗产是复杂的，既有短暂的繁荣，也有持续的挑战，还有在冲突后几十年中将继续影响该地区命运的结构转型。

第二次世界大战给拉丁美洲带来了巨大的挑战和机遇，清楚地说明了重大冲突对经济影响的双重性。不可否认，对特定产品和原材料需求的增加为该地区国家开辟了利润丰厚的市场。这些新市场或扩大的市场鼓励了工业和农业的扩张，促进了就业和生产。然而，这种快速增长是双向的。由于供不应求，通货膨胀飙升，各国货币在资本涌入的情况下难以保值。家庭和企业不得不应对不断变化的经济形势，生活成本和商品价格也在不断变化。由于优先发展出口和战备产品，国内供应出现缺口，因此经常出现短缺。更重要的是，拉丁美洲在应对战争需求的同时，还必须管理经济动员带来的内部影响。增加生产和减少国内消费对于满足战争需求至关重要，但这也考验着该地区国家的经济和社会复原力。这些压力揭示了平衡战争带来的直接需求与维护和发展国内经济稳定的内在复杂性。拉美国家发现自己处于一种微妙的平衡之中，既要抓住经济扩张的机遇，又要应对通货膨胀、物资短缺和社会压力等挑战，而这些都伴随着一个快速且往往不可预测的转型时代。在这种环境下，娴熟的经济战略和灵活性已成为成功渡过战乱、为冲突后繁荣奠定基础的关键。

尽管遇到了重重障碍和挑战，但不可否认的是，第二次世界大战是拉丁美洲经济剧变的催化剂。在巴西和墨西哥等拥有巨大国内市场的国家，战争的影响超越了暂时的限制，催化了深刻而持久的经济变革。欧洲进口减少造成的真空促使国内工业复兴。以前处于进口产品和技术阴影下的本地企业找到了蓬勃发展和创新的空间。这段被迫自给自足的时期揭示了该地区潜在的工业潜力，标志着一个加速发展时代的开始。人口众多、资源丰富的巴西尤其具有优势。纺织、食品和钢铁工业经历了前所未有的扩张。政府认识到战争带来的独特机遇，实施了支持和刺激增长的政策。经济保护主义和鼓励本地生产的举措改变了经济格局，为国内工业注入了新的活力。墨西哥也不甘落后。墨西哥丰富的石油储备和地缘战略地位使其成为盟国的重要合作伙伴。外币的流入和对墨西哥产品需求的增加创造了一个繁荣时期。这不仅仅是一个契机，更是为持久的工业现代化和扩张铺平了道路。

第二次世界大战为拉丁美洲的经济带来了前所未有的机遇。随着美国和其他盟国卷入一场毁灭性的冲突，资源被转用于支持战争，这就造成了一个真空，而拉美国家正准备填补这一真空。对原材料和农产品的需求激增，为该地区开辟了新的出口市场，带来了巨大的繁荣。这种前所未有的需求使出口价格达到历史最高点。拉美国家从这一增长中获得了回报，积累了大量储备，增强了经济实力。这不仅仅是短期利益的问题；资本的涌入促进了对关键领域的大量投资，引发了现代化和发展的浪潮。外国投资在这场变革中发挥了关键作用。美国和其他发达经济体认识到拉丁美洲的战略价值，纷纷向该地区注资。从生产到销售的基础设施都得到了改善，提高了拉美国家增加生产和有效应对日益增长的全球需求的能力。这种情况产生了一种自我强化的增长动力。基础设施的现代化提高了生产和销售的效率，满足了日益增长的国际需求，带来了更大的繁荣。反过来，这种繁荣又促进了对技术和工业发展的更多投资，使拉丁美洲成为世界舞台上一个有生存能力和竞争力的贸易伙伴。

第二次世界大战给拉丁美洲带来了经济悖论。一方面，对原材料和农产品的需求增加刺激了经济，但另一方面，由于物资短缺和通货膨胀，导致当地生活条件恶化。为支持盟军的战争努力而强调出口，减少了国内必需品的供应，导致价格上涨和当地居民购买力下降。各国政府在支持国际战争努力和满足本国人民的迫切需要之间陷入了微妙的平衡。战争的结束也带来了一系列挑战。对拉丁美洲产品的需求在战争年代急剧上升，但随着和平的恢复却急剧下降。适应了高需求环境的经济体发现自己面临着产能过剩和出口收入锐减的问题。这种快速变化加剧了国内经济挑战。各国现在面临着重新调整经济以适应一个对其产品需求急剧下降的和平世界的艰巨任务。战争期间被暂时掩盖或容忍的通货膨胀、物资短缺和其他经济问题成为需要立即关注的紧迫问题。此外，战后全球经济体系的重组也带来了其他挑战。随着欧洲和亚洲寻求重建，美国崛起为经济超级大国，拉丁美洲必须驾驭不断变化的国际格局，确定新的贸易伙伴关系，并调整其经济战略，以适应这一新的现实。

第二次世界大战期间，巴西、阿根廷和墨西哥等拉美国家通过提供基本原材料和农产品，在支持盟国方面发挥了至关重要的作用。战争刺激了对生产军事装备所需的橡胶、部队主食咖啡和维持野战军的基本食品牛肉等产品的需求。这一时期的特点是生产和出口大幅增长。这些国家的农民和工人为满足这一特殊需求付出了巨大努力。从咖啡种植园到牛肉牧场，再到橡胶加工厂，农业和工业的面貌焕然一新，大家都在齐心协力提高产量。这种经济活力并不局限于生产领域。需求增加直接导致商品价格上涨，带来了意想不到的繁荣。对于经常在经济挑战中挣扎的国家来说，这种资本注入简直是天赐良机。经济得到刺激，收入增加，社会许多部门的生活水平显著提高。例如，在巴西，对橡胶的需求重振了这个曾经兴旺发达但在国际竞争中衰落的产业。橡胶种植园重新焕发了活力，为原本被忽视的地区带来了就业和收入。同样，在阿根廷，本已蓬勃发展的牛肉业达到了新的高度，使该国成为国际农业食品业的主要参与者。在墨西哥，从石油到咖啡，出口产品的多样性增强了经济实力，表明该国有能力成为一个多才多艺、可靠的贸易伙伴。这种繁荣的影响体现在城市的发展、基础设施的改善以及更加富裕的中产阶级的崛起。

第二次世界大战导致对特定原材料的需求激增，拉丁美洲国家发现自己完全有能力满足这些需求。自然资源丰富的巴西橡胶业蓬勃发展。随着支持盟军军事行动对橡胶需求的增加，巴西优化了生产和出口方法。橡胶是制造从轮胎、服装到军事装备等一切产品的必需品，它成为主要的出口产品，带来了大量收入，促进了国民经济的发展。阿根廷拥有广阔的牧场，成为协约国的主要牛肉供应国。畜牧业和肉类生产本已是欣欣向荣的产业，在战时需求的推动下大幅增长。这一扩张不仅带来了经济增长，还巩固了阿根廷在国际舞台上的地位。墨西哥拥有丰富的石油储备，成为盟军不可或缺的合作伙伴。石油产量急剧增加，为盟国的战争机器提供了燃料。需求的增长带动了石油业务的迅速扩张，创造了就业机会，增加了政府收入，刺激了经济。每个国家的特定经济领域都发生了变革，以前所未有的速度扩张，以满足战争的需求。这一时期的繁荣有助于基础设施现代化、增加就业和提高生活水平。然而，这也凸显了战时严重出口导向型和依赖外国需求的经济所固有的脆弱性。因此，战争在提供经济机遇的同时，也凸显了经济多样化和长期规划的必要性，以降低与这种依赖性相关的风险。

第二次世界大战期间拉丁美洲的经济繁荣并不局限于冲突期间，它还为战后的持续繁荣和增长铺平了道路。对原材料和农产品需求的增加为该地区国家带来了巨大的贸易顺差。这些盈余不仅在战争期间刺激了各国经济，而且还使各国积累了大量的财政储备。这些储备被证明是宝贵的资源，在冲突后的不确定和重建时期提供了财政和经济回旋余地。战争期间，大量外国投资涌入拉丁美洲，尤其是来自美国的投资。这些投资推动了该地区从运输系统到工业厂房等基础设施的现代化。外国资本的注入不仅在短期内支持了经济增长，也为长期更强劲的工业和经济发展奠定了基础。拉美国家摆脱战争后，经济实力增强，工业部门不断扩大。现代化的基础设施和积累的金融储备使该地区进入了长期经济增长期。各国得以抓住机遇，实现经济多元化，投资于人力和技术发展，从而加强了其在世界舞台上的地位。战争带来的经济转型也对该地区的社会结构产生了影响。经济增长带来了就业的增加、生活水平的提高和中产阶级的扩大。经济收益转化为教育、卫生和社会服务的进步，促进了社会的稳定和繁荣。

第二次世界大战对拉丁美洲来说是一个矛盾的催化剂，既带来了独特的机遇，也带来了挑战。混乱的国际市场为该地区的出口打开了新的大门。拉美产品和原材料的需求比以往任何时候都要大，欧洲进口的冻结使该地区国家处于填补空缺的有利位置。然而，这种高需求也推迟了工业化进程。由于需要最大限度地生产商品和原材料以支持国际战争，各国的资源和注意力都被消耗殆尽。采掘业和农业蓬勃发展，但多元化制造业发展滞后。然而，整个地区的情况并非如此。尤其是巴西和墨西哥，凭借其庞大的国内市场，在工业化的道路上取得了长足的进步。它们满足国内和国际需求的能力促进了国内工业的兴起和发展。虽然战争阻碍了工业化进程，但也促进了这些国家的结构转型，使农业、采掘业和制造业之间的平衡更加微妙。

第二次世界大战后的时期标志着拉丁美洲经济的显著转型。外国投资的大量涌入，特别是来自美国的投资，是这一转变的一个组成部分。由于欧洲陷入冲突，美国向南寻求可靠的贸易伙伴，并向该地区注入大量资金。资金注入引发了基础设施的迅速现代化。运输系统、工业设施和通信网络得到改善，为加速经济一体化和增长奠定了基础。与此同时，战争也为拉美产品打开了新的市场。尤其是盟国对原材料和农产品有着迫切的需求。拉丁美洲国家发现自己处于满足这一需求的有利地位，并从价格和销售量的增长中获益。橡胶、金属和农产品等商品的需求尤其旺盛，这些产品的销售为该地区带来了意想不到的经济繁荣。金融储备的迅速积累是贸易增长的另一个直接结果。拉美国家不仅获得了更多的利润，还积累了更多的储备，从而增强了经济的稳定性，并为未来的发展提供了空间。

与欧洲、亚洲和美国的重大社会和政治动荡相比，第二次世界大战对拉丁美洲的影响可以说是微妙的。后者遭受了战争的直接蹂躏，而拉丁美洲在很大程度上仍处于最激烈战场的边缘。拉丁美洲社会相对而言没有受到大规模动员、人口迁移和剧烈社会重组的影响，而这些正是世界其他地区的特点。没有直接和大规模卷入冲突有利于社会的连续性和一定程度的政治稳定。然而，这并不意味着该地区完全不受战争的影响。贸易和经济受到影响，国际关系和国内政策也有所调整。但这些变化并不像直接卷入冲突的国家那样剧烈或直接。拉丁美洲在地理上远离战争的主要前线，加之军事参与有限，有助于形成缓冲，减轻冲突对该地区社会的直接影响。因此，尽管世界大战的回声肯定会在整个拉丁美洲产生共鸣，但这些回声受到了抑制，使社会和政治生活在世界大战的动荡背景下得以相对正常地继续。

虽然拉丁美洲国家基本上远离第二次世界大战的主要战场，但冲突对该地区的间接影响是显而易见的，并渗透到经济、社会和政治领域。该地区各国政府面临着对本国经济进行更多干预的需要，即使在本国没有发生战争的情况下，也要将资源和政策用于支持全球的战争努力。政府干预增加的特点是加强对经济的监管，调整产业方向以满足战争需要。这产生了持久的影响，在公共部门和私营部门之间形成了一种新的动态关系，这种关系一直持续到冲突结束之后。战争还刺激了外国投资涌入拉丁美洲。盟国，尤其是美国，寻求加强与该地区的经济和政治联系，注入资本和技术，以开发战争所需的当地资源。资本的涌入不仅刺激了经济增长，也使基础设施迅速现代化。经济繁荣和现代化带来了重大的社会变革。城市化进程加快，制造业和工业工作岗位增多，更加富裕的中产阶级开始崛起。这些影响也在政治格局中产生了共鸣，力量平衡和国际联盟得到了重新调整。

第二次世界大战虽然对拉丁美洲的直接社会结构影响有限，但却带来了深层次的变化，在随后的岁月里影响了性别角色和社会规范。战争的影响与其说是对传统角色的直接革新，不如说是在经济和结构变化刺激下的演变过程。拉丁美洲的传统社会结构在战争期间大体保持不变。男性和女性继续扮演着各自的角色，大部分女性人口集中在家庭领域，而男性则扮演着养家糊口的角色。有限的军事动员阻止了与欧洲和北美相类似的性别角色的彻底重塑。然而，外国投资的涌入和由此带来的经济增长为就业和教育提供了新的机会。尽管这些机会并没有立即改变性别角色，但它们确实播下了逐步转变的种子。尤其是妇女，开始有机会在传统的家庭界限之外获得更好的教育和就业机会。这种经济发展创造了一个空间，让妇女可以开始挑战和重塑社会的期望。尽管这种转变是微妙和渐进的，但它有助于扩大妇女参与公共和经济生活的范围。战后，妇女的自主权、受教育程度和就业率逐步提高。

第二次世界大战对拉丁美洲的影响可归结为一个经济适度转型和社会逐步变革的时期。虽然该地区不是冲突的主要战场，但也感受到了战争的间接影响，主要体现在新出现的经济机会和外国资本流动方面。向参战盟国出口更多的原材料和农产品，使巴西、阿根廷和墨西哥等国出现了暂时的经济繁荣。这反过来又略微提高了生活水平，为改善基础设施、扩大公共服务和教育创造了机会。然而，这些好处在一定程度上被通货膨胀和消费品短缺抵消了，通货膨胀和消费品短缺是由于为战争而加紧生产以及将资源转用于盟国而造成的。尽管战争增加了经济活动，但拉丁美洲的社会变革却不那么明显。性别角色、人口结构和社会流动性的变化是欧洲和北美饱受战争蹂躏社会的显著特征，但在拉丁美洲却不那么明显。该地区没有经历大规模的军事动员或剧烈的社会动荡。传统的社会规范和结构在很大程度上保持不变。然而，战争带来的经济动荡为战后变革铺平了道路。外国资本的涌入和工业的扩张推动了城市化进程、经济多样化和更强大的中产阶级的出现。虽然战争造成的直接社会影响得到了缓解，但这一时期奠定的经济基础影响了该地区随后几十年的社会和经济发展。

= 第二次世界大战期间拉丁美洲的政治变革 =

在第二次世界大战之前的几十年里，拉丁美洲出现了民粹主义运动。这些运动通常由富有魅力的领导人领导，如巴西的热图利奥-瓦加斯和阿根廷的胡安-多明戈-贝隆。这些领导人承诺更公平地分配财富、进行土地改革以及让工人阶级更多地参与政治。他们得到了从城市化工人阶级到农村大众的广泛支持。在此期间，随着许多拉美国家的快速工业化和城市化，工人阶级开始意识到自己的集体力量。尤其是工会，其影响力与日俱增，往往成为争取工人权利、工资和工作条件斗争的核心。虽然第二次世界大战本身并没有直接涉及大多数拉丁美洲国家，但它所产生的经济和政治动态却影响了该地区。对原材料需求的增加加强了某些行业，从而导致城市化进程加快，并从总体上加强了工会和劳工运动。战后，工会在许多拉美国家变得更具影响力。在阿根廷等国，工人运动与贝隆主义等重大政治运动密切相关。战后许多国家的选举基础扩大，工人阶级在政治上有了更大的发言权。工会影响力的增强和更广泛的选举参与相结合，促使该地区一些国家进行了一系列社会和经济改革。

20 世纪上半叶，拉丁美洲在政治领域出现了显著的左倾趋势。经济动荡、持续的社会经济不平等以及国际意识形态的影响为工会、社会主义和共产主义运动的兴起创造了肥沃的土壤。随着第二次世界大战的爆发，这些运动具有了新的重要性。共产国际，即总部设在莫斯科的共产国际，在协调包括拉丁美洲在内的世界各地共产党方面发挥了关键作用。在战争背景下，共产国际的首要任务非常明确：打击法西斯主义。1941 年纳粹德国入侵苏联后尤其如此，这一事件标志着共产国际对待战争以及与其他反法西斯力量合作态度的转折点。在拉丁美洲，这一指示得到了严格遵守。该地区的共产党采取坚决反法西斯的立场，经常与其他进步运动、工会运动和社会主义运动密切合作，以抵制法西斯意识形态的影响。在一些国家，如巴西，甚至成立了与欧洲盟军并肩作战的队伍。然而，必须指出的是，虽然反法西斯是战争期间该地区共产党政策的核心，但这并不一定意味着与苏联的政策完全一致。特定的国情、历史和关切往往影响着不同拉美国家解释和实施反法西斯主义的方式。战后，苏联和共产国际的影响依然存在，但冷战的背景为拉美共产党、苏联和美国之间的关系带来了新的动力。

第二次世界大战导致拉丁美洲的政治和社会格局发生重大波动，工会运动也未能幸免。在短期内，许多工会从战争期间的政治气候中获益。一些拉美国家出现了自由派或中间派政府，这些政府通常更愿意与工会和左翼政党合作。共产主义政党与政府的联系，尤其是在民主制度发挥作用的国家，为共产主义作为一种政治意识形态提供了更大的合法性。通过直接将共产主义与政府联系起来，一些国家的政府默认了共产主义在国家政治话语中的作用。这种合法性在该地区是史无前例的，因为在该地区，共产主义常常受到怀疑，甚至是公开的压制。然而，这一合作与合法化时期是短暂的。从长远来看，民主政府与共产党之间的和解为许多担心政治激进化的保守精英和社会阶层埋下了不信任的种子。随着冷战的加剧，美国也对拉美国家施加了相当大的压力，以减少或消除共产党的影响。因此，自由派政府与共产党之间最初的许多合作都昙花一现。许多拉美国家政府随后采取了反共立场，并经常以军事干预为后盾。与这些共产党关系密切的工会运动也成了打击目标。对工会和工会领导人的镇压在一些国家已司空见惯。他们谈判或倡导工人权利的能力严重受损。

第二次世界大战前后，共产主义在拉丁美洲的影响力明显上升。在总部设在莫斯科的共产国际的领导下，该地区的许多共产党调整了策略，以更好地适应当地的政治环境，而工会运动则是这一战略的核心。共产党不再公开反抗现有政府，而是寻求与较为温和的政府甚至传统上的非共产党领导人合作。这一策略的指导思想是共产国际当时的首要任务：反对法西斯主义。通过与其他政治力量结盟或合作，共产党可以加强自己的地位，对抗法西斯主义或极右运动。哥伦比亚和古巴就是这一战略的显著例子。在哥伦比亚，共产党经常与执政党结盟，寻求让步，从内部影响国家政治。通过这样的定位，该党希望获得合法性和影响力。古巴提供了另一个有趣的例子。1940 年，传统上被认为是右翼军事和政治领导人的富尔亨西奥-巴蒂斯塔与古巴共产党达成协议，令许多人大吃一惊。巴蒂斯塔是在民族团结的纲领下当选总统的，他将共产党员纳入自己的政权，试图通过消除潜在的反对派和扩大支持基础来巩固自己的权力。不过，这种联盟是机会主义的，并不一定反映出巴蒂斯塔在意识形态上的转变。然而，尽管这一时期共产党在该地区的影响力有所增强，但这些成果往往是短暂的。随着冷战的到来和美苏争霸的加剧，许多拉美国家政府往往迫于华盛顿的压力，与共产党拉开了距离。拉美地区许多国家的共产党和工会在合作和收益时期之后，最终陷入了镇压和边缘化时期。

第二次世界大战期间和之后，工会和左翼政党与拉丁美洲执政政府的合作无疑为直接参政提供了机会，但也带来了根本性的长期挑战。主要挑战在于，这种合作往往导致工会和左翼党派的自主性和独立行动能力受到削弱。对执政政府的依赖导致了战略方向的调整。许多工会和左翼党派不再提出阶级团结和国际主义的普遍主题，而是采用了更具民族主义色彩的言论，关注本国工人的具体需求和权利。虽然这种策略可以解决当地的燃眉之急，但也与 20 世纪初设想的劳工运动全球化和国际主义愿景产生了裂痕。通过采取更加民族主义和保护主义的立场，这些组织往往限制了它们在政府镇压时建立跨国联盟和动员国际支持的能力。此外，它们与政府的密切联系意味着，如果政治权力易手或政府敌视它们的利益，它们就特别容易受到伤害。这种态势也造成了工会运动和整个政治左派的分裂。工会和左翼政党越来越关注全国性问题，它们经常为争取政府支持而相互竞争，而不是在更广泛的目标上进行合作。这种竞争有时会导致内部分裂和冲突，从而削弱工会和左翼政党在面对更强大的政治对手时的地位。

第二次世界大战爆发前，拉丁美洲已经进行了大量的政治和社会实验。在这种氛围下，共产主义政党往往被统治精英视为威胁，因此在巴西等一些国家遭到禁止。然而，这一禁令并没有阻止这些政党秘密或半秘密地开展活动，或试图影响工会和其他社会运动。墨西哥的情况有些不同。墨西哥革命后，有人试图巩固政治权力。1934 年至 1940 年执政的拉萨罗-卡德纳斯总统将石油工业国有化，并进行了土地改革。与此同时，他还在革命制度党（PRI）的旗帜下巩固了政治权力，该党在 20 世纪的大部分时间里主导着墨西哥政治。卡德纳斯还试图控制和引导劳工运动，主要是通过单一的全国工会将其纳入政治体系。这种工会权力集中的做法虽然保证了一定程度的政治稳定，避免了重大对抗，但也削弱了工会的自主权。随着工会与政府的紧密结合，工会作为独立的制衡力量、捍卫工人权益以对抗雇主权力或国家的能力被削弱了。工会与政府的结合改变了工会的性质。工会不再是抗议的工具，而在很大程度上成为政府和雇主管理劳工的工具。这也导致了工会运动的官僚化，工会精英往往与普通工人的日常关切脱节。这种格局的长期后果是工人运动的活力和动员能力下降。在世界其他地区，工会在挑战政府和要求工人权利方面发挥了重要作用，而在拉丁美洲，尤其是墨西哥，工会的作用却因其与政府的密切关系而大打折扣。

20 世纪 30 年代和 40 年代，随着民粹主义、民族主义和独裁运动的兴起，拉丁美洲经历了深刻的政治变革。在这种情况下，欧洲的某些意识形态确实对该地区的政治和社会结构产生了影响。法西斯主义在欧洲的兴起，特别是意大利墨索里尼领导下的法西斯主义，对拉丁美洲的某些团体和领导人产生了一定的影响。此外，葡萄牙的安东尼奥-德奥利维拉-萨拉萨尔和西班牙的弗朗西斯科-佛朗哥等欧洲公司独裁政权的崛起也加强了这一趋势。这些政权提出了一种专制的公司主义模式，反对党派分裂，提倡在一个强有力的领导人领导下实现民族团结。这些思想得到了拉美某些人群的共鸣，尤其是保守派精英、军队和部分天主教会。法西斯主义和公司制在欧洲兴起的同时，拉丁美洲也出现了经济和社会危机。20 世纪 30 年代的大萧条对严重依赖原材料出口的该地区经济造成了重大影响。在此背景下，一些领导人和精英寻找自由主义和资本主义模式的替代方案。天主教会在这一时期发挥了复杂的作用。一方面，它关注共产主义和无神论的兴起，并经常支持保守或独裁运动作为制衡。天主教社会行动就是一个很好的例子。天主教社会行动组织由梵蒂冈推动，旨在创建一个能与社会主义和共产主义运动相抗衡的天主教工人运动。摒弃阶级斗争、强调团结与合作是这一方法的关键要素。然而，重要的是要注意到，这些欧洲意识形态的直接影响根据每个拉美国家的具体国情进行了调整和重塑。此外，一些国家或领导人可能受到法西斯主义或公司模式的启发，而另一些国家或领导人则走上了截然不同的道路，包括各种形式的民粹主义、自由民主或社会主义。

第二次世界大战前后，拉丁美洲某些保守精英对欧洲的独裁政权特别着迷。这种吸引力有几个原因。首先，这些保守精英往往对本国社会运动、民粹主义和激进主义的兴起感到震惊。面对罢工、示威和劳工运动的兴起，他们正在寻找维持社会现状和维护其特权的方法。欧洲的专制政权成功地镇压了社会主义和共产主义运动，并将秩序强加于人，它们似乎是有吸引力的典范。保守派精英试图效仿的 "秩序与进步政权 "的理念部分受到欧洲模式的启发，但也受到本国先例的影响。在许多拉美国家，19 世纪末和 20 世纪初都曾尝试过 "保守的现代化"，即国家在促进经济发展方面发挥积极作用，同时坚决维持社会控制。保守派精英们设想的社会是，国家在调节经济方面发挥核心作用，保证私营部门有一个稳定的发展环境。这往往意味着要通过给予特许权、提供关税保护和保证投资安全等方式来维护经济精英的利益。与此同时，他们还希望国家进行干预，以规范工作，目的往往是最大限度地降低成本，防止罢工或中断。最后，必须指出的是，这些精英并不满足于被动地模仿外国模式。他们根据自己的需要和本国特定的政治、经济和社会背景，对这些模式进行了调整和重新制定。这一时期拉丁美洲出现的独裁政权虽然受到欧洲政权的影响，但却具有鲜明的拉美特色。

这一时期拉丁美洲天主教极右翼的出现是对国际和国内因素的综合反应。在国际上，共产主义在欧洲的兴起，特别是苏维埃政权在俄罗斯的巩固，引起了保守派和宗教界的深切关注。西班牙内战（1936-1939 年）使许多社会党人和共产党人支持的共和党人与天主教会和其他保守势力支持的佛朗哥民族主义者对峙，这场战争尤为重要。许多人将这场冲突视为基督教与共产主义之间的直接对抗，它深刻影响了拉丁美洲的政治观念，因为拉丁美洲许多国家与西班牙有着密切的文化和历史联系。在国家层面，一些拉美国家正经历着日益加剧的社会动荡。在社会主义或共产主义思想的鼓舞下，工人和农民运动要求获得权利和进行改革，包括更好地分配土地和提高工资。与此同时，共济会往往与自由主义和反教会思想联系在一起，被教会和保守派视为对传统社会秩序和教会在公共事务中的影响力的直接威胁。面对左翼激进主义的兴起，天主教极右翼思潮得到了巩固，试图捍卫传统的社会秩序、等级制度和教会在社会中的影响力。这股潮流坚信，捍卫教会和基督教信仰与反对共产主义、社会主义和其他形式的激进主义有着内在的联系。此外，天主教社会行动（Catholic Social Action）和其他类似团体在组织反运动活动和反对这些被视为颠覆力量方面发挥了积极作用。这导致了相当大的政治和社会紧张局势。在许多情况下，政府往往在这些天主教极右翼思潮的支持或直接影响下，严厉镇压工人和农民运动。镇压的形式往往是逮捕、酷刑、暗杀和审查。这些对立势力之间的两极分化决定了这一时期拉丁美洲政治生活的大部分内容，并对该地区产生了持久的影响。

20 世纪 30 年代和 40 年代是拉丁美洲政治特别动荡的时期。20 世纪 30 年代的全球经济危机以及随后爆发的第二次世界大战加剧了该地区许多国家的内部政治紧张局势。在此期间，多个拉美国家建立了独裁政权。面对共产主义或其他形式的左翼激进主义的威胁，这些独裁政权往往以维护秩序和稳定为由为自己辩解。军事政权或独裁政权，如巴西的瓦加斯政权或阿根廷的贝隆政权，实施民粹主义政策以赢得民众支持，同时镇压政治反对派。在那些保持着民主雏形的国家，政治分歧也非常明显。哥伦比亚就是一个很好的例子。在这个国家，自由派和保守派之间的矛盾是深刻的、历史性的。20 世纪 30 年代和 40 年代，随着劳工运动、社会主义运动和共产主义运动在世界各地的兴起，自由派，尤其是较为激进的派别，受到了保守派精英和较为传统的社会阶层的怀疑。哥伦比亚的极右天主教派别加强了反自由派的言论，指责他们受到共济会、社会主义或共产主义等被视为颠覆性运动的影响，或与这些运动有关联。在拉丁美洲，尤其是在哥伦比亚，天主教会往往与保守立场联系在一起，并将社会主义和其他左翼意识形态的兴起视为对其影响力和传统社会结构的直接威胁。这种政治上的两极分化常常导致暴力事件的发生。在哥伦比亚，自由派领袖豪尔赫-埃利塞-盖坦（Jorge Eliécer Gaitán）被暗杀后，这种紧张关系在 1948 年的 "波哥大之战"（El Bogotazo）中以惊人的方式爆发。这些事件拉开了 "暴力 "时期的序幕，这是一场自由派与保守派之间的非官方内战，造成数十万人死亡。因此，在意识形态紧张、经济动荡和全球政治影响的推动下，20 世纪 30 年代和 40 年代的拉丁美洲政局极不稳定。

= 拉丁美洲从中立到反轴心国战争的转变 =

== 中立性 ==
The Second World War created geopolitical complexity for Latin American countries, as they had to navigate between the conflicting demands of the warring Great Powers and their own national interests. The neutrality declared by most Latin American countries was largely a strategy to protect their own economic and political interests. They wanted to avoid the direct devastation of war, while taking advantage of the economic opportunities arising from the growing demand for raw materials needed for the war effort. This neutrality allowed these countries to trade with all the warring parties. Mexico, for example, ended up openly supporting the Allies, mainly because of its close links with the United States. The country provided important resources, including oil, to the Allies. Mexico also sent Escuadrón 201, a unit of fighter pilots, to fight alongside the Allies in the Pacific. As for Argentina, the country maintained an officially neutral position throughout most of the war, but there were suspicions of pro-Axis sympathies within certain factions of the government and the army. Argentina did not declare war on Nazi Germany until March 1945, shortly before the end of the war in Europe. Chile also maintained official neutrality, although, as in Argentina, there were elements within the country who showed sympathy for the Axis powers. Nazi efforts to extend their influence in Latin America after 1933 were motivated by strategic and economic reasons. Argentina, in particular, was seen as a potentially valuable trading partner, rich in the raw materials needed for the German war economy. The historical relations between countries such as Argentina and Chile and Prussia, as well as the large groups of German immigrants present in these countries, facilitated Nazi diplomacy and espionage efforts. Nevertheless, the region's overall neutrality prevented total immersion in the affairs of the war, limiting the direct influence of the Axis powers on the continent. After the war, Latin America became a refuge for many Nazis on the run, seeking to escape justice for crimes committed during the conflict.

The influence of Nazism in Latin America, while present to some degree, was far less marked than that of other ideologies or political movements influencing the region at the time. Small communities of German immigrants in countries such as Argentina, Guatemala and Uruguay attempted to promote Nazi ideas. However, the size of these communities was not significant enough to exert a major influence on politics or society. The absence of a large Jewish population in Latin America also played a role. Without this primary target of Nazi ideology, one of the key motivations for this movement was missing. Moreover, Latin America, with its rich and diverse history of racial and cultural miscegenation, was not fertile ground for the ideas of racial purity and Aryan superiority advocated by Nazism. The cultural differences between Europe and Latin America, as well as the lack of widespread acceptance of anti-Semitism in the region, made it difficult for Nazi ideologies to spread. In addition, many Latin American countries had close economic and diplomatic ties with the Allies, particularly the United States and Great Britain. These economic and diplomatic ties played a role in limiting the acceptance and promotion of the ideologies of the Axis powers on the continent.

The Second World War, although focused on conflicts in Europe, Asia and the Pacific, had global political and economic repercussions. In Latin America, although the nations were not major theatres of combat, they felt the indirect effects of the war through their economic and diplomatic relations. Some Latin American leaders were fascinated by the fascist movements that had come to power in Europe. They saw fascism as a possible solution to the economic and social challenges facing their countries. Regimes such as those of Mussolini in Italy, Salazar in Portugal and Franco in Spain served as models for some Latin American leaders and elites as they sought to consolidate their power and modernise their economies. Nevertheless, despite this admiration for the European fascist movements, no Latin American nation officially joined the alliance of the Axis powers. Neutrality was the most common position adopted by Latin American countries. There were a number of reasons for this, including the desire to avoid internal conflict, the absence of a direct stake in the war and the need to protect their economies. Although neutral, many Latin American countries maintained trade relations with the belligerents on both sides. These relations were often pragmatic, based on economic needs rather than ideological alliances.

The Second World War was a decisive turning point in international relations, demonstrating the decline of the European colonial powers and the rise of the United States and the Soviet Union as dominant superpowers. For Latin America, this meant a significant realignment of its economic and political ties. Until the beginning of the twentieth century, the nations of Latin America maintained close relations with the European powers, in particular Spain, Portugal, France and the United Kingdom. However, with the economic and territorial expansion of the United States, these ties began to change. The Monroe Doctrine, proclaimed in 1823, set out the American vision that Europe should not seek to establish new colonies or intervene in the affairs of independent republics in the Western Hemisphere. Although the doctrine was largely rhetorical in origin, it laid the foundations for a more interventionist US policy in the region. The principle of non-intervention, promoted by the United States, was essentially an extension of this doctrine, aimed at protecting the American sphere of influence from foreign, particularly European, intervention. Policies such as "dollar diplomacy" and the "good neighbour" policy sought to establish friendlier relations and strengthen US economic and political influence in Latin America. The Second World War accelerated this process. With Europe at war and the former colonial powers weakened, Latin America turned to the United States for economic aid and protection. The United States, for its part, was keen to ensure that Latin America did not fall under the influence of the Axis. Initiatives such as the 1940 Inter-American Conference and economic agreements strengthened the ties between the United States and Latin America.

== 1938 Declaration of Continental Solidarity ==
In the run-up to the Second World War, the nations of Latin America sought to consolidate their position on the international stage and protect their regional interests in the face of rising tensions in Europe. The 1938 Declaration of Continental Solidarity symbolises these aspirations. It was adopted at the Inter-American Peacekeeping Conference in Lima. This declaration reflected the awareness of Latin American countries of the need to unite in the face of external threats and to define a common position on major global issues. The declaration promoted inter-American cooperation, respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states, and non-intervention in the internal affairs of other nations. It also reflected concerns about the expansionism of the Axis powers and the possible spread of conflict to America. However, in September 1939, faced with the outbreak of the Second World War, Latin America's attitude changed to one of neutrality. The foreign ministers of the American states, meeting at the Panama Conference, put forward this position, wishing to avoid any direct involvement in the European conflict. Their choice was motivated not only by the desire to protect their economies from the ravages of war, but also by the desire to assert their autonomy and resist any pressure to join either side. It was also a way for Latin American countries to assert their sovereignty and their ability to take independent foreign policy decisions. It showed that they were not mere pawns in the game of world powers, but players in their own right, capable of defining and defending their own interests. However, as the war progressed, this position of neutrality was eroded under pressure from the United States and other factors, eventually leading many Latin American countries to declare war on the Axis powers. Despite this, the initial period of neutrality marked an important stage in the assertion of Latin American independence and sovereignty in world affairs.

The Second World War had a profound impact on international relations and the configuration of global power, and Latin America was no exception. When France and the Netherlands succumbed to the Nazi war machine in 1940, their vast colonial empires became potentially vulnerable zones. The geographical proximity of the French and Dutch colonies in South America and the Caribbean to the United States and other Latin American countries raised serious concerns about their security and regional stability. Against this backdrop, the foreign ministers of the American states took the bold step of placing these colonies under their collective trusteeship. It was an unprecedented move, aimed at ensuring that these territories would not become bases of operations for the Axis powers, particularly Nazi Germany. It reflected a growing awareness of the interdependence of the American states in the face of the global threat posed by fascism. The decision to protect these colonies was not only strategic, but also had symbolic implications. It demonstrated the solidarity and cooperation between the nations of the Americas, demonstrating their ability to act jointly to protect their common interests. It also sent a clear message to the Axis powers about the determination of the Americas to defend their hemisphere. The fact that Germany did not attack territories such as Martinique and Guadeloupe, despite their potential vulnerability, demonstrates the effectiveness of this strategy of deterrence. It also highlights the growing influence of the United States in the region, which played a leading role in implementing this protection policy. Ultimately, the collective initiative of the American states during this turbulent period played a crucial role in maintaining the stability and neutrality of the region during the war years.

The Second World War presented Latin American nations with a dilemma, between preserving traditional neutrality in external conflicts and increasing pressure to support the Allies, mainly from the United States. After the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the United States' strategic pivot towards active participation in the conflict had a knock-on effect on its neighbours to the south. The United States, with its economic power and political influence in the region, played a crucial role in mobilising Latin America. In the context of the "good neighbourliness" promoted by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the United States sought to strengthen economic and political ties with its southern neighbours. After Pearl Harbor, this commitment turned into pressure for these countries to join the Allied war effort. The countries of Central America and the Caribbean, historically within the sphere of influence of the United States, were among the first to respond to this call. The history of US intervention in these regions in previous decades has undoubtedly made these countries more inclined to follow the American lead. However, the decision to go to war was not an easy one for all. Argentina, for example, remained neutral for much of the war, despite intense pressure from the United States. Other nations, despite having declared war on the Axis powers, did not actively contribute to the war effort, limiting their participation to non-combat aspects. Nevertheless, whether out of conviction or pragmatism, many Latin American countries ultimately chose to support the Allied cause. The role of the United States as regional leader, with its ability to offer economic and political incentives, was decisive in this direction. This period marked a further stage in the process of Latin America's integration into world politics, influenced to a large extent by the dynamics and expectations emanating from Washington.

The political landscape of Latin America during the Second World War was a complex mix of ideologies, national interests and geopolitical dynamics. Although the dictatorial regimes may, at first sight, have seemed to have an affinity with the Axis powers, particularly because of certain similarities in terms of authoritarianism, there were many factors that led these regimes to side with the Allies. Firstly, the economic and political pressures of the United States, which had become the economic and military fulcrum of the Western Hemisphere, could not be ignored. The economic benefits of an alliance with the US, such as access to markets and economic aid, were attractive to many Latin American regimes. Secondly, declaring war on the Axis powers offered an opportunity for international legitimacy. By joining the Allies, these regimes could present an image as defenders of freedom and democracy, even if this image was in flagrant contradiction with their domestic policies. Thirdly, it is important to note that while some Latin American leaders and elites were attracted by fascist and authoritarian ideologies, they were also pragmatic. They recognised that the Allies, in particular the United States, had a better chance of victory, so it made strategic sense to side with them. Finally, internal and regional rivalries should not be overlooked. In many countries, opposing factions were competing for power, and the question of which position to adopt during the war became a major political issue. Siding with the Allies could be a way for some leaders to consolidate their power in the face of internal adversaries. Ultimately, the decision of many Latin American dictatorial regimes to join the Allied war effort was the result of a complex mix of pragmatism, opportunism and geopolitical pressure. Although these regimes did not embody the democratic ideals for which the war was supposed to be fought, they recognised the strategic advantages of an alliance with the Allied powers.

During the Second World War, the initial position of Mexico and Brazil was one of neutrality, partly due to their economic interests and the desire to avoid direct involvement in the conflict. However, this neutrality was put to the test in the face of aggression from the Axis powers. Mexico, while initially wishing to preserve its trade relations with all the belligerent nations, was forced to review its position. In 1942, after its oil tankers were attacked by German submarines, Mexico broke off diplomatic relations with the Axis powers. Later that year, it declared war on Germany and, in 1945, on the other Axis powers. Although Mexico did not deploy a large contingent of troops, it did take part in the fighting, notably by sending Escuadrón 201, a squadron of fighters, to fight alongside the Allies in the Pacific. On the other hand, Brazil, while seeking to remain neutral, came under economic and political pressure, particularly from the United States. Its neutrality was shaken when Brazilian merchant ships were attacked by German submarines. In 1942, Brazil responded by declaring war on Germany and Italy. This decision led to direct military collaboration with the Allies, making Brazil the only Latin American country to deploy troops to Europe during the war. The FEB (Força Expedicionária Brasileira) was sent to Italy, illustrating the country's commitment to the fight against the Axis powers. The initial positions of Mexico and Brazil reflected the complexity of international relations at the time. However, faced with direct provocations from the Axis, both nations chose to defend their interests and honour their obligations to the Allies.

== Inter-American Conference of 1942 ==
The 1942 Inter-American Conference on War and Peace Problems in Rio de Janeiro marked a significant attempt by the United States to unite the Western Hemisphere against the Axis powers. As the dominant power in the region, the United States saw the strategic importance of ensuring that Latin America did not provide resources or support to the Axis powers, while seeking to increase the region's contribution to the Allied war effort. Brazil, rich in resources and strategically located along the South Atlantic, was a major point of interest for the United States. Although Brazil finally declared war on the Axis powers in August 1942, this decision was taken after careful consideration and analysis of the economic and political implications. German attacks on Brazilian merchant ships played a key role in this decision. Mexico, for its part, was directly provoked by the Axis when German submarines attacked its oil tankers in the Gulf of Mexico. In response to this aggression, Mexico declared war on the Axis in May 1942. The need to protect its economic interests and sovereignty precipitated this decision. Argentina, on the other hand, chose a different path. Despite pressure to join the Allies, Argentina maintained its neutrality until the end of the war in March 1945. This position can be attributed to a combination of factors, including economic interests, internal political divisions and diplomatic relations with the European powers. These different responses to American pressure illustrate the diversity of interests and political situations in Latin America during the Second World War. Although the United States played a predominant role in hemispheric diplomacy, each country assessed its own national interests before deciding on its involvement in the conflict.

== Mexico and Brazil go to war ==
Mexico's geographical position, sharing a long border with the United States, naturally placed it in the position of a strategic ally during the Second World War. The bilateral relationship between the two countries, although complex due to a sometimes tense historical background, was at that time one of cooperation. President Lázaro Cárdenas, known for his nationalist and progressive policies, had a clear vision of Mexico's position on the world stage. Although he nationalised the Mexican oil industry in 1938, creating tensions with foreign companies, particularly American ones, this decision strengthened the country's economic sovereignty. Despite this nationalisation, President Roosevelt adopted a pragmatic approach, recognising the need to maintain cordial relations with his southern neighbour, especially in the face of the growing global threat from the Axis powers. Mexico's support for the Allied cause was not merely symbolic. The country mobilised resources for the war. Mexico's most famous military contribution was Escuadrón 201, also known as the Aztec Eagle Squadron, which fought alongside Allied forces in the Pacific. Mexico's involvement in the conflict was also strengthened by domestic considerations. Cárdenas and other Mexican leaders saw no ideological affinity with the fascist and Nazi regimes of Europe. On the contrary, they identified more with the democratic ideals and principles of social justice promoted by the Allies. Overall, Mexico's decision to join the Allies in the Second World War was the result of a combination of geopolitical, economic and ideological factors. The country demonstrated its ability to act in accordance with its national interests while aligning itself with broader causes that reflected its fundamental principles.

Brazil, the largest country in South America, played a strategic role during the Second World War. With the South Atlantic considered an essential area for navigation and war logistics, Brazil's geographical position was of crucial importance. German submarines operated in the Atlantic, and Brazil, with its long Atlantic coastline, was vulnerable to their attacks. In fact, Germany targeted several Brazilian merchant ships, eventually pushing the country towards a more active stance against the Axis powers. President Getúlio Vargas, an astute and pragmatic leader, had initiated a period of industrialisation and modernisation in Brazil, seeking to elevate the country to the status of a regional power. Although Vargas adopted elements of fascist ideology in his domestic policies, he was clear about the need to maintain strong relations with the United States, particularly in the light of global developments. By allying itself with the Allies, Brazil was able to benefit from technical, military and financial assistance. The United States, recognising Brazil's importance in the conflict, invested in the construction of key infrastructure, such as the road between Belém and Brasília, and established air bases in the north-east of the country. Brazilian troops, particularly the Força Expedicionária Brasileira (FEB), were sent to Europe and fought alongside the Allies in Italy. Their participation was recognised and valued, reinforcing Brazil's role as a significant contributor to the Allied war effort. In this way, Brazil's participation in the Second World War strengthened its position on the international stage and also fostered a closer and more beneficial relationship with the United States. However, it should be noted that Brazil, under Vargas's leadership, managed to navigate the international stage skilfully, balancing its national interests with the geopolitical imperatives of the time.

During the Second World War, Brazil occupied a delicate and strategic geopolitical position. Its long Atlantic coastline made it vulnerable, while at the same time offering strategic advantages for the warring powers. This reality placed Brazil in a position where it could potentially take advantage of offers from both sides of the conflict. President Getúlio Vargas, known for his astute politics, sought to maximise Brazil's national interest by skilfully navigating between the Axis powers and the Allies. Although Vargas showed sympathies for certain ideologies associated with fascism, he also recognised the importance of maintaining strong relations with the United States. US pressure on Brazil was real. They saw the country as essential to securing the South Atlantic and preventing Germany from establishing a significant presence in the Western Hemisphere. Moreover, the United States was well aware of Germany's courting of Brazil and other Latin American countries in an attempt to strengthen its influence. Vargas, while playing a delicate game of diplomacy with the two powers, was driven to a decision by economic and strategic realities. When Germany proved unable to supply the promised weapons and the United States offered financial support for an arms factory, Vargas's choice became clearer. The prospect of increased US economic and military support was too valuable to ignore. Nevertheless, it is essential not to underestimate the role of the German submarine attacks. While they may have served as a pretext for the declaration of war, they also highlighted Brazil's vulnerability and the need to choose sides. In the end, Brazil chose to align itself with the Allies, demonstrating its commitment by sending troops to fight in Italy. This decision reinforced Brazil's status on the international stage and deepened its ties with the United States, while confirming Vargas's pragmatism in foreign policy.

South America occupied a unique position during the Second World War. Although most of the countries in the region only officially declared war on the Axis powers towards the end of the conflict, their contribution to the Allies in the form of raw materials was crucial throughout the war. Argentina, in particular, adopted a complex policy of neutrality. Although this position was criticised by other Allied nations, particularly the United States, it was dictated by economic, geopolitical and domestic considerations. Argentina, with its economy based on the export of agricultural products, particularly meat and cereals, saw a lucrative opportunity in continuing to trade with all the warring parties. Argentine neutrality was also influenced by domestic dynamics. The country was torn between pro-Allied and pro-Axis factions, and neutrality was a way of avoiding a deep internal division. In addition, successive governments used neutrality as a means of strengthening Argentina's independence and sovereignty in the face of external pressures. Nevertheless, Argentina's economic orientation towards the Allies was clear. Argentine raw materials and foodstuffs fed the war economies of the United Kingdom and the United States, indirectly contributing to the Allied war effort. In turn, this provided Argentina with a continuous source of income during the global conflict. Argentina's belated decision to declare war on the Axis powers in 1945, shortly before the end of the war, was largely symbolic. It reflected the realisation that the tide was turning in favour of the Allies and that participation, however symbolic, in victory would be beneficial to Argentina's post-war international position.

== The case of Argentina ==
[[Fichier:Gou.png|thumb|150px|GOU coat of arms (imperial eagle and image of General San Martín in the centre).]]

Juan Domingo Perón is a central figure in twentieth-century Argentine political history. His emergence as a leader was rooted in a context of political instability, economic inequality and social tensions. The 1930s and 1940s saw a series of coups d'état and short-lived governments in Argentina, and the country was looking for a stable leader who could offer a clear vision for the future. As Secretary of Labour and Welfare and then Vice-President of the Nation under President Edelmiro Farrell, Perón consolidated his links with the unions and the working class, positioning himself as their champion. His relationship with these groups was strengthened by his welfare policies and nationalist rhetoric, which promised a more inclusive and equitable Argentina. One of the pillars of Perón's policies was "Justicialism", an ideology he developed based on the principles of social justice, economic independence and political sovereignty. Under his leadership, Argentina saw the implementation of a number of progressive reforms, including granting women the right to vote in 1947, creating a social security system, raising wages and nationalising key industries such as railways and telecommunications. Perón's wife, Eva "Evita" Perón, also played a crucial role in his popularity. She was devoted to the cause of the "descamisados" (literally "those without shirts"), Argentina's working class, and launched numerous social programmes on their behalf. She became a quasi-mythical figure in Argentina, embodying the aspirations and hopes of the most disadvantaged. However, Peronism was not without its critics. Protectionist economic policies and state interventionism were criticised for causing economic inefficiencies. Perón was also accused of populism and authoritarianism, and his regime was marked by attacks on press freedom and repression of opponents.

The coup d'état of 4 June 1943 in Argentina was part of a series of political and social upheavals that had shaken the country in previous years. The global economic depression of the 1930s had repercussions in Argentina, exacerbating social inequalities and popular discontent. The traditional political class was seen as corrupt and unable to respond to the needs of the people, and this created fertile ground for radical change. The United Officers Group (GOU) was mainly made up of middle-ranking army officers who were unhappy with the direction the country was taking. They firmly believed that Argentina needed strong leadership to guide it through these troubled times. Under this banner, they led the coup and ousted the incumbent president, Ramón Castillo, who was part of the decried 'Infamous Decade', a period of electoral fraud and political corruption. Once in power, the GOU took a series of authoritarian measures to consolidate its control. Congress was dissolved, press freedom restricted and many politicians and trade union leaders arrested. However, the GOU was not monolithic and internal divisions emerged over the direction the country should take. It was in this context that Juan Domingo Perón, a member of the GOU, began to emerge as a dominant figure. Initially holding positions in the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, he developed close links with the trade unions and promoted policies favourable to the working class. Over time, with the support of the masses, he became the most powerful political player in the country, laying the foundations for his future presidency and the creation of the Peronist movement.

Juan Domingo Perón, after being appointed Secretary of Labour and Welfare in the military government, began to shape a new political and social model for Argentina. Using this position as a springboard, he promoted labour reforms that not only improved conditions for workers, but also allowed him to build a solid base of support among the working class. These actions gave rise to what would later be known as Peronism, a distinctly Argentine political and ideological movement. Under Perón, the state became a major player in the economy, nationalising key industries and promoting social welfare programmes. Eva Perón, his wife, played a crucial role in popularising these initiatives, particularly for women and the underprivileged, further enhancing the charisma and reach of the presidential couple. However, Perón's leadership style was not without its flaws. While he presented himself as a champion of the people, his methods were often authoritarian. Political opponents were often repressed, freedom of the press was restricted and the state often intervened in the affairs of the trade unions, despite their close relationship. Perón's legacy is complex. For many, he is seen as the father of the modern workers' movement in Argentina and a defender of the underprivileged. For others, he is criticised for his authoritarianism and lack of respect for democratic institutions. Whatever the case, his influence on Argentine politics is undeniable, with Peronism remaining a dominant force in the country's politics decades after his death.

Juan Domingo Perón remains a complex and controversial figure in Argentine history. His rise to power came at a time of global geopolitical change, the rise of fascist ideologies in Europe and tensions between the countries of the Americas. Perón's education in Europe, particularly Italy, undoubtedly influenced some of his views on governance and state structure. Italian fascism, under Benito Mussolini, promoted a form of authoritarianism that emphasised nationalism, national unity and the active role of the state in society and the economy. Some of these principles were reflected in Peronism, although Peronism was also influenced by other ideologies and evolved to include a mixture of populist, socialist and nationalist policies. US accusations that Perón was pro-Nazi were partly based on his perceived sympathy for authoritarian regimes in Europe. However, it is important to note that although Argentina had economic and diplomatic ties with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy before and during the Second World War, it did not adhere to Nazi or Fascist ideology in its domestic politics. Rather, Argentina, under Perón and other leaders, sought to navigate pragmatically the geopolitical landscape of the time, while promoting its own national interests. The accusation of Perón's authoritarianism is based on his methods of governance. Although he implemented popular social and economic reforms, he also suppressed political opposition, controlled the media and used the state apparatus to consolidate his power. Despite this, he remains a figure adored and admired by much of the Argentine population for his pro-labour policies and his role in modernising the nation.

Juan Domingo Perón's rise to power in post-war Argentina worried the United States for several reasons. Firstly, at the time, the Cold War was beginning to take shape and the US was concerned about the emergence of any leader in the region who might not align completely with US interests or who might even move towards the Soviet bloc. Secondly, Peronist ideology, with its strong emphasis on nationalism and social justice, was at odds with the neoliberal policies that the US was promoting in the region. The US ambassador to Argentina at the time, Spruille Braden, played an active role in the election campaign, openly criticising Perón and his policies. This even led to the famous "Braden o Perón" election campaign, where the choice was presented as a choice between Braden (and therefore American interests) and Perón. This open intervention by the United States in Argentina's domestic politics ultimately worked in Perón's favour, as it reinforced his image as a defender of Argentine sovereignty against foreign interference. Attempts to discredit Perón by portraying him as a fascist also failed. Although Perón had contacts with European authoritarian regimes in the 1930s and 1940s, and borrowed some elements from fascism, his ideology was mainly centred on social justice, the welfare of workers and nationalism. For many Argentines, Perón embodied the hope of a better future, a more egalitarian society and a more independent country on the international stage. Ultimately, Perón's approach to foreign policy, which sought to balance relations with the United States while strengthening ties with other countries, particularly in Europe and Latin America, contributed to his enduring success as a major political figure in Argentina.

= The Roosevelt administration's security programme against "enemy aliens" =

During the Second World War, the Roosevelt administration launched the Alien Enemy Control Program (AECP), a controversial programme often overshadowed by the more widely recognised internment of Japanese Americans. Following the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, there was a deep-seated mistrust of individuals from Axis countries, even those living in Latin America. This mistrust was not limited to the Japanese, but also extended to people of German and Italian origin. Under the aegis of the AECP, the United States collaborated with several Latin American governments to arrest and detain thousands of residents deemed potentially dangerous. Many of them were transferred to the United States to be interned in various centres. One of the largest internment centres was in Crystal City, Texas, separate from the camps for Japanese Americans. The Roosevelt administration justified these actions in the name of national security. The fear was that these individuals, supposedly Axis sympathisers living in Latin America, might engage in subversive actions or act as spies for the Axis powers. Some internees were exchanged for American citizens held by the Axis powers, while others were deported to their countries of origin after the war, regardless of the number of years or decades they had spent in Latin America. The post-war period was difficult for many of these internees. Some were never allowed to return to their home countries in Latin America, having seen their lives and those of their families turned upside down by internment. With hindsight, these actions have been widely criticised as excessive, discriminatory and unjustified. By acknowledging these past mistakes, it is hoped that such abuses can be avoided in the future.

During the Second World War, concerns about national security led the Roosevelt administration to take drastic measures, particularly with regard to Latin American residents of German, Italian and Japanese origin. Under the influence of the United States, fifteen Latin American countries were forced to deport people considered to be "enemy aliens" to the United States. These deportations were not always the result of proven wrongdoing on the part of the individuals concerned, but were rather based on their ethnic origin and the perception that they might pose a threat. Once in the United States, these individuals were interned in camps, sometimes described as "concentration camps", although different from the Nazi death camps in Europe. These internment centres were spread across the United States, with one of the most notable being located in Crystal City, Texas. In addition, as part of this programme to control enemy aliens, the assets of many deportees were seized and confiscated by the governments. Banks, businesses and real estate belonging to these individuals were taken over by the authorities, leaving many families destitute and in a precarious situation. These actions were justified at the time by the need to protect the interests and security of the United States in the midst of war. However, with hindsight, many have criticised these measures as being excessively harsh and discriminatory. They disrupted and, in many cases, destroyed lives, and their legitimacy was the subject of intense debate in the decades that followed.

At the height of the Second World War, the spectre of the enemy threat at home haunted the American national psyche. In this climate of fear and suspicion, the Enemy Alien Control Programme was set up, primarily targeting people of German, Italian and Japanese origin. While the stated aim was to protect national security, the actual effects of the programme were far more far-reaching and often unjustified. A large proportion of the people affected by this programme were American citizens or permanent residents who had lived in the United States for many years. These people were often deeply rooted in their communities, contributing to American society as workers, entrepreneurs and neighbours. Yet overnight, because of their ethnic heritage, they became targets of suspicion and were uprooted from their homes and placed in internment camps. The fact that the overwhelming majority of those interned were later found not to have committed any act of espionage or treason is revealing. Indeed, of the thousands of people interned, a tiny number were identified as collaborating with the Axis powers. This raises the fundamental question of the proportionality of security responses and the sacrifices that societies are prepared to make in the name of national security. The Enemy Alien Control programme, with its profound implications for civil rights, remains a dark stain on American history. It is a reminder that, even within the most established democracies, fear can sometimes trump principle, with devastating consequences for innocent lives.

During the Second World War, the international response to the threat from the Axis powers was varied, with each country reacting according to its own interests, history and diplomatic relations. The Enemy Alien Control programme, although supported and implemented by the United States, was not universally adopted in the Western Hemisphere. Mexico, with its long history of independence and defence of its sovereignty, has chosen a different path. With a large community of German origin actively contributing to its society, Mexico deemed it unnecessary and unjust to intern or deport these people because of their heritage. Instead, Mexico sought to protect its residents, regardless of their ethnic origins, while maintaining its neutrality throughout much of the war. Other South American countries, such as Argentina, Brazil and Chile, also avoided a policy of mass internment, despite the presence of large populations of German, Italian and Japanese origin. These decisions reflect not only geopolitical realities and international relations, but also national values and principles of justice. Mexico's humanitarian approach in offering refuge to those fleeing persecution elsewhere reinforced its image as a nation concerned with human rights. It also reinforced the notion that, even in the face of immense international pressure, sovereign nations have the capacity and the right to make decisions in line with their internal values and principles. In times of global crisis, it is crucial to remember that each country has its own identity, its own convictions, and its own way of responding to global challenges.

During the Second World War, mistrust and suspicion were at their height. As a result, the United States introduced the Enemy Alien Control Programme in Latin America, which led to major actions. In this context, 50% of the Germans living in Honduras, 30% of those living in Guatemala and 20% of the German population of Colombia were deported. These deportations were in direct contradiction with Roosevelt's Good Neighbour policy, which aimed to promote harmonious relations between the United States and Latin American countries. Despite this policy, many residents, including Jews who had escaped Nazi oppression and opponents of fascism, found themselves interned and deported. These figures show not only the scale of the actions taken, but also the tragedy of those affected, particularly those who had already fled persecution in Europe. These events highlight the challenges faced by governments in wartime and the potentially devastating consequences of actions based on fear rather than hard evidence.

During the Second World War, the shadow of Nazism and authoritarian regimes extended beyond Europe. In this tense global climate, Latin America, with its mosaic of cultures, ethnicities and historical relationships with European countries, was perceived by many Americans as a potential weak point in the Western hemisphere. The media, popular narratives and some government reports have fuelled this image of a region susceptible to infiltration and even domination by Nazi influences. The idea that Brazil could be used by Hitler as a springboard for a possible attack on the United States was not simply a figment of an overactive imagination, but rather a reflection of a deeper anxiety about American national security. Latin America, with its vast territories, valuable resources and geographical proximity to the US, was seen as a potentially weak link in the defensive chain of the Americas. The presence of large German, Italian and Japanese communities in these countries reinforced these fears. Against this backdrop of suspicion and anxiety, the Enemy Alien Control programme was born. Individuals were targeted not on the basis of their actual actions or affiliations, but primarily because of their ethnic or national origin. This preventive action was intended to contain the perceived threat of subversion or espionage. Unfortunately, this policy had dramatic consequences for many innocent individuals who were deported or interned on the basis of mere suspicion or prejudice.

During the early stages of the Second World War, the neutrality of the United States was a major political issue. Although American public opinion was initially reluctant to become involved in another European conflict, several factors contributed to changing this position, including the Pearl Harbor attacks and information from various international sources. British intelligence, in its efforts to gain US support, played a role in providing information on the activities of the Axis powers, particularly in Latin America. Some of these reports overestimated or exaggerated the Nazi threat in the region to heighten the urgency of the situation. As a result, misinformation, whether intentional or not, reinforced US concerns about the security of its own hemisphere. These reports cultivated an image of Latin America as a potentially unstable region, susceptible to subversion or Axis influence. In the context of a world war and a tense international atmosphere, the US government reacted accordingly, seeking to secure all potential angles of vulnerability. Of course, with hindsight, it is clear that some of this information was inaccurate or deliberately misleading. However, at the time, in the tumult of war and faced with the existential threat posed by the Axis powers, the US government's ability to discern truth from falsehood was undoubtedly compromised. The impact of this misinformation certainly had repercussions on US policy in Latin America and, more broadly, on its overall strategy during the war.

The history of Latin America and its relationship with the United States is rich in nuances, often marked by tensions, misunderstandings and geopolitical interests. During the Second World War, the situation was further complicated by the weight of world events and the strategic stakes of the period. The contempt or condescension of certain elites in Washington towards Latin America was nothing new. Historically, the Monroe Doctrine, the "Big Stick" policy and even Roosevelt's Corollary show a tendency for the United States to regard Latin America as its "backyard", a natural zone of influence. This paternalistic attitude often underestimated the complexity and autonomy of Latin American nations. When war broke out in Europe, these prejudices were amplified by security fears. The idea that Latin America could become a base for attacks on the United States, or that it was a region easily influenced by Nazi propaganda, was partly based on these condescending perceptions. These stereotypes were fuelled by misinformation, exaggerated reports and existing prejudices. The Roosevelt administration's action in urging Latin American countries to identify and expel suspicious individuals illustrates the effort to secure the Western Hemisphere against Axis threats. The focus on individuals of German origin, or those involved in German-run businesses, reveals a reductive view, where the mere fact of having German ancestry or business links could be synonymous with collusion with the enemy.

The history of the implementation of the Enemy Alien Control Programme in Latin America during the Second World War shows how national security strategies can be exploited for political and economic ends. The actions taken by US embassies in Latin America were primarily motivated by national security concerns, but they were also influenced by economic interests. The drawing up of lists of people considered 'suspect' was not only based on tangible evidence of collaboration with the Axis powers, but was often the result of political and economic calculations. Once these people were identified and their assets confiscated, this created an economic opportunity for those in a position to benefit from the confiscations. The example of Nicaragua under Somoza is particularly revealing. The zeal with which German property was seized and transferred to American companies shows how the rhetoric of national security can be used to mask deeper economic interests. It is clear that for Somoza and other regional leaders, collaboration with the US on the Enemy Alien Control programme was an opportunity to increase their power and wealth.

During the Cold War, the ideological divide between the capitalist West and the communist East was the source of intense paranoia and mistrust. The United States, seeing itself as the bastion of democracy and capitalism, intensified its efforts to counter Communist influence, both internally and externally. Within the United States, this period saw the emergence of McCarthyism, an anti-Communist campaign led by Senator Joseph McCarthy. Many people, from civil servants to actors, writers and ordinary citizens, were accused without proof of being Communist sympathisers, resulting in dismissals, blacklists and ruined reputations. The constitutional rights of many Americans were trampled in the process, as the Communist witch-hunt prioritised national security over civil liberties. Abroad, concerns about the spread of communism led to direct and indirect US interventions in many countries. In Latin America, for example, the Monroe Doctrine, which considered the Western Hemisphere to be under American influence, was used to justify coups d'état, support for authoritarian regimes and military intervention, all with the aim of preventing the emergence of socialist or communist governments. As in the Second World War, these actions were often justified by the need to protect national security. However, they were also influenced by economic and geopolitical interests. For example, the American intervention in Guatemala in 1954 was linked to the interests of the United Fruit Company, an American company with vast holdings in the country. Both the Cold War and the Second World War saw drastic measures taken in the name of national security. But each time, there was a mixture of ideological, political and economic interests influencing these decisions. In both cases, hindsight shows that the blind pursuit of security can lead to grave injustices, highlighting the constant challenge of striking a balance between security and freedom.

= European refugees in Latin America after the war = 

Latin America was a favourite destination for many European refugees after the Second World War. These individuals fled the horrors of the conflict, seeking a better life and an opportunity to start again. Many Jews, communists, socialists, intellectuals and others persecuted by the Nazis found refuge in countries such as Argentina, Brazil and Chile. These countries, with their vast territories, developing economies and need for skilled labour, were welcoming to these refugees, who in turn contributed to the cultural, scientific and economic life of their new homes. However, the advent of the Cold War changed the situation for many refugees in Latin America. The United States, fearing the spread of communism in the region, supported numerous authoritarian regimes and military dictatorships. These regimes, in turn, often persecuted and targeted those perceived as threats to the established order, including many European refugees, because of their background, political beliefs or previous associations. At the same time, Latin America became a place of refuge for some of the most infamous Nazi war criminals, who fled European justice. Figures such as Adolf Eichmann and Josef Mengele found refuge, particularly in Argentina. These individuals were protected by certain governments and sympathetic networks, and often lived quietly without being bothered. The presence of these Nazi criminals in Latin America has caused great concern in the international community, particularly among Jewish organisations. These groups have often worked with governments to track down these criminals and bring them to justice. However, due to political realities, corruption, and the vast remote regions of Latin America, many of these criminals have escaped justice for decades.

Klaus Barbie is a striking example of how some Nazi war criminals managed to escape justice for decades after the Second World War, thanks in part to the protection and complicity of intelligence agencies and foreign governments. Their expertise, networks and knowledge were often deemed more valuable than their criminal past, especially during the Cold War, when the superpowers were keen to gain advantages in geopolitically strategic regions.

Barbie, who was responsible for the torture, execution and deportation of thousands of Jews and members of the French Resistance during the war, managed to escape justice thanks to a Nazi escape network known as "ratlines". After spending time in Germany and Italy, he travelled to South America. He first arrived in Argentina before finally settling in Bolivia. In La Paz, the Bolivian capital, Barbie lived under an assumed name and was involved in various activities, including business and counter-insurgency operations. His experience of repression and torture as a Gestapo official made him invaluable to various South American military dictatorships that were struggling with guerrilla and opposition movements. Moreover, during the Cold War, the United States was primarily concerned about the threat of communism in the region, and figures like Barbie were seen as assets to help counter that threat. It was only in the late 1970s and early 1980s, following journalistic investigations and pressure from the international community, that Barbie's true identity and whereabouts in Bolivia were revealed. Following these revelations, a worldwide campaign for her extradition was launched. In 1983, after years of legal and political battles, Barbie was extradited to France. He was tried in Lyon, the city where he had committed some of his most heinous crimes. In 1987, he was convicted of crimes against humanity and sentenced to life imprisonment. He died in prison in 1991. The Barbie case highlights the complexities and contradictions of post-war justice, and how geopolitical interests can sometimes take precedence over the prosecution of war criminals.

= Annexes =
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_alien Enemy alien]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian-American_internment Italian-American internment]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German-American_internment German-American internment]
*[http://www.memorialdelashoah.org/index.php/fr/ La conférence d'Évian] sur le site du Mémorial de la Shoah.
*[http://www.andanafilms.com/catalogue.php?idFiche=1090&display=fiche La Conférence de la peur], film documentaire de Michel Vuillermet, 68 min, 2009
*Greg Robinson « Le Projet M de Franklin D. Roosevelt : construire un monde meilleur grâce à la science… des races », in Critique internationale 2/2005 (nº 27), p. 65-82
*Allevi, Jean-Jacques. “Seconde Guerre Mondiale : La Martinique Sous La Botte De Vichy.” Geo.fr, 20 Mar. 2019, www.geo.fr/histoire/seconde-guerre-mondiale-la-martinique-sous-la-botte-de-vichy-194978
*Cantier, Jacques. L'empire Colonial Sous Vichy. Jacob, 2004. url: https://books.google.fr/books?id=5qKdHytlv-gC&pg=PA67&dq=martinique+guadeloupe+deuxi%C3%A8me+guerre+mondiale&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiv_ejOxtfkAhWFAWMBHZRQB1YQ6AEIQDAD#v=onepage&q=martinique%20guadeloupe%20deuxi%C3%A8me%20guerre%20mondiale&f=false
*Sim, Richard, and James Anderson. The Caribbean Strategic Vacuum. Institute for the Study of Conflict, 1980.
*Skelton, Tracey. Introduction to the Pan-Caribbean. Arnold, 2004. url: https://books.google.fr/books?id=4Jd9AwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA35&dq=martinique%20guadeloupe%20second%20world%20war&pg=PA35#v=onepage&q=martinique%20guadeloupe%20second%20world%20war&f=false
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_related_internment_and_expulsion_of_Germans_in_the_Americas World War II related internment and expulsion of Germans in the Americas]

= References =
<references/>

[[Category:Aline Helg]]
[[Category:histoire]]
[[Category:relations internationales]]