Version actuelle datée du 14 novembre 2023 à 11:59

Based on a lecture by Aline Helg^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]

Languages

The United States and Latin America: late 18th and 20th centuries

The Americas on the eve of independence ● The independence of the United States ● The U.S. Constitution and Early 19th Century Society ● The Haitian Revolution and its Impact in the Americas ● The independence of Latin American nations ● Latin America around 1850: societies, economies, policies ● The Northern and Southern United States circa 1850: immigration and slavery ● The American Civil War and Reconstruction: 1861 - 1877 ● The (re)United States: 1877 - 1900 ● Regimes of Order and Progress in Latin America: 1875 - 1910 ● The Mexican Revolution: 1910 - 1940 ● American society in the 1920s ● The Great Depression and the New Deal: 1929 - 1940 ● From Big Stick Policy to Good Neighbor Policy ● Coups d'état and Latin American populisms ● The United States and World War II ● Latin America during the Second World War ● US Post-War Society: Cold War and the Society of Plenty ● The Cold War in Latin America and the Cuban Revolution ● The Civil Rights Movement in the United States

Despite their formal declaration of neutrality during the Second World War, the contribution of the Latin American nations cannot be overlooked. Many sided with the Allies, contributing not only essential resources such as raw materials and foodstuffs, but also the human support, albeit modest, of countries such as Mexico and Brazil.

Mexico, under the visionary leadership of President Lazaro Cardenas, was particularly notable for its strong anti-fascist stance. Cardenas, alarmed by the eruption of the Spanish Civil War and the intervention of fascist forces such as Germany and Italy, had tried unsuccessfully to galvanise an international response via the League of Nations, only to be met with indifference from France and Britain. Despite these setbacks, Cardenas remains an icon of the resistance for his bold insistence on social reform and his unwavering commitment to democracy and opposition to fascism.

No Latin American country chose to align itself formally with the Axis powers. Neutrality was the dominant position, a stance that nonetheless masked underlying support for the Allies. Mexico and Brazil, in particular, distinguished themselves by deploying troops in combat, although their direct involvement remained symbolic compared with that of the military colossuses of the time.

The countries of Latin America, although overshadowed by the major powers, nevertheless played a decisive role in the war economy. Their contribution of raw materials and foodstuffs supported the Allied war effort, illustrating that, although limited in military terms, Latin America's importance on the world stage during the Second World War was undeniable. This laid the foundations for a post-war socio-political transformation, marking a significant chapter in the region's history.

European refugees in Latin America: 1934 - 1939[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

The 1930s were marked by a wave of instability in Europe, characterised by the rise of fascist and Nazi regimes. These troubled times forced a mass exodus of talented and influential people - artists, intellectuals and political activists - seeking a haven from persecution. Latin America, with its open arms, became a refuge for many. Argentina and Brazil were particularly receptive. They offered not only security, but also opportunities to rebuild lives shattered by war and persecution. The generosity and warm welcome of these nations enabled many refugees to re-establish their careers and, in many cases, reach new heights in their respective fields. This massive immigration was not unidirectional in terms of benefits. Refugees have imbued local cultures with a wealth of innovation, ideas and artistic expression. They played a catalytic role in the cultural and intellectual evolution of the region, introducing European elements that blended harmoniously with local traditions. Each newcomer, with his or her unique baggage of skills, knowledge and perspectives, helped to shape a rich and diverse environment. The nations of Latin America not only provided sanctuary, but also witnessed a cultural and intellectual renaissance. Refugees have left an indelible mark, marking a luminous chapter in the history of the countries that have welcomed them. The collaboration between locals and newcomers generated a wealth of creativity and innovation, establishing Latin America as a bastion of cultural and intellectual exchange. This legacy lives on, testifying to the resilience and human richness that can emerge even in the darkest moments of world history.

Migration of European Jews[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

The Evian Conference of 1938 remains a poignant example of the international failure to respond adequately to the crisis of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution in Europe. In this dark chapter of history, the reluctance of nations to open their borders exacerbated the distress and despair of millions seeking sanctuary. Among the nations present, the Dominican Republic, under the regime of Rafael Trujillo, stood out for its unusual offer to take in up to 100,000 Jewish refugees. Although this offer was a ray of light in an otherwise dark period, it was far from altruistic; Trujillo was seeking to whitewash the country's international reputation after the massacre of Haitians in 1937. Complex immigration restrictions, quotas and an often indifferent or hostile public opinion left many refugees without options. Latin America, despite its proximity and potential as a refuge, remained largely inaccessible. Those who managed to navigate the maze of bureaucracy and prejudice found a fresh start in countries such as Argentina and Brazil. However, they were the exception rather than the norm. Most Jewish refugees faced closed doors, a tragic reality that preceded the unimaginable horrors of the Holocaust.

Rafael Trujillo's apparent generosity towards Jewish refugees, in the context of the Evian Conference, was tainted by ulterior motives. Trujillo, a dictator notorious for his brutality and disregard for human rights, used the occasion to orchestrate a public relations stunt, attempting to rehabilitate his image on the international stage after the horrific massacre of Haitians a year earlier, known as the Parsley Massacre. The complexity of Trujillo's motives is revealed in the stark contrast between his supposed benevolence towards European Jews and his ruthless cruelty towards Haitians. Selective and manipulative diplomacy was a tool for escaping international pariah status and regaining favour, particularly with the United States, which was increasingly concerned about the dictator's reputation. Insidious domestic politics also played a part in this offer of hospitality. Trujillo was obsessed with the idea of "whitewashing" the Dominican Republic. His invitation to the Jewish refugees, although presented in the guise of magnanimity, was also a means of realigning the national demography according to his distorted racial ideologies and aspirations for a whiter, more European nation. The tragedy of this story lies not only in Trujillo's twisted motivations but also in the world's refusal to help Jewish refugees. Trujillo's offer, though tainted with impure intentions, could have been a lifeline for thousands, but it was largely ignored.

The intervention of American Jewish organisations, notably the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (JDC), during the Jewish refugee crisis in Europe in the 1930s is a significant chapter that reveals the power of transnational solidarity. Although the doors of many countries remained closed, the Dominican Republic, motivated by a variety of intentions, became a temporary haven for a small group of German Jews, a possibility made possible by the active support of the JDC and other similar organisations. JDC's role was not simply financial; it encompassed a holistic approach to helping refugees navigate the complex challenges of resettlement. From the logistics of displacement to adaptation to a new environment and socio-economic reintegration, each step was carefully orchestrated to mitigate the trauma and uncertainty inherent in forced displacement. Although the number of refugees who found relative safety in the Dominican Republic was tiny compared to the massive scale of despair and displacement in Europe, the symbolic and practical impact of this rescue effort should not be underestimated. Each life saved represented a direct challenge to the indifference and inaction that prevailed in large parts of the world. This episode, although small on a global scale, also served as a showcase for the humanitarian crisis unfolding in Europe. It demonstrated the ability of international communities to unite for the common good, even in the most difficult of circumstances.

Argentina, with its rich and diverse cultural landscape, played a unique role as a refuge for Jews fleeing persecution in Europe. The country's relatively open immigration policy, in stark contrast to the restrictive policies of other nations, was a beacon of hope for those desperately seeking a safe place to start again. The presence of a thriving Jewish community in Argentina, rooted in earlier waves of immigration by Jews fleeing persecution in Russia and elsewhere, facilitated the integration of the new arrivals. They arrived not only in a country that offered security and opportunity, but also in a place where a community infrastructure and support network were already in place. The synergy between the new refugees and the established Jewish community in Argentina has created a dynamic environment. Despite the trauma and loss of their past, the refugees have found Argentina not only a sanctuary, but also a platform from which to contribute to the cultural, intellectual and economic wealth of the country. However, it is essential to note that while Argentina was an oasis for many Jews, the experience was not uniformly positive for all. The challenges of integration, language and cultural barriers and the after-effects of trauma in Europe were inescapable realities.

Political refugees[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

The exodus of European political refugees to Latin America in the 1930s and 1940s was a period of tumultuous transmutation. Driven from their homelands by the terror of fascist and Nazi regimes, intellectuals, activists and scholars found refuge in countries such as Argentina. These nations, though geographically distant from the tumult of Europe, became bastions of asylum and fertile grounds for intellectual and political revival. Each refugee brought with them not only a personal baggage of experiences and traumas, but also rich and varied ideas that would seep into the cultural and intellectual substratum of their new homes. Latin American universities and educational institutions were revitalised by the arrival of renowned thinkers and educators, ushering in a flourishing period of intellectual exchange and diversity of opinion. The region's political spectrum was also transformed. Socialist and communist ideas, brought by refugees who had resisted oppression in Europe, found a particular resonance in Latin America. These ideologies fuelled popular movements, inspired revolutions and influenced policies that shaped the region's political identity for decades. However, this integration was not without friction. New ideas often clashed with established conservative ideologies, creating a lively and sometimes confrontational political dynamism. The refugees themselves were often caught between mourning their past and adapting to a new reality, a complex and nuanced process. The contributions of political refugees to Latin America cannot be underestimated. Beyond their impact on intellectual and political discourse, they have served as bridges between worlds separated by the Atlantic, forging connections that have enriched global dialogue. Their legacy lies in the political complexity, intellectual effervescence and cultural richness that characterise contemporary Latin America, a living testimony to the transformations that can arise from the intersection of worlds, ideas and histories.

The Spanish Republicans[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Mexico's reception of refugees fleeing the Spanish Civil War is a memorable example of international solidarity. President Lazaro Cardenas, despite internal challenges and external pressures, opened the doors of his country to those who had been dispossessed and persecuted following Franco's victory. This influx of Spanish refugees not only symbolised humanity and compassion, but also made a significant contribution to Mexico's cultural and intellectual diversity. The intellectuals, artists, teachers and other professionals among the refugees infused Mexican society with a wealth of ideas, expertise and perspectives. Women, who make up around 40% of the refugees, have played a particularly notable role. Their presence and active participation in society have helped to broaden and diversify Mexico's social and cultural fabric. Female refugees, often educated and committed, made valuable contributions in areas such as education, the arts and politics. This episode in history also strengthened the ties between Mexico and the Spanish-speaking world. A sense of cultural and linguistic solidarity was strengthened, forming bridges of understanding and cooperation that have persisted well beyond those turbulent years. Shared traditions, history and values have provided fertile ground for the growth of bilateral and multilateral relations.

The integration of Spanish republican and socialist refugees into Mexico in the mid-20th century transformed the cultural, intellectual and political landscape of the nation. Fleeing the repression of Franco's dictatorship that followed the Spanish Civil War, these individuals found sanctuary in Mexico, a country that offered them not only safety but also an opportunity to rebuild and freely express their identities and ideas. The impact on education and the academy was notable. Many of the refugees were renowned scholars and intellectuals who entered Mexican educational institutions with renewed energy and expertise. They introduced innovative ideas and advanced methodologies, raising academic standards and enriching intellectual discourse. Their influence was also felt in the arts and literature. Spanish artists, writers and poets revitalised the Mexican art scene, blending European influences with Mexican traditions to forge a new wave of vibrant, hybrid cultural expression. On the political front, the arrival of the Republicans and Socialists gave new impetus to left-wing movements in Mexico. Their progressive ideas and experiences of resistance fuelled the vitality and momentum of existing political groups. In addition, Mexico, by generously welcoming refugees, consolidated its position as a leader and refuge in the Spanish-speaking world. Cultural and intellectual exchanges between Mexico, Spain and other Spanish-speaking nations have intensified, forging indelible bonds of cooperation and brotherhood.

The position adopted by the Mexican government in refusing to recognise Franco's regime was a significant act of defiance and a testament to its democratic and anti-fascist principles. Aligning itself with the Spanish government in exile, which had taken refuge on Mexican soil, was not simply a political decision, but a symbolic act affirming the country's fundamental values of human rights and social justice. It marked Mexico as a nation that not only abhorred fascism, but was also prepared to take concrete steps to support those who had been dispossessed by authoritarian regimes. This decision played a part in establishing Mexico's image as a bastion of resistance against tyranny. The country was no mere spectator in the international political drama, but an active player, committed to the defence of democratic ideals. Opposition to Franco's regime and support for the Spanish Republicans were not only significant on the international stage, but also had repercussions at home. They strengthened Mexico's ideological and moral coherence, underlining its commitment to principles that transcend national borders. It has also helped to cement the ties between Mexico and the Spanish-speaking world, establishing a relationship of solidarity based on shared values and a common commitment to justice and democracy. By refusing to recognise Franco's dictatorship and openly supporting the government in exile, Mexico consolidated its identity as a nation committed to the global struggle for democracy and against oppression. This stance enriched its historical legacy, demonstrating an ability to reconcile national politics with the broader moral and ethical imperatives that define a nation's character on the world stage.

The welcoming of Spanish republicans and socialists to the Dominican Republic was part of a doubly opportunistic and visionary strategy orchestrated by Trujillo. The dictator had a very specific agenda, coloured by complex racial and political aspirations. By opening his country's doors to Spanish refugees, he was aiming not just at a humanitarian act, but at a demographic and cultural transformation of the Dominican Republic. Trujillo aspired to a nation dominated by Hispanic and white cultural and racial elements. He saw the Afro-Caribbean roots of the Dominican population not as a cultural asset, but as an obstacle to his country's rise on the international stage. For him, the Spanish refugees were a means of 'whitening' the nation, imbuing Dominican culture with European influences and aligning the country more closely with the Spanish-speaking world. This was not an isolated gesture. Trujillo was also seeking to polish the Dominican Republic's international image. By posing as a defender of the oppressed and refugees, he hoped to soften international criticism of his authoritarian regime and its human rights abuses. This manoeuvre was designed to present the Dominican Republic as a progressive and open nation, capable of attracting investment and forging strategic alliances. The arrival of Spanish and socialist refugees was therefore a key piece in the complex jigsaw of Trujillo's policies. It was a clever strategy to reshape national identity, attract investment and international support, and position the Dominican Republic as a key player in the Spanish-speaking world, while downplaying and further marginalising the Afro-Caribbean elements of the population. This chapter in Dominican history offers an insight into the subtle and often contradictory mechanisms by which authoritarian regimes seek to consolidate their power and sculpt national identity according to their own ideological and racial visions.

The dichotomy of Trujillo's actions lies in the juxtaposition of his internal authoritarian regime and his apparently generous gestures towards Spanish refugees. Taking in these refugees was not so much an act of compassion as a deliberate strategy to serve his own political and social interests. The massacre of Haitians in 1937 highlighted the brutality of his regime, revealing a leader who was anything but a humanitarian. This raises the critical question of his real motives for welcoming European refugees. Trujillo was seeking legitimacy and international recognition. By welcoming the Spanish refugees, he sought to reshape the Dominican Republic's international image. This gesture served as a counter-narrative to the brutality of his regime, projecting an image of openness and generosity on the world stage. It was also a way of distinguishing itself and positioning itself advantageously in relation to nations that were reluctant to welcome refugees in times of crisis. In addition, the arrival of the Spanish Republicans and Socialists had a positive impact on the country's cultural and intellectual dynamic. They brought with them a diversity of ideas, talents and skills that enriched the cultural landscape of the Dominican Republic. Their presence has strengthened the country's ties with Spain and the Spanish-speaking world, opening up avenues for greater cultural, educational and political exchanges.

The exodus of Spanish republicans and socialists following the civil war initiated a diaspora movement that spread their cultural, intellectual and political influence across Latin America. In addition to Mexico and the Dominican Republic, countries such as Chile, Cuba and Argentina also became host countries for these displaced individuals. In Chile, the arrival of the Spanish refugees coincided with a period of political and cultural dynamism. The progressive ideas and cultural vitality of the refugees resonated with Chilean society. They were welcomed not only for their humanity, but also for the diverse perspectives and expertise they brought, enriching the country's political and cultural dialogue. In Cuba, the refugees were integrated into a nation that was itself navigating through intense political complexities. Spanish republicans and socialists contributed to the cultural and intellectual richness of the island, introducing elements of the European tradition that blended and enriched the distinct Cuban culture. In Argentina, the impact of the arrival of the refugees was particularly notable. Already a vibrant country with a rich cultural and intellectual life, Argentina saw the Spanish republicans and socialists as natural partners in strengthening its national identity. They were integrated into education, the arts and politics, where their influence helped shape the evolution of Argentine society.

The influence of Spanish republicans and socialists in Chile was deeply rooted in the country's socio-political and cultural structure. By bringing with them a diverse mix of progressive ideas, cultural expressions and experiences of the struggle for democracy, these refugees helped to shape an era of intellectual and political renaissance in Chile. Culturally, the Spanish influence breathed new life into Chile's arts, literature and education. Spanish artists, writers and intellectuals collaborated with their Chilean counterparts to create a unique fusion of cultural expressions, skilfully blending Chile's rich history with Spanish traditions. This led to a flowering of creativity that strengthened the national cultural identity. Politically, the impact of the Spanish refugees was equally transformational. They introduced and strengthened left-wing ideologies, enriching the Chilean political spectrum with diverse perspectives on democracy, human rights and social justice. They became influential figures in the development of progressive political movements, leaving a lasting imprint on Chile's political direction. By strengthening links between Chile and other Spanish-speaking nations, notably Cuba, these refugees also facilitated a transnational cultural and political exchange. They helped weave a network of solidarity and cooperation that transcended borders, uniting nations with diverse histories and cultures around common goals and shared values.

The influence of Spanish republicans and socialists in Latin America is eloquent testimony to the capacity of population movements to transform and enrich host societies. The exodus of these individuals from Franco's Spain was not simply a flight to safety; it marked the beginning of a period of intense and fruitful interaction between different cultures and ideologies. In the host nations, the impact of the Spanish refugees was felt in many areas. Culturally, they introduced a range of artistic and literary expressions, blending the rich and varied heritage of Spain with the local traditions of Latin America. This generated a wealth of creativity, with new forms of art, music and literature emerging, illustrating the richness that comes from the meeting of cultures. Politically, the contribution of the Spanish republicans and socialists was just as profound. They brought with them progressive ideas, experiences of resistance and visions of democracy and social justice. They helped nurture and strengthen existing political movements, injecting new energy and refined perspectives into Latin America's political discourse. Intellectually, refugees played a key role in expanding academic horizons. Many were scholars, thinkers and innovators who entered universities and research institutes, sharing their knowledge and contributing to an era of intellectual enlightenment. In addition, the arrival of Spanish refugees strengthened transatlantic links between Latin America and the Spanish-speaking world. A sense of solidarity and community emerged, transcending geographical borders and uniting peoples around a common language, history and culture.

Economic impact of the war in Latin America[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

The Second World War was an unexpected catalyst for economic transformation in Latin America. As the conflict raged in Europe and Asia, the nations of Latin America faced a new set of challenges and opportunities. With trade routes disrupted and European markets inaccessible, the importation of goods and services was hampered, forcing these nations to turn to self-sufficiency and explore new avenues of economic development. This self-sufficiency imperative spurred an internal industrial revolution. Sectors such as textiles and metallurgy experienced significant growth. With no imported products available, local industries were called upon to meet domestic demand, stimulating local production and manufacturing. This industrial growth was not just a temporary response to the war; it laid the foundations for long-term economic transformation, ushering in an era of industrialisation and economic diversification. The war also created a strong demand for Latin American raw materials. The Allies, in particular, were hungry for resources to support their war efforts. Export-oriented economies in Latin America flourished, and sectors such as agriculture and mining boomed. This increased demand not only boosted the economy, but also integrated Latin America more deeply into the global economic system. The rapid transition to industrialisation and the expansion of exports had a lasting impact. After the war, Latin America was positioned differently on the world stage. The nations of the region were no longer simply exporters of raw materials, but emerging industrial players with diversified economies and expanding domestic markets.

The Second World War represented a significant pivotal moment for Brazil and Mexico, two of Latin America's economic giants. Their development trajectories during this period were strongly influenced by the global dynamics of the conflict. For Brazil, the war triggered a period of marked industrial transformation. With the suspension of European imports, an unprecedented opportunity opened up for the national manufacturing sector. A wave of innovation and expansion swept through industries such as textiles, food processing and metallurgy. The country, once dependent on foreign manufactured goods, began to realise its potential as an industrial power. The interruption of trade with Europe not only stimulated the organic growth of industry; it prompted the Brazilian government to adopt a more interventionist approach to catalysing industrialisation. Import substitution has become a key strategy, moving the country towards a more self-sufficient and resilient economy. Government initiatives such as the creation of state-owned enterprises have supported this transformation, investing in key infrastructure and promoting the development of strategic sectors. Mexico, following a similar trajectory, has also seen its economic landscape transformed. Like Brazil, Mexico has capitalised on reduced imports to boost its domestic industry. This led to economic diversification, where Mexico was no longer simply an exporter of raw materials but also a producer of manufactured goods.

The Second World War brought a complex mix of opportunities and challenges for the Mexican economy. Exceptionally high demand for oil, a key Mexican commodity, as a result of the war effort led to considerable prosperity. Oil exports not only strengthened the national economy, but also intensified Mexico's strategic role in the global conflict, underlining its importance as a supplier of energy resources. Alongside the boom in the oil sector, the demand for labour in the United States opened up another avenue for economic growth. The migration of Mexican workers to the north created a double opportunity: it met the need for labour in the United States while injecting significant funds into the Mexican economy in the form of remittances. These remittances have played a vital role in supporting families and communities in Mexico, alleviating internal economic pressures. However, this positive scenario has been balanced by significant economic challenges. Inflation has become a persistent problem. Rapidly rising prices put pressure on households and hampered the country's ability to maximise the economic benefits of the war. The shortage of goods, exacerbated by the redirection of resources to the war effort and the disruption of international supply chains, added another layer of complexity to the country's economy. As a result, the Mexican economy during the Second World War was characterised by a dynamic of push and pull. On the one hand, the expansion of oil exports and the increase in remittances were significant drivers of growth. On the other, inflation and shortages of goods posed challenges that required skilful and adaptive economic strategies to navigate. This period left a legacy of economic experience that has shaped Mexico's future trajectory, demonstrating its resilience and ability to manage complex economic dynamics in a rapidly changing global environment.

The Second World War reshaped global economic dynamics, with Latin America at the intersection of these major changes. With Europe engulfed in conflict, the Western Allies redirected their gaze to other regions to satisfy their pressing needs for raw materials and essential products. Latin America, with its wealth of natural resources and geographical proximity to the United States, became an essential trading partner. Countries such as Brazil have seen their exports increase dramatically. Rubber, vital to the war effort because of its usefulness in a multitude of products, from vehicle manufacture to military equipment, saw unprecedented demand. This increased Brazil's strategic importance, making the country a key player in supporting the Allied efforts. Argentina, with its vast cattle-rich pampas, became a major supplier of meat to the Allies. The increased demand for Argentine beef not only generated considerable income for the country, but also strengthened its position as a world agricultural leader. Beyond trade, the impact of the war extended to foreign investment. With Europe in crisis and Latin America's growing importance as a trading partner, the United States significantly increased its investment in the region. These investments were not only focused on the extraction and export of raw materials; they also contributed to the modernisation of infrastructure. Roads, ports, railways and other key infrastructure were improved or extended, laying the foundations for continued economic growth and integration after the war.

Despite the significant economic opportunities it offered, the Second World War was not without its burdens for Latin America. The nations of the region, while enjoying temporary prosperity due to high demand for their goods and raw materials, also faced notable challenges that persisted long after the end of the conflict. Inflation and shortages of goods, exacerbated by the changing priorities of the war effort, had a direct impact on citizens' quality of life and economic stability. Price volatility and lack of access to necessary goods created social and economic pressures that governments in the region had to manage skilfully to maintain stability. With the end of the war, demand for Latin American products also declined. Economies that had adapted quickly to meet the demands of the war effort found themselves faced with the challenge of once again reconfiguring their production and trade structures. Deflation and unemployment threatened, requiring rapid economic readjustment. More profoundly, the reconfiguration of the global economic system also had long-term implications. With the shift of economic power to the United States and its emergence as a global superpower, the nations of Latin America faced a new dynamic of dependence and alignment. The post-war economic system, marked by the creation of international institutions and the rise of the US dollar as the world's reserve currency, has offered opportunities but also imposed constraints on the region's economies. In this changing environment, Latin America has had to navigate carefully, balancing the opportunities offered by an increasingly interconnected world with the challenges inherent in such integration. The economic legacy of the Second World War for Latin America is therefore complex, a mixture of short-lived prosperity, persistent challenges and a structural transformation that would continue to shape the region's destiny in the decades following the conflict.

The magnitude of the challenges and opportunities presented to Latin America by the Second World War is a clear illustration of the duality of the economic impact of major conflicts. Increased demand for specific products and raw materials undeniably opened up lucrative markets for the countries of the region. These new or enlarged markets have encouraged industrial and agricultural expansion, boosting employment and production. However, this rapid growth has cut both ways. Inflation soared as demand outstripped supply and national currencies struggled to retain their value in the face of the influx of capital. Households and businesses had to navigate an ever-changing economic landscape, where the cost of living and the price of goods were in constant flux. Shortages were frequent, as the prioritisation of exports and war effort products left gaps in domestic supply. What's more, while Latin America was responding to the demands of the war effort, it also had to manage the internal impacts of economic mobilisation. Increased production and reduced domestic consumption were essential to meet the demands of the war, but they also tested the economic and social resilience of the region's nations. These pressures revealed the inherent complexity of balancing the immediate needs imposed by the war with the need to preserve and develop domestic economic stability. Latin American countries found themselves in a delicate dance, juggling the opportunities for economic expansion with the challenges of inflation, shortages and social pressure that accompanied an era of rapid and often unpredictable transformation. In this environment, skilful economic strategies and flexibility have become crucial to successfully navigating the tumultuous waters of war and laying the foundations for post-conflict prosperity.

Despite the obstacles and challenges encountered, it is undeniable that the Second World War acted as a catalyst for radical economic change in Latin America. In countries with substantial domestic markets, such as Brazil and Mexico, the effects of the war transcended temporary constraints, catalysing a profound and lasting economic transformation. The vacuum created by the reduction in European imports prompted an internal industrial renaissance. Local companies, previously in the shadow of imported products and technologies, found a place to flourish and innovate. This period of forced self-sufficiency revealed the latent industrial potential of the region, marking the beginning of an era of accelerated development. Brazil, with its vast population and abundant resources, was particularly advantaged. The textile, food and steel industries underwent unprecedented expansion. The government, recognising the unique opportunity presented by the war, implemented policies to support and stimulate this growth. Economic protectionism and initiatives to encourage local production transformed the economic landscape, injecting renewed vigour into domestic industry. Mexico, too, was not to be outdone. Its rich oil reserves and geostrategic position made it a key partner for the Allies. The influx of foreign currency and increased demand for Mexican products created a period of prosperity. More than just a conjuncture, this paved the way for lasting industrial modernisation and expansion.

The Second World War marked a time of unprecedented opportunity for the economies of Latin America. With the United States and other Allied nations engaged in a devastating conflict, resources were diverted to support the war effort, creating a vacuum that Latin American countries were ready to fill. Demand for raw materials and agricultural products soared, opening up new export markets and generating significant prosperity in the region. This unprecedented demand saw export prices reach historic highs. The nations of Latin America reaped the rewards of this increase, accumulating considerable reserves and strengthening their economies. It wasn't just about short-term profit; this influx of capital facilitated significant investment in key sectors, triggering a wave of modernisation and development. Foreign investment played a key role in this transformation. The United States and other developed economies, recognising the strategic value of Latin America, have injected capital into the region. Infrastructure, from production to distribution, has been improved, enhancing the ability of Latin American countries to increase production and respond effectively to growing global demand. This scenario has created a self-reinforcing growth dynamic. The modernisation of infrastructure has improved the efficiency of production and distribution, responding to increased international demand and generating greater prosperity. In turn, this prosperity facilitated greater investment in technological and industrial development, positioning Latin America as a viable and competitive trading partner on the world stage.

The Second World War presented an economic paradox for Latin America. On the one hand, the increased demand for raw materials and agricultural products stimulated the economy, but on the other, it led to a deterioration in local living conditions due to shortages and inflation. The emphasis on exports to support the Allied war effort reduced the domestic supply of essential goods, leading to higher prices and a deterioration in the purchasing power of local citizens. Governments were caught in a delicate balance between supporting the international war effort and meeting the immediate needs of their populations. The end of the war brought its own set of challenges. Demand for Latin American products, which had soared during the war years, fell sharply with the restoration of peace. Economies that had adapted to an environment of high demand found themselves facing excess capacity and a drastic reduction in export revenues. This rapid change exacerbated domestic economic challenges. Nations were now faced with the daunting task of readjusting their economies to a world at peace, where demand for their products had fallen dramatically. Inflation, shortages and other economic problems that had been temporarily masked or tolerated during the war became urgent issues requiring immediate attention. In addition, the reconfiguration of the global economic system in the post-war period posed other challenges. With Europe and Asia seeking to rebuild and the United States emerging as an economic superpower, Latin America had to navigate a changing international landscape, define new trading partnerships and adjust its economic strategies to adapt to this new reality.

During the Second World War, Latin American countries such as Brazil, Argentina and Mexico played a crucial role in supporting the Allies by supplying essential raw materials and agricultural products. The war had stimulated demand for products such as rubber, needed to manufacture military equipment, coffee, a staple for troops, and beef, an essential foodstuff to sustain an army in the field. This period was marked by a significant increase in production and exports. The farmers and workers of these nations saw their efforts amplified to meet this exceptional demand. The agricultural and industrial landscape was transformed, from coffee plantations to beef ranches to rubber processing plants, all engaged in a concerted effort to increase production. This economic effervescence was not limited to the areas of production. Higher commodity prices, a direct consequence of increased demand, brought unexpected prosperity. For nations often struggling with economic challenges, this injection of capital was a godsend. The economy was stimulated, incomes rose, and there was a significant improvement in living standards across many sectors of society. In Brazil, for example, demand for rubber revived an industry that had once flourished but had declined in the face of international competition. Rubber plantations have regained renewed vigour, bringing employment and income to otherwise neglected regions. Similarly, in Argentina, the already robust beef industry has reached new heights, transforming the country into a major player on the international agri-food scene. In Mexico, the diversity of exports, from oil to coffee, strengthened the economy, demonstrating the country's ability to be a versatile and reliable trading partner. The effects of this prosperity were visible in urban growth, improved infrastructure and the rise of a more affluent middle class.

The Second World War led to an explosion in demand for specific raw materials, and the nations of Latin America found themselves well placed to meet these needs. Brazil, rich in natural resources, saw its rubber industry flourish. As the demand for rubber to support Allied military operations increased, the country optimised its production and export methods. Rubber, essential in the manufacture of everything from tyres to clothing to military equipment, became a key export product, bringing in an influx of revenue and boosting the national economy. Argentina, with its vast pastures, became a key supplier of beef to the Allies. Livestock and meat production, already thriving industries, increased significantly in response to wartime demand. This expansion not only generated economic growth, but also strengthened Argentina's position on the international stage. Mexico, with its abundant oil reserves, became an essential partner for the Allies. Oil production increased dramatically to fuel the war machines of the Allied nations. This increase in demand led to a rapid expansion of oil operations, generating jobs, increasing government revenues and stimulating the economy. Each of these countries saw specific segments of its economy transformed, expanding at an unprecedented rate to meet the demands of the war. This period of prosperity helped to modernise infrastructure, increase employment and improve living standards. However, it also highlighted the vulnerabilities inherent in an economy that was heavily export-oriented and dependent on the needs of foreign nations in times of war. So while the war offered an economic opportunity, it also highlighted the need for economic diversification and long-term planning to mitigate the risks associated with such dependence.

The economic boom in Latin America during the Second World War was not limited to the period of conflict itself, but also paved the way for sustained prosperity and growth in the post-war years. The increased demand for raw materials and agricultural products generated significant trade surpluses for the countries of the region. These surpluses not only stimulated national economies during the war, but also enabled the accumulation of considerable financial reserves. These reserves proved to be invaluable resources, providing financial and economic leeway in the periods of uncertainty and reconstruction that followed the conflict. The war was also characterised by an influx of foreign investment into Latin America, particularly from the United States. This investment was a catalyst in the modernisation of the region's infrastructure, from transport systems to industrial plants. The infusion of foreign capital has not only supported economic growth in the short term, but has also laid the foundations for more robust industrial and economic development in the long term. Latin American countries emerged from the war with strengthened economies and expanding industrial sectors. Modernised infrastructures and accumulated financial reserves positioned the region for a period of prolonged economic growth. Nations were able to capitalise on the opportunities to diversify their economies, invest in human and technological development, and thus strengthen their position on the world stage. The economic transformation brought about by the war also had an impact on the social fabric of the region. With economic growth came increased employment, improved living standards and an expanding middle class. Economic gains translated into advances in education, health and social services, contributing to more stable and prosperous societies.

The Second World War was a paradoxical catalyst for Latin America, bringing both unique opportunities and challenges. Disrupted international markets opened new doors for the region's exports. Latin American products and raw materials were in greater demand than ever before, and the freeze on European imports put the region's nations in a prime position to fill the gap. However, this high demand also delayed industrialisation. Countries' resources and attention were consumed by the need to maximise the production of goods and raw materials to support the international war effort. Extractive and agricultural industries flourished, but the development of diversified manufacturing sectors lagged behind. However, this was not a uniform story across the region. Brazil and Mexico, in particular, with their large domestic markets, have managed to make significant strides in their industrialisation journey. Their ability to meet both domestic and international needs facilitated the emergence and growth of robust domestic industries. Although the war hampered industrialisation, in these nations it also catalysed a structural transformation that resulted in a more nuanced balance between agriculture, extraction and manufacturing.

The period following the Second World War marked a remarkable transformation for the economies of Latin America. An integral part of this metamorphosis was catalysed by a significant influx of foreign investment, particularly from the United States. With Europe engulfed in conflict, the US looked south to secure reliable trading partners, and in return injected considerable capital into the region. This financial injection triggered a rapid modernisation of the infrastructure. Transport systems, industrial facilities and communications networks were improved, laying the foundations for accelerated economic integration and growth. At the same time, the war opened up new markets for Latin American products. The Allies, in particular, had a pressing need for raw materials and agricultural products. The nations of Latin America found themselves in an advantageous position to meet this demand, benefiting from increased prices and sales volumes. Goods such as rubber, metals and agricultural products were particularly in demand, and the sale of these products led to unexpected economic prosperity for the region. The rapid accumulation of financial reserves was another direct consequence of this increase in trade. The nations of Latin America not only recorded increased profits, but also built up reserves that enhanced economic stability and provided scope for future development initiatives.

The impact of the Second World War on Latin America can be characterised as subtle in comparison with the major social and political upheavals seen in Europe, Asia and the United States. While the latter suffered the direct ravages of war, Latin America remained largely on the periphery of the most intense theatres of combat. Latin American societies were relatively untouched by the mass mobilisation, population displacement and drastic social reorganisation that were such a feature of other parts of the world. The absence of direct and significant involvement in the conflict has favoured social continuity and a degree of political stability. However, this does not mean that the region was entirely isolated from the effects of the war. Trade and the economy were affected, and there were adjustments in international relations and domestic policies. But these changes were not as radical or immediate as those observed in the countries directly involved in the conflict. Latin America's geographical distance from the main fronts of the war, combined with limited military involvement, helped to create a buffer that mitigated the direct impact of the conflict on the region's societies. Thus, although the echoes of the World War certainly resonated throughout Latin America, they were dampened, allowing social and political life to continue with relative normality in the tumultuous context of the World War.

Although the nations of Latin America were largely removed from the main battlefields of the Second World War, the indirect impact of the conflict on the region was palpable, permeating the economic, social and political spheres. Governments in the region were faced with the need to intervene more significantly in their economies, directing resources and policies to support the global war effort, even in the absence of fighting on their own soil. The increase in government intervention was characterised by increased regulation of the economy and the reorientation of industries to meet the needs of war. This had a lasting impact, shaping a new dynamic between the public and private sectors that lasted well beyond the end of the conflict. The war also stimulated an influx of foreign investment into Latin America. The allied powers, particularly the United States, sought to strengthen economic and political ties with the region, injecting capital and technology to exploit the local resources needed for the war effort. This influx of capital not only stimulated economic growth, but also led to the rapid modernisation of infrastructure. This economic boom and modernisation led to significant social change. Urbanisation accelerated, manufacturing and industrial jobs became more plentiful, and a more prosperous middle class began to emerge. The effects also resonated in the political landscape, where the balance of power and international alliances were recalibrated.

The Second World War, while having a limited impact on the immediate social structure in Latin America, instilled underlying changes that affected gender roles and societal norms in the years that followed. The effects of the war were seen less in an immediate revolution of traditional roles and more in an evolutionary process stimulated by economic and structural changes. The traditional social fabric of Latin America remained largely unchanged during the war. Men and women continued to occupy their usual roles, with a large proportion of the female population concentrated in the domestic sphere, and men in the roles of providers. Limited military mobilisation prevented a radical reshaping of gender roles comparable to that seen in Europe and North America. However, the influx of foreign investment and the resulting economic growth have opened up new opportunities for employment and education. Although these opportunities did not instantly transform gender roles, they did plant the seeds of a gradual transformation. Women, in particular, began to have access to improved education and employment opportunities beyond the traditional boundaries of the home. This economic evolution created a space where women could begin to challenge and reshape societal expectations. Although subtle and gradual, this transformation helped to broaden the scope of women's participation in public and economic life. The post-war years saw a gradual increase in women's autonomy, education and participation in the workforce.

The impact of the Second World War in Latin America can be characterised as a period of moderate economic transformation and gradual social change. While the region was not a principal theatre of the conflict, it nevertheless felt the indirect repercussions of the war, mainly in terms of emerging economic opportunities and foreign capital flows. Increased exports of raw materials and agricultural products to allied countries at war led to temporary economic prosperity in countries such as Brazil, Argentina and Mexico. This, in turn, raised living standards slightly, creating opportunities for infrastructure improvements, expansion of public services and education. However, these benefits were, to some extent, counteracted by inflation and shortages of consumer goods, generated by the intensification of production for the war effort and the redirection of resources to the Allies. Although the war generated increased economic activity, the social transformations in Latin America were less perceptible. Changes in gender roles, demographics and social mobility, which were prominent features of war-torn societies in Europe and North America, were less pronounced in Latin America. The region did not experience mass military mobilisation or radical social upheaval. Traditional social norms and structures remained largely intact. Nevertheless, the economic upheavals of the war paved the way for post-war changes. The influx of foreign capital and industrial expansion initiated processes which, over time, contributed to urbanisation, economic diversification and the emergence of a more robust middle class. Although the immediate social effects of the war were mitigated, the economic foundations laid during this period influenced the social and economic development of the region in subsequent decades.

Political changes in Latin America during the Second World War[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

In the decades leading up to the Second World War, Latin America witnessed the emergence of populist movements. These movements were generally led by charismatic leaders, such as Getúlio Vargas in Brazil and Juan Domingo Perón in Argentina. These leaders promised a fairer distribution of wealth, land reform and greater political participation for the working classes. They drew on a wide range of support, from the urbanised working classes to the rural masses. With the rapid industrialisation and urbanisation of many Latin American countries during this period, the working class began to realise its collective strength. Trade unions, in particular, grew in influence and were often at the heart of struggles for workers' rights, wages and working conditions. While the Second World War itself did not directly involve most Latin American countries, the economic and political dynamics it generated influenced the region. Increased demand for raw materials strengthened certain industries, which led to increased urbanisation and strengthened trade unions and the labour movement in general. After the war, trade unions became even more influential in many Latin American countries. Countries such as Argentina saw the labour movement become closely associated with major political movements such as Peronism. The post-war period was also marked by a broadening of the electoral base in many countries, giving a stronger voice in politics to the working classes. This combination of increased trade union influence and wider electoral participation led to a series of social and economic reforms in several countries in the region.

During the first half of the twentieth century, Latin America witnessed a significant swing to the left in its political sphere. Economic turbulence, persistent socio-economic inequalities and the influence of international ideologies created fertile ground for the emergence of trade union, socialist and communist movements. With the advent of the Second World War, these movements took on new importance. The Comintern, or Moscow-based Communist International, played a key role in coordinating Communist parties across the world, including in Latin America. In the context of the war, the Comintern's priority was clear: to fight fascism. This was particularly true after the invasion of the Soviet Union by Nazi Germany in 1941, an event that marked a turning point in the Comintern's approach to the war and to collaboration with other anti-fascist forces. In Latin America, this directive was closely followed. Communist parties in the region adopted a resolutely anti-fascist stance, often working closely with other progressive, trade union and socialist movements to counter the influence of fascist ideology. In some countries, such as Brazil, brigades were even formed to fight alongside the Allies in Europe. However, it is essential to note that although anti-fascism was central to Communist policy in the region during the war, this did not necessarily mean complete alignment with Soviet policies. Specific national contexts, histories and concerns often influenced the way in which anti-fascism was interpreted and implemented in different Latin American countries. After the war, the influence of the Soviet Union and the Comintern continued to be felt, but the context of the Cold War introduced new dynamics into relations between the Latin American Communist Parties, the Soviet Union and the United States.

The Second World War led to significant fluctuations in the political and social landscape of Latin America, and the trade union movements were not spared these changes. In the short term, many trade unions benefited from the political climate during the war. Several Latin American countries saw the emergence of liberal or centrist governments that were generally more open to collaboration with trade unions and left-wing parties. The association of communist parties with government, particularly in countries where democracy was functional, offered greater legitimacy to communism as a political ideology. By directly associating communism with governance, some governments implicitly validated its role in national political discourse. This legitimacy was unprecedented in the region, where communism had often been viewed with suspicion, or even openly repressed. However, this period of cooperation and legitimisation was short-lived. In the long term, the rapprochement between democratic governments and communist parties sowed the seeds of mistrust for many conservative elites and sectors of society who feared political radicalisation. As the Cold War intensified, the United States also exerted considerable pressure on Latin American nations to reduce or eliminate Communist influence. As a result, many of the initial collaborations between liberal governments and communist parties were short-lived. Many Latin American governments subsequently adopted anti-communist stances, often backed by military intervention. Trade union movements, being closely associated with these communist parties, were also targeted. Repression of trade unions and trade union leaders has become commonplace in several countries. Their ability to negotiate or advocate for workers' rights was seriously compromised.

The period around the Second World War saw a notable rise in Communist influence in Latin America. Under the leadership of the Moscow-based Cominterm, many of the region's communist parties adapted their tactics to better fit into the local political context, with the trade union movement as the centrepiece of this strategy. Instead of openly rebelling against existing governments, Communist parties sought to collaborate with more moderate governments or even with traditionally non-communist leaders. This tactic was guided by the Comintern's priority at the time: to oppose fascism. By aligning themselves or collaborating with other political forces, the Communist parties could strengthen their position and counter fascist or far-right movements. Colombia and Cuba are notable examples of this strategy. In Colombia, the Communist Party often aligned itself with the political party in power, seeking concessions and influencing the country's politics from within. By positioning itself in this way, the party hoped to gain legitimacy and influence. Cuba offers another interesting example. In 1940, Fulgencio Batista, traditionally considered a right-wing military and political leader, surprised many by establishing an agreement with the Cuban Communist Party. Elected president on a platform of national unity, Batista incorporated members of the Communist Party into his regime, seeking to consolidate his power by neutralising potential opposition and broadening his support base. This alliance was opportunistic, however, and did not necessarily reflect an ideological conversion on Batista's part. However, although this period saw an increase in Communist influence in the region, these gains were often short-lived. With the advent of the Cold War and the intensification of rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union, many Latin American governments distanced themselves from the Communist parties, often under pressure from Washington. The period of collaboration and gains for communist parties and trade unions in Latin America was eventually followed by a period of repression and marginalisation in many countries of the region.

The collaboration of trade unions and left-wing parties with the governments in power in Latin America during and after the Second World War certainly offered opportunities for immediate political participation, but it also posed fundamental long-term challenges. The main challenge was that this collaboration often led to an erosion of the autonomy and capacity for independent action of trade unions and left-wing parties. Dependence on governments in power led to a strategic reorientation. Instead of putting forward universal themes of class solidarity and internationalism, many unions and left-wing parties have adopted a more nationalist rhetoric, focusing on the specific needs and rights of workers in their own countries. While this strategy may address immediate local concerns, it has also created a fracture with the globalised and internationalist vision of the labour movement as envisaged at the beginning of the twentieth century. By adopting a more nationalist and protectionist stance, these organisations have often limited their ability to build transnational alliances and mobilise international support in the event of government repression. Moreover, their close links with governments meant that if political power changed hands or a government became hostile to their interests, they were particularly vulnerable. This dynamic also had the effect of fragmenting the trade union movement and the political left in general. With an increasingly national focus, trade unions and left-wing parties have often competed with each other for government support, rather than collaborating on wider objectives. This competition sometimes led to internal divisions and conflicts which weakened the position of the unions and left-wing parties in the face of more powerful political opponents.

Before the outbreak of the Second World War, Latin America had already been the scene of significant political and social experimentation. In this atmosphere, communist parties were often perceived as a threat by the ruling elites and were therefore banned in several countries, such as Brazil. This ban, however, did not prevent these parties from operating clandestinely or semi-clandestinely, or from seeking to influence trade union and other social movements. In Mexico, the experience was somewhat different. After the Mexican Revolution, there was an attempt to consolidate political power. President Lázaro Cárdenas, who governed from 1934 to 1940, nationalised the oil industry and undertook land reforms. At the same time, he consolidated political power under the banner of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), which was to dominate Mexican politics for most of the 20th century. Cárdenas also sought to control and channel the labour movement, largely by integrating it into the political system through a single national trade union. This centralisation of union power, while guaranteeing a degree of political stability and avoiding major confrontations, also had the effect of reducing the autonomy of the unions. With their close integration with the government, the unions' ability to act as independent countervailing powers, defending workers' rights and interests against employers' power or the state, has been reduced. The alignment of trade unions with the government has transformed their nature. Instead of being instruments of protest, they have largely become instruments of labour management for the government and employers. This has also led to a bureaucratisation of the trade union movement, with a trade union elite often disconnected from the day-to-day concerns of the rank and file. The long-term consequence of this configuration has been a decline in the dynamism and mobilisation capacity of the labour movement. Whereas in other parts of the world, trade unions have played a major role in challenging the government and demanding workers' rights, in Latin America, and particularly in Mexico, their role has been largely attenuated by their close relationship with the government.

Latin America underwent profound political transformations in the 1930s and 1940s, with the rise of populist, nationalist and authoritarian movements. In this context, it is true that certain European ideologies had an impact on the region's political and social structures. The rise of fascism in Europe, particularly under Benito Mussolini in Italy, exerted a certain influence on certain Latin American groups and leaders. In addition, the rise of corporatist dictatorships in Europe, such as that of Antonio de Oliveira Salazar in Portugal and Francisco Franco in Spain, reinforced this trend. These regimes proposed an authoritarian, corporatist model that rejected partisan divisions and promoted national unity under a strong leader. These ideas resonated with certain segments of the Latin American population, notably among conservative elites, the army and part of the Catholic Church. The rise of fascism and corporatism in Europe coincided with a period of economic and social crisis in Latin America. The Great Depression of the 1930s had a significant impact on the economies of the region, which were heavily dependent on the export of raw materials. Against this backdrop, some leaders and elites looked for alternatives to the liberal and capitalist models. The Catholic Church played a complex role during this period. On the one hand, it was concerned about the rise of communism and atheism, and it often supported conservative or authoritarian movements as a counterweight. Catholic Social Action is a good example of this. It was promoted by the Vatican with the aim of creating a Catholic workers' movement that could rival the socialist and communist movements. The rejection of class struggle and the emphasis on solidarity and cooperation were key elements of this approach. However, it is important to note that the direct influence of these European ideologies was adapted and reshaped according to the specific national contexts of each Latin American country. Furthermore, while some countries or leaders may have been inspired by fascist or corporatist models, others followed very different paths, including forms of populism, liberal democracy or socialism.

The period surrounding the Second World War witnessed a particular fascination on the part of certain conservative elites in Latin America for the authoritarian regimes of Europe. There were several reasons for this attraction. Firstly, these conservative elites were often alarmed by the rise of social movements, populism and radicalism in their own countries. Faced with strikes, demonstrations and the rise of labour movements, they were looking for ways to maintain the social status quo and preserve their privileges. The authoritarian regimes of Europe, which had succeeded in suppressing socialist and communist movements and imposing order, seemed attractive models. The idea of "regimes of order and progress" that conservative elites sought to emulate was partly inspired by European models, but also by national antecedents. In many Latin American countries, the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were marked by attempts at "conservative modernisation", in which the state played an active role in promoting the economy, while firmly maintaining social control. Conservative elites envisaged a society in which the state would play a central role in regulating the economy, guaranteeing a stable environment for the development of the private sector. This often meant favouring the interests of the economic elite, by granting concessions, offering tariff protection and guaranteeing the security of investment. At the same time, they also wanted the state to intervene to regulate work, often with the aim of minimising costs and preventing strikes or disruption. Finally, it is essential to note that these elites were not content to passively imitate foreign models. They adapted and reformulated them according to their own needs and the specific political, economic and social context of their countries. The dictatorships that emerged in Latin America during this period, although influenced by European regimes, had distinctly Latin American characteristics.

The emergence of a Catholic far right in Latin America during this period was a response to a combination of international and domestic factors. Internationally, the rise of communism in Europe, particularly with the consolidation of Soviet power in Russia, caused deep concern in conservative and religious circles. The Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), which pitted the Republicans, supported by many socialists and communists, against Franco's nationalists, backed by the Catholic Church and other conservative forces, was particularly significant. This conflict was seen by many as a direct confrontation between Christianity and Communism, and it profoundly influenced political perceptions in Latin America, where many countries had close cultural and historical links with Spain. At a national level, several Latin American countries were experiencing growing social unrest. Workers' and peasants' movements, inspired by socialist or communist ideas, were demanding rights and reforms, including a better distribution of land and better pay. At the same time, Freemasonry, often associated with liberal and anti-clerical ideas, was seen by the Church and conservative circles as a direct threat to the traditional social order and the Church's influence in public affairs. Faced with this rise in left-wing radicalism, an extreme right-wing Catholic current consolidated, seeking to defend the traditional social order, the hierarchy and the Church's influence in society. This current was convinced that the defence of the Church and the Christian faith was intrinsically linked to the fight against communism, socialism and other forms of radicalism. In addition, Catholic Social Action, and other similar groups, played an active role in organising counter-movement activities and opposition to these perceived subversive forces. This led to considerable political and social tensions. In many cases, governments, often with the support or under the direct influence of these extreme right-wing Catholic currents, severely repressed workers' and peasants' movements. This repression often took the form of arrests, torture, assassinations and censorship. The polarisation between these opposing forces defined much of Latin America's political life during this period, with lasting consequences for the region.

The 1930s and 1940s were a particularly turbulent period for Latin America politically. The global economic crisis of the 1930s, followed by the Second World War, exacerbated internal political tensions in many countries in the region. Numerous dictatorships were established in several Latin American countries during this period. These authoritarian regimes often justified themselves by claiming to maintain order and stability in the face of the perceived threat of communism or other forms of left-wing radicalism. Military or authoritarian regimes, such as those of Vargas in Brazil or Perón in Argentina, implemented populist policies to win popular support, while suppressing political opposition. In those countries that maintained a semblance of democracy, political divisions were also marked. Colombia is a good example. In this country, the tensions between liberals and conservatives were deep and historic. In the context of the 1930s and 1940s, with the rise of labour, socialist and communist movements around the world, liberals, particularly the more radical factions, were viewed with suspicion by the conservative elite and more traditional sectors of society. The far-right Catholic faction in Colombia stepped up its anti-liberal rhetoric, accusing them of being influenced by or associated with movements deemed subversive, such as freemasonry, socialism or communism. The Catholic Church in Latin America, and particularly in Colombia, has often been associated with conservative positions, and has perceived the rise of socialism and other left-wing ideologies as a direct threat to its influence and to the traditional social structure. This political polarisation has often led to violence. In Colombia, these tensions erupted in spectacular fashion during "El Bogotazo" in 1948, following the assassination of the liberal leader Jorge Eliécer Gaitán. These events were the prelude to a period known as "La Violencia", an unofficial civil war between liberals and conservatives that left hundreds of thousands dead. As a result, the 1930s and 1940s were marked by great political instability in Latin America, fuelled by ideological tensions, economic upheaval and the influence of global politics.

The transition from neutrality to war against the Axis in Latin America[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Neutrality[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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"[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Enemy alien
Italian-American internment
German-American internment
La conférence d'Évian sur le site du Mémorial de la Shoah.
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
World War II related internment and expulsion of Germans in the Americas

References[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

[1] Aline Helg - UNIGE

[2] Aline Helg - Academia.edu

[3] Aline Helg - Wikipedia

[4] Aline Helg - Afrocubaweb.com

[5] Aline Helg - Researchgate.net

[6] Aline Helg - Cairn.info

[7] Aline Helg - Google Scholar

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

« Latin America during the Second World War » : différence entre les versions