What If British Win 1807 Invasion Of Buenos Aires?

Yes, very much so. And as soon as the Argentine economy collapsed, the entire military buildup in the region came to an abrupt stop. South America is today the most demilitarized continent in the world, because once Argentina stopped buying weapons, everyone else did the exact same thing.

Argentina was rather demilitarized in the 1930s but strong enough to maintain neutrality over intercontinental affairs. Brasil was the only country in South America that sent troops to (invaded) another continent. Without that ugly exception South America would have been a war-free continent since the end of the Chaco war, albeit with weapons and perhaps no economic collapse.

That is the kind of non-sensical reasoning that Argentina would give. Today their military is non-existent and no one is invading them, or Peru, or anywhere in the region. They were driving the arms race in Latin America, and once their economy died, the arms race died with it.

Why invade what is already yours? To this day Colombia and Peru, and throughout the Cold War every single Hispanic South American country, with the implicit consent of Brasil throughout the decades, has or is experiencing warfare or outright occupation. The School of the Americas (responsible for the dirty war, the ongoing civil war in Colombia, the total drug-war subjugation of Bolivia and Walmart's sweatshop: Peru) would never had extended to the entire Americas with all that entailed if they hadn't first assured the brothers of blood alliance with the biggest South American country while culturally enriching Italian women together in 1944.
When bros, bros forever
 
Argentina was rather demilitarized in the 1930s but strong enough to maintain neutrality over intercontinental affairs. Brasil was the only country in South America that sent troops to (invaded) another continent. Without that ugly exception South America would have been a war-free continent since the end of the Chaco war.

If that is what you want to call when a country respond to Nazis sinking your ships and killing your people off your coast...How woyld you propose that the Brazilian government should have responded to this incident?


Why invade what is already yours? To this day Colombia and Peru, and throughout the Cold War every single Hispanic South American country, with the implicit consent of Brasil throughout the decades, has or is experiencing warfare or outright occupation. The School of the Americas (responsible for the dirty war, the ongoing civil war in Colombia, the total drug-war subjugation of Bolivia and Walmart's sweatshop: Peru) would never had extended to the entire Americas with all that entailed if they hadn't first assured the brothers of blood alliance with the biggest South American country while culturally enriching Italian women together in 1944.
When bros, bros forever

I have no idea to what you are referring to. The Rio Branco doctrine has always been one of non-interference in the affairs of other South American countries. It was Argentina, not Brazil, who sent troops to central America to help fight against communist guerrillas. Operation Charly was an Argentine thing, not a Brazilian thing. To say that US influence in Latin America would not have existed without Brazil is absurd. Brazil has been historically highly insular towards all other South American countries with the exception of Paraguay, until the late 1980s. If you think Brazil was the enabler of US influence in the region, you really are misguided about the workings of Brazilian foreign policy.
 
If that is what you want to call when a country respond to Nazis sinking your ships and killing your people off your coast...How woyld you propose that the Brazilian government should have responded to this incident?
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/2056.html

Participating in an intercontinental invasion because of the sinking of a boat is an absurd and cruel excuse.
According to your own definition of self defense it would mean Brasil should have limited itself to protecting the South Atlantic, not invading the aggressor's ally in the rear end.
It's like saying, we're going to take over some neighborhood on the other part of town because one homeowner there might be beating his wife or hiding imaginary uranium, and then forcing all neighbors to be either with the Block leader, or against him, making them potential uranium hiders.

To say that US influence in Latin America would not have existed without Brazil is absurd. Brazil has been historically highly insular towards all other South American countries .

No it would still have existed, but with Brasilian support, or at least without passive sabotage, the Southern Cone could have been a subregion outside that influence you mention and there would have been not need to build "Brasilia" which sounds like theme park for accountants. But Brasil preferred to reign in Hell than to serve in Heaven. This takes on a very literal meaning when one considers that Brasilian leadership could still be based here
rio-de-janeiro.jpg


instead of what looks like a Chinese-built city in Africa:
1354918909456.cached.jpg
 
What support? What are you talking about? Please provide evidence (any) that Brazil was involved on any coups in the region.
 
It was Argentina, not Brazil, who sent troops to central America to help fight against communist guerrillas. Operation Charly was an Argentine thing, not a Brazilian thing.

It was neither, it was a US thing, to my earlier point of almost total occupation of Latin America by the dead of Rosas 2.
 
What support? What are you talking about? Please provide evidence (any) that Brazil was involved on any coups in the region.

Brasil became an American de facto ally during the latter, intercontinental occupation stages of the War.
If you think about it goes back to the Treaty of Windsor I referenced in page 2.
They did not maintain the line of true neutrality that Argentina and other South American nations attempted and that would have kept South America outside those World Conflicts that eventually allowed to the Cold War to extend and be fought in the continent.

Perhaps if Brasil had not fell prey to the neighborhood captain, Rosas II would not have rose to power.

At this point it'd be wise to remember that Franco, a master negotiator, not only maintained neutrality during the war, but also kept his regime intactly Fascist while still a super best friend with the war's Victor.
 
Now you are just speculating. I would like to see any evidence of Brazil actively supporting US interests on any internal political conflict in Chile, Colombia, Peru, Venezuela, Bolivia, Colombia or even Argentina.
You seem very confident on your claims, so I imagine you should have no problem quickly presenting factual evidence to back up your claims.
 
Argentina sided with the allies after remaining neutral for most of the war. It never aligned with Nazi Germany. Sweden and Spain did in a way... at least more so than Argentina, unless you can prove the opposite. That's a very "you're either with us or against us" kind of attitude. Aa a lover, not a fighter, I don't like that attitude.[...]
Argentina had very strong ties with Germany prior to the war (as did the US, certainly).

I was going to write a bit about this, but here's a link that discusses it. It was written about 17 years ago and talks about a report from Menem's presidency that he commissioned, related to discovering the truth about Argentina's involvement with the Nazi's before, during and after World War II, but the report had not yet come out as of the writing of this article (I want to find that report, assuming it was published).

http://www.aei.org/p...rons-nazi-ties/

An excerpt from the article:
Argentina’s and Peron’s apparent preference for the Axis, and particularly for Nazi Germany, has muddied the country’s relations with the Anglo-Saxon powers and poisoned its domestic politics. Anti-Peronists have often used the term Nazi (or Pero-Nazi) a bit too freely in attempting to discredit their opponents–not just Peron but also the administration of President Ramon S. Castillo (1940-43), who preceded him. Indeed, Argentina’s 1946 elections, the first of three in which Peron was elected to the presidency, were, as much as anything else, a plebiscite on the credibility of such accusations. In recent years, the Canadian scholar Ronald Newton, in his masterly The “Nazi Menace” in Argentina, 1931-47 (Stanford), has suggested that much of the Nazi-fascist menace in Argentina was an invention of British intelligence, fearful of the loss of historic markets in that country to the U.S. after the war, and therefore desirous of straining relations between Buenos Aires and Washington.

Far in advance of the final report of President Menem’s commission (of which Newton is a member), that theory has now been refuted in an extraordinary piece of investigative reporting–also a major breakthrough in historical scholarship–by Uki Goni, whose Peron and the Germans has just been published in Buenos Aires. In this book the author, who also works as a local correspondent for TIME, establishes that, for all the hyperbole, Washington’s darkest suspicions were if anything greatly understated. For one thing, Goni demonstrates that the Castillo administration, and particularly the Argentine Foreign Ministry, was honeycombed with Nazi sympathizers as early as 1942–so much so that it is difficult to see why any of the most anxious partisans of neutrality, such as found in the secret lodges of the Argentine army, felt the need to overthrow the government at all!

For another, Goni establishes without doubt that there was an Argentine-German conspiracy to detach neighboring countries from their sympathetic posture toward the Allied cause. This conspiracy reached its maximum point of success in Bolivia, where a regime friendly to the U.S. was ousted by a military coup in 1943. Argentina was also active (if less successfully) in Brazil, Paraguay and Chile. Goni demonstrates that operatives of Heinrich Himmler’s Sicherheitdienst, or SD, the political-espionage service of the Nazi Party, moved without difficulty throughout Argentina for the entire war. In spite of an Argentine parliamentary commission on un-Argentine activities and a special office of the Federal Police deputed to prosecute such agents of espionage, Himmler’s operatives were rarely disturbed, and after they were finally jailed at the end of the war, they were released as soon as possible.

As late as 1944, the Argentine military thought the Nazis were going to win the war, and during the first months of 1945 tried to act as if they had. Having bet on the wrong horse, Peron and his associates–far from reproaching themselves for their bad judgment, or at least striving to correct it–closed ranks and came to the rescue of some of the most unsavory figures to escape Allied justice in liberated Europe.
Personally, I believe very strongly that Argentina was indeed strongly tied to the Nazis and didn't support them completely openly because 1) they were making a fortune selling food to Britain and 2) they would have been virtually alone in the Americas and 3) the government and large parts of society had strong ties and sympathies with the Nazis.

In 1938 Peron was sent overseas by the government as a military adviser where he collaborated with Italy, Spain, Germany, Hungary, Albania and Yugoslavia.
Peron himself was a lover of fascism after his trip [Peron's own comments]:

Italian Fascism led popular organizations to an effective participation in national life, which had always been denied to the people. Before Mussolini’s rise to power, the nation was on one hand and the worker on the other, and the latter had no involvement in the former. […] In Germany happened exactly the same phenomenon, meaning, an organized state for a perfectly ordered community, for a perfectly ordered population as well: a community where the state was the tool of the nation, whose representation was, under my view, effective. I thought that this should be the future political form, meaning, the true people’s democracy, the true social democracy.

It must be said although there was some antisemitism in Argentina around the time, Peron was indeed sympathetic to Jewish interests and apparently didn't hold antisemitism as a belief himself.

So, bowing to Allied pressure in January 1944, Argentina broke ties (at least openly) with the Axis and roughly a month before Germany surrendered, when it became obvious that Germany was going to be defeated, Argentina declared war on Germany.

Argentina's very minimal actions against the Axis was nothing more than opportunistic, and very Argentine, but they did not side with the Allies :)

Roughly 4,000 Argentinos fought with the Allies (mostly the British) in WWII and I salute them. Including Maureen Dunlop who logged 800 hours ferrying fighters for the Allies.

200px-Picture_Post_-_16_September_1942_-_Front_Cover_-_Air_Transport_Auxiliary_%28ATA%29_First_Officer_Maureen_Dunlop.jpg
 
[quote ]
In this book the author, who also works as a local correspondent for TIME, establishes that, for all the hyperbole, Washington’s darkest suspicions were if anything greatly understated.
[/quote]

Brazilian Intelligence services have known of this since that time. We literally had a militaristic Nazi nation next door.
 
Ok, goal achieved and with overkill - Happy Halloween Camberiu!
I believe we all learned many interesting things today
 
Back
Top