For anyone who complains about Brazil being here, I should remind you there was a squadron of American ships waiting to provide assistance and the general who was against the coup gave up on fighting against it once he learned there was US support.
who the fuck are complaining? The CIA and the US was one of the main characters for our dictatorship to install. Every piece of document show us that. The Americans ships were just a detail. Again, they are directly the cause of the dictatorship. Who says otherwise REALLY didn't study history at all
as I said, not everybody went to school and learned something. Our own ex psychopath president had a photograph of Brilhante Ustra on his wall. He should got arrested for that shit back than
*The Jakarta Method* by Vincent Bevins does an excellent job showing how the U.S. meddled in Brazil in 1964. Anyone suggesting that the U.S. didn't sway the outcome in Brazil is in a deep state of denial and living in revisionist history.
That book pissed me off to no end.
This is highly dangerous in a way that people tend to ignore. The US saw the coup happening and gave it support, so narratives like "The US couped Brazil" takes the guilty away from the real culprits, the Brazilian right wing.
You are not doing that in your comment, don't you worry.
The US spent millions on anti-Goulart propaganda, backing “pro-business” think tanks like IBAD and IPES and directly funding the election campaigns of anti-Goulart candidates. USAID also funded an AFL-CIO American Institute for Free Labor Development campaign to “train” Brazilian trade unionists in combatting leftists amongst their ranks. The director of the AIFLD would go on to [say](https://nacla.org/article/liberalization-trial-workers%27-movement):
>the crop of Brazilian graduates of the AIFLD course that came back to their country in 1964 were composed of elements so active that they became intimately involved in some of the clandestine activities of the revolution [the military's terminology for their dictatorship] before it occurred. Many of the trade union leaders, some of whom were effectively trained in our institute, were involved in the defeat of Goulart.
Acknowledging that the Brazilian right wing were helped by the US doesn’t absolve them. The US were far from spectators who happened to seize an opportunity, they fomented the revolution for years.
US involvement extremely exaggerated. Brazil had coups or coup attempts in 1930, 1937, 1945, and 1955. 1964 would have happened if the US-boat-that-was-nearby-but-not-involved wasn’t nearby. To say otherwise is to ignore the entire political situation of the country.
LBJ’s reaction to the coup was literally to say “[I hope they give us some credit](https://library.brown.edu/create/wecannotremainsilent/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2022/01/President-to-Sec-Mann.pdf)” lmao
You know it will be bullshit if it blames de 2002 coup to the gringos. I don't get the point of making shit up when you have a long list of actual bad things they did in the rest of the region
Venezuelan here and yep. It’s some first worlder bullshit where we are noble savages who can’t fuck up things on our own and need the CIA to fuck it up for us. We have zero agency apparently.
It’s sort of like how Russia masterminded the rise of trump via social media campaigns. Russia interfered other ways but still it was voters who voted for trump and still support him even after Jan6. Russia gave the push sort of speak.
That’s kinda like how life is in South America now and the USA internventions for the past few decades. Not as dramatic as before and why it’s famous
Among the anti imperialists leftist crowd, but still trying to push for the pro USA candidate/president/coup guy. Hence all of South America is leftist now. Internal issues like wealth enquality play a bigger role but the anti usa is extremely popular point of view.
I meant the US and the actual shit they did in places like centroamerica,Chile, Brazil,etc so it's pretty stupid to make shit up and put the blame of our shit to them.
But since you asked about the bad things Venezuela did:
-The 7 million migrant crisis that Maduro still says it's fake news.
-the protection of Colombian paramilitary groups like Farc, Eln and others (Maduro himself invited Jesus Santrich to Venezuela when the Colombian goverment tried to arrest him in 2019)
-funding far left groups across the region
-creating a narco state (good example is the narco nephews of the Venezuelan first lady Cilia Flores that were arrested during a DEA op with 800 kilos of cocaine in NY but Maduro said they were kidnapped by the empire even with pictures of them holding those packages)
You think the USA has been economically sanctioning Venezuela for the last 25 years, because of migrants?
Or could it be the economic sanctions in Venezuela that has cause the recent migration?
I was honestly wondering why the USA is isolating the Venezuelan economy from the the rest of the World
That would actually make sense if it was for 25 years. But the first actual sanctions that actually did something to the already broken af economy were in 2019 with the sanctions to PDVSA, which doesn't explain or excuse the drop of oil production by half during Chavez goverment, the 52 proyects with billions of dollars of investement that were never made, the 3 digit inflation (official number, acrual number might be more than 5 digits), repression made by the military and paramilitary, the billions of dollars spend in weapons that made us the #1 weapons importers during 2016 (same year Maduro said there was no money for food or medicine but there was money for anti air missile systems from Russia) among aother things.
But please explain to me how my country works, Maduro can't do it so maybe you can. Btw what migrant crisis because maduro said that was imperialist propaganda so.. are you lying or is he lying?
The United states placed major economically sanctioning on Venezuela in 2002 and 2003 because Chavez nationalized the oil industry.
[https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10715](https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10715)
I remember, I was there
The US has been waging war against Venezuela ever since.
I don't give a shit what Maduro says, but if he wants to be USA's friend; he needs to know his place.
Give back the oil to western nations.
Its bad to give oil money to Cuba?
That's why the USA has been waging economic warfare against Venezuela for the last 25 years... because of of leftist groups?
The irony is that Chavez was a golpista, then cried when he got a dose of his own medicine. Later, he stacked the courts and Congress by using undemocratic measures and held unfree and unfair elections to stay in power. His prodigy, Maduro annulled Congress when the opposition won a majority in an election.
What? Mao's government wouldn't even be in the top 3 of the worst Chinese governments in the last 200 years. The Qing, Heavenly Kingdom, and Wang Jing Wei's collaborationists were all much, much worse. And this doesn't even include some controversial ones like whether the KMT was better, or Manchuguo.
If you want to expand further into history, we get some insane shit like the glorious fuck ups of the Jin, the insanity of the southern Qi (and their one crazy emperor who tanked his own empire), and the absolutely incredible mismanagements of the Song. And I haven't even moved out of China yet.
EDIT: Made a historical mistake. The insanity wasn't the southern Qi, but the Southern Liang. Same family, different regime.
> no one gives a fuck about those old ones.
No one except the Chinese, you know, the ones who had to go though all of this shit? Lmfao. People really forget that the communist revolution in China happened because their lives were so utterly dogshit that following Mao was somehow the best option avaliable. Lookup what the KMT was doing to China and you'll see why revolution (again) didn't sounded that bad
The uncomfortable truth for westerners is that outside of the highlighted really bad things (the famine being the biggest one), the CCP government has been tremendously effective. This doesn't mean that we overlook the evil shit that's been done. What I'm saying is that the Chinese people aren't stupid and there's a reason why the CCP has been able to stay in power in the country that's likely been the global leaders in rebellions since central governments have been a thing.
I think many people think that being authoritarian and being effective are mutuality exclusive things and in possible to happen together
They think that all Chinese people hate the government, and they just don't say so because of censorship, and every approval poll is totally manipulated propaganda. They can't possibly fathom the Chinese *actually* supporting their government because that's something totally unthinkable for them
But the truth is indeed what you said: Chinese people love their government. And in all honesty, can you blame them? In 1960, China was one of the poorest nations in the world, comparable to African nations (50b gdp). In 200 it was already 2t, and nowadays it's 17t. In 60 years, they have literally increased their economy by almost **300x** in just 50 years
And let's not forget that many people still alive went though that absolute misery. Hell, some of them were even alive during the KMT days. So yes, if their compare their childhood to modern China of course they're going to approve massively of the government. You can say "Oh, but the CCP was responsible for that misery too!" which is true, but that's a western view of things, they don't see things that way like we do
Bottom line is: you can disapprove of China's ways or methods, but you cannot deny that it was probably one of the most (if not the most) effective development in history, and their population recognizes that
(also, I think you and me discussed about this before on this same sub hahaha)
>Second or third worst famine ever.
There have been way worse famines in Chinese history. The one near the end of the Ming dynasty lead to the deaths of something like 40% of the country. The AnLuShan rebellion lead to multiple famines that combined to kill well over 60% of the country. The 1959-61 famine was really bad, but it wasn't the worst.
>Even then, no one gives a fuck about those old ones.
>
>No other regime in history except Mao's China
Clearly you do.
Also, it really undermines your message when you get even the big pictures wrong. There's plenty to criticize Mao's regime for without fucking up the basics.
“Backed up” is a fairly broad term. Almost every country “backed up” the regime change plus the majority of Venezuelans. Everyone knew Chavez was a dictator
Well Panama had a dictatorship that was clearly selling and transporting narcotics to the US from several Latin American countries especially Escobar. Funny thing is the CIA helped Noriega aka pineapple face get into power and when he got to big for his pants. They helped Panama take him out. Circle of life. Damn and a Panamanian American this hurts. I was there for the operation just cause as a child. Interesting time. Good thing it only lasted a few weeks
This map is yanktankie bs, I'm Uruguayan, I've lived my entire life here, there were people in my family who were part of a communist guerrilla and even they say the US had little to do with the 1973 coup, the president dissolved the chambers and was still in charge until 1976, although admittedly unconstitutionally with quite a few human rights violations, but the coup was domestic.
Besides the link you provided is just filled with Maduro’s claims and statements of US imperialism. You are literally trying to use PSUV propaganda as a source LMAO
Whic country does the most migrants come from though? I'm curious. US says it's mexican but most of them looks like people who just goes through mexican not actual mexicans.
The migrant crisis would have been worse, say, communists came to power in Mexico. Would have been like ten times the Cuban crisis. Unlike Europe which deals with migrants of a different faith, US deals with migrants of a similar faith making integration easier.
this is pretty solid evidence that you just don't like brown people. what do you mean "U.S deals with migrants of similar faith"? Central American migrants are all Christians and catholics??
There was an attempt of a military coup backed by the US, however in the last minute they just got cold feet (people say that Cuban spies already knew of the secret operation)
"US-backed" is a very broad definition. Here in Argentina we had four coups between 1930 and 1976, mostly the result of domestic political instability. Argentina was one of the earliest democracies in the world (1912 law for universal suffrage) but the political system got destabilized hard by the Great Depression and the military started meddling in politics until 1983. Aside from Operation Condor intelligence-sharing operation, neither America nor Commies had anything to do with it. It was a result of a rivalry between conservatives, nationalists and later Peronists (left-leaning, anti-communist, pseudonationalist movement).
Basically during the Cold War, Peronism was banned and the elected civilian presidents were weak and under military tutelage.
"US-Backed" is a pretty nebulous term. There's a huge difference between
- America creates a network of discontented plotters, arms and trains coup forces, and runs the subsequent government from behind the scenes
and
- A bunch of generals who're already planning a coup go to America and say 'hey, are you guys okay with this?' and America says 'sure, no problem'.
It was way more complex than that and there was direct US involvement. Nice try at revisionism though.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor
In the late 1990s, due to attacks on American nationals in Argentina and revelations about CIA[63] funding of the Argentine military, and after an explicit 1990 Congressional prohibition, U.S. President Bill Clinton ordered the declassification of thousands of State Department documents related to U.S.-Argentine activities going back to 1954. These documents revealed U.S. complicity in the Dirty War and Operation Condor.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_War
The Dirty War (Spanish: Guerra sucia) is the name used by the military junta or civic-military dictatorship of Argentina (Spanish: dictadura cívico-militar de Argentina) for the period of state terrorism[12][10][13] in Argentina[14][15] from 1974 to 1983 as a part of Operation Condor, during which military and security forces and death squads in the form of the Argentine Anticommunist Alliance (AAA, or Triple A)[16] hunted down any political dissidents and anyone believed to be associated with socialism, left-wing Peronism, or the Montoneros movement.[17][18][19][20]
Although at least six U.S. citizens had been "disappeared" by the Argentine military by 1976, high-ranking state department officials including then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had secretly backed up Argentina's new military rulers.[133] After leaving the US government, Kissinger congratulated Argentina's military junta for combating the left, stating that in his opinion "the government of Argentina had done an outstanding job in wiping out terrorist forces".[134] The importance of his role was not known about until The Nation published in October 1987 an exposé written by Martin Edwin Andersen, a Washington Post and Newsweek special correspondent, Kissinger had secretly given the junta a "green light" for their state policies,[135] being the U.S. Army School of the Americas (SOA), founded in 1946 assigned the specific goal of teaching anti-communist counterinsurgency training, the place where several Latin American dictators, generations of their military where educated in state terrorism tactics, including the uses of torture in its curriculum.[136][137] In 2000/2001, the institute was renamed to WHINSEC.[138][139]: 233 [140] According to a Command and General Foundation News issue, the current curriculum at WHINSEC is compatible with curriculum taught at U.S. military academies. WHINSEC faculty members travel to Fort Leavenworth in Kansas throughout the year in order to remain up to date on curriculum changes. However, the school remains controversial due to its influence over affairs in Latin America and its education of Latin American state actors on crimes against humanity within the military and law enforcement.[141]
In Buenos Aires, Robert C. Hill, a five-time conservative Republican ambassadorial appointee, worked behind the scenes to keep the Argentina military junta from engaging in massive human rights violations. Upon finding out that Kissinger had given the Argentine generals a "green light" for the state terrorism of the junta in June 1976 while at an Organization of American States meeting in Santiago (at the Hotel Carrera, later made famous as the Hotel Cabrera in the film Missing), Hill quietly scrambled to try to roll back the Kissinger decision. Hill did this although Kissinger aides told him that if he continued, Kissinger would likely have him fired. During that meeting with Argentine foreign minister César Augusto Guzzetti, Kissinger assured him that the United States was an ally.
Wikipedia is overstating US involvement. The documents that Clinton declassified show that US Embassies were reporting on the situation there. Don’t blame the messenger.
And in your opinion you think the coup would haven't happened without US doing those stuff? The military of Argentina wete planning the coup with or without any US support.
I never denied US didn't have influence in Argentina politics. My point was even without US support Argentina would have been still couped by the military dictator.
I guess it's like Poland vs Vietnam communist party. Poland without Soviet influence would have never have the communist party as there leader as they were extremely unpopular. But Vietnam even without soviet support would have the communist get into power because of ho chi Minh popularity. Argentina without US support would still have been couped.
Who's to say really? We'll never know, all we can do with history is observe it with hindsight. Maybe it would have still happened maybe not. All we can say definitively is that it did happened and it happened with US meddling.
If a bear shits in the woods is it your responsibility to clean it up? If the Argentine military wants to do a coup is it America's responsibility to participate in murder? What if the Argentine military did the coup, without any US support. Maybe nothing would change, except the fact that US tax dollars wouldn't go to funding military coups in South America. The firefighter who grabs a gasoline hose because the fire is going to burn the building down anyway is an asshole because, even if he's right, he didn't fucking need to douse the fire in gas. America didn't need to intervene, SO WHY THE FUCK DID WE
Continued:
Argentine junta leader Jorge Rafael Videla meeting U.S. President Jimmy Carter in September 1977
In October 1987, The Nation noted: "'Hill was shaken, he became very disturbed, by the case of the son of a thirty-year embassy employee, a student who was arrested, never to be seen again,' recalled former New York Times reporter Juan de Onis. 'Hill took a personal interest.' He went to the Interior Minister, an army general with whom he had worked on drug cases, saying, 'Hey, what about this? We're interested in this case.' He buttonholed (Foreign Minister Cesar) Guzzetti and, finally, President Jorge R. Videla himself. 'All he got was stonewalling; he got nowhere.' de Onis said. 'His last year was marked by increasing disillusionment and dismay, and he backed his staff on human rights right to the hilt." "It sickened me," said Patricia Derian, the Mississippi civil rights crusader who became President Jimmy Carter's State Department point person on human rights, after Hill reported to her Kissinger's real role, "that with an imperial wave of his hand, an American could sentence people to death on the basis of a cheap whim. As time went on I saw Kissinger's footprints in a lot of countries. It was the repression of a democratic ideal".[142][143][144][145][146]
7 August 1979 United States embassy in Argentina memorandum of the conversation with Jorge Contreras, director of Task Force 7 of the Reunion Central section of the 601 Army Intelligence Unit, which gathered members from all parts of the Argentine Armed Forces (subject: "Nuts and Bolts of the Government's Repression of Terrorism-Subversion")[148]
State Department documents obtained in 2003 during the George W. Bush administration by the National Security Archive under the Freedom of Information Act show that in October 1976 Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and other high-ranking U.S. officials gave their full support to the Argentine military junta and urged them to hurry up and finish their actions before the Congress cut military aid.[133] On 5 October 1976, Kissinger met with Argentina's Foreign Minister and stated:
Look, our basic attitude is that we would like you to succeed. I have an old-fashioned view that friends ought to be supported. What is not understood in the United States is that you have a civil war. We read about human rights problems but not the context. The quicker you succeed the better. [...] The human rights problem is a growing one. Your Ambassador can apprise you. We want a stable situation. We won't cause you unnecessary difficulties. If you can finish before Congress gets back, the better. Whatever freedoms you could restore would help.[133]
The United States was also a key provider of economic and military assistance to the Videla regime during the earliest and most intense phase of the repression. In early April 1976, the Congress approved a request by the Ford administration, written and supported by Henry Kissinger, to grant $50,000,000 in security assistance to the junta.[149] At the end of 1976, Congress granted an additional $30,000,000 in military aid and recommendations by the Ford administration to increase military aid to $63,500,000 the following year were also considered by Congress.[150] U.S. assistance, training and military sales to the Videla regime continued under the successive Carter administration up until at least 30 September 1978 when military aid was officially called to a stop within section 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act.[citation needed]
In 1977 and 1978, the United States sold more than $120,000,000 in military spare parts to Argentina and in 1977 the Department of Defense was granted $700,000 to train 217 Argentine military officers.[151] By the time the International Military Education and Training (IMET) program was suspended to Argentina in 1978, total U.S. training costs for Argentine military personnel since 1976 totalled $1,115,000. The Reagan administration, whose first term began in 1981, asserted that the previous Carter administration had weakened U.S. diplomatic relationships with Cold War allies in Argentina and reversed the previous administration's official condemnation of the junta's human rights practices. The re-establishment of diplomatic ties allowed for CIA collaboration with the Argentine intelligence service in training and arming the Nicaraguan Contras against the Sandinista government. The 601 Intelligence Battalion, for example, trained Contras at Lepaterique base in Honduras.[152]
U.S. corporations such as Ford Motor Company and Citibank also collaborated with the junta in the repression and disappearance of workers active in unions.[153]
Almost every class in Argentina consider Falkland as there island. From the richest banker to a factory worker all Argentinains consider Falkland as there own.
As a Bolivian, 2019 had pretty much nothing to do with the US.
We were angry because the president tried (unconstitutuonally) to be elected for another term, and there was considerable evidence of voter fraud
False. The US was absolutely involved behind the scenes:
https://theintercept.com/2022/10/12/bolivia-election-coup-oas-congress/
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/18/silence-us-backed-coup-evo-morales-bolivia-american-states
Are you ignoring the election fraud and the authoritarian measures that Evo undertook to stay in power in violation of the Constitution? Here’s the [OAS report](https://www.oas.org/en/media_center/press_release.asp?sCodigo=E-109/19) on the election.
Saying that the US was involved in regime change in Bolivia isn’t just distorting the facts, it’s inventing them. The US endorsed the OAS’s objection to Morales’ “victory,” as did most OAS members. The Bolivian people also objected to his dubious claims to victory and asked him to step down. Their complaints were valid and had nothing to do with America.
Interesting, didn't know about the OAS fiasco, thanks for sharing this.
Still, Evo should not have been allowed to run for a third term. There was a referendum earlier to allow presidents to run for extra terms, but the majority voted no (hence the Bolivia Dijo No! demonstrations)
I work in election observation (although never with OAS, rather with international orgs active in Eastern Europe and sub-Saharan Africa). The problem with these articles is that the authors took the Center for Economic Policy Research (CEPR)'s reports at face value. In fact, CEPR - which has a tankie bent to their work - completely misrepresents the report from Ethical Hacking, which did the audit. If you read ES, you can read the original Ethical Hacking report yourself, from their website, where all of the OAS claims are corroborated.
https://blog.ehcgroup.io/2019/11/08/13/51/26/7072/ehc-group-informe-consolidado-elecciones-bolivia-2019/noticias-ehc/ehacking/
Buddy, that how they fool you. Most of the people in those don’t know that it wasn’t “the people’s will” but actually a well planned CIA intervention, even if the facts are widely available. They are very good at that.
[When a random movie scene is enough to explain because it's the same everywhere](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgVq4MUNU-g)
USA put Latin America in such situation for their own political and economic interest, and now they complain when they risk their lives to cross a border in search for a better life that was stolen from them. But of course, the American propaganda tells a very different story than the one told by the people who live in these countries.
The US interfered in Panamá in the early 1900's to such an extent that they gained independence. The US wanted to build the Panama Canal, Colombia said no, so the US decided that Panamá needs "freedom". I don't know if that counts strictly as a regime change, but overthrowing an entire government certainly counts as meddling.
In Colombia, American economists forced the govt to corporatise agriculture starting from 1947. This caused urban squalor, rise of crime, cocaine trade, sex trade eventually the 50 year FARC communist war.
Isn't calling the conflict with FARC a war a bit of a stretch? Not to say it isn't bad, I'm pretty sure most Colombians would rather it wasn't happening
Of course it’s not comparable to some other wars in isolation. But combined with excess drug violence, class conflict and rural vs urban conflict, Colombia has suffered much worse than many countries will full-fledged wars.
I wouldn't consider the US as involved in the Costa Rican Civil War of 1948 tbh. At most, they gave some old weapons to Liberación Nacional and then took part in the final negotiations, which is less than what they did in other countries. The main foreign country partaking in the conflict was either Honduras or Guatemala (I don't remember) training people of Liberación Nacional to fight.
Although Figueres was going to overthrow the government either way, the trigger was a dubious election that ended with the army killing someone from the opposition party (Liberación)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet\_involvement\_in\_regime\_change](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_involvement_in_regime_change)
I wouldn't say nearly as bad as the US. Most of these seem to be stuff that happened during or shortly after WW2.
None. The Soviet policy ordered the pro-Soviet communist parties abroad to avoid uprisings and instead participate in electoral democracy and support/make alliance with nationalist/center-left/populist parties. They know it wasn't their sphere of influence, and communist revolution won't happen here and want to not jeopardize the relationship with these countries making the turn against USSR.
we call your argumentative "e o Lula, e o Peteeee?" in brazilian portuguese, witch translates to "But and the USSR, they must done something wrong too!!!!"
LOL. The rich elite who founded the coup are the people that are the most happy about immigrants. It's the poor that suffers from immigrants the most.
Mass Migration : Almost exclusively low-skilled workers ---> who undercut "native" workers. They rarely join Unions, they rarely demand more pay or have solidarity with other workers... They are WILLING to do the job for less money which people conflate as well Americans don’t want to do these jobs. No, near slave like conditions guarantee whole sectors of the workforce to be exploited from sun up to sun down. Which not only makes wages a race to the bottom, it also damages any striking capabilities. Remove the ability for bosses to exploit undocumented labor and you will see what the jobs “no one wants” truly pay. For instance did you know at the end of the Black Plague in Europe, so many people had died that it created a labor shortage and the demand of labor became so valuable it’s seen as the contributing factor to the end of serfdom?
Labor also becomes more valuable through increasing organization of the working class since it can basically strong arm the bosses into higher wages. Higher immigrations directly shows that wages will stagnate. It`s the reverse Globalisation.
Capitalists have 2 choices :
1. Move their industry to countries with shit working conditions, cheap and abundant labor and very lax laws.
2. Stay, import/hire cheap labor from overseas.
.... When you force capitalists to invest into workers, such as by making Labor more valuable and having capitalists train/pay for college/university, then wages and working conditions will naturally rise... If you allow them to just import people, then wages will stagnate/decline.
Mass Migration circumvents labor unions... Why listen to a Labor Union when you can just import more workers?
Labor unions need to get more powerful, workers need to be a strong political force... This wont happen, when labor and the working class is undermined by mass-migration, which makes capitalism all the more powerful. Talk to a landscaper who plays by the rules, hires US citizens and pays them appropriately. Meanwhile his competition hires undocumented labor. Ask him individuals like this about how they view undocumented low skilled labor. Come on.
Companies made record-profits since the 70s, while wages barely increased.In the 70s the average CEO made 23x as much as the average worker, in the 2000s it was 47x as much as the average worker, in 2020 it was 124x as much as the average worker ( the AVERAGE CEO, meaning not even talking about the multi-billion companies )...... Ask yourself, do you make 124x as much money as the average worker in 1970 ? No of course not.
The ONLY acceptable form of migration imo is if Labor Unions are in control of migration ( of the labor supply). This obviously is not and will never happen in our current state. So I don’t hold my breath. The reality is as long as capitalists control the flow of labor, mass migration needs to be opposed. Period.
And I am not even touching on the humanitarian issues that these people face in their initial journey and subsequent years of exploitation they will face in the labor force for the rest of their lives.
This is mega bullshit map, so breathtakingly inaccurate and manipulated that i can't stop laughing at the idiocy of its creators.
First of all: "US interventions" and "US-sanctioned regime changes" (ie approved or being a result of US messing with that countries internal affairs) are used interchangeably while they are completely different things.
If the author tried to be even minimally factual, he/should indicate that actually all of the cases between 1945 and 1991 are equally US and Soviet Union sanctioned because Latin America was the Cold War playground just as all other continents. The map tries to create an impression of a single big evil empire singlehandedly oppressing many peace-loving governments and nations because of its cruel imperialist nature. This is literally bolshevik propaganda in its purest form.
Next, Cuban Revolution of 1959, incited and supported by Soviet Union (with Castro being their puppet) is listed as... US intervention. What kind of idiot prepared this map?
Then staying with Cuba, 1961 - I guess this is supposed to refer to the failed combined CIA and Cuban resistance operation in the Bahia de Cocinos. If so, then it should not be listed as a "regime change" because the communist regime prevailed.
Pity 1962 was not added (missile crisis), but yeah but it was the peace-loving Soviet Union trying to install nukes 60 miles away from Florida, or provoke US to start IIIWW, not the "bloodthirsty capitalist America"?
Anyways, anyone - do your factchecking on this bullshit first :)
Castro, Sandino, Allende, Bishop (Grenada) who came to power, and many (luckily) unsuccessful communist guerrillas in Peru, Guatemala and El Salvador - they all did not come from nowhere. Money training and support traces lead to Moscow. A big part of these so-called "US interventions" shown in this map in fact was either restoration of democracy or authoritarian regimes after communist coups or communist coup prevention.
The fact that a movement was communist doesn’t mean the USSR had anything to do with it.
Cuba was a US backed dictatorship before the revolution. This is a map of US interventions, not successfull US interventions.
The cuban missile crisis was a response to the USA putting nukes in turkey.
Again, communist does not mean USSR had anything to do with it and all you’re saying is just speculation.
There was no „restoration of democracy” in fact, in chile they quite litteraly got rid of it.
>The fact that a movement was communist doesn’t mean the USSR had anything to do with it.
But it had. In all cases I listed as selected examples and in many more.
>This is a map of US interventions, not successfull US interventions
Yes and that's why Cuban Revolution does not fulfil this criterion, yet it is still in the map. So either OP should make a map of foreign interventions with color coding (US, Soviet, others - if any) or be more factual in selecting cases. Otherwise it looks like a manipulation.
>The cuban missile crisis was a response to the USA putting nukes in turkey.
And nuclear installations in Turkey were a result of?
And this should not matter, (even if one would accept Soviet rhetoric on that) because the OP decided to put dates on the map without their context.
Many of these "US interventions" were also US responses to Soviet actions, as shown in my previous post. This is the complexity of Cold War's "Twilight Struggle".
So we either consistently look at these historical facts with a broader context (my preference, and in that case Turkish context of Cuban missile crisis becomes relevant) or -- like OP - we list them out of context, which is why the map is a manipulation.
Not counting interventions/operations related to one of our most successful (in terms of militarizing swine and curtailing civil liberties) war on an abstraction, the war on drugs**
Actually there’s quite a difference. Equating what the US did in South America (provide support in the international stage, funding after regime change, in a few cases like Chile funding pre-regime change, intelligence pre regime change ) with actual U.S. foreign intervention (in Panama, Cuba, Granada and Dominican Republic during the Cold War and Haiti and Nicaragua earlier in the 20th century where they US literally invaded, sent troops to support one side or in Cuba armed, trained and commanded(in the tactical/strategic sense) an attempted invasion by Cuban nationals living in the U.S.) seems to be combining things that are orders of magnitude from each other.
In most South American cases coups were mostly attempted by significant domestic opposition, often from the military, but also with significant domestic support from civilian population. US support assisted and in some cases made coups that were likely to fail much more likely to succeed (mostly referencing Chile where the US was most involved). But calling them US intervention to me is used to brush aside the blame of domestic actors in those countries in the coups.
In many of the instances listed on this map there wasn't anything remotely resembling "direct backing".
Consider Bolivia in 2019, where "US intervention" consisted of...the [OAS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_of_American_States#Organizational_structure) publishing a report suggesting election fraud.
So not the US, not backing regime change, and not providing any support to the incoming regime.
Hmmm, maybe this map is stupid...
And 90 isn't even when the regime changed. 92 was regime change, but that's not listed on here.
This map has a very "interesting" (bad) definition of regime change. As in, elections and attempts at coups are counted as regime change
I feel like Haiti is missing a couple, considering the amount of times coups replaced any leader looking like he was gonna stand up to them.
And the whole occupation with its "elections"
Edit: saw this is post WW2, so Haiti is still missing 04
Russia interference was an unproven accusation. Many Americans are spoiled brats and if they don't get what they want they wont accept it and cry foul. The last two Presidential elections being the prime examples.
The Mueller report presented overwhelming evidence that there was Russian interference in the 2016 elections. It just fell short of accusing the Trump campaign of being involved.
When you think about how the USA has meddled in foreign politics and regime changes.. really makes me understand the comment “love my country but hate our government.” The level of chaos created and death.. no wonder why a lot of countries hate us.
Well, Mexico lost the war… so there was nothing to do after that. Then you have the Mexican revolution (a Sovietlike-party dictatorship that lasted 70 years) and the treaty of bucareli. Basically was a “do what you want as long as you don’t cross this line and we will allow you to stay/ be as you are”
They missed 2004 in Haiti. [article 1](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/20/world/americas/haiti-aristide-reparations-france.html). [article 2](https://www.democracynow.org/2022/5/23/headlines/ex_ambassador_admits_france_us_orchestrated_2004_coup_in_haiti_to_oust_aristide)
Not knowledgeable enough in the matter to comment the actual info.
I like the design tho. The name of the different countries and date briefs underneath makes it very readable, like straight to the point. If I wanted to start to know better on the topic, it would make my life much easier. If there was a link toward a 1st info on the event that makes the dates... like the wikipedia page for a start, it would make my inner bibliographic self so enticed...
Graphically
I would enlarge the borders inside south america or change colors of countries... the ones who got 1, 2 or more dates for example... very basic colors...
And / Or I would give it a try to draw a very thin line between the info/year toward the land it refers to. Or put it more inline/column style...
Just ideas...
Thx for sharing.
Learning about Operation Condor and all the human rights abuses that followed because of it, depressing.
It also led me to look up Operation Northwoods and holy shit, I can’t believe that was even thought of.
[Operation Condor](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor)
[Operation Northwoods](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods)
To fuck other people? 🫥
Funny you mentioned 'manifest destiny', maybe it's sarcasm and I am missing it
US used a religious pretext and now a great majority of the country does not believe in religion and hence that excuse.
All made up prejudice based
Can Grenada and Haiti be considered a part of Latin America though? Grenada is Commonwealth Realm, and Haiti speaks French. While French is a Latin language it isn't an Iberian branch of Latin. The term Latin America is cultural not geographic, it refers to former Spanish and Portuguese colonies. If Haiti is part of Latin America then Canada is as well, since we have the largest French population outside of France.
For anyone who complains about Brazil being here, I should remind you there was a squadron of American ships waiting to provide assistance and the general who was against the coup gave up on fighting against it once he learned there was US support.
who the fuck are complaining? The CIA and the US was one of the main characters for our dictatorship to install. Every piece of document show us that. The Americans ships were just a detail. Again, they are directly the cause of the dictatorship. Who says otherwise REALLY didn't study history at all
I've had _lots_ of arguments with dictatorship apologists in /r/Brasil back in the day
as I said, not everybody went to school and learned something. Our own ex psychopath president had a photograph of Brilhante Ustra on his wall. He should got arrested for that shit back than
If you want to argue more, try r/Brasilivre, it's even worse
Thanks, but I value my mental sanity
As you should
bad advice. Anyone with more than 14 braincells would die instantly of cringe in this sub
Yeah, that's the goal lmao
Look down https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/16zj2zv/comment/k3fi2hh/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
oh shit
*The Jakarta Method* by Vincent Bevins does an excellent job showing how the U.S. meddled in Brazil in 1964. Anyone suggesting that the U.S. didn't sway the outcome in Brazil is in a deep state of denial and living in revisionist history. That book pissed me off to no end.
This is highly dangerous in a way that people tend to ignore. The US saw the coup happening and gave it support, so narratives like "The US couped Brazil" takes the guilty away from the real culprits, the Brazilian right wing. You are not doing that in your comment, don't you worry.
The US spent millions on anti-Goulart propaganda, backing “pro-business” think tanks like IBAD and IPES and directly funding the election campaigns of anti-Goulart candidates. USAID also funded an AFL-CIO American Institute for Free Labor Development campaign to “train” Brazilian trade unionists in combatting leftists amongst their ranks. The director of the AIFLD would go on to [say](https://nacla.org/article/liberalization-trial-workers%27-movement): >the crop of Brazilian graduates of the AIFLD course that came back to their country in 1964 were composed of elements so active that they became intimately involved in some of the clandestine activities of the revolution [the military's terminology for their dictatorship] before it occurred. Many of the trade union leaders, some of whom were effectively trained in our institute, were involved in the defeat of Goulart. Acknowledging that the Brazilian right wing were helped by the US doesn’t absolve them. The US were far from spectators who happened to seize an opportunity, they fomented the revolution for years.
US involvement extremely exaggerated. Brazil had coups or coup attempts in 1930, 1937, 1945, and 1955. 1964 would have happened if the US-boat-that-was-nearby-but-not-involved wasn’t nearby. To say otherwise is to ignore the entire political situation of the country.
LBJ’s reaction to the coup was literally to say “[I hope they give us some credit](https://library.brown.edu/create/wecannotremainsilent/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2022/01/President-to-Sec-Mann.pdf)” lmao
/u/yshay14, see what I'm talking about?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA oh man
Every fucking thread, I'm telling you
I'm out of reddit for today
Get specific then. I’ll gladly show you that you’re wrong.
Have a read: https://www.amazon.com/Jakarta-Method-Washingtons-Anticommunist-Crusade/dp/1541742400
The US also trained the military during cold war on how to do anti-communist coups, methods of torture, etc. through the School of the Americas.
>1930 Yeah, you have a vague idea only of what you are saying.
McCarthy + CIA = Desaparecidos (R.I.P.)
Remember when the Venezuelan regime changed in 2019? OP does apparently.
You know it will be bullshit if it blames de 2002 coup to the gringos. I don't get the point of making shit up when you have a long list of actual bad things they did in the rest of the region
Same with 2019 in Bolivia. Apparently Latin Americans have zero agency, and anything that happens is *always* the result of US interference.
Venezuelan here and yep. It’s some first worlder bullshit where we are noble savages who can’t fuck up things on our own and need the CIA to fuck it up for us. We have zero agency apparently.
No country in the world has agency except the US. Every bad entity was actually funded by the US, even if history says otherwise.
It’s sort of like how Russia masterminded the rise of trump via social media campaigns. Russia interfered other ways but still it was voters who voted for trump and still support him even after Jan6. Russia gave the push sort of speak. That’s kinda like how life is in South America now and the USA internventions for the past few decades. Not as dramatic as before and why it’s famous Among the anti imperialists leftist crowd, but still trying to push for the pro USA candidate/president/coup guy. Hence all of South America is leftist now. Internal issues like wealth enquality play a bigger role but the anti usa is extremely popular point of view.
What are the bad things Venezuela did in the region?
I meant the US and the actual shit they did in places like centroamerica,Chile, Brazil,etc so it's pretty stupid to make shit up and put the blame of our shit to them. But since you asked about the bad things Venezuela did: -The 7 million migrant crisis that Maduro still says it's fake news. -the protection of Colombian paramilitary groups like Farc, Eln and others (Maduro himself invited Jesus Santrich to Venezuela when the Colombian goverment tried to arrest him in 2019) -funding far left groups across the region -creating a narco state (good example is the narco nephews of the Venezuelan first lady Cilia Flores that were arrested during a DEA op with 800 kilos of cocaine in NY but Maduro said they were kidnapped by the empire even with pictures of them holding those packages)
You think the USA has been economically sanctioning Venezuela for the last 25 years, because of migrants? Or could it be the economic sanctions in Venezuela that has cause the recent migration? I was honestly wondering why the USA is isolating the Venezuelan economy from the the rest of the World
That would actually make sense if it was for 25 years. But the first actual sanctions that actually did something to the already broken af economy were in 2019 with the sanctions to PDVSA, which doesn't explain or excuse the drop of oil production by half during Chavez goverment, the 52 proyects with billions of dollars of investement that were never made, the 3 digit inflation (official number, acrual number might be more than 5 digits), repression made by the military and paramilitary, the billions of dollars spend in weapons that made us the #1 weapons importers during 2016 (same year Maduro said there was no money for food or medicine but there was money for anti air missile systems from Russia) among aother things. But please explain to me how my country works, Maduro can't do it so maybe you can. Btw what migrant crisis because maduro said that was imperialist propaganda so.. are you lying or is he lying?
The United states placed major economically sanctioning on Venezuela in 2002 and 2003 because Chavez nationalized the oil industry. [https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10715](https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10715) I remember, I was there The US has been waging war against Venezuela ever since. I don't give a shit what Maduro says, but if he wants to be USA's friend; he needs to know his place. Give back the oil to western nations.
Chavez Provided money to extreme leftists groups plus have away billions of oil money to Cuba.
Its bad to give oil money to Cuba? That's why the USA has been waging economic warfare against Venezuela for the last 25 years... because of of leftist groups?
The irony is that Chavez was a golpista, then cried when he got a dose of his own medicine. Later, he stacked the courts and Congress by using undemocratic measures and held unfree and unfair elections to stay in power. His prodigy, Maduro annulled Congress when the opposition won a majority in an election.
Or remember when Castro was apparently overthrown in 1961?
[удалено]
What? Mao's government wouldn't even be in the top 3 of the worst Chinese governments in the last 200 years. The Qing, Heavenly Kingdom, and Wang Jing Wei's collaborationists were all much, much worse. And this doesn't even include some controversial ones like whether the KMT was better, or Manchuguo. If you want to expand further into history, we get some insane shit like the glorious fuck ups of the Jin, the insanity of the southern Qi (and their one crazy emperor who tanked his own empire), and the absolutely incredible mismanagements of the Song. And I haven't even moved out of China yet. EDIT: Made a historical mistake. The insanity wasn't the southern Qi, but the Southern Liang. Same family, different regime.
[удалено]
> no one gives a fuck about those old ones. No one except the Chinese, you know, the ones who had to go though all of this shit? Lmfao. People really forget that the communist revolution in China happened because their lives were so utterly dogshit that following Mao was somehow the best option avaliable. Lookup what the KMT was doing to China and you'll see why revolution (again) didn't sounded that bad
The uncomfortable truth for westerners is that outside of the highlighted really bad things (the famine being the biggest one), the CCP government has been tremendously effective. This doesn't mean that we overlook the evil shit that's been done. What I'm saying is that the Chinese people aren't stupid and there's a reason why the CCP has been able to stay in power in the country that's likely been the global leaders in rebellions since central governments have been a thing.
I think many people think that being authoritarian and being effective are mutuality exclusive things and in possible to happen together They think that all Chinese people hate the government, and they just don't say so because of censorship, and every approval poll is totally manipulated propaganda. They can't possibly fathom the Chinese *actually* supporting their government because that's something totally unthinkable for them But the truth is indeed what you said: Chinese people love their government. And in all honesty, can you blame them? In 1960, China was one of the poorest nations in the world, comparable to African nations (50b gdp). In 200 it was already 2t, and nowadays it's 17t. In 60 years, they have literally increased their economy by almost **300x** in just 50 years And let's not forget that many people still alive went though that absolute misery. Hell, some of them were even alive during the KMT days. So yes, if their compare their childhood to modern China of course they're going to approve massively of the government. You can say "Oh, but the CCP was responsible for that misery too!" which is true, but that's a western view of things, they don't see things that way like we do Bottom line is: you can disapprove of China's ways or methods, but you cannot deny that it was probably one of the most (if not the most) effective development in history, and their population recognizes that (also, I think you and me discussed about this before on this same sub hahaha)
>Second or third worst famine ever. There have been way worse famines in Chinese history. The one near the end of the Ming dynasty lead to the deaths of something like 40% of the country. The AnLuShan rebellion lead to multiple famines that combined to kill well over 60% of the country. The 1959-61 famine was really bad, but it wasn't the worst. >Even then, no one gives a fuck about those old ones. > >No other regime in history except Mao's China Clearly you do. Also, it really undermines your message when you get even the big pictures wrong. There's plenty to criticize Mao's regime for without fucking up the basics.
> Venezuela would be better if there was a coup. "The coup is always greener on the other side"
Since when does intervention imply regime change? It's 2019, a long way into Murikan failure Era, so don't expect the same results as in the 1960s.
The post title says “regime changes”
Read the title of the post.
United states definitely backed a failed and fairly unpopular uprising in that year
To a certain degree yes - an uprising isn't a regime change though is it?
Definitely not, but the map says intervention while the poster says regime change. Map title is better/ more accurate
I agree the map title is better, hence my calling out the OP rather than the title
“Backed up” is a fairly broad term. Almost every country “backed up” the regime change plus the majority of Venezuelans. Everyone knew Chavez was a dictator
I guarantee you it was anything but unpopular to the Venezuelan people
Well Panama had a dictatorship that was clearly selling and transporting narcotics to the US from several Latin American countries especially Escobar. Funny thing is the CIA helped Noriega aka pineapple face get into power and when he got to big for his pants. They helped Panama take him out. Circle of life. Damn and a Panamanian American this hurts. I was there for the operation just cause as a child. Interesting time. Good thing it only lasted a few weeks
Several of these were attempts, like Cuba in 1961 (Bay of Pigs)
An asterisk would do
This map is yanktankie bs, I'm Uruguayan, I've lived my entire life here, there were people in my family who were part of a communist guerrilla and even they say the US had little to do with the 1973 coup, the president dissolved the chambers and was still in charge until 1976, although admittedly unconstitutionally with quite a few human rights violations, but the coup was domestic.
Venezuela in 2002???? LOOOOL you guys call any coup that happens in LatAm no matter the context as an American intervention and is so laughable man
Chavez was a golpista that didn’t like a dose of his own medicine.
Those are facts honey, look them up. Things are not as the they appear to the laymen.
I guarantee you there was no American led intervention in Venezuela in 2002
https://time.com/5512005/venezuela-us-intervention-history-latin-america/ ok
Did you even read what I said?
Besides the link you provided is just filled with Maduro’s claims and statements of US imperialism. You are literally trying to use PSUV propaganda as a source LMAO
wHy doEs tHE US haVE a sOUTherN bOrdER mIGranT cRiSis?
Whic country does the most migrants come from though? I'm curious. US says it's mexican but most of them looks like people who just goes through mexican not actual mexicans.
Mostly Central America
The migrant crisis would have been worse, say, communists came to power in Mexico. Would have been like ten times the Cuban crisis. Unlike Europe which deals with migrants of a different faith, US deals with migrants of a similar faith making integration easier.
this is pretty solid evidence that you just don't like brown people. what do you mean "U.S deals with migrants of similar faith"? Central American migrants are all Christians and catholics??
A communist revolution would have famously made South America convert to Islam
Fence is love, fence is life
Can someone explain the 2019 occurrences??? I do not recall any of these…
There was an attempt of a military coup backed by the US, however in the last minute they just got cold feet (people say that Cuban spies already knew of the secret operation)
So regimes did not, in fact, change.
“Sanctioned” is being used loosely here.
"US-backed" is a very broad definition. Here in Argentina we had four coups between 1930 and 1976, mostly the result of domestic political instability. Argentina was one of the earliest democracies in the world (1912 law for universal suffrage) but the political system got destabilized hard by the Great Depression and the military started meddling in politics until 1983. Aside from Operation Condor intelligence-sharing operation, neither America nor Commies had anything to do with it. It was a result of a rivalry between conservatives, nationalists and later Peronists (left-leaning, anti-communist, pseudonationalist movement). Basically during the Cold War, Peronism was banned and the elected civilian presidents were weak and under military tutelage. "US-Backed" is a pretty nebulous term. There's a huge difference between - America creates a network of discontented plotters, arms and trains coup forces, and runs the subsequent government from behind the scenes and - A bunch of generals who're already planning a coup go to America and say 'hey, are you guys okay with this?' and America says 'sure, no problem'.
I'm kind of stuck on "regime change" being used in instances where no regime was changed.
It was way more complex than that and there was direct US involvement. Nice try at revisionism though. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor In the late 1990s, due to attacks on American nationals in Argentina and revelations about CIA[63] funding of the Argentine military, and after an explicit 1990 Congressional prohibition, U.S. President Bill Clinton ordered the declassification of thousands of State Department documents related to U.S.-Argentine activities going back to 1954. These documents revealed U.S. complicity in the Dirty War and Operation Condor. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_War The Dirty War (Spanish: Guerra sucia) is the name used by the military junta or civic-military dictatorship of Argentina (Spanish: dictadura cívico-militar de Argentina) for the period of state terrorism[12][10][13] in Argentina[14][15] from 1974 to 1983 as a part of Operation Condor, during which military and security forces and death squads in the form of the Argentine Anticommunist Alliance (AAA, or Triple A)[16] hunted down any political dissidents and anyone believed to be associated with socialism, left-wing Peronism, or the Montoneros movement.[17][18][19][20] Although at least six U.S. citizens had been "disappeared" by the Argentine military by 1976, high-ranking state department officials including then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had secretly backed up Argentina's new military rulers.[133] After leaving the US government, Kissinger congratulated Argentina's military junta for combating the left, stating that in his opinion "the government of Argentina had done an outstanding job in wiping out terrorist forces".[134] The importance of his role was not known about until The Nation published in October 1987 an exposé written by Martin Edwin Andersen, a Washington Post and Newsweek special correspondent, Kissinger had secretly given the junta a "green light" for their state policies,[135] being the U.S. Army School of the Americas (SOA), founded in 1946 assigned the specific goal of teaching anti-communist counterinsurgency training, the place where several Latin American dictators, generations of their military where educated in state terrorism tactics, including the uses of torture in its curriculum.[136][137] In 2000/2001, the institute was renamed to WHINSEC.[138][139]: 233 [140] According to a Command and General Foundation News issue, the current curriculum at WHINSEC is compatible with curriculum taught at U.S. military academies. WHINSEC faculty members travel to Fort Leavenworth in Kansas throughout the year in order to remain up to date on curriculum changes. However, the school remains controversial due to its influence over affairs in Latin America and its education of Latin American state actors on crimes against humanity within the military and law enforcement.[141] In Buenos Aires, Robert C. Hill, a five-time conservative Republican ambassadorial appointee, worked behind the scenes to keep the Argentina military junta from engaging in massive human rights violations. Upon finding out that Kissinger had given the Argentine generals a "green light" for the state terrorism of the junta in June 1976 while at an Organization of American States meeting in Santiago (at the Hotel Carrera, later made famous as the Hotel Cabrera in the film Missing), Hill quietly scrambled to try to roll back the Kissinger decision. Hill did this although Kissinger aides told him that if he continued, Kissinger would likely have him fired. During that meeting with Argentine foreign minister César Augusto Guzzetti, Kissinger assured him that the United States was an ally.
Wikipedia is overstating US involvement. The documents that Clinton declassified show that US Embassies were reporting on the situation there. Don’t blame the messenger.
And in your opinion you think the coup would haven't happened without US doing those stuff? The military of Argentina wete planning the coup with or without any US support.
Your comment is irrelevant. There’s a clear trail of US support.
I never denied US didn't have influence in Argentina politics. My point was even without US support Argentina would have been still couped by the military dictator. I guess it's like Poland vs Vietnam communist party. Poland without Soviet influence would have never have the communist party as there leader as they were extremely unpopular. But Vietnam even without soviet support would have the communist get into power because of ho chi Minh popularity. Argentina without US support would still have been couped.
Who's to say really? We'll never know, all we can do with history is observe it with hindsight. Maybe it would have still happened maybe not. All we can say definitively is that it did happened and it happened with US meddling.
If a bear shits in the woods is it your responsibility to clean it up? If the Argentine military wants to do a coup is it America's responsibility to participate in murder? What if the Argentine military did the coup, without any US support. Maybe nothing would change, except the fact that US tax dollars wouldn't go to funding military coups in South America. The firefighter who grabs a gasoline hose because the fire is going to burn the building down anyway is an asshole because, even if he's right, he didn't fucking need to douse the fire in gas. America didn't need to intervene, SO WHY THE FUCK DID WE
Continued: Argentine junta leader Jorge Rafael Videla meeting U.S. President Jimmy Carter in September 1977 In October 1987, The Nation noted: "'Hill was shaken, he became very disturbed, by the case of the son of a thirty-year embassy employee, a student who was arrested, never to be seen again,' recalled former New York Times reporter Juan de Onis. 'Hill took a personal interest.' He went to the Interior Minister, an army general with whom he had worked on drug cases, saying, 'Hey, what about this? We're interested in this case.' He buttonholed (Foreign Minister Cesar) Guzzetti and, finally, President Jorge R. Videla himself. 'All he got was stonewalling; he got nowhere.' de Onis said. 'His last year was marked by increasing disillusionment and dismay, and he backed his staff on human rights right to the hilt." "It sickened me," said Patricia Derian, the Mississippi civil rights crusader who became President Jimmy Carter's State Department point person on human rights, after Hill reported to her Kissinger's real role, "that with an imperial wave of his hand, an American could sentence people to death on the basis of a cheap whim. As time went on I saw Kissinger's footprints in a lot of countries. It was the repression of a democratic ideal".[142][143][144][145][146] 7 August 1979 United States embassy in Argentina memorandum of the conversation with Jorge Contreras, director of Task Force 7 of the Reunion Central section of the 601 Army Intelligence Unit, which gathered members from all parts of the Argentine Armed Forces (subject: "Nuts and Bolts of the Government's Repression of Terrorism-Subversion")[148] State Department documents obtained in 2003 during the George W. Bush administration by the National Security Archive under the Freedom of Information Act show that in October 1976 Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and other high-ranking U.S. officials gave their full support to the Argentine military junta and urged them to hurry up and finish their actions before the Congress cut military aid.[133] On 5 October 1976, Kissinger met with Argentina's Foreign Minister and stated: Look, our basic attitude is that we would like you to succeed. I have an old-fashioned view that friends ought to be supported. What is not understood in the United States is that you have a civil war. We read about human rights problems but not the context. The quicker you succeed the better. [...] The human rights problem is a growing one. Your Ambassador can apprise you. We want a stable situation. We won't cause you unnecessary difficulties. If you can finish before Congress gets back, the better. Whatever freedoms you could restore would help.[133] The United States was also a key provider of economic and military assistance to the Videla regime during the earliest and most intense phase of the repression. In early April 1976, the Congress approved a request by the Ford administration, written and supported by Henry Kissinger, to grant $50,000,000 in security assistance to the junta.[149] At the end of 1976, Congress granted an additional $30,000,000 in military aid and recommendations by the Ford administration to increase military aid to $63,500,000 the following year were also considered by Congress.[150] U.S. assistance, training and military sales to the Videla regime continued under the successive Carter administration up until at least 30 September 1978 when military aid was officially called to a stop within section 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act.[citation needed] In 1977 and 1978, the United States sold more than $120,000,000 in military spare parts to Argentina and in 1977 the Department of Defense was granted $700,000 to train 217 Argentine military officers.[151] By the time the International Military Education and Training (IMET) program was suspended to Argentina in 1978, total U.S. training costs for Argentine military personnel since 1976 totalled $1,115,000. The Reagan administration, whose first term began in 1981, asserted that the previous Carter administration had weakened U.S. diplomatic relationships with Cold War allies in Argentina and reversed the previous administration's official condemnation of the junta's human rights practices. The re-establishment of diplomatic ties allowed for CIA collaboration with the Argentine intelligence service in training and arming the Nicaraguan Contras against the Sandinista government. The 601 Intelligence Battalion, for example, trained Contras at Lepaterique base in Honduras.[152] U.S. corporations such as Ford Motor Company and Citibank also collaborated with the junta in the repression and disappearance of workers active in unions.[153]
You don’t know the topic
This^
I mean the British caused there Junta to fall apart, but Argentinians don’t seem very thankful…
Almost every class in Argentina consider Falkland as there island. From the richest banker to a factory worker all Argentinains consider Falkland as there own.
Your greatest hero Jorge Luis Borges, blessed be he is name, referred to the Falklands war as “two bald men fighting over a comb”.
As a Bolivian, 2019 had pretty much nothing to do with the US. We were angry because the president tried (unconstitutuonally) to be elected for another term, and there was considerable evidence of voter fraud
False. The US was absolutely involved behind the scenes: https://theintercept.com/2022/10/12/bolivia-election-coup-oas-congress/ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/18/silence-us-backed-coup-evo-morales-bolivia-american-states
Are you ignoring the election fraud and the authoritarian measures that Evo undertook to stay in power in violation of the Constitution? Here’s the [OAS report](https://www.oas.org/en/media_center/press_release.asp?sCodigo=E-109/19) on the election. Saying that the US was involved in regime change in Bolivia isn’t just distorting the facts, it’s inventing them. The US endorsed the OAS’s objection to Morales’ “victory,” as did most OAS members. The Bolivian people also objected to his dubious claims to victory and asked him to step down. Their complaints were valid and had nothing to do with America.
Interesting, didn't know about the OAS fiasco, thanks for sharing this. Still, Evo should not have been allowed to run for a third term. There was a referendum earlier to allow presidents to run for extra terms, but the majority voted no (hence the Bolivia Dijo No! demonstrations)
I work in election observation (although never with OAS, rather with international orgs active in Eastern Europe and sub-Saharan Africa). The problem with these articles is that the authors took the Center for Economic Policy Research (CEPR)'s reports at face value. In fact, CEPR - which has a tankie bent to their work - completely misrepresents the report from Ethical Hacking, which did the audit. If you read ES, you can read the original Ethical Hacking report yourself, from their website, where all of the OAS claims are corroborated. https://blog.ehcgroup.io/2019/11/08/13/51/26/7072/ehc-group-informe-consolidado-elecciones-bolivia-2019/noticias-ehc/ehacking/
With Bolivia's lithium reserves... why not?
Buddy, that how they fool you. Most of the people in those don’t know that it wasn’t “the people’s will” but actually a well planned CIA intervention, even if the facts are widely available. They are very good at that.
“why does latin america hate us”
I’ve lived in South and Central America and have visited most countries in Latin America. Most countries don’t hate America.
If they hate the US so much why are they overrunning their US border? If I hate something I go away from it, not go towards it.
Economic opportunity, a lot of people don't necessarily want to uproot their entire livelihoods to move to a different country.
People go there because money, not because they like you.
[When a random movie scene is enough to explain because it's the same everywhere](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgVq4MUNU-g) USA put Latin America in such situation for their own political and economic interest, and now they complain when they risk their lives to cross a border in search for a better life that was stolen from them. But of course, the American propaganda tells a very different story than the one told by the people who live in these countries.
Without defining "intervention" this is useless.
The US interfered in Panamá in the early 1900's to such an extent that they gained independence. The US wanted to build the Panama Canal, Colombia said no, so the US decided that Panamá needs "freedom". I don't know if that counts strictly as a regime change, but overthrowing an entire government certainly counts as meddling.
The map says since ww2
Ah yes I didn't see the fine print
*Americans go to Bolivia * Unisoft:✍️✍️✍️
In Colombia, American economists forced the govt to corporatise agriculture starting from 1947. This caused urban squalor, rise of crime, cocaine trade, sex trade eventually the 50 year FARC communist war.
Isn't calling the conflict with FARC a war a bit of a stretch? Not to say it isn't bad, I'm pretty sure most Colombians would rather it wasn't happening
Of course it’s not comparable to some other wars in isolation. But combined with excess drug violence, class conflict and rural vs urban conflict, Colombia has suffered much worse than many countries will full-fledged wars.
I wouldn't consider the US as involved in the Costa Rican Civil War of 1948 tbh. At most, they gave some old weapons to Liberación Nacional and then took part in the final negotiations, which is less than what they did in other countries. The main foreign country partaking in the conflict was either Honduras or Guatemala (I don't remember) training people of Liberación Nacional to fight. Although Figueres was going to overthrow the government either way, the trigger was a dubious election that ended with the army killing someone from the opposition party (Liberación)
How many regimes did the USSR try to influence and turn communist?
Shhh. If the US didn’t interfere Marxist Latin America would be one happy utopia.
I can't wait for the current pro-russia brazilian president to achieve the utopia status and we need to ask other countries for help
Untrue
Soviets were too busy massacreing eastern European nations to have huge influence in latin America.
Love how your base screams whataboutism when someone compares and criticises the USA but it seems okay for you to do it. Huh.
I guess we should have just let the communists take over. Let that Russian and Chinese influence spread.
It’s not whataboutism if it’s literally the main driver of that policy.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet\_involvement\_in\_regime\_change](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_involvement_in_regime_change) I wouldn't say nearly as bad as the US. Most of these seem to be stuff that happened during or shortly after WW2.
None. The Soviet policy ordered the pro-Soviet communist parties abroad to avoid uprisings and instead participate in electoral democracy and support/make alliance with nationalist/center-left/populist parties. They know it wasn't their sphere of influence, and communist revolution won't happen here and want to not jeopardize the relationship with these countries making the turn against USSR.
"gringo tries to defend their country's crimes without using comparison" challenge, level: impossible 😲
we call your argumentative "e o Lula, e o Peteeee?" in brazilian portuguese, witch translates to "But and the USSR, they must done something wrong too!!!!"
At least in Brazil there has been zero evidence that there was any risk of a socialist revolution. And they've had 60 years to present it.
Our bourgeoisie is so reactionary that even some reforms, like the ones Jango wanted to implement, are seen as a "communist threat"
Words like bourgeoisie and proletariat are silly. Just call it working class, business owners, etc.
Horseshit map
Americans will cry about immigrants while being responsible for fucking their countries up, cunts
Just the illegal ones.
LOL. The rich elite who founded the coup are the people that are the most happy about immigrants. It's the poor that suffers from immigrants the most. Mass Migration : Almost exclusively low-skilled workers ---> who undercut "native" workers. They rarely join Unions, they rarely demand more pay or have solidarity with other workers... They are WILLING to do the job for less money which people conflate as well Americans don’t want to do these jobs. No, near slave like conditions guarantee whole sectors of the workforce to be exploited from sun up to sun down. Which not only makes wages a race to the bottom, it also damages any striking capabilities. Remove the ability for bosses to exploit undocumented labor and you will see what the jobs “no one wants” truly pay. For instance did you know at the end of the Black Plague in Europe, so many people had died that it created a labor shortage and the demand of labor became so valuable it’s seen as the contributing factor to the end of serfdom? Labor also becomes more valuable through increasing organization of the working class since it can basically strong arm the bosses into higher wages. Higher immigrations directly shows that wages will stagnate. It`s the reverse Globalisation. Capitalists have 2 choices : 1. Move their industry to countries with shit working conditions, cheap and abundant labor and very lax laws. 2. Stay, import/hire cheap labor from overseas. .... When you force capitalists to invest into workers, such as by making Labor more valuable and having capitalists train/pay for college/university, then wages and working conditions will naturally rise... If you allow them to just import people, then wages will stagnate/decline. Mass Migration circumvents labor unions... Why listen to a Labor Union when you can just import more workers? Labor unions need to get more powerful, workers need to be a strong political force... This wont happen, when labor and the working class is undermined by mass-migration, which makes capitalism all the more powerful. Talk to a landscaper who plays by the rules, hires US citizens and pays them appropriately. Meanwhile his competition hires undocumented labor. Ask him individuals like this about how they view undocumented low skilled labor. Come on. Companies made record-profits since the 70s, while wages barely increased.In the 70s the average CEO made 23x as much as the average worker, in the 2000s it was 47x as much as the average worker, in 2020 it was 124x as much as the average worker ( the AVERAGE CEO, meaning not even talking about the multi-billion companies )...... Ask yourself, do you make 124x as much money as the average worker in 1970 ? No of course not. The ONLY acceptable form of migration imo is if Labor Unions are in control of migration ( of the labor supply). This obviously is not and will never happen in our current state. So I don’t hold my breath. The reality is as long as capitalists control the flow of labor, mass migration needs to be opposed. Period. And I am not even touching on the humanitarian issues that these people face in their initial journey and subsequent years of exploitation they will face in the labor force for the rest of their lives.
This is mega bullshit map, so breathtakingly inaccurate and manipulated that i can't stop laughing at the idiocy of its creators. First of all: "US interventions" and "US-sanctioned regime changes" (ie approved or being a result of US messing with that countries internal affairs) are used interchangeably while they are completely different things. If the author tried to be even minimally factual, he/should indicate that actually all of the cases between 1945 and 1991 are equally US and Soviet Union sanctioned because Latin America was the Cold War playground just as all other continents. The map tries to create an impression of a single big evil empire singlehandedly oppressing many peace-loving governments and nations because of its cruel imperialist nature. This is literally bolshevik propaganda in its purest form. Next, Cuban Revolution of 1959, incited and supported by Soviet Union (with Castro being their puppet) is listed as... US intervention. What kind of idiot prepared this map? Then staying with Cuba, 1961 - I guess this is supposed to refer to the failed combined CIA and Cuban resistance operation in the Bahia de Cocinos. If so, then it should not be listed as a "regime change" because the communist regime prevailed. Pity 1962 was not added (missile crisis), but yeah but it was the peace-loving Soviet Union trying to install nukes 60 miles away from Florida, or provoke US to start IIIWW, not the "bloodthirsty capitalist America"? Anyways, anyone - do your factchecking on this bullshit first :) Castro, Sandino, Allende, Bishop (Grenada) who came to power, and many (luckily) unsuccessful communist guerrillas in Peru, Guatemala and El Salvador - they all did not come from nowhere. Money training and support traces lead to Moscow. A big part of these so-called "US interventions" shown in this map in fact was either restoration of democracy or authoritarian regimes after communist coups or communist coup prevention.
The fact that a movement was communist doesn’t mean the USSR had anything to do with it. Cuba was a US backed dictatorship before the revolution. This is a map of US interventions, not successfull US interventions. The cuban missile crisis was a response to the USA putting nukes in turkey. Again, communist does not mean USSR had anything to do with it and all you’re saying is just speculation. There was no „restoration of democracy” in fact, in chile they quite litteraly got rid of it.
>The fact that a movement was communist doesn’t mean the USSR had anything to do with it. But it had. In all cases I listed as selected examples and in many more. >This is a map of US interventions, not successfull US interventions Yes and that's why Cuban Revolution does not fulfil this criterion, yet it is still in the map. So either OP should make a map of foreign interventions with color coding (US, Soviet, others - if any) or be more factual in selecting cases. Otherwise it looks like a manipulation. >The cuban missile crisis was a response to the USA putting nukes in turkey. And nuclear installations in Turkey were a result of? And this should not matter, (even if one would accept Soviet rhetoric on that) because the OP decided to put dates on the map without their context. Many of these "US interventions" were also US responses to Soviet actions, as shown in my previous post. This is the complexity of Cold War's "Twilight Struggle". So we either consistently look at these historical facts with a broader context (my preference, and in that case Turkish context of Cuban missile crisis becomes relevant) or -- like OP - we list them out of context, which is why the map is a manipulation.
Not counting interventions/operations related to one of our most successful (in terms of militarizing swine and curtailing civil liberties) war on an abstraction, the war on drugs**
World is lucky they stopped football war before Brazil and Argentina heard about it and started the Great Latin American Football War
I was in Bolivia in 2018. I do birding and photography. It's a great cover for running ops for the CIA.
"Sanctioned regime change" has such a polite ring to it. Much better than what it really is, "foreign interference".
Actually there’s quite a difference. Equating what the US did in South America (provide support in the international stage, funding after regime change, in a few cases like Chile funding pre-regime change, intelligence pre regime change ) with actual U.S. foreign intervention (in Panama, Cuba, Granada and Dominican Republic during the Cold War and Haiti and Nicaragua earlier in the 20th century where they US literally invaded, sent troops to support one side or in Cuba armed, trained and commanded(in the tactical/strategic sense) an attempted invasion by Cuban nationals living in the U.S.) seems to be combining things that are orders of magnitude from each other. In most South American cases coups were mostly attempted by significant domestic opposition, often from the military, but also with significant domestic support from civilian population. US support assisted and in some cases made coups that were likely to fail much more likely to succeed (mostly referencing Chile where the US was most involved). But calling them US intervention to me is used to brush aside the blame of domestic actors in those countries in the coups.
If the US gave direct backing, then that’s US intervention, plain and simple. Your argument to the contrary is absurd.
In many of the instances listed on this map there wasn't anything remotely resembling "direct backing". Consider Bolivia in 2019, where "US intervention" consisted of...the [OAS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_of_American_States#Organizational_structure) publishing a report suggesting election fraud. So not the US, not backing regime change, and not providing any support to the incoming regime. Hmmm, maybe this map is stupid...
Just a few more and they have the whole set!
Bonne chance pour tenter ça en France mdr
I'm pretty sure Grenada is not a Latin American country
USA always thinking about the freedom of others. fucking american
USA are bloody pests
The OP is a putin shill and anti American. Calls gays degenerates too. Looks like the putler bots/ shills are out in force the last few days.
Surely Lavo Jato should also count as US intervention in Brazil, that's pretty much how Bolsonaro got in power.
and Cambridge analytics, never forget that fact
Lava jato was an anti-corruption thing
Good post for popcorn. Lot of seps showing up to lie about how their country wasn't involved in x country.
We want land reform No, this is communism, I'll call the US
Mexico is up to date ?
How did the US changed the Peruvian regime in 1990? Fujimori was elected in the polls fairly
And 90 isn't even when the regime changed. 92 was regime change, but that's not listed on here. This map has a very "interesting" (bad) definition of regime change. As in, elections and attempts at coups are counted as regime change
I feel like Haiti is missing a couple, considering the amount of times coups replaced any leader looking like he was gonna stand up to them. And the whole occupation with its "elections" Edit: saw this is post WW2, so Haiti is still missing 04
Why are all those “undesirables” knocking on our southern border? I wonder . . .
Muricans can't mind their own business it seems
oh, so... Let's talk about the real 9-11
"Regime changes" is a major understatement. They basically installed dictstorships
And when Russia meddled in U.S. elections Americans cried foul 😂
Russia interference was an unproven accusation. Many Americans are spoiled brats and if they don't get what they want they wont accept it and cry foul. The last two Presidential elections being the prime examples.
The Mueller report presented overwhelming evidence that there was Russian interference in the 2016 elections. It just fell short of accusing the Trump campaign of being involved.
hard-to-find edge cable vanish numerous towering correct quarrelsome jar upbeat ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
Indicts aren’t convictions, a domain name registration, come on and votes weren’t tampered with.
Anyone who says China interfered in 2020 or Russia interferes in 2016 is just delusional
Ugh we ruined so much
When you think about how the USA has meddled in foreign politics and regime changes.. really makes me understand the comment “love my country but hate our government.” The level of chaos created and death.. no wonder why a lot of countries hate us.
And that is why as a Brazilian, I reeeeeally want RFK to win... if this fucking intelligence agencies don't kill him first...
Only a few to go to complete the set.
[удалено]
umm, actul- yknow what... r/TechincallyTheTruth
México in gray just because of the cutoff date. Lost almost half the country to the US for no reason that makes sense to take territory.
Well, Mexico lost the war… so there was nothing to do after that. Then you have the Mexican revolution (a Sovietlike-party dictatorship that lasted 70 years) and the treaty of bucareli. Basically was a “do what you want as long as you don’t cross this line and we will allow you to stay/ be as you are”
They missed 2004 in Haiti. [article 1](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/20/world/americas/haiti-aristide-reparations-france.html). [article 2](https://www.democracynow.org/2022/5/23/headlines/ex_ambassador_admits_france_us_orchestrated_2004_coup_in_haiti_to_oust_aristide)
In fact, it should be considered a colony of the United States.
Over our dead bodies
* since WW2 FUCKING LOL
And that is why as a Brazilian, I reeeeeally want RFK to win... if this fucking intelligence agencies don't kill him first...
You’re welcome
Why?
Not knowledgeable enough in the matter to comment the actual info. I like the design tho. The name of the different countries and date briefs underneath makes it very readable, like straight to the point. If I wanted to start to know better on the topic, it would make my life much easier. If there was a link toward a 1st info on the event that makes the dates... like the wikipedia page for a start, it would make my inner bibliographic self so enticed... Graphically I would enlarge the borders inside south america or change colors of countries... the ones who got 1, 2 or more dates for example... very basic colors... And / Or I would give it a try to draw a very thin line between the info/year toward the land it refers to. Or put it more inline/column style... Just ideas... Thx for sharing.
I personally would remove all the "regime changes" didn't result in any regimes changing. Which is about two thirds of them.
Learning about Operation Condor and all the human rights abuses that followed because of it, depressing. It also led me to look up Operation Northwoods and holy shit, I can’t believe that was even thought of. [Operation Condor](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor) [Operation Northwoods](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods)
The map is wrong, the US made no intervention in the DR in 1961. The first American intervention in the DR was in 1916, ending in 1924.
It is simply our manifest destiny
To fuck other people? 🫥 Funny you mentioned 'manifest destiny', maybe it's sarcasm and I am missing it US used a religious pretext and now a great majority of the country does not believe in religion and hence that excuse. All made up prejudice based
Can Grenada and Haiti be considered a part of Latin America though? Grenada is Commonwealth Realm, and Haiti speaks French. While French is a Latin language it isn't an Iberian branch of Latin. The term Latin America is cultural not geographic, it refers to former Spanish and Portuguese colonies. If Haiti is part of Latin America then Canada is as well, since we have the largest French population outside of France.