Something like Cuba is probably a one time deal.
Well, the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua also "slipped through" US vigilance, at least for its initial 11 or 12 year lifespan.
, Brazil if Vargas had lived longer,
Interesting idea and potential evolution of Brazil, although the method of a final turn to communism would have to be creative. Brazil strikes me as large and populous enough that if its own anti-communists are too weak in the favor of pro-communists (not that we got close to this in OTL) US military intervention is not going to be enough to prop up anticommunists in the long run.
So far the discussion has focused on Communist takeovers in the classic Cold War period and post-cold War period. But what about the prior period, from 1917-1945?
In particular, Brazil comes up again for this era:
"Vargas's attention
[in the 30s] focused on the rise of two nationally based and highly ideological European-style movements, both committed to European-style mass-mobilization: one pro-Communist and the other pro-fascist—one linked to
Moscow and the other to
Rome and
Berlin. The mass-movement intimidating Vargas was the
Aliança Nacional Libertadora (ANL), a leftwing popular front launched in 1935 of socialists, communists, and other progressives led by the Communist Party and
Luís Carlos Prestes, known as "cavalier of hope" of the
tenente rebellion (though not a Marxist at the time). A revolutionary forerunner of
Che Guevara, Prestes led the futile "Long March"
through the rural Brazilian interior following his participation in the failed 1922
tenenterebellion against the coffee oligarchs."
....H.B. Nuckwahler mentioned earlier 1950s Bolivia, which intrigued me.
I recall one classmate of mine discussing comparisons being made between Victor Paz Estensorro's Bolivia and Jacobo Arbenz's Guatemala, with the subtext of "why was the former able to get away with his revolution and nationalization [of the tin-mining industry] and why was the latter unable to get away with his revolution and nationalization [of United Fruit Company lands]?" Some of the reasons elaborated either in the class readings or by the professor seemed to boil down to Estensorro having better social skills, with him able to converse more easily with American representatives while playing golf with them, while Arbenz had only non-existent to awkward personal interactions with American representatives.
I really think Paraguay is the best bet for something like this.
Probably so, because of its small size, distance and isolation. Brazil or Argentina could probably crush it, but only if willing to make the effort, which could well seem excessive.
Great observations by Salem_Saberhagen early in the thread. In fact it's kind of interesting how mellow the US was about the rise of left-populist regimes across most of the continent in this century, compared with Cold War standards at least. Thinking of at one time or another, Chavez, Humala, Evo Morales, Lula, Mrs. Kirchner, somebody in Ecuador I think. It seemed like in the 2000s, only Colombia and Chile (and Paraguay? and Uruguay?) were solidly anti-leftist.
Expanding the focus northward to include Central America and the Caribbean, it is interesting how little Chavism caught on there. Sure, Ortega played left-populism when back in power, but when FMLN politicians won office in El Salvador they didn't really go anti-American. This is a bit of a flip-flop from the Cold War when the two Communist regimes, Cuba and Nicaragua, that "slipped through" US containment were geographically and politically more intimate with the US than South American countries.