Brazil, the Sixth Policeman

[Strategos' Risk]

At the request of Roosevelt, who was hoping to fashion a new Latin American champion just like China in Asia, Stettinius suggested that Brazil join the Security Council as the Sixth Policeman. But Cadogan and Gromyko objected, and the matter was dropped. Roosevelt, however, told Stettinius that Brazil was still a card up his sleeve.

At Dumbarton Oaks, Roosevelt was setting up Brazil to be a world power to help police the world, and had his Secretary of State suggest them to be a permanent Security Council member of the United Nations. The Brits and Soviets were against it, and that was that. The book also mentions that Churchill rejected the idea that China could be a world power, and FDR did not like the inclusion of France because he disliked De Gaulle (though he did think they were capable), and other squabbles like the Soviets trying to get each of its component republics to join as a separate GA member.

But what if FDR had been able to convince the others that Latin America needed representation?

Brazil’s candidacy has been a bone of contention since World War II, when the Big Three debated who should join them as veto-wielding permanent members. Churchill ultimately won agreement on liberated France, which Stalin had dismissed as “charming but weak.” Roosevelt secured support for Chiang Kai-shek’s China, on the grounds that they needed at least one Asian member.

Roosevelt also lobbied hard for Brazil. Beyond rewarding the country’s participation in the war, he was impressed by its massive size, resources and potential. He worried that a council without a permanent Latin American member would undermine hemispheric solidarity, and that a dissatisfied Brazil might quit the UN altogether—just as it had left the League of Nations when denied a seat on the League Council.

Other U.S. officials were skeptical. Brazil was in no way a great power, and treating it as one would undermine the council’s credibility. Moreover, Brazil’s selection would antagonize its Spanish-speaking neighbors, while emboldening other regional powers to make similar claims. Despite Roosevelt’s support, Brazil’s bid was ultimately thwarted by London and Moscow.

Brazil was one of those johnny-come-lately declare war at the very end entrants into WWII, but what if they had joined up earlier? True, military participation would be limited at best, but what if they had been a greater participant diplomatically and economically speaking for the Allies? This goes beyond getting a permanent seat at the U.N. - it's also what if they were taken seriously earlier as a regional power, and in general if there were greater Latin American participation in the organization. I guess having an even-number of seats in the U.N. doesn't matter, since vetoes make ties a moot point anyway.

 

[juanml82]

Well, Brazil declared war on the Axis on 8/31/42, I wouldn't call that "come late".

Beyond that, the geopolitical situation in the 1940s was not the same as it is now. Brazil was not a regional power as it is today. There was a lot of rivalry, instead of cooperation in South America. So giving Brazil a permanent seat would indeed alienate Argentina and maybe Chile and other countries. In return, the UNSC would have a permanent member, with veto power who would, for the most part of the Cold War, be aligned to Washington and without regional, let alone global, reach.

 

[TFSmith121]

As has been pointed out, Brazil entered the war independently in 1942,

As has been pointed out, Brazil entered the war independently in 1942, with the causus belli of Axis submarine attacks on Brazilian shipping.

Brazilian naval and air forces, as well as the merchant marine, were involved in the war immediately, and planning and organization for an expeditionary force for service in Europe started in 1942 as well.

After training, equipping, and when shipping was available, the Brazilian 1st Division (organized and equipped along US lines, and viewed as interchangeable with a US Army infantry division) was in action in Italy by the beginning of 1944, along with a fighter squadron and observation unit, plus limited corps/army troops.

The division and the aviation units all had distinguished records; as did the navy and home-based aviation units in the South Atlantic ASW campaign. Although very credible, it paled in comparison to any of the Big 5, and was smaller than that of any of the dominions (save Newfoundland).

However, the total contribution of Brazil to the Allies was the largest of any of the Latin American republics, by far; if the goal was to provide SC representation to South America, Brazil certainly had the best case.

Almost immediately postwar, the Brazilian Army numbered 120,000, which suggests Brazil could have sustained an expeditionary force of roughly 24,000 in action overseas, if provided with US or NATO standard equipment through L-L, MDAP, or what-have-you.

It does seem unlikely, but FDR deserves some credit for even trying.

Best,

 

[Have Blue-117]

Beyond that, the geopolitical situation in the 1940s was not the same as it is now. Brazil was not a regional power as it is today. There was a lot of rivalry, instead of cooperation in South America. So giving Brazil a permanent seat would indeed alienate Argentina and maybe Chile and other countries. In return, the UNSC would have a permanent member, with veto power who would, for the most part of the Cold War, be aligned to Washington and without regional, let alone global, reach.

Well you could claim the same thing for China, who never gained real power and global reach until the end of the Cold War, they were always playing second fiddle to the US and USSR during their alliances with them, so in that case why couldn't Brazil get a permanent seat.

This could have several knock-on effects as well. Maybe with a permanent seat in the Security Council, it could give them the motivation compete more on the global stage, meaning a greater build-up of their armed forces, possibly following through with their nuclear weapons program among others. This would set off a rivalry with Argentina, possibly an India-Pakistan situation in South America as Argentina wouldn't want to be seen as weak or subservient to Brazil.

 

[juanml82]

Well you could claim the same thing for China, who never gained real power and global reach until the end of the Cold War, they were always playing second fiddle to the US and USSR during their alliances with them, so in that case why couldn't Brazil get a permanent seat.

This could have several knock-on effects as well. Maybe with a permanent seat in the Security Council, it could give them the motivation compete more on the global stage, meaning a greater build-up of their armed forces, possibly following through with their nuclear weapons program among others. This would set off a rivalry with Argentina, possibly an India-Pakistan situation in South America as Argentina wouldn't want to be seen as weak or subservient to Brazil.

Yes, I was thinking about China as I was writing, but didn't add it. As for nuclear programs, both Brazil and Argentina had competing nuclear programs and Chile had a chemical weapons program. Neither of the three programs resulted in weapons, though.

 

[Germaniac]

Could a Brazilian division be used for a beach in Normandy. That would surly help their credentials for a seat at the table post war.

 

[Have Blue-117]

Yes, I was thinking about China as I was writing, but didn't add it. As for nuclear programs, both Brazil and Argentina had competing nuclear programs and Chile had a chemical weapons program. Neither of the three programs resulted in weapons, though.

I just mentioned that because Brazil being a Security Council member would want to prove itself so-to-speak to the rest of the world that they weren't just a US puppet, so getting nukes would be one way to do this. Its also no coincidence that all Security Council members have nukes.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

I think if Brazil was to be a P6 member, they would have the clout (and U.S./NATO support) to pursue a nuclear weapons program to fruition. Perhaps Argentina might do the same, and that could have interesting effects for Peronism and all that came after there.

For starters, I think this article provides a wealth of information for how Brazilian participation in WWII could have gone differently. While the Brazilian military wasn't modernized enough to support a much bigger deployment (as mentioned in the previous thread linked in the OP), maybe they could have continued in a greater postwar role:

Foreign Minister Oswaldo Aranha saw the war and an expeditionary force as a way to expand Brazil's historic cooperation with the United States into "a true alliance of destinies." That policy of cooperation had been, Aranha noted, "a source of security" for Brazil, that by giving the United States assurance of Brazil's support in international questions, Brazil could "count on them in [South] American ones." ...
More- over, he did not believe that they could restrict themselves solely to an expeditionary force if they wanted to insure American involvement in other Brazilian military matters, such as development of the navy and air force, and defense of Southern Brazil. Looking ahead, he believed that Brazil would have to keep its forces mobilized for some time after the peace to help maintain the post-war order.

And most tantalizingly-

American leaders wanted the FEB to stay in Europe as part of the occupation forces, but Brazilian military and civilian leaders rejected that role. Unhappily, over American objections, the Brazilian government decided to disband the FEB upon return to Brazil. The American military had hoped that the division would be kept together to form the nucleus for a complete reformation of the Brazilian army. FEB veterans would slowly introduce the lessons of the war finto the General Staff School and Military School curricula. But the chance to use the FEB experience to project Brazilian influence on the post-war world order was lost. Those making the rapid decisions in late 1945 that led to the FEB's demise could not know how quickly the United States would demobilize, or how quickly the alliance with the Soviet Union would collapse. Perhaps if Brazil had maintained occupation troops in Europe and a standing cadre of combat-hardened troops at home, it would have had a different post-war international position.

So let's say some sort of incident causes Brazil to join the war earlier on, and convinces them to stay in the postwar. Their greater role and show of capability smoothes over objections of their inclusion as a World's Policeman. And so we have a developing second-tier state, with a much smaller population but much greater stability than China, included into the world's elite.

Brazil would likely benefit well from a Cold War partnership with the U.S. (sorry, Hispanophone LatAm), but as they grow more powerful, they wouldn't want to be seen as a lapdog, exactly. So maybe they'd go their own way on certain policies, similarly to France's flirtations with independence from NATO.

The Soviets would be disappointed by the West having another ally in the permanent council, but they could offset that by 1) making overtures with Brazil and to Latin America in general, 2) doubling down on supporting the communists in China, and 3) realizing that the U.N. isn't that big of a deal anyway. Or at least having more permanent members, since the veto makes numbers meaningless.

 

[Dan1988]

Well, Brazil declared war on the Axis on 8/31/42, I wouldn't call that "come late".

Beyond that, the geopolitical situation in the 1940s was not the same as it is now. Brazil was not a regional power as it is today. There was a lot of rivalry, instead of cooperation in South America. So giving Brazil a permanent seat would indeed alienate Argentina and maybe Chile and other countries. In return, the UNSC would have a permanent member, with veto power who would, for the most part of the Cold War, be aligned to Washington and without regional, let alone global, reach.

Not only that, but IIRC around that time Argentina was still allied with the UK. So no wonder why Churchill would get pissed at FDR for suggesting Brazil. On the other hand - for much of the early 20th century there was talk of the ABC powers (Argentina, Brazil, and Chile). If an alliance of sorts between those three could be formalized - an early *Mercosur, perhaps? - that would be interesting to see. In that case, as one unit all three could part of the UNSC (and thus rotate between those three or a consensus candidate of all three).

 

[Blackfox5]

Brazil's contribution in World War II would need to have been of much greater significance in order for it to be part of the security council. It took some effort to get France and China on board. China at least had some moral claims since it had fought the longest against an Axis power, and China had historically been one of the world's great powers. France was a great power despite its defeat in 1940 and could be expected to resume the responsibilities of one.

Brazil however had none of that. While Brazil had the reputation of "the country of tomorrow", it never achieved that. It had neither the economy, military, or reputation of being one of the world's great powers.

I don't think it could realistically be done. It may be possible to arrange a lot of PODs to achieve it, but it would be obviously unrealistic.

1)A much stronger German provocation against Brazil that inflames the Brazilian population to contribute much more to the war effort.

2) A decision to send an entire army to Europe, not just a corps.

3) Establishment of a military mission and massive Lend Lease to train and equip such an army under American supervision.

4) An amazing performance by Brazilian forces in Italy that grabs the world's attention and creates the narrative that just as WWI was America's entry into great power politics, so does WWII for Brazil. This is not actually realistic for anyone who understand the world, but this is public perception.

5) Brazil agrees that some of its forces will remain in Europe for occupation duties. Perhaps even that America transfers a small amount of its German occupation zone to Brazil.

6) As a result of Brazilian performance in 1944, people in the US government other than FDR seriously consider Brazil as a true partner for the US in Latin America and elsewhere. Combined US-Brazilian plans are made for postwar Latin America.

7) The US government finally gets London to support its plans to include Brazil in the future Security Council. Based on US insistence, the popular image of Brazilian war performance, and the desire to retain Brazilian troops in Europe to ease burden on Britain, Churchill finally agrees.

8) After intense badgering by the US, Stalin reluctantly agrees to Brazilian participation, but only after some concession by Britain and the US - perhaps more Soviet Republics in the General Assembly.

This is the best I can come up. Realistically, it's probably not enough. Brazil would need to field significant forces and be able to keep them in the field itself without America bankrolling them. To do that, we probably need a POD that leads to Brazil being a much more significant power in terms of economy and prosperity; perhaps going back to WWI era if not even further.

 

[TFSmith121]

Argentina did not have any formal alliances until the Rio Treaty in '47

Not only that, but IIRC around that time Argentina was still allied with the UK. So no wonder why Churchill would get pissed at FDR for suggesting Brazil. On the other hand - for much of the early 20th century there was talk of the ABC powers (Argentina, Brazil, and Chile). If an alliance of sorts between those three could be formalized - an early *Mercosur, perhaps? - that would be interesting to see. In that case, as one unit all three could part of the UNSC (and thus rotate between those three or a consensus candidate of all three).

Argentina did not have any formal alliances until the Rio Treaty in '47; the UK was not a participant, obviously.

Best,

 

[juanml82]

Argentina did not have any formal alliances until the Rio Treaty in '47; the UK was not a participant, obviously.

Best,

No, of course. But, informally, Argentina was a British ally/satellite, at least until the end of WWII and the decline of the British Empire.

 

[TFSmith121]

Not to the point of joining the allies until 1945, however

No, of course. But, informally, Argentina was a British ally/satellite, at least until the end of WWII and the decline of the British Empire.

Not to the point of joining the allies until 1945, however. Calling Argentina an ally or satellite of the UK is not something many Argentines of my aquaintances would ever accept.

An economic partner, based on Argentina wheat and beef going to the UK and British technology to Argentina? Sure.

But that is not an alliance, formal or informal, by a long shot.

Best,