Challenge: Have All Of Latin America And The Caribbean Undergo Massive Conflict During The Cold War

Or making the 1960s a lot worse.

The Lost Decade is still my best bet for something along these lines (it's still the Cold War), personally. Even making the 1960s a lot worse is still going to leave some gaps - Costa Rica being an obvious one (and at that point nothing can be done to dislodge Costa Rica from that status - it's a special snowflake due to specific historical circumstances), as would Venezuela (petrostate wealth insulated Venezuela from the rest of Latin America until the 1970s, when things got crazy due to the 1973-4 oil boom) and even Chile (and ITTL with LatAm going through major convulsions, the Christian Democrats will ensure that their country remain a stable oasis of democracy, which even the Chilean Left would recognize that stability is more important than bold experimentation) and Paraguay under Stroessner (his dictatorship was probably the most secure of all the Latin American military dictatorships and thus would remain durable for this period). Everywhere else? I can grant the remainder being fair game, I guess.

But the Lost Decade was one which touched the entire continent to some degree (except Cuba) and made things a lot worse. As a result it's easy to ramp up the Lost Decade into something like Latin America's Great Depression and fulfill a Cold War-era storyline. With a Lost Decade POD, the Colombian armed conflict could be so bad that it could infect its neighbors (even making Venezuela a battleground) and interact with all sorts of other crazy shit in Peru and Bolivia (imagine FARC mixed up with either the MRTA or the Shining Path and things would get wicked bad indeed) and make Central America much worse than OTL. Combine that with the incompetence that was Miguel de la Madrid's handling of Mexico and his predecessor's absolutely insane attempt to defend the peso "like a dog" which backfired horrifically (and hence the beginning of the Lost Decade) and Mexico would thus be fair game for its share of revolutionaries and civil war. Brazil ending up under Médici and Costa e Silva-esque hardliners instead of someone like Figuereido (and hence no democratic transition) could potentially start interesting as part of a regional effect. And that's just for starters in terms of setting Latin America back several decades. Of course that would mean that the US would be interested in backing the weak newly-democratic governments, as well as the Central American military dictatorships and the Nicaraguan contras (the latter two OTL); the Soviet Union, despite whatever the propaganda machine can come up with, would have its priorities elsewhere as it deals more with problems back home. France, however, could have some interest in this region, and if only to ensure the security of its overseas regions in the Caribbean and in Guyane. The global economy would be absolutely fucked up, both in terms of the financial markets (where almost all LatAm countries have stopped paying off their debts) and in terms of the multinationals' subsidiaries in the region. Miami becomes more of the de facto unofficial capital of Latin America than it is (was?) OTL. Stuff that would be the object of nightmares, especially with the international Reagan/Thatcher context and the democratic revolutions in Eastern Europe - makes for an interesting contrast, n'est-ce pas?
 
The Lost Decade is still my best bet for something along these lines (it's still the Cold War), personally. Even making the 1960s a lot worse is still going to leave some gaps - Costa Rica being an obvious one (and at that point nothing can be done to dislodge Costa Rica from that status - it's a special snowflake due to specific historical circumstances), as would Venezuela (petrostate wealth insulated Venezuela from the rest of Latin America until the 1970s, when things got crazy due to the 1973-4 oil boom) and even Chile (and ITTL with LatAm going through major convulsions, the Christian Democrats will ensure that their country remain a stable oasis of democracy, which even the Chilean Left would recognize that stability is more important than bold experimentation) and Paraguay under Stroessner (his dictatorship was probably the most secure of all the Latin American military dictatorships and thus would remain durable for this period). Everywhere else? I can grant the remainder being fair game, I guess.

But the Lost Decade was one which touched the entire continent to some degree (except Cuba) and made things a lot worse. As a result it's easy to ramp up the Lost Decade into something like Latin America's Great Depression and fulfill a Cold War-era storyline. With a Lost Decade POD, the Colombian armed conflict could be so bad that it could infect its neighbors (even making Venezuela a battleground) and interact with all sorts of other crazy shit in Peru and Bolivia (imagine FARC mixed up with either the MRTA or the Shining Path and things would get wicked bad indeed) and make Central America much worse than OTL. Combine that with the incompetence that was Miguel de la Madrid's handling of Mexico and his predecessor's absolutely insane attempt to defend the peso "like a dog" which backfired horrifically (and hence the beginning of the Lost Decade) and Mexico would thus be fair game for its share of revolutionaries and civil war. Brazil ending up under Médici and Costa e Silva-esque hardliners instead of someone like Figuereido (and hence no democratic transition) could potentially start interesting as part of a regional effect. And that's just for starters in terms of setting Latin America back several decades. Of course that would mean that the US would be interested in backing the weak newly-democratic governments, as well as the Central American military dictatorships and the Nicaraguan contras (the latter two OTL); the Soviet Union, despite whatever the propaganda machine can come up with, would have its priorities elsewhere as it deals more with problems back home. France, however, could have some interest in this region, and if only to ensure the security of its overseas regions in the Caribbean and in Guyane. The global economy would be absolutely fucked up, both in terms of the financial markets (where almost all LatAm countries have stopped paying off their debts) and in terms of the multinationals' subsidiaries in the region. Miami becomes more of the de facto unofficial capital of Latin America than it is (was?) OTL. Stuff that would be the object of nightmares, especially with the international Reagan/Thatcher context and the democratic revolutions in Eastern Europe - makes for an interesting contrast, n'est-ce pas?

I guess. Though I’d imagine that the 60’s would be a good place if things get more fucked up. That wasn’t a stable time for Latin America either.
 
I guess. Though I’d imagine that the 60’s would be a good place if things get more fucked up. That wasn’t a stable time for Latin America either.

True, I'd assume. But as far as getting additional Soviet support for Latin America, that's going to go kaput once Brezhnev takes over - and even then the Kremlin was a little bit leery with what Khrushchev was up to, since he had a tendency to do big boasts and get carried away. Thus, in the case of Latin America, the USSR can genuinely claim that it's not their fault. (Now, Cuba, OTOH - having a Trujillo vs. Fidel matchup would be interesting, that's for sure, but even then not everyone would be up for it, and Stroessner would just politely shake his head at all the confusion while still keeping Paraguay under his grip.)
 
True, I'd assume. But as far as getting additional Soviet support for Latin America, that's going to go kaput once Brezhnev takes over - and even then the Kremlin was a little bit leery with what Khrushchev was up to, since he had a tendency to do big boasts and get carried away. Thus, in the case of Latin America, the USSR can genuinely claim that it's not their fault. (Now, Cuba, OTOH - having a Trujillo vs. Fidel matchup would be interesting, that's for sure, but even then not everyone would be up for it, and Stroessner would just politely shake his head at all the confusion while still keeping Paraguay under his grip.)

I always thought that an oil embargo would shake things up. Though that could be just a random idea from mine...
 
I always thought that an oil embargo would shake things up.

Except that for the oil-producing countries (Venezuela, Mexico, IDK if Ecuador was producing any during this time) the '70s was actually the oil boom. Which was made the Lost Decade all the more tragic IOTL since it was the oil-producing countries first who could not service their debts once oil prices collapsed towards the '80s.
 
Except that for the oil-producing countries (Venezuela, Mexico, IDK if Ecuador was producing any during this time) the '70s was actually the oil boom. Which was made the Lost Decade all the more tragic IOTL since it was the oil-producing countries first who could not service their debts once oil prices collapsed towards the '80s.

Maybe the 60’s if America supports Israel in 1967?
 
If the FARC or Sendero Luminoso managed to take over their respective country or countries, a border dispute with the Brazilian Junta ('64-'85) could escalate into a Chaco-war style conventional conflict. However, I don't know if there are plausible PODs to create a communist takeover in Colombia or Peru.
 
If the FARC or Sendero Luminoso managed to take over their respective country or countries, a border dispute with the Brazilian Junta ('64-'85) could escalate into a Chaco-war style conventional conflict. However, I don't know if there are plausible PODs to create a communist takeover in Colombia or Peru.
Peru had a Pro-Moscu Dicatorship in the Late 60 early 70 by Juan Velasco Alvarado (58th President of Peru) 1st President of the Revolutionary Government of the Armed Forces,

Miami becomes more of the de facto unofficial capital of Latin America than it is (was?) OTL.?

Was. Miami is no longer attractive for Latinoamericans elites, they are looking inside the region and other countries as USA is no longer friendly to their interest since more or less Bush era
 
If the FARC or Sendero Luminoso managed to take over their respective country or countries, a border dispute with the Brazilian Junta ('64-'85) could escalate into a Chaco-war style conventional conflict. However, I don't know if there are plausible PODs to create a communist takeover in Colombia or Peru.

That is if FARC can be if any success that is.
 
Top