Peru invades Chile in August 1975

[Eldritch Po l i t b u ro]

If Velasco had invaded Chile in early August of 1975, perhaps with Cuban and Soviet backing, what would've happened?
Could Peru have regained lost territory?
Could Pinochet have been overthrown?
How would their armed forces compare against one another?
How would their intelligence services fare?
How would their economies and public resolve hold up in the face of shortages and casualties?
To what extent would the US state department, military, and CIA be involved in backing Pinochet during a war?
What ramifications would the conflict have for the rest of South America, and the Cold War in general?
Could it potentially have expanded into a wider regional war?

 

[Stonepile]

Full blown war between Peru and Chile in the 70's would have been a Sh*t show as two mountainous countries with harsh climates and capitals far from the border duke it out to say nothing if other South American dictators get pulled into it.

 

[SandroPertini98]

Pinochet feared very much a Peruvian invasion and thought Velasco could arrive easily until Santisgo and take the Chilean capital if necessary, thanks his air superiority and Soviet tanks army, so my bet is on Lima's boys this round.

 

[UCB79]

Would the US have let such a war happen, let alone go on for very long? Granted, in 1975(unlike now)the
U.S. public was wary of foreign intervention, Vietnam only having been concluded two years previously.

 

[raharris1973]

Would the US have let such a war happen, let alone go on for very long? Granted, in 1975(unlike now)the
U.S. public was wary of foreign intervention, Vietnam only having been concluded two years previously.

Would anybody else in South America be intervening directly on the Chilean side?

 

[UCB79]

Would anybody else in South America be intervening directly on the Chilean side?

Maybe(gulp)Cuba?

 

[Deleted member 96212]

Full blown war between Peru and Chile in the 70's would have been a Sh*t show as two mountainous countries with harsh climates and capitals far from the border duke it out to say nothing if other South American dictators get pulled into it.

This sounds like the Italian Front of WWI. Constant back and forth over terrible terrain.

 

[The Lethargic Lett]

Peru wouldn't even need much direct Cuban and Soviet backing in a one-on-one fight. Pinochet and the Chilean military staff privately admitted that they would absolutely get their shit pushed in if it came down to a war with Peru at the time, due to their northern neighbour's much stronger military preparedness and domestic support. Now, it would get hairier if the United States gets involved on the side of Chile, as it would likely devolve into a proxy war from then on out, where the Peruvians would need Soviet support. If it does come down to a proxy war, the Chileans probably win with the support (and close proximity) of the United States and other Latin American dictatorships. But if, for whatever reason, the United States adopts a non-interventionist policy, then it's probably a relatively quick war in the Peruvian's favour, largely bereft of ideology besides nationalism and revanchism, followed by an extended anti-Peruvian guerilla campaign in Arica y Parinacota and Tarapaca.

 

[Stonepile]

Pinochet feared very much a Peruvian invasion and thought Velasco could arrive easily until Santisgo and take the Chilean capital if necessary, thanks his air superiority and Soviet tanks army, so my bet is on Lima's boys this round.

Stinger missiles and U.S. SAM's say hello along with whatever material the U.S. can ship in.

Would the US have let such a war happen, let alone go on for very long? Granted, in 1975(unlike now)the
U.S. public was wary of foreign intervention, Vietnam only having been concluded two years previously.

Direct foreign intervention the U.S. would still be willing to pump any amount of arms into Pinochet's regime to keep it afloat and nobody would complain. The fact is that American's would probably green light any intervention short of boots on the ground at this point air support or naval support would probably be fine as long as nobody is getting killed in large numbers and it doesn't seem like the U.S. is getting overtly involved to the American public like in Vietnam.

 

[raharris1973]

Maybe(gulp)Cuba?

Well sure - that is considered in the OP. I wonder if a corps of Chilean left-wing exiles would fight on the Peruvian side too. But I was thinking about closer countries, like Brazil, Bolivia, Argentina. The other South American neighbors of both Chile and Peru are more "right-wing" than Peru, so that could mean more ideological sympathy with Chile. But, Bolivia and Argentina had historic territorial disputes with Chile also.

 

[juanml82]

Well sure - that is considered in the OP. I wonder if a corps of Chilean left-wing exiles would fight on the Peruvian side too. But I was thinking about closer countries, like Brazil, Bolivia, Argentina. The other South American neighbors of both Chile and Peru are more "right-wing" than Peru, so that could mean more ideological sympathy with Chile. But, Bolivia and Argentina had historic territorial disputes with Chile also.

Bolivia and Argentina may jump on a nearly defeated Chile, but that also depends on their internal politics and their economic capabilities to wage such a war. The hawks in the Argentine military (specially the Navy) would have loved to have a go at Chile, but when would they do that? During the impopular term of Isabel Peron (and would the 1970s officers respect a female Commander in Chief during wartime?)? At the start of the military dictatorship? Years later if the war becomes protracted?

 

[GSpectre]

The Cubans were supporting the Shining Path rebels, so the only outside support that the Peruvians could have called on was direct or indirect soviet intervention. That would have been like waving a red flag in front of a bull, every misdeed of the Pinochet regime would have been pushed to the side as the CIA and American military rushed to the Chileans defense. Say what you will about the US's south American policy (Believe you me I can say allot, most of it extremely negative.) but the one thing that has been consistent is that America does not like other world powers messing around in what it considers its back yard. In the context of the cold war... yeah. That said I seriously doubt any American ground forces would be used, American aid would come in the form of material support, something that the Chileans would badly need in order to fend of the Peruvian military in that time period. The Peruvian army was bigger, better equipped, and not under sanctions in that time period and it showed... that said, I would actually expect the Peruvians to end up losing so long as the Chileans can fend off the first thrust of the conflict, the one advantage the Chileans had was a more professional military, and if the Peruvians had soviet support? The Chilean military deficit would have been corrected in short order.

Pinochet very well could have been overthrown, especially if the intial stages of the war went as poorly as I imagine it would have for the Chileans. If he was you can expect it would have been the Air Force or the Navy who would have ended up in charge, not a leftist or a civilian government. My own money would be on the air force ending up on the top of the heap. They were technologically deficient, but what they had was serviceable (Hunters and F-5s for fighters and Dragonflys for ground attack) so they very well could have ended up winning victories in the air while the army struggled. The Su-22 is a notoriously shit fighter while the F-5 and Hunter are good but obsolete, plus the Peruvian Air force has a history of struggling against anyone who can come within shouting range of them (Ask the Ecuadorians about that...) When you compare that to the ground forces... yeah. The Peruvian army would have been vastly superior to the Chileans, especially in the realm of armor, while their navys were just about comparable.

As for a regional shift? The Peruvians would not have been looked on kindly by just about any of the regimes in place at that time especially if they had been taking soviet aid. The Bolivians might be willing to jump in on their side, but that's going to depend on who is in charge of that country on any particular week, and how well they do in the opening phases of the war. If they do join, they're going to get their asses kicked by the Chileans who would badly need a swift victory. The Bolivian army was in even worse shape then the Chilean one, and was notoriously poorly trained and unstable. The Chileans had a much more developed intelligence reach, aided by their partners in Condor, and that would have allowed them to sway the other south American nations to their side given time. The joker in the deck would be just what Ecuador would do from the Peruvian perspective. They are going to have to keep a lot of their military home because the Ecuadorian's have a long standing bone to pick with them, and if they think they can get away with it would be very willing to take uncle Sams coin to finish their grudge.

With all that said heres how I think a war would go. The Peruvians would be wining the initial stages, their greater numbers and their better armor would have made a difference in the initial push. The Chileans would fall back fighting a delaying action and screaming their heads off for support from the Americans. If the Chileans manage to slow the Peruvians down, and given the terrain I think that's very likely, then the Peruvians lose in the long run. The Chilean military is re equipped via the Americans, and the monetary aid tap is turned to full, while the Peruvians discover that the soviets cannot provide the direct financial aid they need and all of their loans from the bank of the Americas and the like comes due while the international banking system tells them that the remittances from japan cant be processed cutting off their foreign currency reserves. Things settle into a stale mate for a bit before the Peruvians discover they are in deep political trouble, unable to trade with their major trading partners and lacking the fall back that the Japanese remittances gave them. The Chileans probably undergo a second coupe once the situation stabilizes, but that military regime is in a much stronger position then Pinochet was. They make some concessions to the Americans in exchange for the aid they get, but their economy gets stronger as their major trade partner is squarely behind them, leaving the underlying political system the same. End result is after a year or two the Peruvians collapse politically allowing the Chileans to win. the entire thing is later written up as an object lesson in not pissing off the people who hold the purse strings, as the Peruvians needed the Japanese money in order to remain solvent.

 

[UCB79]

Or would all of South America be set afire, in what would
have almost been a 1970’s, Southern version of WWI?

 

[Falecius]

Or would all of South America be set afire, in what would
have almost been a 1970’s, Southern version of WWI?

I don't think that the USAmericans would even remotely allow that.
While 1975 is probably about the hardest year in the past century to get the US directly engaged in a significant military confrontation abroad, they would probably step in, in full force if needed, to prevent a general war in South America. The consequences of inaction would appear too dire to Washington.
However, I think I missed the part of South American history when Peru joined the Warsaw Pact. Why do you guys believe that the Soviet Union at this point would be willing, not to mention able, to openly support Peru in a conflict with Chile in any meaningful way?
Now, I can see a scenario where, IF the Soviets stay the hell out initially, and the Peruvians are successful while the US dither, things spiral out, meaning that Peruvian victories induce, say, Argentina and Bolivia to join to settle old scores; then that creates an opening for Soviet presence which the US would be hell-bent to impede (and Brazil would very much be on the same page). But that would lead to a major war where both superpowers are to a degree involved, with all that it entails in terms of nuclear brinkmanship. Would turn out a prolonged global crisis nobody wanted.

 

[GSpectre]

While there is sufficient cause, everyone has a beef with someone, there isn't the alliance system which would allow a WWI style fight to break out. The Argentinians might want to get involved but internal issues would stay their hands, especially with the US leaning on them to keep out of it or come down on the Chileans side. Uraguay, Paraguay, and Brazil are mostly internally focused, Brazil's probable involvement would be selling their new arms to the Chileans. Bolivia would want to get involved but they were unstable and weaker and way too coupe prone for their leadership to risk sending the army into actual conflict. Colombia was dealing with the beginings of its civil war, and the demands of the US, while Venezuala would take one look at the situation and just say nope. They wouldn't see any advantage in getting adventurous, especially given everyone expected them to become latin Americas success story at this point in time. Equador… would probably sit back and laugh at the Peruvians while moving their army around the border and asking if perhaps it might be time to redress their issues diplomatically. They might jump in with the right incentive, but they're more likely to just use their army as a stalking horse and reap the rewards from the americans by keeping half the Peruvian army out of the war without risking anything. The only people who might come to the Peruvians defense would be the various leftist revolts going on during that time frame and even then... they tended to be Cuban sponsored and the Cuban doctrine about how to deal with the US would keep them trying to sit on their revolutionary's before the US decided to end their revolutionary problem by cutting off the head they were facing. The Cubans want the US distracted propping up half a hundred brush fires, not looking south and seeing an inferno that threatens them being fueled by a dinky little island just off their coast.

The US has too much economic clout for any of the south American regimes to risk irritating them overly much. Too many of them depend on IMF, Bank of America, and USAID to keep the regime in power to jump to the other side. The soviets had effective intel and political influence operations, but they lacked boots on the ground and the monitary strength to really break the regimes away from Washington. Instead they tended to promote third way political agendas with local disagreements with Washington providing the friction they needed. The lessons of Allande were well understood down there, and having that happen to you while your in the middle of a shooting war isn't something even the craziest of the juntas would risk.

 

[juanml82]

The US has too much economic clout for any of the south American regimes to risk irritating them overly much. Too many of them depend on IMF, Bank of America, and USAID to keep the regime in power to jump to the other side.

Yes, but that didn't stop the Argentine Juntas from developing a secret nuclear weapons program (and keeping it hidden from the USA), almost going to war against Chile in 1978, getting cozy with the USSR when it came to trade, harassing and stalking US diplomatic personal to the point of breaking international law on occasion, and invading the Falklands.
*Given the internal opportunity*, the Argentine Navy back then would have no problem in crossing the Strait of Magellan guns blazing while American diplomats wonder why their roundabout warnings didn't stop them.

 

[GSpectre]

Yes, but that didn't stop the Argentine Juntas from developing a secret nuclear weapons program (and keeping it hidden from the USA), almost going to war against Chile in 1978, getting cozy with the USSR when it came to trade, harassing and stalking US diplomatic personal to the point of breaking international law on occasion, and invading the Falklands.
*Given the internal opportunity*, the Argentine Navy back then would have no problem in crossing the Strait of Magellan guns blazing while American diplomats wonder why their roundabout warnings didn't stop them.

All true, but also at a time when the Argentines had a lot of clout as anti comunist fighters, especially with certain factions in the republican party. Kirkpatrick alone probably was cheer leading them right up until Haug sat on her, and beyond, during the Falklands. As for the nukes? They were hardly alone, a lot of 'US Allies' during the cold war were looking to develop their own nuclear deterrent, including Brazil in south america. Pakistan and Isreal kinda showed the way on that. As for the diplomats? The Chileans were worse then them. All of the juntas tended to treat the diplomatic core like shit, and disregard international law at whim. During an active shooting war where one side is being supported by the USSR the president et al are going to sit on the Argentinians hard to keep them to mind their own business. Mind you it might come at a cost later, as they attempt to take their due and the Chileans say no, but they aren't going to do anything during the war. Might make for a more general war in 81 when the Junta decides to go after the Chileans for 'services rendered' thinking they have the backing of the americans rather then attempting to go for the Falklands.

The 78 almost war, and the Falklands both sprang from the same imperitive. The Junta was losing power and wanted an outside enemy they could beat quickly to reaffirm their position as the top dog. Reading the Argentine estimates of a war with Chile in 78 is... yeah, that's not pleasant reading. they were just as delusional as they were when they convinced themselves that Britain wouldn't fight back over the Falklands. Different Juntas same mistake. When there's a war on its going to be a completely different set of calculations, especially given the US is going to be pissed about the USSR getting a foothold in south America and not being shy about letting everyone know it. The Juntas are all going to be walking softly so as not to attract attention under those circumstances.

 

[La Rouge Beret]

This is a really interesting question and does anyone have links to the relevant orders of battle for either side? Why was the Peruvian army more well regarded than their Chilean counterparts?

Overall, I think this scenario would make for a great war game session.

 

[GSpectre]

I can't answer with an exact OOB, the closest I have is from my 80's copy of janes. The reason why the Peruvians were more highly regarded though is that they were openly trading with the USSR for military equipment while the Chileans were under an embargo. So the Peruvians had more modern gear, t-54s and -55s to the Chileans M-4 Shermans, M-41 Bulldogs, and AMX-13s, not to mention in the air the Chileans were fielding f-5s and Hunters against Mirage 5s and Su-22s. Just about the only advantage that the Chileans had was that their army was considered better trained.

One of the quick refs I've found to be pretty accurate in English on SA air forces
Chile in 78: www.aeroflight.co.uk/waf/americas/chile/AirForce/Chile-af_historical_orbat_1978.htm
Peru in 82: http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/waf/americas/peru/AirForce/Peru-af_historical_orbat_1982.htm

 

[Blacklister]

So this is the situation of Latin America and who's who by 1975:
1. Mexico, first of all, was ruled by the monopolistic Institutional Revolutionary Party ever since the 20s, but, too a certain extent, was pro-US. Too far away from South America.
2. The Central American nations (Northern Triangle and Nicaragua) were too small in both size and population, and were constantly vulnerable to proxy wars.
3. Cuba, of course, was staunchly communist and invested heavily in communist revolutions worldwide. They were surely anti-US and pro-USSR.
4. Don't know much about Haiti or the Dominican Republic, but both had their strongmen (Duvalier and Trujillo). Unsure about the rest of the Caribbean.
5. Costa Rica abolished its military after 1948 and has held consistent democratic elections ever since. Definitely pro-US.
6. Panama had been ruled by drug lord Manuel Noriega for 7 years, and had a complicated relationship with the US.
7. Colombia was torn apart by a civil war run by communists, anarchists, drug lords, etc, and although pro-US, they were in a domestic crisis.
8. Venezuela was surprisingly pretty prosperous, I'd say more so then its neighbors Colombia or Brazil; they had vast supplies of oil that made them rich. Pro-US.
9. Ecuador had been ruled several times by various military governments, each with their own interests and forms of relations with the US.
10. Brazil was the largest country by far, both size and population wise, and had the largest military, with an abundance of resources from the Amazon. Military junta but pro-US.
11. Paraguay was a pariah state with a dictator akin to Kim Jong Un and Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow. Most paranoid country in Latin America for sure. Pro-US.
12. Uruguay had the lowest population in all of Latin America (even lower than US territory Puerto Rico) and didn't want in any way to get involved in a foreign conflict. Pro-US.
13. Bolivia had the highest number of coups out of all Latin American countries, and was the most vulnerable to coups out of all Latin American countries. Each thought differently.
14. Argentina was just 1 year away from another military dictatorship, and the people tired of Peronist crony capitalism. By now the government was anti-USSR and pro-US.
15. Right-wing Chile under Pinochet and left-wing Peru under Velasco were on opposite sides of the spectrum. If not later, they would certainly go to war sooner.

While there is sufficient cause, everyone has a beef with someone, there isn't the alliance system which would allow a WWI style fight to break out.

First of all, Peru and Bolivia had vivid memories of the War of the Pacific and how they lost to the superior Chilean navy. Bolivia lost its entire coastline and hasn't really recovered ever since. Argentina and Chile had a bone to pick for centuries, even before they were independent, when they were still under Spanish rule (Chile was part of the Viceroyalty of Peru, Argentina was part of the Viceroyalty of Rio de la Plata, both were separate political entities), and both wanted control over Patagonia (in the end, Argentina got the better share, although the southernmost tip of South America, Cape Horn, still went to Chile). Bolivia had lost the Chaco region to Paraguay during the 1930s (even though their military was larger and better-equipped, they knew nothing about the region's geography, and the Paraguayans were more motivated), and that also dealt a great blow to Bolivian national pride (no coastline, no Chaco region, no Acre, they had lost almost half their territory from independence until WWII). Brazil and Argentina, natural enemies from the start, obviously competed for dominance over the continent, and influence over disputed Uruguay and vulnerable Paraguay. With Colombia and Venezuela, you have two countries with pretty much equal proportions of European, African, and Amerindian influence, you have two countries that didn't want to get involved in the affairs of other nations in South America, yet you have two countries who not only get in trouble with the United States quite often but you also have two countries with constant population exchange. I'd put it this way: It would most likely be Brazilian-led bloc with Ecuador, Chile and Paraguay against an Argentine-led bloc with Peru, Bolivia, and Uruguay. Colombia and Venezuela would be neutral outsiders. How the United States, Europe, Cuba, the Soviet Union, and China would view this situation I don't know, but this is my best idea of an "alliance system."