For one of my TLs (12mtm) I like to introduce new events, so a continent spanning conflict in South America has my attention.
Peru invades Chile in August 1975
- Thread starter Eldritch Po l i t b u ro
- Start date
For one of my TLs (12mtm) I like to introduce new events, so a continent spanning conflict in South America has my attention.
Nixon really liked Brazil, to an almost unhealthy degree. They're block would have had US backing, because no one else in south America could get the US's attention like they could. Cuba and its doctrine of brush fires wouldn't be interested in a major war kicking off on the continent. They wanted lots and lots of little fires that the US was distracted putting out all over the world, so much so that they were willing to annoy the Russians in order to get what they wanted. The Chinese might be interested, but mostly they were focused closer to home. That said if push came to shove they would be much more acceptable as a partner then the Russians to the argentines. Especially with their growing connections to the western defense and industrial sectors. From the seventies into the eighties the west was pushing their tech at the Chinese in the hopes of weaning them away from the Russians as a counter block, something that started with Nixon and just kept on happening no matter what the Chinese did. I'm just not certain that the Chinese could afford to fund a proxy war at this time, they weren't the giant they are today. That said they might be able too, I don't know enough to say for sure and they would be much more acceptable to the Europeans then the Russians. Which leads us neatly to the Russians. They had tentacles all over the place, the KGB was good at finding exploitable politicians and using them for all they were worth. They also were trying to push the Peruvians firmly into their corner in order to win over a toe hold on the continent to counter balance the US's European and Asian allies, especially the turks. Cuba just wasn't enough of a distraction for them, especially with the way the Cubans kept pumping up revolts in Africa to keep the us distracted. They would be very interested in putting some solid boots on the ground in south America, but if it was an argentine lead block they would have less of an inroads. If the Peruvians were in the lead, that's a whole nother story.
You need an earlier POD then 75 in order to get that alliance system up and working, but that's just about how I would see things breaking down. My only quibble would be Uruguay, as I don't think they would have the moxie to stand up to the Brazilians even with Argentine support. Still that alliance system was where I was head with EoTA. Considering Brazil and Argentina were running nuclear programs in the seventies and eighties... yeah. Chile reacting to the snipe incident by looking for allies on the continent could be effective, especially if things continued on the same general path until the Argentines overreached in 78 resulting in general war.
My POD does start in 1965 and it would be good to have a number of totally different conflicts happen. The joke with my TL is that with Imperial Iran remaining intact post 1979 that the middle east is far calmer than OTL.
Was there any chance that this potential conflict could have happened in the late 70s to early 80s? Or was it a case of all of the critical factors occurred in or around 1975?
Was there any chance that this potential conflict could have happened in the late 70s to early 80s? Or was it a case of all of the critical factors occurred in or around 1975?
Actually pretty good. The problem with the 75 start date isn't the tension, as that was there already, but the alliance system. You need an earlier POD to establish an alliance system, not start the war. Tensions were running high across the continent and some little thing could have set it off easily. It nearly happened between Argentina and Chile multiple times in the time period you mentioned in OTL, the closest was in 78. An ambitious Junta managing to hold power for longer then usual by bringing up revanchist sentiment in Bolivia could set off an alliance race, or Peru and Ecuador posturing over their borders during the early seventies, followed by a 75 or later kick off. Another possibility would be Nixons favoring of Brazil pushing Isabel Peron to the left and having her try to use the USSR as a counter weight only to end up couped, following by her new troops couping the right wing Junta and then kicking off war to retain power. It was a real feature at that time of Argentine politics to threaten Chile whenever the political situation at home looked grim to try and raise a rally around the flag effect. That only really stopped after the Falklands. There were lots of little fights just waiting to happen, even as the various Juntas were cooperating to kill their internal enemies through CONDOR they were still posturing and threatening one another. To kick off a war once the alliances were ready, that would just take the Brazilians, or the Argentines, getting a look at the others nuclear program which could have happened at any time. That or one of the innumerable rebel groups crossing one of the borders and getting caught, leading to accusations that one nation is supporting the rebels.
There isn't a desire in Washington, or the Kremlin, to really pay attention to the region so they aren't going to be sitting on any conflict. Kissinger was famous for his disregard of the importance of the region, and Carters team wasn't any better. South America was regarded as a side show at best in the great game, utterly unimportant in the larger scheme of things. There's a reason it was the Pope who talked everyone down in 78 and not one of the super powers, and why the US was utterly ineffective at convincing the Argentines that they didn't want to have a go over the Falklands (Beyond Kirkpatrick and her constant cheerleading of the Junta). Both the KGB and the CIA were operating on minor budgets at the time, with the Cubans providing most of the KGBs on the ground muscle while the CIA tended to work with the local militaries. Both super powers had a distorted picture of the realities on the ground, which could easily lead them to making a mistake in their diplomatic signaling.
There isn't a desire in Washington, or the Kremlin, to really pay attention to the region so they aren't going to be sitting on any conflict. Kissinger was famous for his disregard of the importance of the region, and Carters team wasn't any better. South America was regarded as a side show at best in the great game, utterly unimportant in the larger scheme of things. There's a reason it was the Pope who talked everyone down in 78 and not one of the super powers, and why the US was utterly ineffective at convincing the Argentines that they didn't want to have a go over the Falklands (Beyond Kirkpatrick and her constant cheerleading of the Junta). Both the KGB and the CIA were operating on minor budgets at the time, with the Cubans providing most of the KGBs on the ground muscle while the CIA tended to work with the local militaries. Both super powers had a distorted picture of the realities on the ground, which could easily lead them to making a mistake in their diplomatic signaling.
- Peru wasn't really a Soviet client, they were far closer to the Non Aligned movement. Velasco even bought M113 APCs from the US if I recall correctly (but yeah, most other main weapons systems were Soviet in origin, plus some French jets).
- Chile would still receive US weapons in case a war broke out. However most of the disputed terrain was flat desert save a few small cities, so I doubt Chile would be able to stop an armored thrust led by T-55s, or do much damage with guerrilla warfare.
- But if Argentina tries to jump for the Beagle islands and the risk of a general regional war is too high (Bolivia or Brasil intervene), the US will intervene more directly, ensuring status quo.
- Plus the international community would sanction Peru and cripple it's economy. Velasco was not looking forward to become a Soviet client. People have to understand that Velasco was not a traditional leftist. The "Revolution of the Armed Forces" was in it's core an attempt to correct centuries-old social imbalances while preventing a full out socialist or communist revolution. Sanctions derived by a war would destroy the country either by revolution or by economic collapse.
- Which is why the attack on Chile was never materialized in the end, and when Velasco was replaced by Morales Bermudez, it was shelved entirely.
- Chile would still receive US weapons in case a war broke out. However most of the disputed terrain was flat desert save a few small cities, so I doubt Chile would be able to stop an armored thrust led by T-55s, or do much damage with guerrilla warfare.
- But if Argentina tries to jump for the Beagle islands and the risk of a general regional war is too high (Bolivia or Brasil intervene), the US will intervene more directly, ensuring status quo.
- Plus the international community would sanction Peru and cripple it's economy. Velasco was not looking forward to become a Soviet client. People have to understand that Velasco was not a traditional leftist. The "Revolution of the Armed Forces" was in it's core an attempt to correct centuries-old social imbalances while preventing a full out socialist or communist revolution. Sanctions derived by a war would destroy the country either by revolution or by economic collapse.
- Which is why the attack on Chile was never materialized in the end, and when Velasco was replaced by Morales Bermudez, it was shelved entirely.
This was in 1975, Pinochet had been in power for two years by this point.
Pinochet put forward a plan in OTL to do a land swap with Bolivia. In return for a strip of land along the Chile-Peru border giving Bolivia sea access, Chile would acquire a portion of Bolivia equal in size along their mutual border. Needless to say, Peru did not like this plan. Might have been interested if it happened though.
Why would Peru object as this could create a buffer between Peru and Chile? Were they worried they would be put under pressure to likewise do so.
They were against the idea because the area along the Peru/Chile border that would have been given to Bolivia was on land which, though ruled by Chile, was still claimed by Peru.
Not in 1975. No production and test launches only started, IIRR, in July '75.
Plus even if the US was willing to ship in materiel this was 1975; was Chile worth endangering Détente for? Plus the Soviets could also ship in supplies, potentially leading to an escalation with US naval action, blockade and more. The Cuban crisis was barely a dozen years before, the humiliating defeat in Vietnam two and Nixon's pardoning barely one; the anti-war and counter-culture movements were still strong and there's likely to be a major public relations issue when the US media starts talking about Operation Colombo and repression of protests in Chile by DINA.
Will Ford think the country is worth the trouble? Will he survive the assassination attempts of '75?
Ford will have to respond to this forcefully, its one of the bedrock principles of American foreign policy in that time period (and to some extent extending to today, the Monroe Doctrine is a very real thing in American foreign policy circles. There's a reason why, beyond human rights abuses, Nicaragua is being beaten up on the international stage) that no one but the US is allowed to get a foothold in south America. Its the reason why the cold war presidents were so supportive of the Junta. Even Carter, who thought they were a moral nightmare, didn't do the one thing that would have really inconvenienced the Juntas (Cutting off their American money flow). All he did was cut off the weapons flowing to them from American sources. Peru going full communist, with the support of the USSR, is the one thing that no American president can allow to continue. They have to stomp on it hard, even with all of the other issues that the US was having. They wouldn't put boots on the ground, but you can bet that the weapons tap is turned on to full and they will fight the communists to the last drop of south American blood. Peru going communist is a disaster for Détente, and a triumph of the KGB over the other soviet power centers, which is going to produce interesting results. But its one that's clearly the fault of the USSR and that's going to cause issues for relations between the two blocks. I wouldn't be surprised if in return the turks became a missile base again, and a lot of the climb down between the two powers doesn't happen.
So yes, Ford and more importantly Kissinger, would think that it is critical to respond to this provocation as strongly as they think they can get away with. Its not the country's which are involved which are important to them, but the principle. If it looks like the communists are getting a foothold on the American continent and the administration isn't responding... that's going to be political sucide for the entire republican party. As for the assassination attempt, wasn't that something of a joke? untrained girl with a pistol, one who didn't even know how to make sure the pistol was charged and safety off, trying to take a shot at ford from a ways away. Or am I thinking of a different attempt?
Deleted member 96212
You're mixing it up. There were two assassination attempts on Ford, one by Lynette Fromme and the other by Sara Jane Moore. Fromme either forgot to slide the rack of the pistol back to chamber a round or purposefully didn't do so in order to avoid actually killing Ford. Moore was the one who was shooting from a distance, but missed by only five inches.