Socialist Brazil

[wkwillis]

The communists take over in Brazil in the thirties and form a third center of communism to compete with Russia and China. This is a softer, Cuban type. No megacides. Also, no constant harassment by America because this is before the anticommunist movement took over after WWII. Roosevelt would be happy for the US to deficit spend and build up our armaments, but the conservative opposition wasn't about to let that happen, so no feud with the US.
They allow all the Jews of Europe to immigrate and live there starting in 1936, and jumpstart industrialization with the eight million refugees added to the existing 37 million population of the time. They also get some other immigrants who think Russia is insane and cold. Perhaps they get refugee socialists from Russia whom the Russia communists let out as a courtesy to one of their few friends.
The Brazilians get involved in minor border wars with their neighbors and win them all, annexing Uruguay, Paraguay and the entire Amazon drainage basin from Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, and Columbia. This makes them unpopular in Latin America, like they care. They have civil rights for Indians enshrined in the constitution so they win easily in the border wars.
The hydroelectric, mineral, agricultural potential (they don't collectivise), and hydrocarbon resources give them the basis of industrialisation. After that it is education and investment. With a huge market of fifty million in 1940 (after the wars) they just gradually start going, especially after the commodity price jumps of the war years combines with the newly educated population.
With big hydroelectric capacity and hydrogen production from electrolysis for fertilisers, they produce lots of heavy water and team up with the Canadians for Candu type reactor designs for the coastal cities of Montevideo, Sao Paulo, Rio De Janiero, etc. Those were the best reactors for the fifties and sixties before the development of centrifuges changed the economics.

 

[Raymann]

Well if they're communists how can they have such a good economy?

 

[Earling]

It does beg the question whether Communists can take over a country without "megacides". Surely at best there would be significant and quite possibly hostile resistance to the process? Removing the reasonably entrenched landed elites without bloodshed seems impossible.

While im not sure how much foreign investment and debt was in Brazil in the thirties but there probably wouldn't be much desire to just write it off and forget about it given the depression at the time. (Assuming the usual line of revolutionary governments not honouring their predecessors debts)

Why would they offer all the Jews in Europe land to settle? How would they make the journey and where would they live once they arrived. What would they do once they arrived? How would the populace appreciate it when 8 million foreigners descend upon them out of the blue? How will they feel when food prices etc rise due to higher demand etc?

How on top of this can they begin to industrialise? Do they have the capital and expertise to industrialise beyond what they did? Given there will almost certainly be little foreign investment they shall have to finance it themselves. Given the decline of the coffee trade what shall this be paid for with? Beyond the Communist method of squeezing your populations food supply so millions die of famine and selling that what great new export can Brazil produce?

The industrial reforms under the Estado Novo are impressive enough. It seems difficult to see how they can be much improved.

On top of all this there is a drive to increase education? Surely this just cannot be afforded, something will have to give.

 

[Othniel]

Brazil had at least 50 million people at that time, two of their cities would grow to be overpopulated blobs on the world population maps. You are most likely going to see an explolitation of the resources already there.

 

[Mr_ Bondoc]

Some Things To Consider...

-First, consider the fact that even if there are no planned megacides, you have the Americans in the Northern Hemisphere all to willing to invoke the Monroe Doctrine. As such, you also have the British in Argentina who will not be too pleased with a socialist state next door to one of its allies. By 1948, any socialist nation in the Western Hemisphere will be considered a threat to American national security and will be treated as such!

-Second, you have the problem of the Guarani Nhandeva, native indigenous Brazilians. Starting from 1986 until roughly 1999, children , mainly girls committed suicide due to bring attention to the plight of their people. This was mainly due to the seizure of land by Brazilian ranchers and lumber companies. In the ATL, it is certainly possible that the collectivization campaigns of the 1960s will have a similar effect.

-Also consider the problem of nuclear development. Starting in 1964, the reactors will be seen as a threat to American national security. Expect an attack by U.S. F-4 Intruders to blow up the place, whether they get U.N. approval or not.

 

[Wendell]

-First, consider the fact that even if there are no planned megacides, you have the Americans in the Northern Hemisphere all to willing to invoke the Monroe Doctrine. As such, you also have the British in Argentina who will not be too pleased with a socialist state next door to one of its allies. By 1948, any socialist nation in the Western Hemisphere will be considered a threat to American national security and will be treated as such!

-Second, you have the problem of the Guarani Nhandeva, native indigenous Brazilians. Starting from 1986 until roughly 1999, children , mainly girls committed suicide due to bring attention to the plight of their people. This was mainly due to the seizure of land by Brazilian ranchers and lumber companies. In the ATL, it is certainly possible that the collectivization campaigns of the 1960s will have a similar effect.

-Also consider the problem of nuclear development. Starting in 1964, the reactors will be seen as a threat to American national security. Expect an attack by U.S. F-4 Intruders to blow up the place, whether they get U.N. approval or not.

Yugoslvia wasn'tr seen as a threat after it broke ith the USSR. If Brazil sits in its own camp, then the U.S. might tolerate it.

 

[Mr_ Bondoc]

Big Differences....

Yugoslvia wasn'tr seen as a threat after it broke ith the USSR. If Brazil sits in its own camp, then the U.S. might tolerate it.

There are several big differences. First is the fact that Yugoslavia was in Eastern Europe, which made it seen as another Balkan state. As such, any changes in policy were considered a positive thing. Second, consider that the U.S. invaded Guatemala in 1952 after it even considered socialist policies. You had the Bay of Pigs Invasion in 1962 because the CIA was told that they could overthrow the Communist government. In 1973, the CIA held General Agusto Pinochet overthrow the government of Salvador Allende in Chile, just because he would be the first elected socialist government in the region.

Second, you have a nation that now has no major allies in the United Nations. You have no support from the United States and Great Britain, and the Soviet Union...

 

[Wendell]

There are several big differences. First is the fact that Yugoslavia was in Eastern Europe, which made it seen as another Balkan state. As such, any changes in policy were considered a positive thing. Second, consider that the U.S. invaded Guatemala in 1952 after it even considered socialist policies. You had the Bay of Pigs Invasion in 1962 because the CIA was told that they could overthrow the Communist government. In 1973, the CIA held General Agusto Pinochet overthrow the government of Salvador Allende in Chile, just because he would be the first elected socialist government in the region.

Second, you have a nation that now has no major allies in the United Nations. You have no support from the United States and Great Britain, and the Soviet Union...

Yes, there are differences, but they work against you too. Brazil would have ben an established Socialist state by the time the Cold War began. This was not the case in Chile, Cuba, or anywhere else. On the latter count, the U.S. wanted Castro axed partially for the fact that he unseated the U.S. pupet there, and, as it turned out, Cuba as cradled by the U.S.S.R. This, again, would not be the case with Brazil.

 

[Mr_ Bondoc]

Yes, there are differences, but they work against you too. Brazil would have ben an established Socialist state by the time the Cold War began. This was not the case in Chile, Cuba, or anywhere else. On the latter count, the U.S. wanted Castro axed partially for the fact that he unseated the U.S. pupet there, and, as it turned out, Cuba as cradled by the U.S.S.R. This, again, would not be the case with Brazil.

First, you have the problem that the same could be said about the Soviet Union, which was created in 1917. Remember it wasn't until 1933 that the United States recognized them diplomatically. Even then, many Republicans said that it was "selling out the country". The Brazilian government of the ATL could only receive diplomatic recognition after pressure from the USSR.

Second, you are in America's backyard, after Pearl Harbor, just 2-5 years after the Revolution ends, the United States will view any foreign powers with a foreign policy that promotes a type of collectivism with suspicion. Remember the Second World War killed any ideas about isolationism and they believe that the Monroe Doctrine must be fulfilled...

Third, you also have a region wherein they will also be heavily influenced by the Catholic Church. The region as a whole is currently 90% Roman Catholic. Starting with Pope Pius XII, the Vatican will condemn Socialism as un-Christian and "deleterious to the human spirit..."

 

[wkwillis]

Brazil's population has gone up considerably since 1936, when the population was 37 million by the web page I read. Getting farmland during an agricultural depression is not difficult. Getting rid of food was more of a problem then in Brazil. They were burning coffee trying to keep the price up. Which is why the local aristocracy wouldn't be able to defend their land from the communists.
Just in case you didn't read about that part, taking away the aristocracy's land was fast and easy in Russia. It was taking away the small farmer's land that was difficult and killed millions. Same for Brazil. No collectivisation, no megacide.
The Church? The Church in Latin America stopped supporting the governments about that time. Liberation theology is not something that just appeared out of thin air twenty years ago. The Brazilian communists were not nearly as anticlerical as the Russian communists because the Brazilian Catholic Church was not nearly as anticommunist as the Russian Orthodox Church.
Think of Mexico in 1937, with Trotsky offered sanctuary by the Mexican government and the US carefully not attempting to interfere. Brazil is bigger, farther away, and just as nationalistic. And during WWII it is a crucial supplier of strategic materials. After WWII it is a mellow, Yugoslavia kind of place that the US is not interested in starting a fight with, especially after it starts bitching about how the Russians haven't had those free elections in Eastern Europe they promised.
Would it make you feel better if I described Brazil as strongly socialist? Swedish socialist?

 

[Mr_ Bondoc]

Probably Not....

Wkwillis- The problem is that "liberation theology" was actually created in 1972, and was formally cracked down by Pope John Paul II in 1978. The formal Catholic stance against socialism started in 1938, after Trotsky went to Mexico. Another problem is that you still have the Opus Dei, a right-wing society within the Vatican clergy which would call for a crackdown on socialism. The most prominent members are from Argentina, Chile, and Brazil.

Another problem is the issue of race, starting in the 1970s, you have the Instituto de Pesquias das Culturas Negras under Carlos Verlissimo was bringing up the issue of police brutality against Brazilian-African children in the ghettoes of Rio de Janeiro. You have starting in the 1950s, attacks on Candomble houses of worship. In either event, you have the problem of race and religion that has gone unaddressed.

Third, you have the fact that the United States, will still look at "Swedish" socialism" as just another watered down version of communism. After 1946, you have the "White Paper" which tells Truman that there is a "world-spanning conspiracy" of Communism. While it looks foolish to us in hindsight, in the aftermath of the Iron Curtain falling in Eastern Europe, the Truman administration will take no risks,,,

 

[wkwillis]

Wkwillis- The problem is that "liberation theology" was actually created in 1972, and was formally cracked down by Pope John Paul II in 1978. The formal Catholic stance against socialism started in 1938, after Trotsky went to Mexico. Another problem is that you still have the Opus Dei, a right-wing society within the Vatican clergy which would call for a crackdown on socialism. The most prominent members are from Argentina, Chile, and Brazil.

Another problem is the issue of race, starting in the 1970s, you have the Instituto de Pesquias das Culturas Negras under Carlos Verlissimo was bringing up the issue of police brutality against Brazilian-African children in the ghettoes of Rio de Janeiro. You have starting in the 1950s, attacks on Candomble houses of worship. In either event, you have the problem of race and religion that has gone unaddressed.

Third, you have the fact that the United States, will still look at "Swedish" socialism" as just another watered down version of communism. After 1946, you have the "White Paper" which tells Truman that there is a "world-spanning conspiracy" of Communism. While it looks foolish to us in hindsight, in the aftermath of the Iron Curtain falling in Eastern Europe, the Truman administration will take no risks,,,

I thought liberation theology started circa 1820 in Mexico? As to what the US establishment wants, and what the US establishment can get...

 

[Mr_ Bondoc]

Some More Info...

Wkwillis- Well, the term "liberation theology" didn't come into play until 1973, as proof, I will cite the following citation:

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txn/liberati.htm

As such, you are going to face a Catholic Church that will be extremely hostile to the idea of a socialist government in the region. You have low and middle income farmers who will feel threatened by the land collectivization efforts of the government.

As to the issue of the U.S. military, you have several problems. First, as has been stated repeatedly, the nation of Brazil is not associated with the Soviet Union or the People's Republic of China, thus making it diplomatically isolated. Brazil has no naval power or land army to project power to speak off. Brazil is surrounded by right-wing military dictatorships of Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay. To make matters worse, the Brazilian government has already insulted the Vatican City and Pope Pius XII...a cardinal sin in most of Latin America. This on top of the fact that the nation has not dealt with successfully with teh issue of race relations or Brazilian Indians....

 

[Wendell]

Maybe a Socialist Brazil would eventually turn fascist. Hey, would you intend for this Brazil to start a nuclear weapons program?

 

[Mr_ Bondoc]

Actually...

Wendell- My best guess is that it could certainly go fascist. You have in OTL, the military seizing power of the government in 1964 and establishing a capital in Brasilia in 1966. To make matters worse, you even have the student riots in Rio de Janeiro to deal with in the ATL...

As for nuclear power, you have a situation wherein the country has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1962. As such, you have a situation starting in 1965 until 1976, wherein the governm,ents of the region will be concerned about the possibility of nuclear development.

At the very least the United States Navy (USN) will deploy the 2nd and 4th Fleets under the command of the flag ship USS Mount Whitney. In any event, this is a situation wherein the U.S. will be extremely concerned.

 

[wkwillis]

What's the difference between liberation theology and the priests like Hidalgo that launched the Mexican revolution in 1810?
I thought that the Christian Left has been present in Latin America for a long time.

 

[Mr_ Bondoc]

The Big Difference...

What's the difference between liberation theology and the priests like Hidalgo that launched the Mexican revolution in 1810?
I thought that the Christian Left has been present in Latin America for a long time.

The difference is that the liberation theology discussed by priests in Hidalgo during the Mexican Revolution was based on "Christian nationalism" as in the independence movement from Spain. Remember, that this was written 38 years before the concept of socialism by Karl Marx (1848). Today, the same movement might be seen as a right-wing fundamentalist/ultra-nationalistic movement, basing national sentiment on a unified religious state....

The liberation theology discussed in 1972, was based on the liberation movements of African and Latin American nations in the post-Second World War era. The idea was based on the self-deterministic views of liberation by socialistic revolutionaries. But as I have argued, you have the problem that Pope John Paul II argued against "liberation theology" starting in 1978, threatening to excommunicate those cardinals who engaged in the practice. The biggest obstacle is the 1938 Papal Bull by Pope Pius XII which proclaimed socialism an unholy practice.....

 

[wkwillis]

The difference is that the liberation theology discussed by priests in Hidalgo during the Mexican Revolution was based on "Christian nationalism" as in the independence movement from Spain. Remember, that this was written 38 years before the concept of socialism by Karl Marx (1848). Today, the same movement might be seen as a right-wing fundamentalist/ultra-nationalistic movement, basing national sentiment on a unified religious state....

The liberation theology discussed in 1972, was based on the liberation movements of African and Latin American nations in the post-Second World War era. The idea was based on the self-deterministic views of liberation by socialistic revolutionaries. But as I have argued, you have the problem that Pope John Paul II argued against "liberation theology" starting in 1978, threatening to excommunicate those cardinals who engaged in the practice. The biggest obstacle is the 1938 Papal Bull by Pope Pius XII which proclaimed socialism an unholy practice.....

I wonder what the Brazilian religious situation was in 1936? A Spanish Civil War in Brazil with the Church fighting for the left? That would have given the pope fits.
A Brazilian pope with half the world's Catholics...

 

[Mr_ Bondoc]

The Situation At The Time....

Wkwillis- The situation in Brazil in 1936, in terms of religion was relatively benign. Traditional religions such as Macumba, Candomble, and Santeria were on the rise due to the revival of interest in spiritual affairs starting in teh 1920s. Starting in 1932, you even have a revival of ayahuasca, a traditional religion similar to Native American peyote usage. As for the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Pius XI was the head of the Catholic Church and was already hinting that teh Church was condemning the practice of socialism due to the onset of the Spanish Civil War and the human rights violations against Catholic bishops and cardinals in the Soviet Union. This was further emphasized due to the "anti-Church" policies of the PRI in Mexico. As such, you have the major institutions of society aimed against socialism, and a growing middle class that would certainly disapprove of socialism.....