WI: World War 2 had a South America theatre?

kernals12

Banned
It means at least one Latin American nation would be occupied by the US and get the same treatment as the other axis powers, meaning a liberal democratic constitution, land reform, and marshall aid money.
 
It means at least one Latin American nation would be occupied by the US and get the same treatment as the other axis powers, meaning a liberal democratic constitution, land reform, and marshall aid money.

Well, this would be the best case scenario, but given that the precedents about the US Army in L.A nations aren't the best I have serious doubts about the possibilities of this kind of scenario... The occupied nation, after a more or less large occupation period, only would to get a change of regime and/or political leaders and of course, besides of the whole reconstruction, would must pay for a new army (that would be trained and equipped by the US) with the loans that would be conceded (and probably forced to accept, too.
Also, perhaps, the US would impose some kind of war indemnización...
But I doubt that given that historically the US in their relation and interventions in L.A. generally was fighting against those which want to get these same things (above quoted) for their nations and of course backed the opposite side (reactionary and/or pro US companies, leaders).
 

kernals12

Banned
Well, this would be the best case scenario, but the precedents about the US Army in L.A nations aren't the best... The occupied nation after the occupation period only would to get a change of regime and/or political leaders and of course, besides they besides of the whole reconstruction would must pay for a new army (that would be trained and equipped by the US) with the loans that would be conceded.
Also, perhaps, the US would impose some kind of war indemnización...
But I doubt that given that historically the US in their relation and interventions in L.A. generally was fighting against those which want to get these same things (above quoted) for their nations and of course backed the opposite side (reactionary and/or pro US companies, leaders).
I'm going based on the experience with Japan and Germany.
 

kernals12

Banned
There were no Latin American nations at the time that could put up a serious fight with the United States in terms of industrial capacity or population.
 
US views of the region would change if one of the countries joined the azis.
Perhaps would be open to debate but you must to remember that the origin/cause of the US politics towards the region there were strong commercial/economical interests in conservate the status quo and neither must be forgot that were the '30 & '40 last century US government and society.
 
This may be one of those things "everybody knows" which turns out to be untrue after all, but wasn't the Argentinian export industry geared to mostly providing the UK with beef & other foodstuffs, so joining the Axis would knacker their economy?

Or did that all fall by the wayside once the US entered the war?
I don't see why it should have, goods could've been taken along the safe East coast of the Americas then joined a trans-Atlantic convoy from US or Canada, but I really don't know.

I do know that Brazil actively joined the Allies in time for the Italian campaign, so even with a 'token' force it wasn't a hasty in-at-the-death thing. Planning must have been conducted with the Wallied Command of how best to fit them into the strategy.

There was a large German diaspora in Argentina which was quite influential and affluent, so that's the source of Allied fear. The Argentinians were also trying to distancing themselves from UK influence, which was acknowledged by the US as good who want the Argentinians to the US sphere instead. However, when the Argentinians want to stay neutral, the US started to be ruthless:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina_during_World_War_II
The government had diplomatic discussions with the United States, and Argentina requested planes, fuel, ship, and military hardware. Segundo Storni, the Argentine chancellor, argued that, although Argentina did not join the war, it was closer to the Allies, sending them food, and that up to then the Axis powers had not taken action against the country to justify a declaration of war. Secretary of State Cordell Hull replied that Argentina was the only Latin American country not to have broken relations with the Axis, that Argentine food was sold at lucrative return, and that United States military hardware was intended for countries already at war, some of which were facing more severe fuel shortages than was Argentina. Storni resigned after this rejection.[29]

The United States took further measures to increase pressure on Argentina. All Argentine companies suspected of having ties with the Axis powers were blacklisted, and the supply of newsprint was limited to pro-allied newspapers. There were also boycotts. American exports of electronic appliances, chemical substances and oil production infrastructure were halted. The properties of forty-four Argentine companies were seized, and scheduled loans were halted. Hull wanted to weaken the Argentine government, or force its resignation. Torn between diplomatic and economic pressure as opposed to an open declaration of war against Argentina, he opted for the former way, to avoid disrupting the supply of food to Britain. Nevertheless, he also saw the situation as a chance for the United States to have a greater influence over Argentina than Britain.[30]

The United States also threatened to accuse Argentina of being involved with the coup of Gualberto Villarroel in Bolivia, and a plot to receive weapons from Germany, after the allied refusal, to face the possible threat of either the United States itself or Brazil acting on their behalf. However, it would be unlikely that Germany would provide such weapons, given their fragile situation in 1944. Ramírez called a new meeting of the GOU, and it was agreed to break diplomatic relations with the Axis powers (albeit without yet a declaration of war) on January 26, 1944.[3]

The break in relations generated unrest within the military, and Ramírez considered removing the influential Farrell and Perón from the government. However, their faction discovered Ramírez's plan. They broke up the GOU, to avoid letting the military loyal to Ramírez know they were aware of his plot, and then initiated a coup against him. Edelmiro Julián Farrell became then the new president of Argentina, on February 24.[31]

The United States denied recognition to Farrell, as he would keep the neutralist policy. Farrell confirmed it on March 2, and the United States broke relations with Argentina two days later. Winston Churchillcomplained about the harsh policy of the United States against Argentina, pointing out that Argentine supplies were vital to the British, and that by removing their diplomatic presence from the country they would even force Argentina to seek German protection. British diplomacy sought to guarantee the supply of Argentine food by signing a treaty covering it, while US diplomatic policy sought to prevent such a treaty. Hull ordered the confiscation of Argentine goods, cessation of foreign trade with her, avoidance of any of US ships landing at Argentine ports, and he denounced Argentina as the "nazi headquarters in the occidental hemisphere".[32]

By this time, the United States considered the option of supporting Brazil in an attack against Argentina, rather than attacking Argentina themselves. The Brazilian ambassador in Washington pointed out that Buenos Aires could be completely destroyed by the Brazilian air force. This would have allowed Argentina to be dominated without the open intervention of the United States, who would support Brazil by providing ships and bombs.

Moreover, a nazism-inspired coup did occur in Chile in 1938, but it failed, so the fear of an Axis-aligned Latin American country is not completely groundless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seguro_Obrero_massacre
 
Top