They trained Argentinian military members in the School of the Americas in Fort Benning, those same men later took power in a U.S. supported coup d’état in 1976 and proceeded to “disappear” 30000 persons, some of them guerrillas (who should’ve anyhow have received a trial and not being drugged and thrown from planes into the river Plate ) but many of them Trade Union representatives, leftist intellectuals, students who protested, pregnant women (but in that case they allowed them to give birth before throwing them into the river, if only to appropriate the children as their own).
Does that count as “Declaring war on the left in Argentina?”, I dunno, you tell me, how would do you feel if Putin did something like that to the U.S.?
So the US government was giving money and military equipment to the Argentinian government to fight the guerrillas? And give training to the Argentinian military?
Could be, but that was mostly a ruse, the USA began to be weary of that fig leaf when the Junta decided to go to war with Britain for the Falkland Isles, And the USA learned the hard way that raising crows will eventually take out your eyes. Or the eyes of your allies, it was one important factor for the USA to realize that supporting right wing dictators in Latin America was not really helping grow democracies in the region.
(Here one should not forget that a lot of the guerilla activities came about because those military guys (“coincidentally” trained many times in the USA) also committed election fraud to get to power or to remain in power. It was then not only the guerrillas, but people with a conscience that fought back, the USA really did help the baddies all over Latin America then.)
Here it was more basic than that, the few times the military allowed elections between 1955 and 1973 the main “opposition” party was forbidden to participate in them, in at least one instance there were more blank votes than votes for the winner of the election.
All of this, again, with the full support of the U.S.
In 1976 when the previously forbidden party was in power and got (again) removed in a coup, the guerrillas were practically eliminated (yes, by a government that supposedly had more in common with them), at most they were an operational “force” (they never were much of a menace) until 1977.
But the military junta kept on killing people until 1982/3 (when the collapse of the economy and the defeat in the Falklands made their situation untenable)
This in addition to indebting the country (in dollars mind you) in a monstrous way, destroying a lot of industries, dollarizing the real state market (something still felt today, I’ve been laboriously buying dollars each month to try and get enough for a house for years, I may be able to buy one this year. May) and generally bungling everything except the cowing and/or destruction of the trade unions’ power. (And event that was not a complete success)
I still don’t think the US invaded Argentina by the use of soldiers on the ground or air strikes. As I’m having very difficult time believing the US would go war with Argentina over politics. May be some proxy war by the US giving money and military equipment or training to fight other fraction of the government that is pro US.
There are many forms to meddle in the internal affairs of another country that do not require a military invasion, yes.
In any case my response was (indirectly at that point) about the assertion that the “first world” did not “force” Argentina to have a “dirty war” in the 70’s, which is patently false, absent the support from the U.S. there would’ve been no military coup and no “dirty war”
(“Dirty War” is the name the perpetrators of the massacre used and thus in disfavor among serious people nowadays)
That’s arguable. I mean the US clearly were not against the idea of a coup, but its also not true that the entire idea was cooked up in the US (and in the case of Guatemala in 1954, or Iran in 1053*). Eva Peron was becoming more powerless, someone would have deposed her. The fact it was a military junta that did so was more to with the make up Argentinean society (where the military was the most powerful institution in the country, and able to muster far more loyalty than any bit of the civilian power structure, including the government) than US intervention.
* - cooked up in the UK and the US
Uh, you do realize that United Fruit was a Company based in the US? Then the US government intervened thanks to the pressure coming from them.
BTW, I you can cook a banana: 
That’s my point (that ‘and’ should have been ‘as’) Iran and Guatemala coups were definitely cooked up in the US, Argentina in 1976 was not.
However, as it was a custom for the military right wingers in those days, they knew that not having the support of the US would mean that it was much less likely for the military in Argentina to get the coup going and to succeed later.
What coups in Guatemala and Argentina? Can you elaborate on that?
Uh, this was linked to already:
I’m starting to get the sense that the OP has a specific answer in mind, but I’m not sure why won’t tell us what it is…
Guatemala had a coup in 1954 that was very much planned in the US. It is perfectly reasonable to say that if it wasn’t for the US (and specifically operation PBsuccess carried out by the US intelligence services) Guatemala would not have had a military dictatorship, at least not in 1954.
Argentina had a coup 1976 that also led to a military regime, but it wasn’t planned in the US. The US clearly knew about it, and didn’t oppose it. But the Peron regime was a lame duck and had lost its authority, the coup was going to happen.
But in both cases although the decades of military rule that resulted were terrible for the country (the Guatemala regime in particular led to 100s of thousands of deaths). The underlying cause (even in Guatemala where the short term cause was the US intelligence services launching a coup) was the fact that the military was the most powerful institutoin in the country, and could command more loyalty than any civilian institution including the government.
So in the case of Guatemala was the US supporting other fraction of the government that is pro US or the military that is pro US?
In the case of Guatemala was the US giving money and military equipment to them so they can take over the government?
Yes and far more besides. The forces were trained in the US and following a US plan that had been authorized by the POTUS.
What I find remarkable is the ostensible absolute unawareness of the history of US foreign intervention policy. I have to keep reminding myself that a lot of people who did not live through that (and quite a few who did but just were not paying attention) just have never heard of it.
BUT, but … that sort of interventionism we’ve been going over in the last few posts was not exclusive to Latin America and was not the only thing at work. Though to use a common phrase it sure “did not help” that every time someone tried to establish some land reform and social improvements for the working classes, those with investments at stake would cry out “OMG communism!” and, well, we can’t have that can we…
But as mentioned earlier, even way before the Cold War era (oh please, DON’T now ask “how did the Cold War have to do with US and Argentina?”…) already the elites in many of the LatAm countries were short-sightedly lining their own pockets by mortgaging the national economies to some richer power who was quite happy to oblige.
A couple of points :
- Eva Perón had been dead for more than 20 years in 1976
- The U.S. knew the coup was about to happen, if they’d condemned it it would’ve stopped in it’s track, lame duck admin or not.
Sorry yeah, Isabel not Eva
That’s probably true, but that doesn’t mean “absent the support from the U.S. there would’ve been no military coup”. The US did not support the coup, it failed to condemn it. The coup was not a result of US support
It’s more or less the same, if you ask me, the coup plotters knew the U.S. would support them, (if nothing else the U.S. had supported every right wing coup in the region since time immemorial)
ETA: It is also by no means sure that the U.S. didn’t encourage the coup behind the scenes, opinions differ.