Churchill and Peron
Anthony Calabrese
Unfortunately, he is such a polarizing figure that there seems not to be
much in the way of neutral scholarship about him and not al that much in
English (more seems to be available about his wife).
I was wondering if anyone had ever seen anything about Churchill and Peron.
Argentina had historical close ties to the British. I have seen it
argued that among the reasons for the 1943 coup by the GOU (which Peron was
one of the main behind the scenes operators) was that the civilian
government was seen as too pro-British and had been considering declaring
war on Germany.
If anyone can point me to anything, that would be helpful.
Thanks,
Anthony
Daniel Ibarra
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador agora!
Editor/FH
=====
Anthony: How very odd, me too! (After watching Andrew Lloyd Webber's
brilliant production "Evita" for the umpteenth time late one night.) I
learned (admittedly from Wikipedia, which isn't always reliable) that
Peron's Nazi admiration was very superficial, chiefly for the
"corporate state," and that, according to biographers, he displayed
little anti-Semitism. Peron's sin, it appears, was appearing to be
against American interests, the defeat of Hitler, and got him into
trouble with Washington, which perhaps overreacted. Argentina certainly
did allow various Nazi emigrees, including Eichmann. But her reluctance
to join the Allies may have had more to do in her quarrel with Britain
over the ever-contentious Falkland Islands.
Evita herself is said to be apolitical despite populist speeches,
devoted chiefly to advancing Juan's career (and, many suspect, their
joint bank account). And she had no influence over Argentine policy
during WW2. There are a number of interesting biographies of her, and I
am awaiting a copy of "Santa Evita" by Tomas Martinez, which is
sympathetic. (See Amazon.com.)
As for Churchill, there are only three Peron references in our archive
of 50 million words by and about WSC. One is just a passing reference
in Princess Bibesco's MASTER OF COURAGE (1957); but the other two
provide humor and background:
John Colville, THE CHURCHILLIANS (London: Weidenfeld &Nicolson, 1981),
119...
Churchill's day as an active politician ended long before the rise to
Fame of Mrs Thatcher, Mrs Golda Meir, or Mrs Gandhi. Evita Peron was a
distant nuisance, to Attlee's government rather than to his,
threatening British beef supplies and therefore, since he prized beef
highly, an
obviously undesirable woman.
Calvocoressi-Wint-Pritchard, TOTAL WAR (New York: Pantheon, 2 vols.,
1989) I:215...
Only Brazil, which declared war on the Axis powers in August 1942 and
on Japan in May 1945, sent a force to Europe (to Italy in 1944). It
emerged from the war with the largest slice of Lend-Lease to Latin
America and the strongest armed forces. The other major South American
countries, Argentina and Chile, were the least keen to declare war,
partly because of their mutual quarrel over the islands off the
southern tip of the continent. They became nominal belligerents in 1945
under the threat of exclusion from the conference convened at San
Francisco to create the United Nations. In Argentina a by-product of
the war was the overthrow in 1943 of civilian rule,
an event which led eventually to the elevation to the presidency in
1946 of Colonel Juan Domingo Peron. Washington regarded the post-1943
military regime as fascist and pro-German and attacked it with an
outspoken vigour which was unusual among sovereign states and seriously
alarmed the British who, besides stigmatizing Washington's handling of
the situation as crude and crass, were nervous about the considerable
British investments in Argentina and Great Britain's dependence on it
for the meat ration.
The dangers from the German population of Latin America were largely a
product of war nerves. There were 300,000 German nationals
(Reichsdeutsche) and 1.75 million persons of German extraction
(Volksdeutsche) in the sub-continent, and Nazi propaganda and German
trade had both been intensified in the thirties, but the likelihood and
consequences of pro-German coups were alike exaggerated. Here, as in
other parts of the world, the Reichsdeutsche in particular were
regarded as a disciplined fifth column which had been prepared by the
External Affairs Department of the Nazi Party to play an active role in
war. But out of about three million Reichsdeutsche living outside the
Reich only 30,000 had been enrolled by the party by 1939, and the
belief in the sinister efficiency of these people was a myth, a
projection of the German reputation for thoroughness coupled with the
glamorous novelty of the idea of the fifth column, a term coined during
the Spanish civil war. (Absurd stories were spread with hysterical
waywardness in many countries, particularly in Europe; these stories
were reported by most of the world's leading newspapers and treated as
undeniable by parliamentarians and others who raised a patriotic
clamour for indiscriminate arrests; nobody was allowed to be what he
seemed to be;
thousands of innocent persons, including Jewish refugees from Germany,
were seized and many of them were shot.)
Anthony Calabrese
From what I can tell, it seems that Peron was far more influenced by
Mussolini and later Franco than Hitler. Peronism never had a racialist
component to its ideology. Instead it combines the "soft socialism" of
national syndicalism with extreme nationalism. Throw in the cult of
personality he built up around himself (and also his wife) and to me, that
looks like fascism (though, to be fair, Peron did allow opposition and
relatively free elections, so it was "fascism" that had popular support).
I have spoken with some Argentines who would be considered "conservative" in
the US (though probably termed "liberal" in Europe and "radical" in
Argentina -- funny how political terms are rarely interchangeable). They
tend to view Chavez as a second Peron (though without the charm and pretty
wife) to show how Peronism would look in a modern context.
To tie this back into Churchill, while the US obviously went after Peron
after the war, it was really against British interests that Peron and the
army rebelled in the 1943 coup. Though obviously, as Peron was elected in
1946, the Atlee government had to deal with the consequences, not Churchill.
Thank you for pulling the sources out of the archives.
Anthony
(PS -- while the Brazilian effort against Germany is well known, it is not
as well known that Mexico had an Air Force unit that participated in the
liberation of the Philippines).
Alex Calvo
Daniel Ibarra <ibar...@yahoo.com.br> wrote:
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine
David Foot
The indoctrination creates a reality by which the children believe that they fight a just cause which goes back centuries, as the indoctrination by 1982 had already been across 2 generations.
This explains why the "cause" which is complained of and purports to be from 1833 when the UK reafirmed its sovereignty following the ignored complaint of 1829 and the use of the islands for piracy by Buenos Aires which caused the intervention of USA in 1831 by their frigate USS Lexington which did take all those supporting the piracy for trial.
So there was no other wars in 1835 or 1882? .. what really happened is that a treaty ratified in 1850 establishes perfect friendship between the London and Buenos Aires with the Crown exercising sovereignty over the Falklands. So there was no reason for there to be a war, the Islands were British all along. Then there is self determination. Then there is nearly two centuries of continual administration.
Peron knew all this but in his project "La Nueva Argentina de Peron" he chose to claim the Falklands with his famous phrase: Las Malvinas fueron, son y seran Argentinas which he indoctrinated from 1946 onwards.
When given the chance to defend his rights to South Georgia which he also claimed, he refused to grant the International Court of Justice jurisdiction unlike the UK who tried to bring such a case between 1947 and 1956. Yet South Georgia was the first territory invaded by Argentina in March 11 - 20th 1982. Argentina prefered its armes to a legal defence.
Richard Langworth
On a sadly ironic note, today's Royal Navy comprises 19 surface combatant vessels, the largest of which is a destroyer. This would not suffice to resist a re-invasion of the Falklands, unless of course the US opted to send a carrier down there with her accompanying aircraft. The RN has two carriers on order for 2020.
As an Englishman, I may be pardoned at this moment for thinking of another South American country with which we have had close ties of friendship and mutual interest since her birth to liberty and independence. I refer to Argentina. We all feel deep regret and also anxiety, as friends of Argentina, that in this testing time for nations she has not seen fit to declare herself whole-heartedly, unmistakably and with no reserve or qualification upon the side of freedom, and has chosen to dally with the evil, and not only with the evil, but with the losing side. I trust that my remarks will be noted, because this is a very serious war. It is not like some small wars in the past where all could be forgotten and forgiven. Nations must be judged by the part they play. Not only belligerents, but neutrals, will find that their position in the world cannot remain entirely unaffected by the part they have chosen to play in the crisis of the war.
Harry Hopkins to Winston S. Churchill
Prime Minister’s Personal Telegram T.1580/4
(Churchill papers, 20/169)
8 August 1944
Personal and Secret
No. 38
Your speech in Parliament made very favourable impression here. Everyone particularly appreciative of your statement in relation to the Argentine. We are having difficulty about our production because far too many people think the war is over. Nevertheless the military operations of the Allied Armies surely give every reason to hope that we are going to crush them on the battlefields. I, personally, do not take much stock in the idea of internal collapse in Germany.
----------
Senior Fellow, Hillsdale Colleg