As it says on the tin. Apparently Che wanted to engineer a second and third Vietnam and saw his chance to do so in Bolivia. Of course things ended up going different, but what if he had succeeded?
AHC: Turn Bolivia into a “second Vietnam”
- Thread starter loneranger
- Start date
I think OP is challenging us to make Che Guevara successful in Bolivia. In OTL, Che Guevara went to Bolivia to start a revolution, but everything that could go wrong, did go wrong.
- The local communist party, was aligned to Moscow and didn't care for Havana getting involved.
- He expected to only face the poorly trained and equipped Bolivian army. He didn't know that the CIA had sent commandos, operatives and that there was an elite ranger battalion there.
- The radios sent to him from Cuba were faulty.
- His lack of compromise led to him failing to establish good relations with other rebel groups and communities in Bolivia who otherwise would've been sympathetic to his cause. It was these communities who told the authorities that he was there in the first place.
Apropos of nothing, I wonder if he would've had a better chance in Peru, what with the Shining Path later taking root there, or in Nicaragua, what with the Sandinistas as well. Sure, sure, that all took place decades after Che was killed, but I just mean what if he lucked into picking a more feasible country for a revolution. Especially one with an actual coast. Bolivia is sort of smack dab in landlocked territory.
According to Wikipedia, Che was warned by Juan Peron that his Bolivia plan was suicidal and futile. If Che listened and chose another country, he may well have been more successful in getting his Vietnam 2.0. But I think that if he took that advice, then he wouldn't be Che Guevara.
I think a better POD, might be Che staying longer in Congo. The USA were already involved there and if things went better for Che, then the USA might commit more resources perhaps leading to Vietnam 2.0.
Also now I’m wondering what if Che ended back in Argentina to support the left-Peronists like the Montoneros.
Interesting that the two were on speaking/corresponding terms.
I think Che's problem was in target selection in the first place. Che was using GSG (grand strategy game) map logic to guide his choice of where to operate, along with some amateur topography. He saw Bolivia in the center of South America, bordering five other South American countries, saw that it also had difficult, mountainous terrain, and no coast for the Yankee marines to invade, and figured he would be golden and it would be the perfect revolutionary base. Notably, Che's youthful 'motorcycle diaries' tour had skipped Bolivia and started up the other side of the Andres before the Bolivian National Revolution of 1952 nationalized the Bolivian mining industry. Nationalization and the political activity of unions since 1952 had let out a lot of leftist political steam in Bolivia in the 15 years prior to Che's arrival. Even the dictator of the day, Rene Barrientos, could play left-populist tunes alongside right-populist tunes and appeals to the indigenous using his fluency in Quechua. The new dictator's coup was relatively fresh. So Bolivia didn't have key vulnerabilities of places where successful Latin American and other third world revolutions occurred, like decades old discredited establishment, long-standing one-man, or one-family rule, resented foreign ownership of assets.
Bolivian capitalism and the wider establishment only became 'stale' enough several decades later after decades of privatizations, neoliberal austerity plans, enrollment in the drug war, and the rise of Chavismo, and for people to notice that racial caste still looked like it correlated with everybody's life outcomes to mobilize (electoral) revolutionary energy by the end of the 90s to get Evo Morales' Bolivarian socialism into power.
Last edited:
My suggestion - deep PoD - hold off the 1952 revolution of the ENR and Victor Paz Estensorro and mineral nationalization. Meanwhile, keep a butterfly net around the Guatemalan and Cuban revolutions and ache’s life.
Then, when he goes to Bolivia, it may be more ‘ripe’ even with it on guard and its repressive forces and government development programs given major aid by the USA and neighboring dictatorships.
Then, when he goes to Bolivia, it may be more ‘ripe’ even with it on guard and its repressive forces and government development programs given major aid by the USA and neighboring dictatorships.
In terms of foreign intervention, there may be ‘many flags’ in this Vietnam in addition to the US or even instead of it. I am thinking the Brazilian dictatorship. The Paraguayan Stroessner dictatorship- though that might cause nationalistic issues over historical bad memories. I am not sure about the tendency of the Peruvian military regime of the time. I doubt the Chilean democracy of the time would intervene, even under conservative Christian Democrats- creates an interesting dynamic for the next election with Allende and Frei though. Argentina, I am not sure, think they had elected but conservative governments who would covertly play ball with US intervention, maybe overtly.
I think this is impossible, first because of this:
But most importantly, the people of latin america is extremely anti communist. The North Vietnamese government had reached a level of legitimacy that allowed it to resist the american bombings and defeat after defeat didn't broke their will. Che cannot reach that level of support in Bolivia. In the most likely case he would take power, fail to receive popular support, be removed and like Bela Kun blame the people of the country for not being socialist enough.
Genuinely curious what you mean? Latin America hosted multiple openly socialist governments (some Soviet allies and some not) during the Cold War. It even was host to the first democratically elected Marxist. The Latin American communist left was pretty influential through different periods. Just seems a little strange to me to claim the people are "extremely" anti-communist, implying much more so than other places.
Yes, Bolivia gets a mention. Everythings Coming Up Milhouse!
* "Into a second vietnam" *
no, no, no, no!!
* "Into a second vietnam" *
no, no, no, no!!
And this first elected government suffered a coup. Allende also got elected in a popular front since you cannot have a revolution like that in Latin america, the conditions don't allow it.
I think the best classification would be middle class and the army were extremely anti communism. In Brazil, the coup d'état was fully supported by the middle class.
What? He was elected by a popular vote, indicating that an open communist was indeed popular. Then, he was overthrown in a putsch and his supported were murdered, jailed, or forced into exile. Not sure how that vindicates the idea that “people are against communism” unless you mean parts of the middle and upper class which is true anywhere and everywhere. And yeah, many communist countries have historically used popular front strategies.. not sure how that really supports your point here. Doesn’t change the fact that he was a self-declared marxist, his supporters wore hammer and sickles, and talked of revolution and class struggle.
“The conditions don’t allow it”… so then what of the successful socialist revolution in Latin America and the proliferation of left wing guerrilla groups since the 1950s? There are self-declared socialist governments in Latin America today so I really don’t understand where you’re coming from with this line of argument. MAS in Bolivia alone disproves your argument. It’s like arguing that 1930s Europe was extremely anti-fascist… just doesn’t make any sense.
I mean yeah, but this is almost always the case in any society across the world. They argued that Latin America was intrinsically extremely anti-communist, which is not the same at all as saying the middle class is anti-communist.
Last edited:
He was elected in a popular front, he had an entire left wing coalition with him.
His government was shaky and he was removed in a coup, this is a proof is how horrifically difficult is to keep a completely legitimate far left (not even communist) government in LATAM. A coup that was supported by every single one of its neighbours and by the local elites and a considerable part of the population.
The current left wing governments are basically the 2000s pink wave, they are neoliberal progressives masquerading as left wing (except Cuba and Venezuela). There is a difference between electing a neoliberal progressive government masquerading as left wing radical today than to start a full blown truly red revolution back in cold war Latin America.
Like, it was concluded by the Latin American left that armed revolutions don't work. For every Castro in Cuba you had a Prestes, a Mariguella, a Guevara, a Montonero who tried armed revolutions and got crushed.
Yes, but considering your argument is that Latin American people are just extremely anti-communist, then it makes no logical sense that a self-proclaimed communist was able to win a popular election in a way that hasn't happened in 90% of the rest of the world. If the people of Latin America were extremely anti-communist, an Allende victory wouldn't even have come close.
I don't want to sound like I'm being nitpicky here, but this is a different argument than what you said earlier. I mostly agree with this, because now you are discussing the tactical difficulties of maintaining a far left government in Latin America. That is a very different thing from just claiming that the people are inherently extreme anti-communists. If that were the case, all of the examples (including the pink wave) would never have happened in the first place because the people hate left-wing projects... The actual difficulties of governing are a very different point than just claiming an entire continent is anti-communist in sentiment.
That's because waging a successful armed struggle against a dictatorship is always an uphill-battle, no matter the continent. And also due to the fact that local elites are never happy about movements that try to seize their power. I don't understand why you think this makes LatAm different to other places. A revolution is nowhere a cakewalk.
Allende was a socialist, not a communist. The communist party was in his popular front. Latin america has a strong left wing political history, but the communists have been the weak part of it, you can convince people to vote for social democrats or christian socialists or any variation of that, but not for communists, that is a non go zone.
I'm sorry, this is just flat out wrong:
In the Parliamentary election of 1973, the Communist Party of Chile was at essentially the same strength as the Socialist Party in the Chamber of Deputies. Popular Unity was not a mainly Socialist Party organization in which the Communist Party was just one of many smaller supporters... it was one of the two main electoral blocs holding up Popular Unity. The Communist Party outnumbered the Socialist Party in Senate seats, it was the strongest left party there. This isn't just a fluke of the Allende election...
... in the 1969 Parliamentary elections, the Communist Party held roughly similar strength and was tied with the Radicals for largest left wing party. It even received more percentage of the vote than any other left wing party in that years elections. It was similarly as large in 1965.
It gets even more interesting, because the reality of 1960s and early 1970s Chile is that the Socialist Party actually had a stronger radical streak than the Communist Party did. Contrary to your portrayal, the Communist Party had been on the moderate side of Popular Unity along with the vía pacífica faction of the Socialists, while the more radical vía insurreccional faction characterized the more radical left-wing end of the coalition. So Salvador Allende was an open Marxist backed by a electorally strong Communist Party as well as a Socialist party split between moderates and left-radicals who would probably be characterized as communistic even if outside of the banner of the Communist Party of Chile. The situation was complex, but your characterization of it seems to be that the communists were a "no go zone" who only constituted a small part of a broader coalition and were shadowed by a more moderate Socialist party which really carried the day for Allende because Latin Americans hate communism. This just isn't how the historical reality was as the election results demonstrate.
I don't want to derail this thread though, so I'll not pursue the point any further.