Introduction The military junta in Argentina took power in March 1976 after the overthrow of Isabel Martinez de Perón, also nicknamed Isabelita, the widow of Juan Domigo Perón Maria Estela. The main cause of military intervention was the very unfavorable economic situation combined with political instability, which resulted in the rise of politically motivated violence. Immediately after coming to power, the armed forces decided to launch the so-called Process of National Reorganization, the aim of which was to restructure the state, society and the economy through neoliberal economic reforms applied in accordance with the principles of market monetarism.
1. Alternation of civilian and military governments in the modern history of Argentina Argentina, originally an overseas colony of the Spanish crown, declared independence from Spain in 1810. Already during the first years of independence the country experienced a civil war, from 1826 to 1828. whose intention was to gain more decision-making powers, which until then had been concentrated in the main province of Buenos Aires. Unitarians, supporters of a strong central government, and federalists opposed each other, pushing for an even distribution of power between central and provincial governments.
The military junta in Argentina took power in March 1976 after the overthrow of the widow of Juan Domigo Perón Maria Estela Isabel Martinez de Perón, also nicknamed Isabelita. The main cause of military intervention was the very unfavorable economic situation combined with political instability, which resulted in the rise of politically motivated violence. Immediately after coming to power, the armed forces decided to launch the so-called Process of National Reorganization, the aim of which was to restructure the state, society and the economy through neoliberal economic reforms applied in accordance with the principles of market monetarism.
Latin America has long been in the background in terms of US national interests. It was not until the 20th century, when the US position as a regional hegemon could be threatened, that the area began to become more important. South and Central America were probably the subject of the best-known foreign policy measure, the so-called Monroe Doctrine, which stated that if any non-US state engaged on the American continent, it would pose a threat to US security. Therefore, the United States needed to become more prominent in the region.
The new regime was welcomed mainly by industrialists, exporters, financiers and the upper class, who longed to regain influence over the country's rule after the reign of Perón and his successors. The main enemies of the new regime were considered left-wing activists, workers and the lower middle class, who were described by government officials as divers and terrorists. So the new leadership of the country declared war on them, for which the term "Dirty War" was generally used.
Argentine - American relations during the military junta: 4. The period of Viola and Galtieri's reigns
The reign of Robert Eduardo Viola (March - December 1981) and Leopold Galtieri (December 1981 - June 1982)
A change of government with the help of a military coup has been very common in Argentina's recent history. It was often the only way to stop the abuse of power by the ruling elites. The more or less positive attitude of citizens to military intervention in the country's leadership and respect for the army changed with the last military dictatorship, called the Process of National Reorganization. During their reign, the army abused its power to suppress any manifestations of opposition. Respecting the law and respecting fundamental human rights has become an empty concept. Many innocent people have been abducted, arrested or disappeared and tortured without the perpetrators of these crimes being punished.
List of literature
There are many candidates with a legitimate claim to gold medals such an embarrassing championship. The criteria differ - the severity of the conflict, its duration, the number of participants, the amount of property loss, health, lives, ongoing socio-economic and psychological impact, and so on.
Commentary on the approaching 30th anniversary of the Falklands War.
The war for the Falklands could be called a war between the naive and over-nationalist government of the military junta on the one hand and the country defending its colonial territory at a time when colony ownership was no longer a vital interest. It is quite strange that the British Government was willing to go to war because of the islands, which are thousands of miles from the British Isles, especially when there is nothing on these islands other than sheep that is of any particular strategic importance. So why did the government risk this campaign, which could have done more harm than good? It is actually one of the few conflicts of the second half of the 20th century that was waged by two countries from the Western camp and was not waged between East and West, as was common in the Cold War.