Comments by "The MSM Loves war" (@themsmloveswar3985) on "TIKhistory" channel.

  1. 7
  2. 4
  3. A lot of it has to do with the role of the Army in Latin countries, and concepts of manhood, authority, rationalism, the state and "order". A lot of Latin countries went through chaos, and ended up run by the Army. This was how the people handled chaos - they asked the army, which was supposed to carry certain virtues to run the state. This was similar to how the monarchs ran those countries, and even how the Roman Empire functioned. The first in the modern era to do this was Revolutionary France, with Bonaparte. In fact France did it twice, with two different Bonapartes. In the 1870s it looked as if the French were looking again for the Army to takeover, except Marshal MacMahon preferred to not have the army in charge of the Third Republic. Then similar trends showed up in Latin America from 1820 onwards. After WW1, Italy devised a political philosophy to justify giving awarding a military dictatorship to a socialist journalist with no clue about running anything. He copied a hodge podge of ideas from Bonaparte, Bolivar, and the Ceasars but with none of their abilities. Finally, the laggard was Spain under Primo De Rivero, and his follow up act, the monarchist Franco, who rules with the power of a king, in preparation for a monarchy. His rule is an extension of the same trend. As a military man Franco had evidence that if he sent his best soldiers abroad there would have been another civil war in Spain. Therefore he needed to keep them on the job of maintaining control in Spain. His own power requirements came first. That continued for decades.
    2
  4. 1