Search results

Agree somewhat on this; OTOH, most of the politicians we have nowadays(whether leftist or "rightist") were nurtured by the military governments.

As far as I can tell(and what current historiography in Brazil seems to point at - take that as you will), JFK(and his government), while certainly not being a friend of João Goulart, didn't get involved beyond making things difficult for Goulart(mainly by lavishly funding his opponents - Carlos...

People say the Brazilian 1964 coup was planned by the US Government in collaboration with Brazilian military and civilian people, but I think that's wrong. While the US was aware of the planning, and had assets that were in place to support the coup, if asked, the planning and the trigger...

This, this so much. Someone(I think it was the late Stuart Slade) once said that the situation in South Africa was exactly the same as intertribal politics - with the addition of new tribes(Europeans, South Indians, and so on)

Yeah, that's been my conclusion as well.

Yes, on that he was like my paternal grandfather: a friendly, generous guy for those he liked, and the meanest, pettiest mofo for those he didn't.

Agreed; my take on Churchill is similar to de Gaulle: a bastard, but exactly the person Britain needed at the time. He seemed to be more likeable than de Gaulle, though.

Charles de Gaulle was an unmitigated ass, a megalomaniac who loved France but little else*. That was the sort of person needed to take the exiled forces of a defeated and occupied country, and make them enough of a factor that they got a seat in the table of the New World Order(1945 version)...

In the end, D.Pedro II proved himself to be unsuited for holding the Brazilian throne.