Английская Википедия:Historiography of the Paraguayan War
The historiography of the Paraguayan War has undergone profound changes since the outbreak of the conflict. During and after the war, the historiography of the countries involved, for many, was limited to explaining its causes as due only to the expansionist and excessive ambition of Paraguayan president Francisco Solano López. However, since the beginning of the war there was a strong movement pointing out the conflict as the responsibility of the Empire of Brazil and of Argentina led by president Bartolomé Mitre. In this reading, Argentine and Uruguayan federalist intellectuals, such as Juan Bautista Alberdi, are brazen.[1] In Uruguay, the criticism of Luis Alberto de Herrera stood out.[2]
In Paraguay, the response to liberal historiography, which resumed the alliance's theses about the Paraguayan War, was also precocious and very strong. This literature was inserted in a broader revisionist context about the country's history, with emphasis on the appreciation of the action of José Gaspar Rodríguez de Francia as the founder of independent Paraguay. Among the main revisionist historians are Cecilio Báez (1862–1941); Manuel Domínguez (1868–1935); Blas Garay (1873–1899) and, finally, Juan E. Leary (1879–1969), considered as the initiator of the "positive lopizta" historiography, that is, that positively explained the war from the action of Francisco Solano López.[3] This literature was and continues to be largely ignored in Brazil. It never embraced the thesis that Britain was responsible for the conflict.[4]
In the 1950s, in Argentina, important literature appeared with a Marxist, populist and revisionist influence on the Paraguayan War, with emphasis on authors such as José María Rosa; Enrique Rivera and Milcíades Peña; Adolfo Saldías, Raúl Scalabrini Ortiz, also little studied and rarely mentioned in Brazil. In the 1960s, a second historiographic current, more committed to the contemporary ideological struggle of this decade between capitalism and communism, and right and left, presented an interpretation that the conflict was motivated by the interests of the British Empire, which sought to prevent the rise of a militarily and economically powerful Latin American nation.
From the 1980s, new studies proposed different reasons, revealing that the causes were due to the nation building processes of the countries involved. Many of these authors radically denied the thesis of Britain's guilt in the conflict, blaming the Empire of Brazil and Argentina, as in the case of Milcíades Peña and Enrique Rivera, in their classic work. Milcíades Peña was explicit: "Neither the Brazilian monarchy nor the Mitrist oligarchy waged the war in Paraguay on behalf of England".Шаблон:Sfn Paradoxically, this historiography also remains unknown in Brazil. Currently, there is an effort to read the conflict that overcomes the mythologies of positive and negative lopizmo.Шаблон:Sfn
Traditional historiography (1864–1870)
The traditional historiography,Шаблон:Sfn also called "official",Шаблон:Sfn emerged immediately after the conflict and lasted until the end of the 1960s. It was a simplistic and exaggerated view of the causes of the Paraguayan War,Шаблон:Sfn claiming that it took place thanks to the infinite ambitions of a supposedly megalomaniac and bloodthirsty Solano López who had the intention to create the "Greater Paraguay" through the conquest of territories of the neighboring countries. The Allies' reaction would then have occurred in a desperate attempt to make the "civilization" of constitutional and democratic countries prevail against the "tyrannical barbarism" of Paraguay ruled by López.Шаблон:Sfn
The war's long duration was justified by emperor Pedro II's obstinacy in seeing López defeated for despising him by considering him another Latin American caudilloШаблон:SfnШаблон:Sfn and consequently, it would be necessary to wash the honor of Brazil. It has also been claimed that the emperor's irritation occurred after a proposal by López to marry princess Isabel, but this never occurred and is a later invention by an American author.Шаблон:Sfn Later, the official cult of war heroes such as the Duke of Caxias, the Marquis of Tamandaré, the Marquis of Erval and Mitre emerged.Шаблон:Sfn While in Paraguay, from the end of the war to the mid-1930s, López was also seen as a megalomaniac leader who destroyed the country in an unnecessary and futile war.Шаблон:SfnШаблон:Sfn
This was the opinion, for example, of Gustavo Barroso:Шаблон:Sfn
Revisionist historiography (1968–1990)
The so-called revisionist historiography emerged in the late 1960s and gained strength during the 1970s–80s, mainly pushed by Argentine historians. Its remote origins date back to the end of Brazil's imperial period, when dissatisfied republicans and soldiers influenced by Positivism (such as Benjamin Constant) carried out attacks and criticisms regarding Brazil's participation in the conflict. Behind these accusations there was an ideology in common among Brazilian republicans, as well as Argentines and Uruguayans, who aimed to discredit the imperial regime by considering it the only culprit for triggering the Paraguayan War and the supposed atrocities committed.Шаблон:Sfn While from the 1920s onwards, a new vision of the war emerged in Paraguay thanks to the efforts of dictators who sought legitimacy for their authoritarian governments by presenting an earlier model represented by Francia, Carlos López and his son Solano López.Шаблон:Sfn
The historical revisionism of the Paraguayan War received a boost in 1968 with the publication of the work La Guerra del Paraguay – Gran Negocio! (The Paraguayan War – Big business!) by Argentine writer León Pomer where he claimed that the war took place thanks to Britain's sole interestШаблон:Sfn (Pomer later acknowledged that it was not Britain that "triggered" the war). In the work, like in many others published in the period, Paraguay is presented as a socialist and egalitarian country, in addition to being extremely modern, rich and powerful. Its ruler, Solano López, is presented as a visionary, anti-imperialist and socialist leader who sought to make his country free from foreign imperialist influences. Great Britain, supposedly afraid of this autonomous model and fearing that it could serve as an example for neighboring countries, tried to order Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay, mere "puppets", to destroy Paraguay, consequently exterminating practically the entire Paraguayan population.Шаблон:SfnШаблон:SfnШаблон:SfnШаблон:SfnШаблон:Sfn
Defending the revisionist version, historian Júlio José Chiavenato argued:Шаблон:Sfn
In a similar vein, historian Eric Hobsbawm argued that:Шаблон:Sfn
Such a view, now considered simplistic and without empirical basis, became widespread from the 1960s onwards by different schools of historians, of the most diverse nationalities and strands.[5]
Among those linked to the Marxist left, there was an interest in transforming Solano López's Paraguay into a kind of precursor of the communist regime in Cuba. According to the revisionism adopted by these historians, Solano López intended to implement an autonomous nationalist regime in Paraguay, opposed to the great empire of his time, in this case Great Britain, in a similar way to the opposition made by Cuba to the USA after the rise of Fidel Castro. There was also the intention, on the part of these historians, to harm the image of the war heroes worshiped by the dictatorial military regimes of the time that persecuted them.[6]
The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, considered the official encyclopedic source of the USSR, presented a short view about the Paraguayan War, favorable to the Paraguayan government, claiming that the conflict was a "war of imperialist aggression" long planned by slave-owners and the bourgeois capitalists, waged by Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay under instigation of Great Britain, France and the United States.[7] The same encyclopedia presents Francisco Solano López as a statesman who became a great military leader and organizer, dying heroically in battle.[8] The Great Russian Encyclopedia, created by official mandate of President Vladimir Putin, continues with the "Russian Tradition" of presenting the Paraguayan War as a military conflict provoked by the "Triple Alliance" with the financial and military support of the British Empire, in a version that remains sympathetic towards Paraguay.[9]
However, Marxists were not the only ones to embrace such an interpretation. The reinforcement of Solano López's supposed heroism also served those linked to the nationalist right. Among the latter, Paraguayan dictator Alfredo Stroessner himself stands out, who even sponsored the filming of the epic movie Cerro Corá, with the aim of reinforcing the image of Francisco Solano López as a Paraguayan martyr.[10]
This revisionist view, which is still taught in most schools in Latin American countries, lacks any kind of hard evidence, data or empirical evidence.[6]Шаблон:SfnШаблон:SfnШаблон:SfnШаблон:Sfn
However, the effects of the revisionist historiographical view of the conflict were seen in several generations of Latin Americans (mainly Argentines, Brazilians and Uruguayans) who came to observe their past in a pessimistic way and to despise the historical figures of their countries.Шаблон:Sfn Such effects were felt mainly in Paraguay, where, as previously mentioned, the revisionist version was assumed as an official State doctrine, even more so after Solano López's transformation into a flawless hero.[6]Шаблон:Sfn Brazilian historian Francisco Doratioto argued that:Шаблон:Sfn
Modern historiography (1990–)
Already in 1930 the British historian Pelham Horton Box in his The Origins of the Paraguayan War had rejected the "mad dictator" theory of the war's origins. The first book, certainly in the English language, to seek to ascertain the war's causes by a thorough investigation of the available documents,Шаблон:Sfn Box wrote that "What emerges most clearly is the fact that the war germinated in the political and economic instability of the states of the Río de la Plata at this period in the history of South America. The uncertain and shifting factors were Argentina, Uruguay and, to a less extent, Brazil".Шаблон:Sfn The complex set of circumstances he described went back deep into the colonial era. Although Box was an admirer of Leon Trotsky his book is not written from a Marxist perspective.
In 1990, Brazilian historian Ricardo Salles published the work Guerra do Paraguai: Escravidão e Cidadania na Formação do Exército (Paraguayan War: Slavery and Citizenship in the Formation of the Army), where he presented an analysis of traditional and revisionist historiography: "If traditional studies on the war suffer from an excess of officialism and factualism, in turn, revisionist versions of the history of the conflict tend to simplifications not always based on deeper investigations".Шаблон:Sfn This work was one of the first of a new generation of historians who sought to analyze the Paraguayan War.Шаблон:SfnШаблон:Sfn
The studies carried out by these professionals revealed that the causes of the conflict were not due to external influence or the pure and simple ambition of a single man. But the result of a series of factors related to the formation as nation-states of the countries involved and the geopolitical and economic processes of the region, resulting from the historical, political and geographical inheritance of two different cultures: Portuguese and Spanish.Шаблон:SfnШаблон:SfnШаблон:SfnШаблон:SfnШаблон:Sfn Historian Francisco Doratioto concisely presented this new view of the causes of the conflict:Шаблон:Sfn
The most detailed analysis, at least in the English language, is Thomas L. Whigham's The Paraguayan War: Causes and Early Conduct (2nd ed., 2018), available as open access.Шаблон:Sfn Professor Whigham was not only interested in why the war started, but why it continued so long. This he described in his sequel book The Road to Armageddon: Paraguay versus the Triple Alliance, 1866–70, also open access.
References
Citations
Bibliography
Traditional historiography
Revisionist historiography
- Шаблон:Cite journal
- Шаблон:Cite book
- Шаблон:Cite book
- Шаблон:Cite book
- Шаблон:Cite book
- Шаблон:Cite book
- Шаблон:Cite book
- Шаблон:Cite journal
Modern historiography
- Шаблон:Cite book
- Шаблон:Cite book
- Шаблон:Cite book
- Шаблон:Cite book
- Шаблон:Cite book
- Шаблон:Cite book
- Шаблон:Cite book
- Шаблон:Cite book
- Шаблон:Cite book
- Шаблон:Cite book
- Шаблон:Cite book
- Шаблон:Cite book
- Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ ALBERDI, Juan Bautista [1810–1884]. Las disensiones de las Repúblicas del Plata y las maquinaciones del Brasil. Montevideo: Imprenta Tipografica a Vapor, 1865. 73 pp; ALBERDI, Juan Bautista [1810–1884]. Los intereses argentinos en la guerra del Paraguay con el Brasil. Paris: Impresión Privada [1865].
- ↑ HERRERA, Luis Alberto de. El drama del 65: la culpa mitrista. 2 ed. [s.l.]: [s.n.], 1927.
- ↑ O´LEARY, Juan Emiliano. [1879–1969] El Mariscal Solano López. 3 ed. Asunción: Paraguay, 1970. [1ª ed 1922; 2ed 1925, corrigida e aumentada].
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ 6,0 6,1 6,2 Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ Paraguayan War. (n.d.) The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 3rd Edition. (1970–1979). Retrieved October 12, 2018 from https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Paraguayan+War
- ↑ francisco solano lopez. (n.d.) The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 3rd Edition. (1970–1979). Retrieved October 12, 2018 from https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Francisco+Solano+Lopez
- ↑ Gordienko, V.D.: "Paraguayan War 1864–1870". (n.d.) The Great Russian Encyclopedia, Edition 2004–2017. Retrieved 18 April 2022 from http://bre.mkrf.ru/military_science/text/2706531
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
