No Blood For Bananas

Summary

History As It Happens: "No Blood For Bananas"

Host: Martin Di Caro
Guest: Julia Young, Historian at Catholic University
Date: January 13, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This episode explores the rarely discussed but pivotal 1954 U.S.-backed coup in Guatemala, orchestrated in large part to protect the business interests of the United Fruit Company (now Chiquita Banana). Through an engaging conversation with historian Julia Young, the show uncovers how the intersection of Cold War politics, U.S. corporate lobbying, and imperialist tendencies shaped central American history, contributing to present-day dynamics in Latin America. Parallels are drawn to contemporary interventions, notably in Venezuela.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

The United Fruit Company and the "Banana Republics"

[06:16–13:54]

• Early Export Economy: Bananas—originally native to Southeast Asia—became a staple in Central American export economies due to new technologies like refrigerated shipping and the U.S. consumer market's appetite.
• Supply Chain Monopoly: United Fruit, founded by Minor Keith, succeeded by fully controlling land, transportation, supply chains, and labor in multiple Central American countries.
• Land Acquisition: Weak and unstable Central American governments, plagued by inequality and poverty, collaborated or ceded huge land concessions to United Fruit, exacerbating wealth disparities and labor exploitation.
• Labor Movements: Harsh plantation conditions led to the spark of labor organization—movements United Fruit actively suppressed with help from political and elite collaborators, both locally and in Washington D.C.

"They [United Fruit] figured out that if they could control the entire supply chain... they could profit much more." – Julia Young [08:36]

U.S. Intervention and the "Banana Wars"

[12:28–15:03]

• Roosevelt Corollary & Banana Wars: U.S. military interventions, justified as "police actions" under the Monroe Doctrine, often protected American business interests. While not all the so-called "Banana Wars" were about bananas, U.S. involvement in Central America escalated for reasons of imperial expansion, economic security, and removing European influences.
• "Banana Republic": The term describes countries where foreign corporations like United Fruit exercised outsize control via complicit local governments—often an insult implying lack of genuine sovereignty.

"The Banana Republic referred to these Central American nations that were essentially shell countries... puppet governments." – Julia Young [13:27]

Guatemala's Road to the 1954 Coup

[16:07–24:01]

• United Fruit's Power: By the early 1950s, United Fruit owned up to 40% of Guatemala's arable land.
• Revolution & Reform: In 1944, dictator Jorge Ubico was overthrown. Successive democratically elected leaders, Juan José Arévalo and Jacobo Arbenz, promoted labor rights and land reforms.
• Conflict with United Fruit: Arbenz's agrarian reforms targeted uncultivated lands, much of it owned by United Fruit, aiming to break dependency and introduce economic independence.
• U.S. Connections: United Fruit's allies in high places included John Foster Dulles (Secretary of State) and Allen Dulles (CIA director), both former legal counsels for UFCO. Key figures also owned substantial company stock, ensuring direct lobbying power in D.C.

"It's not just that they're telling Central American governments what to do. They're also, in a way, telling the American government what to do." – Julia Young [22:28]

The Cold War Context & Pretexts for Intervention

[24:01–27:20]

• Red Scare Tactics: United Fruit stoked anti-communist fears, labeling labor activists as "communists" and leveraging Cold War anxiety to push the Eisenhower administration toward intervention.
• Reality vs. Rhetoric: Although Arbenz allowed the Communist Party and sought left-wing reforms, he modeled policy more on the New Deal than on Soviet socialism. The narrative of an impending communist stronghold served as convenient justification for economic motivations.

"The economic interests are a much stronger driver of foreign policy. And the concern about communism is kind of a pretext." – Julia Young [26:19]

Execution of the Coup

[27:20–30:44]

• CIA Operation: U.S.-trained and backed forces led by Carlos Castillo Armas, with internal Guatemalan support from landowning and conservative elites, overthrew Arbenz. Tactics included psychological warfare (e.g., leaflet drops, pirate radio), air raids, and coordinated local rebellion.
• Role of Local Actors: Emphasized that foreign coups succeed with domestic compliance; conservative landowners, elites, and the Catholic Church sided against reforms threatening their interests.

"In almost all of these instances... there were people who were on the right... who want to get rid of the leftist who is in charge." – Martin DeCaro [29:05]

Aftermath for Guatemala

[30:44–32:24]

• Democratic Spring Lost: The coup ended a decade of democracy and progressive reform, replacing it with a military dictatorship that reversed land reform and initiated a 36-year civil war.
• Human Cost: The civil war resulted in genocide targeting indigenous Mayans, gross human rights abuses, and left a legacy of political violence and impunity.
• Migration: Repression fueled massive emigration, fostering a sizable Guatemalan community in the U.S., particularly in the D.C. area.

"There's a loss for democracy in Guatemala... ultimately a 36 year long civil war." – Julia Young [31:20]

U.S. Interventions, Diasporas, and Unintended Consequences

[32:24–35:02]

• Wider Patterns: U.S. interventions in Latin America (El Salvador, Cuba, etc.) consistently generated migration flows, humanitarian crises, and exiled communities lobbying U.S. foreign policy.
• Diaspora Politics: Expatriate communities (Ex: Cuban-Americans in Florida) become powerful actors influencing future U.S. policy toward their home countries.

"I think we have a tendency in our foreign policy... to overthrow a leader or a particular movement and then declare the job done. And then walk away and think that we've... had a big victory. Instead, what happens... varies, right? And we are not generally prepared for the consequences..." – Julia Young [33:13]

Parallels to Venezuela and Modern U.S. Policy

[36:51–40:04]

• Maduro vs. Arbenz: The episode closes by comparing the motives, methods, and justification behind the 1954 Guatemalan coup to recent events in Venezuela—both involve U.S. intervention justified by Cold War or anti-statist rhetoric, but driven by economic interests (bananas/oil).
• Democracy Double Standard: U.S. rhetoric rarely matches its actions—democratically elected governments are toppled if they threaten business interests, while dictatorships are supported if they align with U.S. priorities.
• Imperial Echoes: The current era displays open, unapologetic pursuit of economic interests abroad, hearkening back to "imperial" language and methods of the late 19th/early 20th centuries.

"Removing a democratically elected leader is... really goes against what we say about ourselves here in the United States. And we're supposed to be proponents of democracy and support democracy, and yet we often have not, especially in Latin America." – Julia Young [39:01]

---

Memorable Quotes & Moments (with Timestamps)

• On Manipulating Communism:

  "United Fruit Co. would simply label those people as communists, collect their names and report them either to their friendly Central American politicians or to their contacts in the US Government and say these are communists. They're organizing to bring communism to Guatemala."
  – Julia Young [01:30] / [24:01]

• On UFC's Political Clout:

  "The secretary of State at the time is John Foster Dulles, and the CIA director is Allen Dulles. And both of them had previously been lawyers who had worked for United Fruit Company."
  – Julia Young [22:28]

• On the Cost to Democracy:

  "The consequences are the end of what's known as the Guatemalan spring... a 36 year long civil war..."
  – Julia Young [31:20]

• Democratic Ideals vs. Economic Interests:

  "We’re supposed to be proponents of democracy... and yet we often have not, especially in Latin America. We've prioritized either business interests or larger geopolitical considerations."
  – Julia Young [39:01]

• On Repetitive Patterns:

  "When we intervene in this way, I think we set off a chain of events that we can never predict or know what will happen, but we know that we will set off a chain of events."
  – Julia Young [36:40]

• Modern Parallels:

  "We're in a different political context. I mean, Guatemala happens... in the context of the Cold War... The moment we're in looks like... a resurgence of late 19th or early 20th century imperialism."
  – Julia Young [39:36]

---

Notable Timestamps for Important Segments

• Opening Historical Context & Archive Audio: [00:36–02:29]
• Banana Industry Origins & United Fruit's Ascendancy: [06:16–10:14]
• Labor, Land, and Banana Republics: [10:14–13:54]
• American Imperialism & the Banana Wars: [12:28–15:03]
• Guatemalan Democratic Revolution & Arevalo/Arbenz: [16:07–19:06]
• United Fruit’s U.S. Connections & Tax Disputes: [21:04–23:13]
• Cold War Pretext & "Red Scare": [24:01–27:20]
• CIA Coup Details & Local Allies: [27:20–30:44]
• Aftermath — Civil War & Migration: [30:44–32:24]
• Diaspora, Policy, and Predictable Unpredictability: [32:24–36:51]
• Venezuela Parallels and Today’s Imperial Echoes: [36:51–40:50]

---

Concluding Reflections

Julia Young and Martin DiCaro poignantly illuminate how U.S. interventions—overt or covert, justified or self-serving—have continuously shaped not just Central American nations, but also American society itself through the resultant migrations and diaspora politics. The story of "No Blood for Bananas" is a sobering lesson in the complex, often dire consequences of merging economic interests with Cold War (or post-Cold War) justifications, reminding us history’s "forgotten" moments remain highly relevant to today.

---

For more episodes and bonus content, visit History As It Happens.

Transcript

[Julia Young]

This is the new Weight Watchers. It works for members like Jojo, who's learning simple, healthy habits. Sharia, who's making progress with meds, and Kim, who still gets to eat what she loves. For over 60 years, we've helped millions of members find what works for them. Now it's your turn. Watch your life open up. Watch your story shift. Watch what you're capable of. Watch it work.

[Martin DeCaro]

Get started [e-mail] history as it happens. January 13, 2026. No blood for bananas.

[Narrator/Archive Audio]

For the first time in 10 years, the people of Guatemala are breathing the sweet air of liberty. The Guatemalan people wanted the anti communist revolution to succeed in which they were attempting to change the minds of the people and to warp them over to supporting international communism.

[Martin DeCaro]

In the long history of U.S. intervention in Latin America, the name Jacobo Arbenz is forgotten in the United. Not so in Guatemala, where during the Cold War he angered the wrong people. Long before the dictator Maduro was abducted for oil, the democrat Arbenz was driven from power for bananas. That's next as we report history as it happens. I'm Martin DeCaro.

[Narrator/Archive Audio]

Rapidly rebuild Venezuela's dilapidated oil industry and.

[Martin DeCaro]

Bring millions of barrels of oil production.

[Narrator/Archive Audio]

To benefit the United States, the people of Venezuela and the entire world.

[Julia Young]

I would say what happens is that the United Fruit Company understands this context and exploits it in order to induce the US Government to help put down reform movements that might threaten its profits. Let's say you have individuals in Guatemala who are trying to organize laborers to advocate for their rights for higher pay. United Fruit Co. Would simply label those people as communists, collect their names and report them either to their friendly Central American politicians or to their contacts in the US Government and say these are communists. They're organizing to bring communism to Guatemala. Under Nicaragua.

[Narrator/Archive Audio]

Peace comes to Guatemala.

[Martin DeCaro]

It's 1954. Moviegoers who saw this British Pathe newsreel.

[Narrator/Archive Audio]

Were watching propaganda are breathing the sweet air of liberty. Only days after the resignation of Red President Jacobo Arbenz, rebel leader Castillo Armas sweeps into town.

[Martin DeCaro]

Guatemala was not entering a new period of freedom and liberty. Its democracy had actually been destroyed in a military coup backed by the CIA, making Colonel Castillo Armas the new president. And he was no democrat.

[Narrator/Archive Audio]

Planes sweep across the skies over Guatemala City to herald the triumphal return of Colonel Castillo Armas. The flag draped capital with its 200,000 inhabitants is in a carnival mood. Sidewalk benders busily hawking balloons and signs saluting the little colonel.

[Martin DeCaro]

The following year, on his goodwill tour to Latin America. Vice President Richard Nixon and Armas, I.

[Narrator/Archive Audio]

Will try to speak you in English.

[Martin DeCaro]

Which is not my land, appeared together in this propaganda film for American audiences.

[Narrator/Archive Audio]

I speak not as a chief of the state, but as a soldier in the war against the communists. Me a very graphic experience to see this exhibit of what the communists were doing in Guatemala. Guatemala has always been a country in which we in the United States of America have had a great interest. Our two peoples have been friends. And yet we see in this exhibit what happened to this country under the regime of the communists.

[Martin DeCaro]

The Armas regime rounded up thousands of suspected communists and executed hundreds of prisoners. Labor unions were crushed and lands that once belonged to the United Fruit Company were given back to the company, canceling an agrarian reform that was designed to give Guatemala sovereignty over its land. Castillo Armas did not last long. He was assassinated in 1957 and a civil war would start a couple of years later.

[Narrator/Archive Audio]

Carlos Castillo Armas, 42, has died at the presidential palace from an assassin's bullet. A foe of communism and a champion of democracy, his death came as violently as his rise to power. In 1954, anti communist rebels rose to oust Guatemala's red infiltrated government.

[Martin DeCaro]

So United Fruit Company, you might recognize its current name, Chiquita Banana. Today there is no mystery, at least not any longer, as to why the Trump administration invaded Venezuela and kidnapped Nicolas Maduro. It was about the oil, but it's.

[Narrator/Archive Audio]

Tremendous reserves, among the biggest in the world. Some people say it is the biggest in the world. And we're going to be working with Venezuela. We're going to be making the decision as to which oil, oil companies are going to go in that we're going.

[Martin DeCaro]

To allow to go in. In 1954, United Fruit, which treated Guatemala like a large plantation so Americans could eat cheap bananas, pleaded with the Eisenhower administration to do something about Jacobo Arbenz. Historian Julia Young teaches at Catholic University in Washington where she's an expert on Latin America and migration. Our conversation next, but why don't you tap subscribe now in the show notes or go to historyasithappens.com and subscribe. You won't have to listen to ads. Julia Young, welcome back to the show.

[Julia Young]

Martin DeCaro, it's great to be here.

[Martin DeCaro]

So Venezuela is about the oil. There's a pattern when it comes to US Latin American relations of US interventions, something I've been discussing on the podcast a lot lately. Often these interventions have to do with natural resources. So within the pattern there are variations, different periods of time, sets of Circumstances, multiple motivations, aims. We're going to go back to Guatemala in 1954. But as you know from being on the show, we're going to go back even before that to start the banana wars. What were they and why is this important context?

[Julia Young]

Anytime we talk about Central America and Latin America in the first quarter of the 20th century, really the first half of the 20th century, we have to talk about bananas. When I talk about this in my classes, I always tell my students that we're going to learn about, about the darker side of bananas. Like, we might even end up ruining bananas for you. Because the history of bananas and the banana industry and bananas in Latin America is really a bloody one. I can go back even further. The banana is a fruit that's not native to Central America or Latin America. It's actually native to Southeast Asia. But when the Spanish come to colonize the Americas after 1492, somebody realizes that bananas will grow really well in the tropical parts of the Americas. And so they start planting bananas for local and domestic consumption in Central America in particular, it's sort of a ban from Guatemala to parts of Colombia, the northern parts of South America. But bananas, as we all know, are really fragile fruits. And they turn brown and they bruise and you gotta eat them within a particular window, right. So that makes them actually really difficult to transport over large distances. Until the late 19th century, when we now have faster shipping technology. So the steamship. Right. Faster transportation networks, the railroad, and really importantly, refrigerated transportation. So refrigerated shipping, refrigerated trucking. And what that means is that this fragile fruit that spoils so easily can now be shipped to international markets. And the biggest international market for any Latin American country is going to be the United States. And so there is an opportunity for companies and for Latin American countries to begin exporting bananas to the United States consumer market. And that starts to happen at the turn of the century. The person who manages to capitalize the most on this new international export market in bananas is a man named Miner Keith, who founds a company that was called United Fruit.

[Martin DeCaro]

Miner Keith mine are Keith. You know, I didn't know any of this history. So he founds United Fruit Company, a multinational corporation.

[Julia Young]

Yeah, so the reason that United Fruit Company was so successful was that they figured out that if they could control the entire supply chain, so in other words, from the zone of production to the zone of consumption and all the transportation networks and all of the packaging and shipping, that if they could control all of that, they could profit much more.

[Martin DeCaro]

They needed to control the land then in these countries.

[Julia Young]

Yeah, that made it much easier. So they were distinct in aggressively purchasing land from, at the time, very weak Central American governments, which were often really weak and unstable because the 19th century had been a century of a lot of political instability in Central America in particular. So United Fruit Company goes about purchasing land or obtaining concessions from those governments so that it can build on that land, build railroad networks, buildings that you need to store and ship and refrigerate bananas. And then it also begins to gain control over the labor market. Right. Begins employing Central Americans to work on its banana plantation. Something else about bananas, you need a lot of land to grow bananas. So as United Fruit develops a monopoly on land, on labor, on the supply chain of its banana plantations, really a monopoly on this entire export market, it really does so with the cooperation, with the collaboration of friendly Central American governments.

[Martin DeCaro]

So there must be something in it for them. Although their labor is going to be the labor of the people in these countries are the ones who are going to be working, maybe even being exploited. Right. On these banana plantations, which are quite large.

[Julia Young]

Yes. The process of growing and harvesting bananas for production is labor intensive. It requires large plantations and a large labor force. Most of that is drawn from the poorest sectors of Central American society. These are very poor countries at this time with very high rates of inequality. So large numbers of landless peasants, many of them are indigenous, and very small numbers of wealthy landholding elite. The conditions of labor on the banana plantations are not great. Heavy labor, hacking with machetes, getting those heavy products to ships. And it's all very time sensitive. So you begin to get, in the early 20th century, these incipient labor movements, where you have peasant groups, these landless groups, feeling like they're exploited for their labor, starting to organize and push back against United Fruit, against other plantation owners to try to argue for better pay for workers rights. And United Fruit does not like that. That threatens to cut into its profits. Right. And so what it realizes is that it really needs to consolidate to ensure that it has the collaboration and cooperation of politicians and governments across Latin America. And so.

[Martin DeCaro]

And in Washington, I'm assuming as well, they need Washington's back.

[Julia Young]

Right. So. Well, I mean, we have to kind of tease that out. So U.S. business interests, and here we're talking about United Fruit, but other business interests as well. There's also a coffee industry, coffee plantations. So US Business interests really want to ensure that politicians and governments are going to be friendly to them, are not going to be. Are going to be less friendly to labor are going to allow them to own the land that they want to own. They're going to allow them to operate the railroads and the transportation networks. They're going to allow them to run their supply chains as smoothly as possible. And labor agitation threatens that smooth operation of the supply chain.

[Martin DeCaro]

So this is also the era, as I've discussed on some recent shows, of the Roosevelt corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, early 1900s, where the United States is now responsible for taking police action, intervention militarily to defend its interests if necessary in these countries. And we see a lot of places are invaded multiple times. The Banana Wars. Were all of these wars about bananas? What were they?

[Julia Young]

So I don't love the term banana wars because they're not all about bananas. Where that term sort of comes from is that the Central American nations where the United Fruit Company is operating, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, they are referred to frequently as banana republics.

[Martin DeCaro]

So that's a derogatory name, right?

[Julia Young]

Yeah, it is.

[Martin DeCaro]

There's a clothing store named Banana Republic. Right. Is that out of business?

[Julia Young]

I mean, I'm a child of the 90s. I had a Banana Republic T shirt.

[Martin DeCaro]

Back to the early 20th century.

[Julia Young]

Yeah, the Banana Republic referred to these Central American nations that were essentially shell countries or that when the UFC was successful in manipulating politics in order to control the supply chain, the governments became almost puppet governments. Right. They collaborated with United Fruit to the extent that they weren't meeting the needs of their own people.

[Martin DeCaro]

So the Banana Wars Republic.

[Julia Young]

So the Banana wars is used to refer to many different interventions that took place in Latin America in the first quarter to. Well, really sort of the 1900s to the 1940s in Central America and Latin America. I mean, I have a list in front of me of all of the US interventions in Latin America. And this is just one list. And these are sort of subjective, but it's just one line per intervention and it's nine single spaced pages long. Right. So there are way too many interventions for us to even go into. It should just be said that the United States has been regularly intervening in Latin America since really since there was the United States, and has been doing so for a wide variety of reasons. Sometimes for territorial expansion, sometimes to kick out, you know, a European country or another competitor country that's there to protect its business interests abroad or to expand business interests into new territory.

[Martin DeCaro]

Here's an encyclopedia entry for the Banana Wars. Refer to a series of US military interventions and occupations in Latin America and the Caribbean primarily aimed at protecting American economic interests. Especially those of fruit companies like United Fruit Company, now Chiquita Banana. These interventions took place in Honduras, Nicaragua, Cuba, Panama, the Dominican Republic and Haiti. The wars were rooted in US imperialism, economic dominance and political influence in the region up until FDR's good neighbor policy. And we had a bit of a change. All this happening before the Cold War. So Guatemala, early 1950s. Getting to the main order of business here. We often think of the early years of the Cold War. The epicenter is in Europe, because it was Germany is really where the Cold War begins. The fate of Germany after the Second World War. How did Guatemala wind up on the Eisenhower administration's radar from 1952? 53, yeah.

[Julia Young]

So Guatemala is, by the 1940s, a total export economy. It's exporting first coffee and then bananas. United Fruit owns something like. The estimates vary, but I've seen a couple that agree around 40% of the land in Guatemala.

[Martin DeCaro]

40% of the land. That's amazing, a company owning that much property. Go ahead.

[Julia Young]

Well, I mean, amazing. Unless you study Latin American history and then, you know that we, you know, we had massive land holdings in Cuba, in Mexico, so other places. And it's a part of U.S. involvement in Latin America. It's U.S. business involvement, U.S. business investment and U.S. ownership of natural resources and land.

[Martin DeCaro]

So now Guatemala is on the US radar in the early 1950s. Tell us what's going on there.

[Julia Young]

Guatemala gets on the US radar because in 1944, a group of junior military officers overthrow the ruling junta of a man named Jorge Ubico. Ubico was a kind of a nasty guy. So he had been an open admirer of Franco. He had created a secret police and he had given massive concessions to the United Fruit Company and supported their harsh labor practices. And so there was growing discontent about Ubico from regular people as well as from this wing of the military. And so there's this uprising and he's overthrown in 1944. And the revolution is led by a man named Juan Jose Arevalo. He's an interesting character. He's actually a philosophy professor. So we don't think of philosophy professors as people who go on to lead revolutions and rule countries.

[Martin DeCaro]

Maybe, Professor Young, you'll be in charge of a country one day, but go ahead.

[Julia Young]

One can dream. So Juan Jose Arevalo becomes president in 1945. And in 1947, he enacts a new labor code that includes the right for workers to organize unions and to strike. The aim of this is to improve the status of working classes. And he also Begins to look into land ownership and the issue of land ownership. And so you can probably guess that United Fruit Company doesn't love this. So Guatemala starts sort of getting on the radar of UFC and of the United States. And UFC has very strong political connections in the United States. Some really powerful politicians in the US have direct interest in ufc. So we can talk about that if we want. But importantly, Arevalo finishes out his term. The next president of Guatemala is Jacobo Arbenz Guzman. He had participated in the same revolution. He sort of aligned with Juan Jose Arevalo and he becomes president in 1951. He's democratically elected. Both Arevalo and Arbenz are democratically elective.

[Martin DeCaro]

And he was supported by the army left wing political parties, which included, uh, oh, the Communist Party of Guatemala and Arbenz, who is the son of a Swiss pharmacist who had immigrated to Guatemala. Arbenz makes this agrarian reform program his number one priority. And I think that should be obvious as to why, as we just established, United Fruit Company owned almost half the land in the country.

[Julia Young]

Yep. Like Arevalo, he's really concerned with economic and social improvements to the poor and the middle classes or really the almost non existent middle class, like creating a middle class in Guatemala or at least reducing the really striking inequality that exists in Guatemala. And addressing this issue of workers rights, workers who are being exploited by the United Fruit Company, the amount of land that the United Fruit Company owns. And so what he really wants is to make Guatemala an actual independent economy and not just what it had become, which is kind of a banana plantation, a banana republic. Right. This sort of quasi feudal dependent nation where it doesn't have autonomy, it doesn't have sovereignty, it doesn't really have independence. So he wants to do economic reforms. He starts talking about nationalizing some industries in Guatemala. He wants foreign firms to pay more taxes. He wants in Guatemala. So he starts calling for a new land policy that would redistribute land to family.

[Martin DeCaro]

So there's an echo there in what's happening today in Venezuela, insisting the company and other landowners pay more taxes. I mean, that's what happened with the two waves of nationalization of Venezuela's oil. So Arbenz, he's pushing these reforms. United Fruit Company does not like this. So what do they do? They go knock on the White House door, Right?

[Julia Young]

Yeah. I want to go to two, I want to say two things for you really quickly.

[Martin DeCaro]

Sure.

[Julia Young]

That I think you can use when you're talking about taxes first. And I have the Numbers here. The ufc, in its tax declaration to Guatemala, had declared that it was worth $1,185,000. That's what it had claimed on its tax returns. And. And so Arbenz, in his plans to expropriate or to take uncultivated lands that UFC owned, declared that he would only compensate UFC that $1.185 million. And UFC got very upset and said, no, no, it was actually worth $19 million. Right. So there is that element of whenever you have a foreign company in a country like Guatemala that it's not paying the taxes that it should be paying and that it's really siphoning money and wealth and profit out of Guatemala. And that's what our Bens believe. That's what political movements that are opposed to companies and to foreign ownership of land, of industries, that's what they're fighting against. So that's one thing I wanted to say. And then the other thing I wanted to say, I wanted to go back to the connections that United Fruit company had in U.S. government. The secretary of State at the time is John Foster Dulles, and the CIA director is Allen Dulles. And both of them had previously been lawyers who had worked for United Fruit Company. And then the family of John Morris Cabot, who's the Assistant Secretary of State for Inter American affairs, also owns stock in United Fruit Company. So this is a company that has a direct line to the highest levels of power in the United States. It's actually really interesting to think about it this way. It's not just that they're telling Central American governments what to do. They're also, in a way, telling the American government what to do. Right. And so whenever they raise an alarm about something that is happening in Guatemala or in any other country where they operate, they're able to raise that alarm with friendly politicians in Central America, but also with friendly politicians in the United States.

[Martin DeCaro]

This is also the age of decolonization. Guatemala wasn't a US colony, but it basically was an economic colony of United Fruit, which, as you say, was well connected to the US government. So the country there, rightly or wrongly, is Arbenz, I should say, wants to assert sovereignty over property. And he actually, at first, the agrarian reform targeted land that United Fruit wasn't even using at that, I guess certain fields are allowed to lie unused for a while. I don't know how to. I don't know how to grow bananas. I go to the grocery store.

[Julia Young]

It was uncultivated land.

[Martin DeCaro]

Uncultivated land.

[Julia Young]

So I don't know how to grow bananas either, but I assume you sort of rotate crops.

[Martin DeCaro]

And there's something else here, though, Julia, to convince Eisenhower to give the green light for a coup to get rid of Arbenz. The communism angle as well.

[Julia Young]

Yeah. Given that we are now in the Cold War, I would say what happens is that the United Fruit Company understands this context and exploits it in order to induce the US Government to help put down reform movements that might threaten its profits. Let's say you have individuals in Guatemala who are trying to organize laborers to advocate for their rights, for higher pay, whatever. United Fruit Co. Would simply label those people as communists, collect their names, and report them either to their friendly Central American politicians or to their contacts in the US Government and say, these are communists. They're organizing to bring communism to Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, whatever.

[Martin DeCaro]

But Arbenz, was he a communist? I mean, he was friendly with the Communist Party, but he wasn't trying to end capitalism per se. Right. I mean, what was his.

[Julia Young]

So Arbenz says he is not a communist, but does have some friendly connections with communists. I mean, one of the focuses of United Fruit Company's campaign against him was that his wife had communist sympathies and was, you know, was a radical. And therefore he was as well. He was not a member of the Communist Party. It was very small in Guatemala.

[Martin DeCaro]

I mean, he was on the left.

[Julia Young]

But he was on the left.

[Narrator/Archive Audio]

For United Fruit, it's business as usual as all company land seized by the communists is returned. On television, Secretary of State Dulles announces the return of democracy to Guatemala. Picture of Guatemala lies at the disposal of the Guatemalan people themselves. It lies also at the disposal of leaders loyal to Guatemala who have not treasonably become the agents of an alien despotism which sought to use Guatemala for its own evil ends. The events of recent months and days add a new and glorious chapter to the already great tradition of the American states.

[Julia Young]

There probably was some legitimate concern among US Officials that even if he was not a communist, that he would open a path to a communist government in Guatemala. And there's genuine concern in the Cold War about Latin American governments turning communist. But I think in the case of Guatemala, the economic interests are a much stronger driver of foreign policy. And the communist. The concern about communism is kind of a pretext. And I think that's important to think about, because when we tease out why we're doing what we're doing in Venezuela right now, there are a lot of. I think we can call them pretexts. Right? Like this idea that Maduro is part of this kind of fictitious cartel de los Solis or, or that there's trafficking of drugs from Venezuela, which is sort of strange for those of us who study this to hear about. In fact, the concern seems to be about oil.

[Martin DeCaro]

And Arbenz, his agrarian reform law was actually a pattern on the New Deal, wasn't it? He just wanted to create a regulated capitalist society. Decree 900 was the name of the law. Regulated capitalism. Not a Soviet style communist state. But as you say, the point here is communist or not, that was how United Fruit tried to get Eisenhower's ear. John Foster Dulles, these are all cold warriors. This happened in Iran as well, saying that Mossadegh was a communist, which was not true either. And they give the go ahead for the coup. Now we're not going to get into all the nitty gritty details of the coup. Here people can pick up Tim Weiner's book, Legacy of Ashes, the history of the CIA. There's a whole chapter about Guatemala. It was wild what happened, for instance, on May 26, 1954, CIA plane. A CIA plane buzzed the Presidential palace, dropped leaflets over the headquarters of the Presidential Guard, the most elite of the army's units in Guatemala City. Struggle against communist atheism, they read. Struggle with Castillo Armas. We'll get to who Armas was in a second. The CIA had been doing psychological warfare with a pirate radio station called Voice of Limeration, run by a CIA contract officer, an amateur actor and skilled dramatist named David Atlee Phillips, trying to stoke turmoil and unrest in the country. Eventually, the CIA comes through with enough money and bombs, aircraft actually that were sent down there on an emergency basis, and allies, if you will, within the Guatemalan military to overthrow our bends. Castillo Armas. Tell us briefly who he was and why in all of these situations, when we talk about CIA coups, there always have to be people within these countries that want to get rid of their governments. It's not the CIA waving a magic wand. The government or the leader disappears. In almost all of these instances during the Cold War, there were people who were on the right. Often they want to get rid of the leftist who is in charge. Maybe for different reasons than Eisenhower would.

[Julia Young]

Exactly. I mean, in all of these interventions, I think it's really important and in the long history of US interventions in Latin America, I think it's always important to pay attention to sectors of society, political parties, movements that actually support and sometimes even ask for US intervention. In Guatemala, these include conservative elites, landowners or large landowners who don't Want to see a land reform that threatens their whole holdings. Elites who are profiting from that relationship with the United Fruit Company and from the export economy. The Catholic Church is one of them, especially the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, which in general tends to be more conservative in Latin America and is very much opposed to communism and so is similarly allergic to any movement that looks like it might be a communist movement. Carlos Castillo Armas is an air Force colonel who becomes the leader of the CIA backed rebels against Jacobo Arbenz and then is named head of the military junta that controls Guatemala after Arbenz steps down.

[Martin DeCaro]

Yeah. What were the consequences for the people of Guatemala?

[Julia Young]

The consequences are the end of what's known as the Guatemalan spring. So this 10 year period where Guatemala had democratically elected governments that sought reforms that would benefit all Guatemalans, but especially middle class and poorer Guatemalans, there's a loss for democracy in Guatemala. The consequences are a military dictatorship led by Carlos Castillo Armas, the end of the land reforms, ultimately a 36 year long civil war which starts in 1960 and goes all the way to 1996.

[Martin DeCaro]

36 year civil war.

[Julia Young]

Yeah, yeah.

[Martin DeCaro]

And a genocide. Right. A genocide of Mayans in Guatemala.

[Julia Young]

A military government that targets and attacks indigenous Guatemalans in particular, accusing them of having leftist sympathies, accusing them of fomenting leftist insurgencies in the country and really enacting this incredibly brutal repression, massacres. And to this day, Guatemala still is struggling with accountability for the crimes that were committed during the civil war, particularly the crimes against indigenous people. Some of the politicians who were known to have committed atrocities against indigenous people were not held to account, were not punished. Another thing that happened indirectly as a result of this overthrow of Jacobo Arben's and the civil war that followed is increasing migration from Guatemala to the United States.

[Martin DeCaro]

Yes. My next question. Yeah, we can broaden this. Now. When the US does intervene in many of these places, whether it's to topple a government, install some junto or a dictator or whatever it might be, We've discussed this in the past vis a vis El Salvador, for instance, you do see waves of immigration to the United States and then you get a diaspora. I think there's one in South Florida that has strong opinions about what's happening in Venezuela and in Cuba. Right. Talk to us about that consequence, which we have to say it doesn't look like US leaders gave that possibility much thought. For instance, in El Salvador in the 19, late 1970s under Carter, then under Reagan. Right. I guess they think about It. Once the people start to show up in the United States. But go ahead, you're the expert here on Babylon.

[Julia Young]

I think we have a tendency in our foreign policy in Latin America, in Central America, but honestly around the world, to overthrow a leader or a particular movement and then declare the job done and missions accomplished, right. And then. And then walk away and think that we've. We've done our job and we've had a big victory. Instead, what happens is. Well, what happens varies, right? And we are not generally prepared for the consequences, especially some of the more negative consequences or more destructive consequences. So in Guatemala, we see this civil war and a flow of migration to the United States. And now there are millions of Guatemalans in the United States, tens of thousands of whom live right here where we do in the D.C. area, right? And that migration flow really began as a part of that war. Another thing that can happen is, you know, well, political instability, the rise of military dictatorships, the rise of repression, and really brutal human rights violations. And that happened over and over again in Latin America when we supported politicians or political movements that we thought would be friendly to our interests. And we looked the other way when those politicians violated human rights in some really awful ways. So that was true in Argentina, that was true in Chile, in the Southern cone countries, that was true across Central America.

[Martin DeCaro]

So all these incidents or events are different in some way. Cuba is another one, right, where we do have a very influential Cuban lobby in the United States opposed to the regime in Cuba. They were driven out of Cuba or they fled Cuba, and now they're in the United States lobbying for Washington to somehow get rid of the regime down there. I mean, I think Marco Rubio has been pretty clear about this.

[Julia Young]

Well, I just think it underscores the unpredictability of our involvement in the politics of Latin America. The Cuba example is really interesting, right? We. We get involved with Cuba in the 19th century, and then especially during the Spanish American War in 1898, we end up making Cuba a kind of a protectorate and intervening in Cuban politics, sending troops into Cuba multiple times in the 1920s and 1930s. Ultimately, all of this intervention actually helps bring about, sort of ironically helps bring about Fidel Castro and a leftist movement that is really opposed to what they call imperialism of the United States. Then that government, for various reasons, cracks down on its people at various points, and that leads to the beginnings of exile and immigration from Cuba. That leads to an exile flow that builds a diasporic community in South Florida that is rabidly anti communist and anti Leftist to this day with some complications. And then you have a voting bloc that is actually driving US Foreign policy. So it's so interesting to look at Cuban politics in Miami and in South Florida as actually a product of more than 100 years of US intervention. So it's very unpredictable. And of course, that's a different example because this is a, you know, is a left wing revolution and eventually becomes a Marxist, openly declared Marxist government. But it's just, and it's just very interesting because when we intervene in this way, I think we set off a chain of events that we can never predict or know what will happen, but we know that we will set off a chain of events.

[Martin DeCaro]

So wrapping up here. Julia Young, I wanted to talk to you about the parallels between Arbenz and what's happening in Venezuela. There are, of course, a lot of differences. Maduro is an autocrat. Arbenz was democratically elected. Maduro is one of the worst human rights abusers. His government, anyway, which is still in place. We should note the regime has not been changed yet. Maduro's government was one of the worst human rights abusers around. Arbenz was not in that category. But still, I think there are some useful parallels here, wouldn't you say?

[Julia Young]

Absolutely. Arbenz and Maduro and Chavez before him.

[Martin DeCaro]

In Venezuela, really Chavismo, which is the.

[Julia Young]

Key, the Chavista movement, both challenge U.S. economic interests. Both were seen as governments that were bad for US Business interests. I think both of them challenged US Intervention using different rhetoric. Right. But much more anti imperialist in Venezuela. But both represented a challenge to the U.S. both of them were vulnerable to U.S. continued U.S. economic pressure and U.S. political pressure. Both of them did have some domestic opposition in Venezuela, less domestic opposition because of how many people had been really driven out of Venezuela. In some sense, Venezuela's domestic opposition was actually here in the United States because there's been such massive migration from Venezuela into the United States and other parts of other neighboring countries. In both cases, the CIA is involved in planning covert operations, ensuring that the political leader that they don't like is deposed or removed. But of course, there are also some key differences. I think it's always worth mentioning and repeating that Jacobo Arbenz was democratically elected. Removing a democratically elected leader is. It really goes against what we say about ourselves here in the United States. And we're supposed to be proponents of democracy and support democracy, and yet we often have not, especially in Latin America. We've prioritized either business interests or larger geopolitical considerations when we've decided which leaders to support and which not to support. Maduro is not a democratically elected leader. I mean, that opens another topic, like should a leader be deposed by the United States just because he or she is not democratically elected? You know, I think that's a, that's a different debate, but that's a difference between Guatemala and Venezuela. And then, of course, we're in a different political context. I mean, Guatemala happens in the context very much in the context of the Cold War. So even if the rhetoric about Guatemala or our Bens being communist is hyperbolic or overblown or a pretext, it still is very much part of this larger Cold War context. And now the moment we're in, I mean, I'm a historian, but the moment we're in looks like a sort of resurgence, almost a resurgence of. Of late 19th or early 20th century imperialism. Right? Open imperialism, an open acknowledgment that we're going to pursue our business interests over supporting democracy.

[Martin DeCaro]

It is not a good neighbor policy.

[Julia Young]

The way we're talking about our role in the rest of the world sounds like the way that some of the more belligerent folks in the, in the late 19th century and early 20th century were talking. I mean, even Teddy Roosevelt, you know, I don't want to compare Trump to Teddy Roosevelt, but Teddy Roosevelt did openly talk about US Imperial goals. And there was, in the early, very early 20th century, right at the turn of the century was really an openness to imperialism or a sort of imperial domination in the Western Hemisphere in the former Spanish colonies that. Yeah, this is all feeling a little bit familiar.

[Martin DeCaro]

On the next episode of History as it Happens, it's going to be a bonus episode this week about Venezuela, oil and the global market. Why would the United States need to invade another country for access to oil? What companies are already doing business there? Why did Venezuela nationalize its oil industry back in the 1970s? People are asking these questions now that the US seems to be in charge of Venezuela's oil reserves. That is next. As we report History as it happens, make sure to sign up for my newsletter. Just go to Substack and search for History as it Happens. Marketing is hard, but I'll tell you a little secret. It doesn't have to be. Let me point something out. You're listening to a podcast right now, and it's great. You love the host. You seek it out and download it. You listen to it while driving, working out, cooking, even going to the bathroom. Podcasts are a pretty close companion. And this is a podcast ad. Did I get your attention? You can reach great listeners like yourself with podcast advertising from Libsyn Ads. Choose from hundreds of top podcasts offering host endorsements or run a pre produced ad like this one across thousands of shows. To reach your target audience in their favorite podcasts with Libsyn Ads, go to Libsyn ads.com that's L I B S Y N ads.com today.