ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY ON NICARAGUAN CIVIL WAR Anderson, Thomas P. Politics in Central America: Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua . New York: Praeger, 1988. Anderson, Thomas P in his article states that, the time Sacasa came from deport in Mexican country and, with support of Mexicans, he did establish an adversary freethinking regime on east coast of Nicaragua's. This period civil war cropped among freethinking rebels ruled by General Moncada in the year and the rule lead by Diaz, who made a request and acknowledged armed forces support from the US. He goes on to say that in 1927, United States wars-hips came and landed some two thousand material and Marines. Annoyed at the United State populace’s intrusion in their dealings, Sandino connected the conflict, appealing in revolutionary proceedings in opposition to the white foreigners (gringos). Conrad, Robert Edgar (Ed.). Sandino: The Testimony of a Nicaraguan Patriot, . Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1990. This article by Edgar talks about the time when the aggression resumed, though, at the time previous subordinate leader Sacasa came from expel to declare his civil rights to the government. He states that it was on year 1927 April, when the US permitted Stimson Henry to arbitrate the civil war. It was once in the said state, Stimson started dialogue with Dàaz the President also with influential’s from individual opinionated parties. His dialogue with the General Moncada, the head of the freethinking rebels, led to a diplomatic answer of the catastrophe. In adding up, an unbiased armed forces force might be time-honored under US control. Bermann, Karl. Under the Big Stick: Nicaragua and the United States since 1848. Boston: South End Press, 1986. This journal indicates that subsequent to US army went out of Nicaragua in 1933 on January, the Sacasa regime and the state sentinel motionless were endangered by EDSN Sandino's. Factual to his guarantee to discontinue hostility subsequent to US army had gone from the kingdom, Sandino decided to deliberations concerning Sacasa. Still in 1934 Feb, these discussions begin. Throughout their dialogues, Sacasa presented Sandino a universal official pardon as sound as safeguards and terra firma for him and his revolutionary services. On the other hand, he, who regarded the general sentinel as unauthorized since of its holds to the US forces, pleaded on the guard's disbands. Blachman, Morris J. ,William LeoGrande, and Kenneth E. Sharpe (Eds.). Confronting Revolution: Security Through Diplomacy in Central America. New York: Pantheon, 1986. Morris in his article stated that a revolutionary freethinking set under the control of Sandino César Augusto as well did not agree to mark the Negro Espino Pact. ON the same time unlawful young man of a rich property-owner and a servant, he had been missing from his dad's residence in the early hours in his childhood and went to Guatemala, Mexico, and Honduras. Throughout his three year hang about in Mexico, Tampico, he had built a well-built intelligence of the state in question patriotism and conceit in his own legacy. This know-how assisted him to start the rebel groups in war time. Booth, John A. "Celebrating the Demise of Somocismo: Fifty Recent Sources on the Nicaraguan Revolution," Latin American Research Review, 17, No. 1, 1982, 173-89. Booth in his Latin American Research Review books said that in the belatedly 1920s and near the beginning 1930s perceived the increasing authority of Somoza Garcàa Tacho Anastasio, a head who was form a family that lined Nicaragua for 4 1/2 decades. He did win the year 1928 presidential voting in one of the nearly all-sincere elections constantly apprehended in Nicaragua. It indicated that the elections in1932, the designated Sacasa Bautista being liberals and the conservatives, Sacasa Dàaz did win the voting process and was named as head on 1933Jan the 2nd. In the United States, popular opposition to the Nicaraguan intervention rose as United States casualty lists grew. Nervous to depart the Nicaraguans political affairs, the US twisted above authority of the state sentinel to the Nicaraguan regime, and US forces went out of the state almost immediately from then on and the war was over. Work Cited: Leslie E. Anderson; Lawrence C. Dodd. Learning Democracy: Citizen Engagement and Electoral Choice in Nicaragua, . University of Chicago Press. 2005. 336pp. Florence E. Babb. After Revolution: Mapping Gender and Cultural Politics in Neoliberal Nicaragua. University of Texas Press. 2001. 304pp. Luciano Baracco. Nicaragua: The Imagining of a Nation: From Nineteenth-Century Liberals to Twentieth-century Sandinistas. Algora Publishing. 2005. 177pp. Alan Benjamin. Nicaragua: Dynamics of an Unfinished Revolution. San Francisco: Walnut Publishing Co.. 1989. 176pp. Karl Bermann. Under the Big Stick: Nicaragua and the United States Since 1848. South End Press. 1986. 339pp. George Black. Triumph of the People: The Sandinista Revolution in Nicaragua. Zed Press. 1981. 368pp. Timothy C. Brown. The Real Contra War: Highlander Peasant Resistance in Nicaragua. University of Oklahoma Press. 2001. 321pp. E. Bradford Burns. Patriarch and Folk: The Emergence of Nicaragua, . Harvard University Press. 1991. 307pp.

Paper For Above instruction

The Nicaraguan Civil War was a complex and multi-faceted conflict that significantly shaped the political landscape of Central America in the 20th century. This paper aims to analyze the larger implications of international involvement, particularly the role of the United States, in shaping the course of the civil war and subsequent political developments in Nicaragua. It examines different scholarly perspectives on the causes, key figures, and outcomes of the conflict, providing a nuanced discussion of the various positions in this ongoing debate. Furthermore, the paper will present a critical response to these viewpoints and contribute to the scholarly conversation by offering a unique interpretation based on recent research and historical analysis.

Introduction

The history of Nicaragua's civil war is marked by foreign intervention, internal political strife, and revolutionary movements. Scholars have debated the extent to which external powers, especially the United States, influenced the political stability or instability of Nicaragua during the early to mid-20th century. Understanding these dynamics is vital for comprehending the broader implications of interventionism, sovereignty, and revolutionary ideology in Latin America. This essay seeks to explore these issues through a close examination of existing scholarly works, highlighting differing interpretations and offering a perspective that emphasizes the importance of both internal agency and external influence.

Scholarly Perspectives on the Role of U.S. Intervention

Many scholars, such as Karl Bermann (1986), argue that U.S. intervention and political dominance over Nicaragua have been pivotal in shaping the country's political structures. Bermann's work highlights the period from 1848 onwards, emphasizing how U.S. policies supported authoritarian regimes, such as that of Anastasio Somoza, and facilitated economic and military dominance in Nicaragua (Bermann, 1986). This perspective underscores the view that U.S. intervention perpetuated cycles of political instability and repression, hindering genuine national sovereignty.

Conversely, scholars like Thomas P. Anderson (1988) emphasize the internal factors that contributed to civil unrest, such as regional conflicts, social inequalities, and the ambitions of local political leaders like Sacasa and Moncada. Anderson suggests that while U.S. support played a role, the roots of civil war also stemmed from domestic grievances and power struggles. His analysis points to a complex interplay between external interventions and internal dynamics, challenging a simplistic narrative of American imperialism.

Furthermore, Robert Edgar Conrad (1990) discusses the diplomatic efforts by U.S. officials, such as Henry Stimson, to mediate conflicts and facilitate peace negotiations during critical junctures in the 1920s. Conrad's account reveals that U.S. involvement was not solely extractive but also aimed at stabilizing the region, albeit often with imperialistic motives masked behind diplomatic rhetoric (Conrad, 1990).

Implications of External Intervention and Internal Agency

The scholarly debate reveals that external intervention, particularly by the United States, had profound implications for Nicaragua’s political evolution. Bermann's perspective suggests that U.S. dominance created a legacy of authoritarianism, exemplified by the Somoza family, which persisted for decades (Bermann, 1986). This legacy contributed to ongoing cycles of violence and resistance, culminating in the Sandinista revolution.

On the other hand, Anderson and Conrad highlight the resilience of internal actors and the influence of revolutionary ideology in shaping the conflict's outcomes. Their works suggest that internal grievances, social inequalities, and nationalistic sentiments played critical roles, and external intervention was often a catalyst rather than the sole cause of unrest. This view supports the notion that the agency of local populations and leaders significantly impacts political trajectories, even in the face of foreign influence.

The implications of these differing perspectives extend beyond Nicaragua, offering insights into the broader patterns of interventionism and sovereignty in Latin America. They raise ethical questions about foreign influence and its long-term consequences for political stability and democratization processes.

Counterarguments and My Perspective

While acknowledging the significance of internal factors, I argue that external intervention often exacerbates internal conflicts rather than alleviating them. The U.S. military and political support for authoritarian regimes like Somoza's undermined democratic development and fostered resistance movements, including the Sandinista uprising (Brown, 2001). From a critical perspective, external powers tend to prioritize strategic interests over genuine nation-building, which hampers long-term stability.

However, it is also important to recognize that internal actors possess agency and can leverage external support to further their goals. The rise of the Sandinistas, for example, illustrates how revolutionary movements can utilize both domestic discontent and external alliances to challenge authoritarian regimes (George Black, 1981). Therefore, the relationship between external intervention and internal agency is dynamic and interdependent, requiring a nuanced understanding.

Conclusion and Contribution to Scholarship

This paper contributes to the ongoing scholarly conversation by emphasizing the symbiotic relationship between external influences and internal agency in Nicaragua’s civil war. While external intervention shaped certain trajectories, the resilience and agency of internal actors ultimately determined the course of political change. Recognizing this interplay allows for a more nuanced understanding of Latin American political history and highlights the importance of sovereignty and resistance in the face of foreign dominance. Future research should continue exploring the ways in which internal actors adapt to external pressures and how these interactions influence democratization and development in the region.

References

• Bermann, Karl. (1986). Under the Big Stick: Nicaragua and the United States since 1848. South End Press.
• Black, George. (1981). Triumph of the People: The Sandinista Revolution in Nicaragua. Zed Press.
• Brown, Timothy C. (2001). The Real Contra War: Highlander Peasant Resistance in Nicaragua. University of Oklahoma Press.
• Conrad, Robert Edgar. (1990). Sandino: The Testimony of a Nicaraguan Patriot. Princeton University Press.
• Anderson, Thomas P. (1988). Politics in Central America: Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua. Praeger.
• Dodd, Lawrence C., & Anderson, Leslie E. (2005). Learning Democracy: Citizen Engagement and Electoral Choice in Nicaragua. University of Chicago Press.
• Babb, Florence E. (2001). After Revolution: Mapping Gender and Cultural Politics in Neoliberal Nicaragua. University of Texas Press.
• Baracco, Luciano. (2005). Nicaragua: The Imagining of a Nation: From Nineteenth-Century Liberals to Twentieth-century Sandinistas. Algora Publishing.
• Somoza, Anastasio. (1950s-1970s). Various speeches and policy documents related to U.S. support and authoritarian rule.
• Sandinista Leadership Documents. (1980s). Various texts outlining revolutionary ideology and strategies.