AHC: 1st World Argentina

[Demon-Something]

I read that Argentina apparently was on-par with the US and Europe, and greater than Australia and Canada in terms of GDP at the beginning of the 20th century. In addition, they had a thriving city in the form of Buenos Aires, and at least very strong mining and agricultural sectors. What happened to end this, and is there any way to keep Argentina growing to a 1st world country by the present day?

 

[scholar]

I read that Argentina apparently was on-par with the US and Europe, and greater than Australia and Canada in terms of GDP at the beginning of the 20th century. In addition, they had a thriving city in the form of Buenos Aires, and at least very strong mining and agricultural sectors. What happened to end this, and is there any way to keep Argentina growing to a 1st world country by the present day?

Argentina and Brazil were considered developed first world nations to the United States as Hungary or Poland is to France. They weren't equal, or even approached equal, but there was a certain amount of international respect and developmental similarities so as to set them above much of the rest of the American continents.

 

[Thanksforallthefish]

Prevent coups becoming the way of changing goverments during the 20th century. Stability will keep growth high, though Argentina might not be inmune to authoritarianism and maybe guerrillas (perhaps not in the level of FARC, though. Without a leader such as Peron or a massive communist uprising I cannot see a big rallying point for a civil war). Preventing the 1930 coup and the Infamous Decade might just do the trick; maybe earlier social reforms could prevent a further polarization of society.

A POD where Videla, Bignone and the other leaders of the Proceso all fall down some stairs at the same time with a box of rusty nails in a freak accident will help (just look at this freaking graphic. Red means people under the poverty line) In any case, it would be a way better Argentina without them.

 

[juanml82]

I think multiple PODs are needed:

Find a way to develop the countryside in a lot small establishments run by a rural middle class instead of fewer larger establishments run by a rich elite. Maybe the process starts, and keeps going, by the mid 19th Century as a way to shield the larger establishments against the Mapuches, as Rosas intended: give the frontier lands, more likely to suffer raids, to anyone who wants them, so raids into his and his buddies lands, are diminished.
Over time, this develops a larger rural middle class, erodes the power of the rich elite, and develops a larger and richer internal market for the rise of light industry. A less powerful upper class can also reduce the likehood of coups while the pressure of a larger middle class can improve the election process early on.
Bonus points if, while all this happens, the forty years of intermittent civil war are shortened or avoided altogether. GDP per capita is estimated to have remained the same during those decades, and about 50,000 people are estimated to have died, out of a population of less than a million. Displaced and seriously injured people ought to be added to that.

This might also cause earlier public education politics, increasing alphabetization early on.

By the mid 20th Century, we should still have internal strife and killings, but probably no military coups. Instead, we'd have an uninterrupted history of increasingly more legitimate elections dating to the 1820s. There is also a larger light and cultural industry going on. The key issues here to deal with the social conflict and balance heavy, defence orientated industries and profitability. Essentially, some sort of smarter Peronism. Bonus points if it deals with the social conflict without co-opting the unions and using corporatism.

 

[Herman Gigglethorpe]

I read that Argentina apparently was on-par with the US and Europe, and greater than Australia and Canada in terms of GDP at the beginning of the 20th century. In addition, they had a thriving city in the form of Buenos Aires, and at least very strong mining and agricultural sectors. What happened to end this, and is there any way to keep Argentina growing to a 1st world country by the present day?

I think political instability hurt them a lot, particularly the Dirty War in the 1970s. Although you should take this source with a whole shaker of salt because of how rabidly anti-Catholic the author is, "Through Five Republics on Horseback" has its uses regarding early 20th century Argentina. The country seemed to be VERY lopsided regarding the urban-rural divide. Buenos Aires was a first-world city, but the rest of the country was quite primitive (although the ranches were a big part of the economy). Developing the countryside is vital to making Argentina a world power.

I would suggest a point of divergence of keeping Peronism in power, but Peron liked the fascists a bit too much, and behaved like a dictator himself. He invited Nazis to stay in the country after World War II and admired Mussolini. Then again, he also invited Jewish immigrants. Peron was weird. Perhaps a less-repressive version could work; any experts in Latin American history want to offer other political candidates?

Another point of divergence could be "Juan Peron never marries Isabel, or at least has a different successor". Isabel threw away any political goodwill left over from her husband's regime. Celestino Rodrigo's economic policies were also too radical and led to the economy's collapse.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about these points.

 

[Lindseyman]

There is that saying about Argentinians that they are Italians who speak Spanish but want to be English!!!
Late 19th Century Argentina was stable enough to have massive investment in its infrastructure especially the railways. Is there a way that Argentina could develop a stable democracy? Would it require more immigration from Northern Europeans who seem to be less prone to, I won't say immune to, revolutions? Or just better and more equal development of resources?
Please shoot me down if I'm being Northern Europeancentric but I just don't see why Latin America had to develop in a way that seems to mean revolutions every five years or so.

 

[juanml82]

Well, political instability during the first half of the 20th century wasn't due the lack of northern European uberschmen or other racist theories but due the lack of political power of the rich elite since the introduction of secret voting and a far more perfected democracy (which still lacked women's suffrage), which still goes on until the '55 coup which removed Peron. After that, subsequent coups are better understood through Cold War politics, in which the seditious generals were acting in the CIA's behalf to prevent the Reds from contaminating the Argentine bloody fluids.

So no, race had nothing to do with it.

As for a late POD, Herman Gigglethorpe suggestion of preventing the last dictatorship has a lot of merit.

 

[Lindseyman]

At the risk of just digging myself a bigger and deeper hole.
I am NOT claiming in any way, shape or form that Northern Europeans are superior to people from any where else just that we have seemed to be less prone to violent revolutions. I can honestly say that one of the most cultured people I have ever met was an Argentinian geologist that I met whilst working in the oil industry in 1983. It was awkward and we talked about anything but what had happened the previous year (usually Rugby Union) but he was a damn sight more cultured and intelligent than I was,or am.

 

[Demon-Something]

At the risk of just digging myself a bigger and deeper hole.
I am NOT claiming in any way, shape or form that Northern Europeans are superior to people from any where else just that we have seemed to be less prone to violent revolutions. I can honestly say that one of the most cultured people I have ever met was an Argentinian geologist that I met whilst working in the oil industry in 1983. It was awkward and we talked about anything but what had happened the previous year (usually Rugby Union) but he was a damn sight more cultured and intelligent than I was,or am.

Calm down. You phrased that in a terrible way, but I understand what you're trying to say: educated, politically active immigrants, much like the Germans who came to the US after 1848.

All of your input has been duly noted, I figured income disparity was a large problem, now all I need to do is look up the rural economy in some more detail...

 

[Joseph Solis in Australia]

I think the better pre-1900 POD to have Argentina first was to let Manuel Belgrano survive and have his dream for a constitutional monarchy be installed in order to butterfly away 40-year civil war that wiped Argentina's ability to build stable economic and political institutions.

Another POD, have Argentina at around 1850, restricted the entry of low-literate immigrants in the form of head tax, literary test upon arrival, or nationality-based quota system. By restricting the flow of immigrants by 20% below the OTL level, it would be easier for those immigrants who arrived earlier or with higher educational attainment to live in Pampas and Chaco areas controlled by creoles due to higher wage level due to shortage of labor, thus more middle class people would compete with creole landlords. As a result, the 1930 coup is butterflied away.

 

[Politician]

I'm thinking in lines of a British Argentina, which would probably lead to an Argentina you have in mind.

The British tried to conquer Buenos Aires twice, in 1806 and 1807. Maybe when Whitelocke invades the River De Plata territory, instead of keeping his troops stationed by the coast for 9 months of the war, he reinforces them in Buenos Aires, leading to a decisive British victory. Plus there were a lot of resources that were sent from Britain, but were never fully utilised, as they were kept in the ships for some strange reason. Soon the British would control the entire south of the Continent. The population of South America was very small at the time and so would have been quite manageable.

At this point, I assume the British would explore building rail-ways to connect the entire Southern Cone for geo-political reasons and so settlement would start a lot earlier. Immigration would also follow like it inevitably would, in this setting I'm sure a lot of immigrants would arrive from the English speaking world. Soon hopefully, the Southern Cone would start receiving immigrants from Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Asia; immigration from Southern Europe, by then they would be easily assimilated into an anglo-speaking culture, just like it happened in the United States. Undoubtably it would be an anglonised country with common law practices, which would allow to to develop a lot better than other parts of the world.

 

[Oba]

@Politician: I strongly disagree that a British conquest would have in any significant way helped Argentina develop, simply because the British were so racist: The British nation as a whole did not even see the Germans, the Chinese or the Indians as equals at the time, so why, using the twisted pseudoscience of race and racism, would they think the mostly Southern European-descended Argentines were equals worthy of partnership? They were attempting to colonize them, after all.

Anyway, I think that there are several things Argentina could plausibly do to make it a prosperous, developed country, listed here, roughly in chronological order:

• Give Argentina a better checks and balances (perhaps Bolívar's system, or something similar?). Perhaps even make some sort of semi-presidential republic.
• Though, given the clearly and highly asymmetrical balance of power strongly favouring Argentina over the Mapuche, some form of the Conquest of the Desert was largely inevitable, give it a couple twists: Have the Argentine government treat Araucanía as an inherent part of the federation (have Argentina federate as in OTL) and the Mapuche full citizens, thus treating the Mapuche attacks more as rebellions or something than as raids by so-called "savages".
• Have the Mapuche become full citizens and Mapudungun become the dual official language at the federal level, alongside Spanish (AKA treat Mapudungun similarly to how French is treated in OTL Canada).
• Have strict restrictions on poorly-educated and poor people immigrating into Argentina while encouraging immigration of meritorious individuals.
• Build up a strong, modern military and an indigenous military industry, largely to protect Argentina from the USA and its Monroe Doctrine-based meddling. This could latter be used to change the course of the Falklands War against the UK so that its outcome would be more favourable to Argentina, of course. Most importantly, the military must be strictly civilian controlled. And, maybe, even have constitutional restrictions on the military's civilian role?
• Introduce a federal asset, income, and/or other progressive tax by WWI, like contemporary Switzerland or France, or somewhat like the 16th amendment. Furthermore, impose a
• Have a New Deal-like program during (and, ideally, after) the Great Depression. Have this "Argentine New Deal" lead to some sort of a welfare-state after the war, much like in Postwar Europe. Additionally, via a mixture of Ordoliberal regulations and some degree of protectionism, protect Argentina from both the rampant corruption, crony capitalism, giant private monopolies that the US suffers from while also furthering economic efficiency and shielding Argentina from some of the worst of the free market.
• Become and be a leading member of the non-aligned movement.

Well, those are my thoughts...

 

[Herman Gigglethorpe]

Oba, why would a non-aligned position be so important to Argentina becoming a developed nation? I would think that openly allying with the U.S. or other Western nations would give Argentina military and economic aid. I know the U.S. meddled a lot in the Cold War, but a democratic government allying with them would surely cut off the process of propping up dictators. I am curious about this; I'm no expert on Argentina. I only started learning Latin American history recently. Maybe they couldn't afford to alienate the communist countries or something? Maybe there were earlier American misadventures which destabilized Argentina? Please explain.

 

[Tripwire]

Oba, why would a non-aligned position be so important to Argentina becoming a developed nation? I would think that openly allying with the U.S. or other Western nations would give Argentina military and economic aid. I know the U.S. meddled a lot in the Cold War, but a democratic government allying with them would surely cut off the process of propping up dictators. I am curious about this; I'm no expert on Argentina. I only started learning Latin American history recently. Maybe they couldn't afford to alienate the communist countries or something? Maybe there were earlier American misadventures which destabilized Argentina? Please explain.

I think Argentina started off with similar instability problems as other South American nations.

 

[Oba]

Oba, why would a non-aligned position be so important to Argentina becoming a developed nation? I would think that openly allying with the U.S. or other Western nations would give Argentina military and economic aid. I know the U.S. meddled a lot in the Cold War, but a democratic government allying with them would surely cut off the process of propping up dictators. I am curious about this; I'm no expert on Argentina. I only started learning Latin American history recently. Maybe they couldn't afford to alienate the communist countries or something? Maybe there were earlier American misadventures which destabilized Argentina? Please explain.

Good question; I will answer it.

First off, the USA has "meddled a lot" throughout Latin America, and not just during the Cold War, but before and after it, to this day. Secondly, this was quite often against clearly democratically elected governments (as in Guatemala, Nicaragua, Chile, Haïti...).

Finally, the USA helped prop up dictators in Argentina in OTL. And thus I really can't see how a close partnership with the United States would be a net benefit to Argentina.

In fact, after largely US-imposed so-called free trade, many countries economies declined, such as when Tanzania abandoned its Ujamaa ideology for free trade, or in Mexico after the start of NAFTA. Or in Nicaragua after the Sandinistas were indirectly overthrown.

 

[Herman Gigglethorpe]

Good question; I will answer it.

First off, the USA has "meddled a lot" throughout Latin America, and not just during the Cold War, but before and after it, to this day. Secondly, this was quite often against clearly democratically elected governments (as in Guatemala, Nicaragua, Chile, Haïti...).

Finally, the USA helped prop up dictators in Argentina in OTL. And thus I really can't see how a close partnership with the United States would be a net benefit to Argentina.

In fact, after largely US-imposed so-called free trade, many countries economies declined, such as when Tanzania abandoned its Ujamaa ideology for free trade, or in Mexico after the start of NAFTA. Or in Nicaragua after the Sandinistas were indirectly overthrown.

Okay. There's a joke I've seen about the game Hidden Agenda (you play the role of president of a fictional Central American country). The three parties work like this: "Side with the U.S. and be abused by the United States, side with the Soviet Union and be abused by the United States, or praise Jesus and be abused by the United States."

Looks like non-aligned it is for 1st World Argentina. What'll keep it from being kicked around by the U.S. anyway? India was at least big enough and far enough away that it could get away with this sort of thing.

I've always dreamed of (tongue in cheek) an anti-gringo alliance for Latin America. If I ever get Europa Universalis III I might try to do that.

I've only recently started to study Latin America, thanks partially to my study of Spanish via Transparent Language. It's barely taught at all in the U.S. (at least where I am; maybe the Southwest does it a bit more?) except maybe the Spanish-American War if you're lucky.

 

[juanml82]

At the risk of just digging myself a bigger and deeper hole.
I am NOT claiming in any way, shape or form that Northern Europeans are superior to people from any where else just that we have seemed to be less prone to violent revolutions.

And by that same argument, we could say a British Argentina would exhaust herself in plenty of wars of aggression then.
I'd also take your original statement with a grain of salt: 1920s and 1930s weren't a nice period for German stability, the Americans had a very bloody civil war and quite a few president assassinations, France also had her share of troubles during the 19th Century and Britain suffered from the IRA.

At this point, I assume the British would explore building rail-ways to connect the entire Southern Cone for geo-political reasons and so settlement would start a lot earlier. Immigration would also follow like it inevitably would, in this setting I'm sure a lot of immigrants would arrive from the English speaking world. Soon hopefully, the Southern Cone would start receiving immigrants from Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Asia; immigration from Southern Europe, by then they would be easily assimilated into an anglo-speaking culture, just like it happened in the United States. Undoubtably it would be an anglonised country with common law practices, which would allow to to develop a lot better than other parts of the world.

British businessmen planned and constructed the Argentine railway system in OTL, so I don't see how it would be different if there was a British governor instead of an Argentine President as in OTL. Even more, the Argentine government built railways in places where British businessmen weren't interested in.
Argentina also received a fair share of Middle Eastern and Eastern European immigrants. I also don't know how Common Law beats Roman Right (or the other way around).

• Give Argentina a better checks and balances (perhaps Bolívar's system, or something similar?). Perhaps even make some sort of semi-presidential republic.

I have doubts about that Bolivar system, but a more parlamentary system, or the inclusion of revocatory referendums would have definitely done a lot to provide a political escape valve

• Though, given the clearly and highly asymmetrical balance of power strongly favouring Argentina over the Mapuche, some form of the Conquest of the Desert was largely inevitable, give it a couple twists: Have the Argentine government treat Araucanía as an inherent part of the federation (have Argentina federate as in OTL) and the Mapuche full citizens, thus treating the Mapuche attacks more as rebellions or something than as raids by so-called "savages".
• Have the Mapuche become full citizens and Mapudungun become the dual official language at the federal level, alongside Spanish (AKA treat Mapudungun similarly to how French is treated in OTL Canada).

That would be good, but I'm not sure if it would improve the economy in any way.

• Build up a strong, modern military and an indigenous military industry, largely to protect Argentina from the USA and its Monroe Doctrine-based meddling. This could latter be used to change the course of the Falklands War against the UK so that its outcome would be more favourable to Argentina, of course. Most importantly, the military must be strictly civilian controlled. And, maybe, even have constitutional restrictions on the military's civilian role?

Already done. It started in the 1930s. And, to be fair, no country military attacked Argentina since the War of the Triple Alliance. The issue was the CIA subverting the Argentine Armed Forces.

• Introduce a federal asset, income, and/or other progressive tax by WWI, like contemporary Switzerland or France, or somewhat like the 16th amendment. Furthermore, impose a

Well, we do have income tax. I don't quite remember when it started, though. One of the main issues with the Argentine tax system is the high fiscal evasion, which leads to the governments to prefer easier to collect/hard to evade taxes over convenient taxes.

• Have a New Deal-like program during (and, ideally, after) the Great Depression. Have this "Argentine New Deal" lead to some sort of a welfare-state after the war, much like in Postwar Europe. Additionally, via a mixture of Ordoliberal regulations and some degree of protectionism, protect Argentina from both the rampant corruption, crony capitalism, giant private monopolies that the US suffers from while also furthering economic efficiency and shielding Argentina from some of the worst of the free market.

Peron created a welfare state, the problem is that he broke the country to pay for it. A more balanced approach was needed.

• Become and be a leading member of the non-aligned movement.

I think that would be a consequence of a better geopolitical standing

 

[Herman Gigglethorpe]

It's always good to have an actual Argentine when discussing the history of Argentina. Thanks for your responses, Juan!

I'm interested in studying Latin American history, as it's not taught in the U.S all that much outside of colleges, no matter how much meddling we do. (Most of the average American's exposure to Argentina comes from the musical Evita.)

Do you know any good sources in particular for Argentina or other countries? Primary sources are especially welcome. (Entiendo un poco español, pero necesito aprender más palabras antes de leer las historias en este idioma.)

 

[juanml82]

Well, I just like history, but I'm not a scholar on the subject by any stretch, so I don't really have specific recommendations, let alone books which are also available in English. I'd steer clear of Pigna and Galeano, though.
I've found this a few weeks ago, but I don't know how reliable it really is
http://www.argentina-rree.com/

 

[Herman Gigglethorpe]

Well, I just like history, but I'm not a scholar on the subject by any stretch, so I don't really have specific recommendations, let alone books which are also available in English. I'd steer clear of Pigna and Galeano, though.
I've found this a few weeks ago, but I don't know how reliable it really is
http://www.argentina-rree.com/

I know about Galeano from the controversial book "Open Veins of Latin America" that Hugo Chávez was so fond of, but who is Pigna?