A successfull Argentina: how does world history changes?

[Admiral Brown]

I'd like to write a TL where Argentina continues in the path in which she was at the begining of the XXth Century, and becomes a democratic first world country, with a GDP per capita similar to Australia or Canada, and similar living conditions.

My idea is to write short text describing a present-day fully developped Argentina. The previous history (and it¿s changes, from OTL perspective) would be revealed gradually.

The Pod would be at some point between 1910 and 1930 (I've not decided yet). It would be a local POD.

The thing is, how much do you think the world would change of Argentina becomes a first world country? I d' assume that, even if the POD is in 1912, there'd still be a WWI. I don't think that an Argentina on the Entente's side would change the outcome of the world much. But, could I assume there'd still be a fascist Italy and a nazi Germany?

Now, if the POd is in 1930 (let's say there's no coup against President Yrigoyen), would nazism still arrise? Would there still be a nazi Germany? A WWII? A cold war, afterwards?

since i'd like to focus more on Argentina, I'd rather not invent a whole new story for the world (unless I can conect the changes with the events in Argentina). Is that reasonable? Or should world story be very different? And, if so, different how

All ideas are welcome!

[Gonzaga]

I assume that any POD you pick between 1910 and 1930 would have gradual effects in Argentina, both politically and economically, and so they wouldn't have many influences outside South America. So I think that you shouldn't change Europe and the US too much because of this, and focus your TL in Argentina. Let fascism, nazism and WWII still happen, with minimal butterflies.

[tonsofun]

If Argentina does become a 1st world country. How would this affect the Falklands. Can a rich Argentina build the muscle needed to keep them or is it going down the OTL route and just ask.

[Faralis]

Originally Posted by tonsofun

If Argentina does become a 1st world country. How would this affect the Falklands. Can a rich Argentina build the muscle needed to keep them or is it going down the OTL route and just ask.

I cant see a democratic Argentina trying to take the isles by the force, maybe a mediated by US deal with the UK ( like almost happened in OTL ).

A first world economy in South America will benefit the rest of the continent, but I do not know enough to speculate on the butterflies.

[tonsofun]

Originally Posted by Faralis

I cant see a democratic Argentina trying to take the isles by the force, maybe a mediated by US deal with the UK ( like almost happened in OTL ).

A first world economy in South America will benefit the rest of the continent, but I do not know enough to speculate on the butterflies.

The Falklands have always been a sour point in relations by UK and Argentina. The UK would never give it up unless they were forced to.
But I can imagine a 1st world Argentina would have a few right wing politicians who would advocate war for them. A developed Argentina would stand a much better chance at retaking them.

[Blackfox5]

There would be limited impact outside of Latin America. Unless we ascribe everything to aggressive butterflies, nothing that happens in Argentina is going to impact WWI or WWII. I think the impact to the world would be very limited until the compounding economic growth of Argentina makes it an important player in the world economy around the 1980s/1990s. Until then, its impact will likely be limited to Latin America.

In Latin America, a developed, advance Argentina is going to affect its neighbors, bolstering democratic factions in Uruguay, Chile, and Brazil. Uruguay will unlikely have any period of dictatorship. We might also butterfly away both Salvador Allende's election in Chile and the Pinochet coup afterwards. The Southern Cone becomes a dependable region of democratic capitalism/social democracy. Brazil won't be as impacted, but with a strong set of democracies to its south, some of its missteps and problems may be avoided.

Other possibilities is the increase of Argentinian UN peace keeping or local intervention. For example, once Peru looks like it may collapse because of the Shining Path, we might see Argentina take steps to bolster Peruvian democracy, or lead a democratic Latin American front against Communist guerillas. By the very nature of its government, Argentina would become a de facto ally with the US, and probably take over a limited role in preventing a spread of Communism in the region, but without the problems of imperialist accusation that the US would face. It would also be more supportive of building democracy instead of a reflexive attitude of supporting dictators as a bulwark against Communism. But with an able partner in Latin America, the US might pursure different strategies as well.

When the Trilateral Commission forms, it might be more of a Quadlateral Commision (probably with a better name) coordinating the advanced economies of Europe, North America, Japan, and the Southern Cone. As such, Argentina would become an important player in international economics. In fact, Argentina might be an original member of the G7 if its economy was big enough. Buenos Aires becomes the center for South American banking, and Argentinean companies become globally competitive, especially in its home markets of South America. They probably also expand across the ocean to Africa where Argentinean companies don't have the baggage of European colonialism.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by tonsofun

The Falklands have always been a sour point in relations by UK and Argentina. The UK would never give it up unless they were forced to.

After the world wars there wasn't really much strategic value to the place, the only reason they ever stayed British was because the residents wished to remain British subjects. Which considering how the Argentinian economy went off the deep end after the 1929 and never fully recovered plus the various military coups and dictatorships is hardly surprising. If Argentina stays democratic and has a strong economy then links with them might eventually become more appealing than a UK which is thousands of miles away and withdrawing from empire and foreign commitments. At the very least I'd expect to see some sort of shared sovreignty. If Argentina is rich enough I could see them effectively bribing the islanders with special economic payments/conditions to get them to agree.

[Grey Wolf]

Wouldn't a 1900 or so POD work better, fighting Chile (instead of having a negotiated settlement), beating them, playing subsequently a greater role in the First World War etc

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

[Ferreolus]

Originally Posted by tonsofun

The Falklands have always been a sour point in relations by UK and Argentina.

So has been Gibraltar between Britain and Spain. Yet I can't see Spain going to war over it.

The UK would never give it up unless they were forced to.

What makes you think so? After all they have given away almost their entire world-spanning empire more or less voluntarily.

But I can imagine a 1st world Argentina would have a few right wing politicians who would advocate war for them. A developed Argentina would stand a much better chance at retaking them.

The Falklands are a basically a few unimportant rocks. There are a lot of similar territorial conflicts, and while they might linger for decades, most of them never lead to war.

Argentine had claimed the Falkland Islands for decades without invading. That they did in 1982 had domestic reasons. Basically the Videla dictatorship sought to divert public attention from domestic failures, i.e. the economic woes. A democratic and economically prospering country would have had much more to lose by such an action, so I can't seeing ATL Argentine invade the Falklands.

I'm pretty sure the situation would be as it is today and was before the war (i.e. Britain occupying the islands and Argentine claiming them, but not actively pursuing the issue), or alternatively a similar solution like it was done with the Aland Islands.

[tonsofun]

The Falklands are filled with a majority British population so the UK government would not give it up without a fight. Unless the population there wanted to become part of Argentina. That would create a whole nest of problems back in blighty. Read any right wing paper here and you will see how the right wing see the Falklands as part of our glorious nations. A first world Argentina would have its fair share of nutters advocating war, especially since they will be a lot more successful this time.
Besides it is pride more than anything. The war may have been started by the Videla to boost popularity and distract from home issues. But it was the Thatcher government that gained most from it. I doubt Thatcher would have been in power for so long if the Falklands never happened.

[anon_user]

Would Raúl Prebisch develop the same ideas? I imagine that the example of a successful Argentina is going to have a lot of influence in development economics, so post-colonial and East Asian states may develop differently. Depends on the exact path that gets Argentina staying successful, of course.

Argentina had somewhat close links with Spain. Perhaps there'd be Argentine volunteers in the International Brigades; regardless, there might be some minor impacts on the Spanish Civil War.

I imagine there could be an Olympics in Buenos Aires - perhaps instead of Mexico City 1968?

You could easily butterfly Che's turn to Marxist revolutionary.

No Montoneros would mean one less example of urban guerrillas... not sure that does all that much, though.

Honestly, I don't see the Falklands becoming an issue.

[truth is life]

I'd note that a developed, first world Argentina is likely able to form a bigger and better equipped (and trained) expeditionary force in World War II than Brazil did, so that might have some impacts. It might (for example) free up some British or American divisions for service elsewhere if (as the FEB was) it gets sent to Italy. Argentina might also be able to supplement war production of some equipment, probably some types of aircraft, vehicles, and perhaps ships (transport ships and DEs, nothing too fancy). The Argentine Navy might also be useful for the Battle of the Atlantic, so you might see a somewhat better performance there depending on when they enter.

EDIT: Additionally, those battleships will probably come in handy for some purposes. Fighting the Italians, maybe, or shore bombardment if nothing else. So Argentina is likely to make a fairly significant contribution to the Second World War, at least on the level of, say, the exile Polish forces or the Free French (outside of France).

[Blackfox5]

Some people seem to be thinking that a more developed Argentina means a radically different Argentina in the 1930s and 1940s. This is not so.

Argentina was rich well into the Great Depression, and while they had some economic difficulties then, it wasn't as severe as in the US. In other words, there is practically no difference between Argentina IOTL and ITL in the 1930s and 1940s. So Argentina wouldn't become more involved in the Spanish Civil War.

I personally don't see Argentina becoming involved in World War II. Brazil's involvement was a series of steps based around it usefulness in ASW operations becomes of the narrow gap between Brazil and Africa which lead to US bases, which lead to increased diplomatic involvement with the US, which lead to breaking off diplomatic relations with Germany, which lead to u-boat attacks against Brazilian ships, which eventually lead to Brazil's declaration of war.

Argentina doesn't have anything like that as it has no place where bases would be useful for ASW operations. It is just too far removed. Declaring war on the Axis just makes it a target with very little benefit. IOTL, Argentina did declare war when it was practically over. ITL with a stronger democratic tradition, I can see Argentina cooperating more with the Allies, and maybe a declaration of war after 1943 when the Battle of the Atlantic is all but won and the Axis is bound to lose. But Argentina will likely not become actually militarily involved.

We won't see any significant departues from OTL until we butterfly away the Peron era which is what killed Argentinean prosperity. Maintaining the rule of law, keeping any social welfare state small enough so that Argentina can afford it, and deciding to embark on an export led growth is probably all that is needed to allow Argentina to maintain its status.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by tonsofun

Read any right wing paper here and you will see how the right wing see the Falklands as part of our glorious nations. A first world Argentina would have its fair share of nutters advocating war, especially since they will be a lot more successful this time.

The only reason they see it as 'part of our glorious nation' is because of the armed conflict over the islands that occurred and that the residents want to remain British in the face of foreign pressure. Remove that and it becomes about as important as Tristan da Cunha. If Argentina keeps their democracy and a strong economy after WW2 all they have to do is offer joint sovereignty, probably leading to full Argentinian sovereignty later, along with guarantees to build infrastructure and financially subsidise the islanders heavily along with some regional autonomy and I really can't see them not accepting the deal.

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Remember that argentina was richer than canada early on ?1910?

All she has to do is grow like canada

[Petete123123]

We have a problem that needs to be solved. Argentina lacked its own capital for investment. I mean at an industrialist level. Money did enter the country, and some people were really rich, these are the oligarchy.

But how do we reach a point were Argentinians are the main owners of industry in the country?
Foreign investment is good to a point, but it makes the country dependant to what happens in the invester country and also ends with the revenues leaving the country rather than being reinvested.

The oligarchs aren't going to do the big jump and invest their money in industry. It just is risky and will hurt their economic relations with Europe and the USA.
Then, we also aren't likely to see many middle class men become that succesful and become the investors of the country.

So IMO, the only chance is to have the government be the one who starts creating enterprises and industry(like Peron did, but also others before him like Alvear). Then, it would have to be given to private individuals. It's difficult to concive how.

[Admiral Brown]

Originally Posted by tonsofun

The Falklands have always been a sour point in relations by UK and Argentina. The UK would never give it up unless they were forced to.

Originally Posted by tonsofun

I'm not sure. After all, the British almost offered to give the islands to Argentina in OTL. Maybe this might interest you:

http://www.alternatehistory.com/disc...d.php?t=204373

[Admiral Brown]

Ok, so we can assume there won't be significant changes in world history until much later... let's say, the 1980ies, when it become clear IOTL that Argentina was quite far from first world countries?

[Gonzaga]

Originally Posted by Admiral Brown

Ok, so we can assume there won't be significant changes in world history until much later... let's say, the 1980ies, when it become clear IOTL that Argentina was quite far from first world countries?

I'm not so sure it would only too late. First, there would be some waves of butterflies that would affect the neighbouring countries in South American. Depending on how the continent in the whole is affected you would already see significant changes in the 1950's and 1960's. For example, there would be no Guevara in Cuba, or no support of Peron to Vargas in 1950.

[Petete123123]

Argentina will have an effect.

Do Australia, Canada or South Africa had an effect? If they did so we will.

Besides, we will be the powerhouse of South America, and the big player of South Atlantic. That alone has effects.

Also, we would likely set a precedent of development for South America. Admiral Brown, we both know how competitive the Brazilians, Chileans and Uruguayans can be. They will do better just to try to look as good as we do, like they always did