top two means to achieve a better-off Argentina

yofie · May 25, 2011

There are a number of ways in which Argentina, which had the same economic potential early in the 20th century as Canada or Australia, could have infinitely become better off than the mess it has become in the past 60-plus years. I find that the two best ways are:

1) have the British succeed in their invasions of Buenos Aires in 1806-07 and follow up on that success - the River Plate area joins the British Empire, and lots of British settlers move to Argentina in much the same manner as Canada or Australia (and the country develops accordingly)

2) have Roberto Ortiz remain the president for longer, into the early 1940s, assuming he survives coup attempts (OTL his term was cut short because of severe diabetes) - Ortiz joins the WWII Allies ca. 1940-41 (rather than Argentina being neutral till almost the end), and down the road, Argentina develops much like Spain or Italy

Both of these scenarios, at best, would forestall Peronism and all its deleterious effects, and Argentina would thus be a developed country in the same league as Western Europe, North America, Japan, and Australia. Which of these two scenarios sounds better in terms of turning Argentina into a First World country?

Dan1988 · May 25, 2011

There are two ways, as I see it:

*1. No military coup in 1930 vis-à-vis Hipolito Yrigoyen. That would help show a commitment to democracy, which would help tremendously.

*2. The now-banned Maverick wrote an excellent TL, called "La Larga y Oscura Noche", using 1955 as a POD. Granted, Peronism would still be around for the 1950s, but what happens is that it becomes so authoritarian (due to what in OTL was a simple coup attempt turns out in TTL to become a massive civil war, with all the implications) that eventually Argentines themselves reject it and thus help to provide a solid footing for a post-Peronist Argentina with Peronism fully discredited. This one, whilst someone closer to OTL, is probably one of the better ones out there, IMO.

Blackfox5 · May 26, 2011

You don't need Argentina to be taken over the British in 1806 for the country to do well. Argentina's decline didn't begin until Peron took over after World War II.

Argentina's prosperty was based almost entirely on the export of agricultural products (cereals, meat). Argentina had a notable manufacturing economy, but it was oriented entirely to domestic needs. It did not generate export income.

When Peron became President, he made several major mistakes.

1) He instituted a social safety net and benefits far more expensive than Argentina could afford.

2) To pay for those benefits, he made several economic decisions that hurt Argentina's long term economic prospects.

2a) One of those mistakes was to raise import duties to protect domestic industry. However, since Argentina's domestic market was not big enough to make their indutrsy truly competitive, all it did was 1) make Argentinean industry uncompetitive on the world market and 2) increase costs to Argentinean industries reliant on foreign products which eventually hurt their own industry.

2b) Agricultural producers were forced to sell their products at state-fixed prices to the government who would export them instead. This had predictable results with exporters not investing in their own business since they would not be the ones who would benefit. The result was an end to the export boom.

3) Peron instituted corporatist (fascist) ideas in economic management to expand the power of the government over the economy.

4) Peron spent the money on various dubious projects. First, he greatly increased the purchase of military equipment which was totally unnecessary. Second, he nationalized the British owned railways. While popular with the people, he basically overpaid the owners for a rundown rail network that would need substantial capital improvements.

Argentina's decline is essentially the work of one man. The only problem with Argentina itself was that it did not have the national culture or institutional ability to stop such a fraud and keep him out of power. Instead, the people allowed this fool to keep destroying the country.

If you get rid of Peron, and build stronger governmental accountability, Argentina can probably do all right. You can jiggle various PODs in the '30s and '40s to accomplish this.

yofie · May 26, 2011

Blackfox5 said:
You don't need Argentina to be taken over the British in 1806 for the country to do well. Argentina's decline didn't begin until Peron took over after World War II.

Argentina's decline is essentially the work of one man. The only problem with Argentina itself was that it did not have the national culture or institutional ability to stop such a fraud and keep him out of power. Instead, the people allowed this fool to keep destroying the country.

If you get rid of Peron, and build stronger governmental accountability, Argentina can probably do all right. You can jiggle various PODs in the '30s and '40s to accomplish this.

That may be true, but Peron came to power in the context of a Latin culture that has been historically antithetical to liberal democracy. If it had become a British colony and white British settlers moved there en masse, British political culture (which has tended towards liberal democracy, as seen in North America, Australia, NZ, and elsewhere) would have implanted itself in Argentina and would have gotten rid of dictatorships and coup attempts as seen in OTL Argentina and elsewhere in Latin America. Such a democracy would have automatically stopped someone like Peron from gaining power.

mowque · May 26, 2011

Being owned by Britain doesn't mean instant stability or instant democracy. Look at South Africa.

yofie · May 26, 2011

mowque said:
Being owned by Britain doesn't mean instant stability or instant democracy. Look at South Africa.

Well, there's the US, Canada, Australia, and NZ, and then there are the British colonies in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean. In the first group of countries, which are in the temperate zone (just like Argentina), there weren't a lot of indigenous people (also just like Argentina) and those were quickly taken over by British settlers. In the second group of countries, located mostly in the tropical zone, either there were large native populations before European colonization or, in the case of the Caribbean, large African slave populations; not as many British settlers came to those colonies as in the first group of countries. So, we're talking about two completely different kinds of British colonies here.

Dan1988 · May 26, 2011

yofie said:
That may be true, but Peron came to power in the context of a Latin culture that has been historically antithetical to liberal democracy.

Costa Rica and Uruguay beg to differ.

yofie said:
If it had become a British colony and white British settlers moved there en masse, British political culture (which has tended towards liberal democracy, as seen in North America, Australia, NZ, and elsewhere) would have implanted itself in Argentina and would have gotten rid of dictatorships and coup attempts as seen in OTL Argentina and elsewhere in Latin America. Such a democracy would have automatically stopped someone like Peron from gaining power.

No, it wouldn't. That would probably make things much worse than in OTL, considering that in the 19th century Britain was basically the one treating Latin America as "its backyard". If anything, Argentina would probably resemble Cuba during its pre-Castro Republic era in the end more than the UK (particularly by using British-style parliamentary institutions as just mere window dressing "para Ingles ver" to cover up what's really going on), of which the British settlers arriving en masse would make things worse.

yofie · May 26, 2011

Dan1988 said:
No, it wouldn't. That would probably make things much worse than in OTL, considering that in the 19th century Britain was basically the one treating Latin America as "its backyard". If anything, Argentina would probably resemble Cuba during its pre-Castro Republic era in the end more than the UK (particularly by using British-style parliamentary institutions as just mere window dressing "para Ingles ver" to cover up what's really going on), of which the British settlers arriving en masse would make things worse.

What makes you say that? What makes you think that Argentina would be different from North America and Australia/NZ assuming that British settlers would move to all these places? And Canada did have French people there after all, and look what Canada has become!

yofie · May 26, 2011

Dan1988 said:
Costa Rica and Uruguay beg to differ.

These, along with Chile, are the exceptions to the rule. Besides which, all three of these countries have faced some interruptions in their democratic development, either through civil war or dictatorship. And Uruguay only became the democratic country that it is known to be in 1903 or so under Jose Batlle. Whereas the anglophone countries that I'm talking about have been democratic in an uninterrupted way, even in the midst of the US Civil War, or 1839 rebellions in Lower and Upper Canada, and things like that.

Petete123123 · May 26, 2011

yofie said:
These, along with Chile, are the exceptions to the rule. Besides which, all three of these countries have faced some interruptions in their democratic development, either through civil war or dictatorship. And Uruguay only became the democratic country that it is known to be in 1903 or so under Jose Batlle. Whereas the anglophone countries that I'm talking about have been democratic in an uninterrupted way, even in the midst of the US Civil War, or 1839 rebellions in Lower and Upper Canada, and things like that.

Peron arriving to power was not by itself the result of the latin american culture, but a result of two things that happened before, Yrigoyen and the World Economic depression.
To start, before Peron, Argentina wasn't doing bad. It certainly wasn't as good as in the twenties, but the country was starting to somehow industrialize and get out of the depression. But the group who was in charge after the first coup d'etat managed to get there only because of the help of the Argentinean elite and their Anglo-American friends(i.e Inversionists). This group promised them to allow their companies to get even more control of the economics of the country(see Roca-Runciman treaty). The initial industrialization was done with American and British money, and that is not a good thing if you want to grow in the long term.
Anyway, this industrialization needed workers and so many people moved to the big cities to work in the factories. They weren't in their best shape because of the depression and in the cities they were exploited. So they felt the need to change this.

Now here we stop. 30 years before, when people wanted to vote, many united under the UCR claims, and so under Yrigoyen. After this and by then in government, Yrigoyen was clearly a populist and demagogic leader, and this was a precedent for Peron.
Peron was the answer for this people who wanted to change their situation and get more rights. They united under his leadership and made him get to power. And that's why he got there. In a simplified text.

Now in my opinion, how to get a good Argentina? Three options:
-Have Rivadavia unite the country under his liberal and progresist ideas, avoiding Civil War, and getting immigrants like 40 years earlier.
-Have the Radicales truly change the goverment structure and system and not just become the new ones in power as they did OTL.
-Avoid Yrigoyen's second goverment.

Cook · May 26, 2011

The Australian and Argentine economies were in a similar state in the early ‘80s. Australia deregulated and diversified, Argentina didn’t.

mowque said:
Being owned by Britain doesn't mean instant stability or instant democracy. Look at South Africa.

Of course it does; God is an Englishman after all. South Africa just had too many of those damned Dutch men.

Petete123123 · May 26, 2011

Cook said:
The Australian and Argentine economies were in a similar state in the early ‘80s. Australia deregulated and diversified, Argentina didn’t.

Of course it does; God is an Englishman after all. South Africa just had too many of those damned Dutch men.

God is Argentinean

.He just wants to put it a bit more difficult for us. He knows it wouldn't be funny to be the number one country so easily.

Dan1988 · May 26, 2011

yofie said:
What makes you say that? What makes you think that Argentina would be different from North America and Australia/NZ assuming that British settlers would move to all these places?

Several factors:
1. Brazil. At the time, porteños were very much more afraid of a Portuguese invasion (and one also has to remember that the British were also allies of Portugal, of which Brazil was a colony of at the time - is that a coincidence?). Even if Argentina were semi-independent or a British colony, Brazil would exert a huge influence in many ways - economic, cultural, linguistic, etc.

2. What happened in OTL. During the 19th century in OTL, Britain basically fulfilled the position that the US has done during the 20th/21st century as the dominant economy in the region. In OTL, Britain really didn't need to set up colonies in South America because they already got a lot of that with a bunch of independent countries. Remember that well before the invasion, BS-AS was smuggling British goods through its ports, and afterwards a certain British bank is still blamed by Argentines for helping to cause some of the economic problems Argentina faces. As a colonial economy, BS-AS (and *Argentina in general) would probably fare a lot worse - yes, the original long-term goal was to turn BS-AS into something like OTL HK, but it could probably end up being like how the Americans treated Cuba (or Central America, for that matter - substitute bananas for beef, and you get the idea).

3. Never underestimate the power of deception. Whilst things might look one way on the surface, it only hides the reality. Sure, on the surface one could have Argentina adopting all those British-style political institutions and have it function normally, but deep down inside those institutions are largely "para Ingles ver" and do much to hide the preservation of the status quo (i.e. the power of the existing agricultural élite) and thus do much to deceive. Instead of a carbon copy of British political culture, we get a different TTL Argentine political culture that would leave OTL Argentines shocked. Nor would British rule probably change the class system or old Spanish institutions (such as the civil law system) one iota - "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

4. British settlers, in addition, are not a panacaea for everything. If anything, 19th century British settlers (even lower-class settlers) would probably come off as arrogant, brash, etc. to ordinary porteños. (Sort of like an inverse to the "ugly American".) Individual settlers may be an exception, yes, but they are an exception, not the rule. If anything, there is really nothing that BS-AS offers British settlers that they couldn't get elsewhere.

Just a couple out of many to show why BS-AS, and Argentina in general, would be different.

yofie said:
And Canada did have French people there after all, and look what Canada has become!

New France (that is, Canada, Acadia, and Louisiana) was different from the rest of the French Empire to begin with, and plus Canada was different from the British Empire to begin with anyway. It is, therefore, its own unique snowflake (literally).

Emperor-of-New-Zealand · May 26, 2011

yofie said:
there weren't a lot of indigenous people (also just like Argentina) and those were quickly taken over by British settlers..

Do your research. Indegenous New Zealanders (i.e. Maori) put up the biggest fight against the British Empire than nearly any other indegenous population. There were a lot of Maori, too, and they were in no way 'quickly taken over' by your Britwank Empire.

Cook · May 26, 2011

Emperor-of-New-Zealand said:
Indegenous New Zealanders (i.e. Maori)...

Not to mention the Hobbits…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZFUZjexzws

Dan1988 · May 26, 2011

Cook said:
Not to mention the Hobbits…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZFUZjexzws

***gives a hearty laugh***

Si nous avons-la en mon pays, . . .

yofie · May 27, 2011

Petete123123 said:
Peron arriving to power was not by itself the result of the latin american culture, but a result of two things that happened before, Yrigoyen and the World Economic depression.

But don't forget that Argentina, just like many other parts of the Latin world, had farms that were mostly owned by absentee landlords (and worked upon by little more than serfs). Whereas in the developed Anglo world (e.g. North America), the farms have tended to be owned by families themselves - a great deal more equal. The landlord-owned farming pattern as seen in Argentina cannot have helped in terms of later political history!

Petete123123 said:
Now in my opinion, how to get a good Argentina? Three options:
-Have Rivadavia unite the country under his liberal and progresist ideas, avoiding Civil War, and getting immigrants like 40 years earlier.
-Have the Radicales truly change the goverment structure and system and not just become the new ones in power as they did OTL.
-Avoid Yrigoyen's second goverment.

I don't know if Rivadavia would have been able to overcome enmity from those who wanted Argentina to be a federal country (the federalists). Rivadavia himself was a unionist, and wanted centralized government based in Buenos Aires. We're talking, remember, about the nasty unionist-federalist conflict of the early-mid 19th century.

As for the other two options, I don't know how the Radicales could have come about truly changing the government structure, and how Yrigoyen's second government could have been avoided.

yofie · May 27, 2011

Dan1988 said:
2. What happened in OTL. During the 19th century in OTL, Britain basically fulfilled the position that the US has done during the 20th/21st century as the dominant economy in the region. In OTL, Britain really didn't need to set up colonies in South America because they already got a lot of that with a bunch of independent countries.

But Britain did want to set up colonies or at least beachheads all over Spanish America (not just the Rio de la Plata but also Chile, Peru, Mexico, etc.) right up to the 1806-07 Buenos Aires invasions in order to open up new markets and to undermine Spanish control in those parts. It had every intention at one point of actually starting a colony or more in that region. These intentions were thwarted not just by the failure of the invasions in Buenos Aires but also by sheer geography (e.g. great distances, mountains and other barriers to cross - remember, we're talking about the early 19th century, before the exponential increase in transportation speeds).

The fact that Britain didn't need colonies in Latin America - that was due to the failure of Britain to set itself up in the Rio de la Plata, plus ex post facto the independence of the countries there.

Dan1988 said:
3. Never underestimate the power of deception. Whilst things might look one way on the surface, it only hides the reality. Sure, on the surface one could have Argentina adopting all those British-style political institutions and have it function normally, but deep down inside those institutions are largely "para Ingles ver" and do much to hide the preservation of the status quo (i.e. the power of the existing agricultural élite) and thus do much to deceive. Instead of a carbon copy of British political culture, we get a different TTL Argentine political culture that would leave OTL Argentines shocked. Nor would British rule probably change the class system or old Spanish institutions (such as the civil law system) one iota - "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

British rule would definitely have brought in new institutions and new legal systems. Argentina's legal system, for example, would have become a hybrid of British common law and Spanish civil law - much like South Africa has both British and Roman-Dutch laws mixed in.

Plus, the British rulers would have made laws to accommodate the Spanish in Argentina and protect their religion and institutions even as they were being absorbed into British rule. Think of the Quebec Act providing British protection of the French in Quebec starting several years after the conquest of Quebec by the British ca. 1760.

Dan1988 said:
New France (that is, Canada, Acadia, and Louisiana) was different from the rest of the French Empire to begin with, and plus Canada was different from the British Empire to begin with anyway. It is, therefore, its own unique snowflake (literally).

How was New France different from the rest of the French Empire? And was Canada different from the rest of the British Empire more than just because of the Loyalists moving in and the proximity to the United States?

Dan1988 · May 27, 2011

yofie said:
But don't forget that Argentina, just like many other parts of the Latin world, had farms that were mostly owned by absentee landlords (and worked upon by little more than serfs).

That happened in a lot of the Anglo world as well (and still is to this day, albeit to a limited degree).

yofie said:
I don't know if Rivadavia would have been able to overcome enmity from those who wanted Argentina to be a federal country (the federalists). Rivadavia himself was a unionist, and wanted centralized government based in Buenos Aires. We're talking, remember, about the nasty unionist-federalist conflict of the early-mid 19th century.

We know that - because, discounting his Unitarianism, Rivadavia was a liberal and thus could have provided a lot.

yofie said:
As for the other two options, I don't know how the Radicales could have come about truly changing the government structure, and how Yrigoyen's second government could have been avoided.

Yrigoyen's second Government is easily avoidable; and the UCR changing the Government structure is actually pretty easy.

yofie said:
But Britain did want to set up colonies or at least beachheads all over Spanish America (not just the Rio de la Plata but also Chile, Peru, Mexico, etc.) right up to the 1806-07 Buenos Aires invasions in order to open up new markets and to undermine Spanish control in those parts.

And most of the time, they failed. San Juan (which they had tried for ages and never succeeded), Caracas, etc. Indeed, it was this failure that pretty much led Britain to ignore Latin America and shift towards defeating France. Thus relying on dominating Latin America's economy instead.

yofie said:
The fact that Britain didn't need colonies in Latin America - that was due to the failure of Britain to set itself up in the Rio de la Plata, plus ex post facto the independence of the countries there.

No, it was not due to a failure of setting itself up in the Rio de la Plata. It was just because simply there was no need for Britain to set up a colony there.

yofie said:
British rule would definitely have brought in new institutions and new legal systems.

But all that would just be window-dressing "para Ingles ver". The civil law (actually a mixture of Roman law, the Law of the Indies, and Spanish customary law) would have still remained primary and still used before British common law. The British would not challenge the power of the agricultural élite and would have left many old institutions intact. Even then, what new institutions there would have been would be regarded with some suspicion by ordinary Argentines, as its franchise would be largely limited to settlers (further increasing problems down the road).

yofie said:
And was Canada different from the rest of the British Empire more than just because of the Loyalists moving in and the proximity to the United States?

That's one factor. Another factor is New France, which helped to provide institutions on which (traditionally) the modern Québécois identity is built on.

yofie · May 27, 2011

Dan1988 said:
Yrigoyen's second Government is easily avoidable; and the UCR changing the Government structure is actually pretty easy.

Please give me some PODs for these.

Dan1988 said:
No, it was not due to a failure of setting itself up in the Rio de la Plata. It was just because simply there was no need for Britain to set up a colony there.

Why was there less of a need for that in South America than in Asia, Africa, the Caribbean, Australia, etc.?

Dan1988 said:
But all that would just be window-dressing "para Ingles ver". The civil law (actually a mixture of Roman law, the Law of the Indies, and Spanish customary law) would have still remained primary and still used before British common law. The British would not challenge the power of the agricultural élite and would have left many old institutions intact. Even then, what new institutions there would have been would be regarded with some suspicion by ordinary Argentines, as its franchise would be largely limited to settlers (further increasing problems down the road).

Are you sure that in South Africa there hasn't been an equivalent of "para Ingles ver" for the Afrikaners, or in Canada for the French? I see the Spanish in a British Argentina (what you describe as "ordinary Argentines") as the rough equivalent of the Afrikaners and the French Canadians (in that they live alongside British settlers and are in conflict with them).