Had Argentina Been an Anglophone Country, Would It Have Been More Prosperous and Populous Today?
- Thread starter CaliGuy
- Start date
CaliGuy
Banned
My question here is pretty simple; indeed, all Britain has to do is to successfully conquer Argentina early enough.
CaliGuy
Banned
Well, look at Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the U.S. and compare them with Argentina.So what about being English Speaking would make Argentina go differently? Oh, right...
Argentina's modern problems relate to a series of incompetent juntas that took one of the top 7 economies and rising powers of the early 20th century and frittered it away.
That's a very simplistic analysis.
Argentina already was as wealthy as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the U.S... in the 1940s.
The causes that led to economic stagnation in the Post-War are complex and I don't think they can be summed up as "Because Argentines don't speak English".
In fact before 1930, along with tiny Uruguay, Argentina was the only non-English speaking settler society that managed to achieve stable democratic institutions and a thriving free market economy with high standards of living outside of Europe.
So this proves that you don't need to be English-speaking to become prosperous, even in the more prejudiced early 20th century with the UK as its major trading partner Argentina was able to do so.
Argentina happened to embrace protectionism, autarky and corporativist economy, turning away from the free market, just as the world was beginning the longest period of economic growth recorded in modern capitalism, the post-war 1950s-1970s "Golden Years".
Inflation and high political instability starting with the 1930 coup which ended an unprecedented 70 years of unbroken Constitutional succession before that did the rest of the job in stagnating the country. That was an unprecedented event, until then Argentina had faced popular uprisings, but never a military coup. Imagine the USA having a coup in the 1930s. It was on that scale of unusual.
A British Argentina is an interesting scenario to ponder, but I don't think it would necessarily result in a developed, First World Argentina, as there would be too many butterflies involved.
I suggest you look at my thread instead, exploring the historical causes and what IFs of what happened to Argentina.
It has no replies so far, and I think I did my research so please take a look:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...gentina-with-a-1928-pod.409097/#post-14134401
Argentina already was as wealthy as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the U.S... in the 1940s.
The causes that led to economic stagnation in the Post-War are complex and I don't think they can be summed up as "Because Argentines don't speak English".
In fact before 1930, along with tiny Uruguay, Argentina was the only non-English speaking settler society that managed to achieve stable democratic institutions and a thriving free market economy with high standards of living outside of Europe.
So this proves that you don't need to be English-speaking to become prosperous, even in the more prejudiced early 20th century with the UK as its major trading partner Argentina was able to do so.
Argentina happened to embrace protectionism, autarky and corporativist economy, turning away from the free market, just as the world was beginning the longest period of economic growth recorded in modern capitalism, the post-war 1950s-1970s "Golden Years".
Inflation and high political instability starting with the 1930 coup which ended an unprecedented 70 years of unbroken Constitutional succession before that did the rest of the job in stagnating the country. That was an unprecedented event, until then Argentina had faced popular uprisings, but never a military coup. Imagine the USA having a coup in the 1930s. It was on that scale of unusual.
A British Argentina is an interesting scenario to ponder, but I don't think it would necessarily result in a developed, First World Argentina, as there would be too many butterflies involved.
I suggest you look at my thread instead, exploring the historical causes and what IFs of what happened to Argentina.
It has no replies so far
, and I think I did my research so please take a look:https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...gentina-with-a-1928-pod.409097/#post-14134401
Expanding on my previous post, while it's an interesting scenario to ponder, here are some problems with the idea of a "British Argentina".
Let's say the British succeed in their invasion of the Rio de la Plata area in 1806-07 as you suggested.
You still have to overcome all these hurdles:
1. Large Spanish-speaking population:
In 1810, Argentina had a population of 600k people, with an additional 150k more in Uruguay. For comparison, New France only had 70k people when the British took over in 1760, and you still have tensions between French and English speakers in Canada to this day!
This means you would need a massive number of settlers to make "Argentina" majority English-speaking. Let's say Argentina becomes a British Dominion, the British push for massive Anglo immigration. You would need at least 4 million immigrants over the course of the 19th century to make a dent on the growing Spanish-speaking population, 4 million immigrants being a minimum acceptable number to achieve British majority. In real life, Spanish-speaking independent Argentina received over 1 million Irish, and around another million counting English, Welsh and Scots. So that takes care of 2 million, but you still need at least two million more at a minimum. This would erase the entire immigration that went to New Zealand, and roughly half of what went to Australia. So Britain would lose two Dominions to gain English-speaking majority in one. And this assuming all those settlers actually will want to move to what still is a majority Spanish-speaking country.
2. Large resistance to British rule:
Argentines expelled the British twice. There was a clear budding movement for independence at the time.
Would the British move additional troops from fighting the Napoleonic Wars so they could have what back then was a backwater of the Spanish Empire?
Sacrifice the chance to defeat Napoleon to have English-speaking gauchos and 5 O'clock tea in the Pampas?
3. What are the British war aims?
Why would the British want to hold Argentina? Britain at the time was moving from the notion of acquiring new colonies to the idea of extending what was called the "informal empire" through trade.
In our timeline, the British got free trade with the whole of South America without having to sacrifice a single troop, just by supporting our independence and maintaining friendly relations.
Why would they risk alienating the entirety of South America and losing free trade with the whole continent of South America just to keep Argentina?
4. Spain became a British ally in the Peninsular War
Most likely the territory would have to be returned.
5. What would the British do with it?
"Argentina" as we know it would most likely not exist at all.
The British might have limited themselves to holding Buenos Aires as a Hong Kong-style port to secure free trade. (Which would have resulted in a much poorer, resentful rump Argentina)
The British might also have limited themselves to expanding through Patagonia, while leaving boer-like Spanish-speaking Republics in the interior alone. (Which would have resulted in several more countries, not just one "Argentina")
The British might have invaded those Spanish boer-like Republics later on. (Resulting in a lot of tension between Spanish and English speakers to this day in this alternate timeline).
The British might have decided to grow cotton in Northern Argentina and Paraguay, since the climate is suitable, importing thousands if not millions of Indian plantation labor. (Which would have resulted in very fucked-up race relations and a South Africa-like Argentina with a stratified caste system, and poorer than in real life)
In short, if you want a POD with an Argentina as wealthy as Canada or Australia, it seems to me it's much easier to study the history of the real country and figure out what happened rather than just fill everything with magical Anglos. Seems particularly disingenuous when you already had a democratic, wealthy, "Honorary Dominion" British-allied Argentina in real life, from 1880 to 1943!
A British Argentina might have gone terribly wrong, or very right, but there are a lot of potential problems to be addressed for it to be a viable concept.
I've seen this trope on several websites, so don't take this as an attack on you in particular, seemed like a good chance to debunk it.
Let's say the British succeed in their invasion of the Rio de la Plata area in 1806-07 as you suggested.
You still have to overcome all these hurdles:
1. Large Spanish-speaking population:
In 1810, Argentina had a population of 600k people, with an additional 150k more in Uruguay. For comparison, New France only had 70k people when the British took over in 1760, and you still have tensions between French and English speakers in Canada to this day!
This means you would need a massive number of settlers to make "Argentina" majority English-speaking. Let's say Argentina becomes a British Dominion, the British push for massive Anglo immigration. You would need at least 4 million immigrants over the course of the 19th century to make a dent on the growing Spanish-speaking population, 4 million immigrants being a minimum acceptable number to achieve British majority. In real life, Spanish-speaking independent Argentina received over 1 million Irish, and around another million counting English, Welsh and Scots. So that takes care of 2 million, but you still need at least two million more at a minimum. This would erase the entire immigration that went to New Zealand, and roughly half of what went to Australia. So Britain would lose two Dominions to gain English-speaking majority in one. And this assuming all those settlers actually will want to move to what still is a majority Spanish-speaking country.
2. Large resistance to British rule:
Argentines expelled the British twice. There was a clear budding movement for independence at the time.
Would the British move additional troops from fighting the Napoleonic Wars so they could have what back then was a backwater of the Spanish Empire?
Sacrifice the chance to defeat Napoleon to have English-speaking gauchos and 5 O'clock tea in the Pampas?
3. What are the British war aims?
Why would the British want to hold Argentina? Britain at the time was moving from the notion of acquiring new colonies to the idea of extending what was called the "informal empire" through trade.
In our timeline, the British got free trade with the whole of South America without having to sacrifice a single troop, just by supporting our independence and maintaining friendly relations.
Why would they risk alienating the entirety of South America and losing free trade with the whole continent of South America just to keep Argentina?
4. Spain became a British ally in the Peninsular War
Most likely the territory would have to be returned.
5. What would the British do with it?
"Argentina" as we know it would most likely not exist at all.
The British might have limited themselves to holding Buenos Aires as a Hong Kong-style port to secure free trade. (Which would have resulted in a much poorer, resentful rump Argentina)
The British might also have limited themselves to expanding through Patagonia, while leaving boer-like Spanish-speaking Republics in the interior alone. (Which would have resulted in several more countries, not just one "Argentina")
The British might have invaded those Spanish boer-like Republics later on. (Resulting in a lot of tension between Spanish and English speakers to this day in this alternate timeline).
The British might have decided to grow cotton in Northern Argentina and Paraguay, since the climate is suitable, importing thousands if not millions of Indian plantation labor. (Which would have resulted in very fucked-up race relations and a South Africa-like Argentina with a stratified caste system, and poorer than in real life)
In short, if you want a POD with an Argentina as wealthy as Canada or Australia, it seems to me it's much easier to study the history of the real country and figure out what happened rather than just fill everything with magical Anglos. Seems particularly disingenuous when you already had a democratic, wealthy, "Honorary Dominion" British-allied Argentina in real life, from 1880 to 1943!
A British Argentina might have gone terribly wrong, or very right, but there are a lot of potential problems to be addressed for it to be a viable concept.
I've seen this trope on several websites, so don't take this as an attack on you in particular, seemed like a good chance to debunk it.
Last edited:
Being in the British Empire, especially voluntarily, might well have helped strengthen the 'rule of law' forces, and allowed Argentina to avoid the coups, etc. (Or might not have.)
But Argentina would be Spanish speaking. I can't imagine any scenario short of genocide that would wipe out/swamp/convert the Spanish speaking population already there. If if that level of force was used, the result would be even more disastrous than OTL.
But Argentina would be Spanish speaking. I can't imagine any scenario short of genocide that would wipe out/swamp/convert the Spanish speaking population already there. If if that level of force was used, the result would be even more disastrous than OTL.
Well, until the 1930s much of Argentina tried as hard as it could to emulate Anglo institutions and culture. While Spain was considered the "Mother Country", Argentine elites (including a large Anglo-Argentine population which formed the largest British community outside of the Anglosphere) looked up to Britain and the United States as rolemodels.
The Argentine Supreme Court would regularly cite US Supreme Court rulings as precedent (http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1089&context=law_globalstudies) and among the upper classes at least there was a sentiment of kinship with the British Empire which was the main investor (more British money was invested in 1930s Argentina than in actual Dominions like Australia and South Africa) and the main export market of the country.
Argentine elites were avid polo and rugby players, shopped in Harrod's (the only branch outside of London was in Buenos Aires) and had extensive links to Britain. Most of the railways and meat packing plants were in British hands.
France was also emulated as a cultural beacon, particularly in the field of architecture.
So there was some truth to that expression until the 1930s. However, all those same factors would conspire hard to reinforce a sense of dependency on Britain when the Great Depression hit and Argentina had to make important concessions on the Roca-Runciman Treaty to avoid being excluded from the Imperial Preference system.
This caused Argentina's love affair with Britain to turn into a pendular relationship in the post-war as Perón rallied the masses against what he called "colonialism and economic dependency" on Britain. Instead of gradually switching Britain for the United States as a trade partner like Australia and Canada did in the Cold War, Argentina turned inwards both economically and politically.
New Zealand historian James Belich has referred to 1880-1943 British-allied Argentina as "the Cinderella of the Anglosphere family". I think it is a fitting expression.
Last edited:
There was a discussion about this in Chat I believe; I don't know the details, but someone pointed out that while yes, Argentina was in the top 7 economies around the beginning of the 20th Century, the disparity of wealth was great. Argentina didn't turn to protectionism and corporativism for no reason, after all; the country had some serious issues, which likely stemmed from their beginning as a Spanish colony (given Spain was far more autocratic than Britain).
It's impossible to say whether or not being a British colony would result in a stabler, more prosperous, more equal Argentinian society, but honestly, the British must have done something right - Canada, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand were 'model colonies', which remained loyal to the motherland well into the late 20th Century and with strong ties even today. Of course, if Britain had conquered Argentina from Spain during the Napoleonic Wars or earlier, then they'd be taking over a 'native' population, so it might end up more like Rhodesia than Canada. As I said, it's difficult to know.
It's impossible to say whether or not being a British colony would result in a stabler, more prosperous, more equal Argentinian society, but honestly, the British must have done something right - Canada, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand were 'model colonies', which remained loyal to the motherland well into the late 20th Century and with strong ties even today. Of course, if Britain had conquered Argentina from Spain during the Napoleonic Wars or earlier, then they'd be taking over a 'native' population, so it might end up more like Rhodesia than Canada. As I said, it's difficult to know.
Indeed, I hope our nations can become friends again, there were so many positive aspects to Anglo-Argentine relations it's a shame that such a long-lasting positive friendship was overshadowed by such a petty dispute over the Falklands.
Yes, with a simple POD in the 1920s you could butterfly away the 1930 coup entirely, and we'd be looking at a very different Argentina today. I made a thread about it, you can check it out, it's linked on this thread.
Argentina suffers from its politicians...
...Who periodically revive 'Malvinas' as a distraction.
An irony of history - Gibraltar is 'Jabal Tariq' and Arabic, whilst Malvinas is 'Isles Malouines' and Breton-French.
Myself and Petete123123 had to agree to disagree on the Falklands/Malvinas Question, then had great fun with the idea of a British Tierra Del Fuego...
...Why can't the politicians agree to do as we did? It might make Argentino tourists more welcome to the inhabitants and so develop friendship and trade.
,
...Who periodically revive 'Malvinas' as a distraction.
An irony of history - Gibraltar is 'Jabal Tariq' and Arabic, whilst Malvinas is 'Isles Malouines' and Breton-French.
Myself and Petete123123 had to agree to disagree on the Falklands/Malvinas Question, then had great fun with the idea of a British Tierra Del Fuego...
...Why can't the politicians agree to do as we did? It might make Argentino tourists more welcome to the inhabitants and so develop friendship and trade.
,