A successfull Argentina: how does world history changes?

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:p

I'm sure having a successful have significant effects in our region, the South Cone almost from the start, and that this would probably lead to a better South America, or at least, a better South Cone.

What I wasn't sure was what effect would such a POD have on world history. I tend to agree with those who think that even if Argentina sided with the allies in both world worlds, the outcome of both worlds won't be much different.

Latin American history in the 50ies and 60ies would differ, as you suggest: a successfull Argentina might strenghten democracy in our continent, and maybe even have some effect in areas of Afrca or Asia.
 
Not the outcome, but the way it's achieved. Argentina could very well participate the WWII in the same scale as Canada or near it.

Imagine the Argentines being one of the main forces in the Mediterranean. That would free troops to be used elsewhere. In East Asia or Normandy to be precise.

Almost 1 million Canadians served in the war. Imagine what would 500.000 Argentines do. More than anything it would give the country great prestige.

Imagine Argentines being of the main force invading Italy. That would have great effects in the international relevance of Argentina.
 

yofie

Banned
Here's yet another POD: If the British had been successful in their invasions of Buenos Aires in 1806-07 and had stayed in the region after the Napoleonic Wars of 1815, Argentina would have become a country every bit as first-world as Canada or Australia or the United States. (Being a temperate-zone country with a small indigenous population, Argentina as a British colony would have developed much more like Canada, Australia, etc. than India, much of British Africa, etc.) Argentina would have developed a Canada-like mixture of English and Spanish, and more importantly, there would be far less corruption than OTL and more effective political and legal institutions inherited from England. Argentina would be a major developed economy just larger than Canada's, and would be a member of the analogue of the G7 (along with Canada, the US, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan).

The major immigration sources (like the British Isles) would have matched the source of the investment (just like in Australia, Canada, etc.), whereas OTL, the source of the immigrants (mainly Spain and Italy) did not match the source of the investments (mainly the British Isles). Many of these immigrants did not become Argentine citizens fast enough to be fully integrated, unlike in North America and so forth. Furthermore, the traditional ruling elite in OTL Argentina reacted adversely against the massive wave of immigration, and that (combined with the Depression and stuff) ushered in the coup against Yrigoyen in 1930. Such an adverse reaction would not have occurred in a British Argentina. Plus, there would have been even more British investment in Argentina than OTL, and that investment money would have stayed in Argentina the way it did in British colonies like Canada or Australia, paving the way for genuine economic development.
 
Last edited:

katchen

Banned
If the British had been successful in their invasion of Argentina (which they might have, had they speedily followed up their occupation of Uruguay with British colonists--AND-- founded a British colony at Bahia Blanca before 1814--Argentina would have become, to say the least, an ethnically interesting place.
In the first place, once Buenos Aires is recaptured, the British will be following up that capture by taking Santa Fe --and then Asuncion, Concepcion and the rest of Paraguay. That will not only give the British a fairly substantial indigenous population that unlike many other indigenous populations is resistant to European diseases, it will give the British fertile cotton and sugar growing land all the way up the Parana, Paraguay and Uruguay Rivers--right after the British have just made the slave trade illegal. So if the British are to have the labor to exploit the fertile soil of Argentine Mesopotamia, the British will need to be importing coolie labor from India. So Argentina is going to be one of the UK's stranger colonies, stretching from subantarctic and probably convict settled Tierra del Fuego (yes, I expect Patagonia to be a possible location for penal colonies in addition to Australia) to the more conventional Rio Negro, "White Bay", Mar del Plata (which could be convict or East Indian simply because of all the swamps around it that must be drained for faimland to take hold) , Buenos AIres and Uruguay, East Indian Mesopotamia and East Indian-Guarani Paraguay.
And that is if the British stop at Paraguay or the Mato Grosso Pantanal--which they may not. Because from Asuncion, the Pilcomayo River goes to the West to Alta Peru, within 200 miles of the richest silver mines on Earth. Can or will the UK restrain itself in 1807-1814 from taking over Potosi and Alta Peru and then Peru itself? Including Chile? If the British get Argentina, why should the British allow any part of South America to become independent?
 

katchen

Banned
Esperanza

Not the outcome, but the way it's achieved. Argentina could very well participate the WWII in the same scale as Canada or near it.

Imagine the Argentines being one of the main forces in the Mediterranean. That would free troops to be used elsewhere. In East Asia or Normandy to be precise.

Almost 1 million Canadians served in the war. Imagine what would 500.000 Argentines do. More than anything it would give the country great prestige.

Imagine Argentines being of the main force invading Italy. That would have great effects in the international relevance of Argentina.
I don't know about a First World Argentina geting the Falkland Islands, which after all are settled by British subjects. But an Argentina that powerful that early (the 1940s-1950s) is bound to take the South Orkney, South Shetland Islands and at the very least in Anttarctica, the Palmer Peninsula, defying any "international order" to dislodge them from there or to impose anything that smacks of a world Park on Antarctica. Argentina will choose any nation that will support them on this issue as an ally, including if necessary,the USSR. But that will not be necessary. The US will go along with Argentine possession of much of Antarctica in order to keep Argentina onside.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Better integrated Buenos Aires/United Provinces earlier on?

After independence, and absent the British invasions (they certainly had better places to send troops at the time), could a better integrated "federal" Argentina have arisen, leading to an earlier period of national consolidation and a less rocky Nineteenth Century?

If so, does that give the country enough stability - and the economic connection with Britain in terms of wheat, wool, and beef - in the early Twentieth Century that it avoids the coups and the Depression?

In 1940, with the collapse of France and the UK against the wall, the British are looking for allies and the Argentines offer an volunteer expeditionary force (a reinforced brigade group, a fighter squadron and a bomber squadron, and a detachment to the the Mediterranean fleet based at Gibraltar) as well as assisting the British in closing the Atlantic Narrows to German and Italian blockade runners. In return, Britain recognizes Argentina's sovereignty over the South Atlantic islands, inclduing the Falklands/Malvinas, which becomes a condominium like the New Hebrides.

In 1942, with US entry in the war, L-L is extended to Argentina and the brigade group (presumably in Egypt with the 8th Army) expands to an infantry division (maybe with Uruguayan and Paraguayan troops to help make up the numbers) equipped with a mix of American and British equipment, that sees action in Italy, remaining with the 8th Army, since the Brazilian 1st Division is with the 5th Army.

End of the war brings UN membership, democracy in Brazil, and a more active Rio Treaty/Alliance for Progress with the US; Argentina and Brazil both send a battalion to Korea, generally do better in the ups and downs of the postwar economy, and manage to avoid internal disturbances and have peaceful transfers of power, with both center-left and center-right coalitions. Chile does better, as does Uruguay, and towards the end of the century, something like a stronger MERCOSUR comes together.

Life is good.

Best,
 
Regarding Spain, the Francoist would have collapsed or turned into a hellhole during the 40s, if Argentina is in tune with all the Allied nations and join the trade embargo. Famines wouldn't have had a way to be ameliorated, creating death and desperation.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
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.

Largely agree. I doubt a quality Argentinian democracy will use force on the Falklands. Look for something between a bilateral trade agreement that gives Argentinians passport free access to the Falklands and free trade on the low end, to some type of Hong Kong type negotiations as a max case. On the Hong Kong, it is not the army will march in victory, but something where there is de facto, if not de jure, joint control of the islands. Some USA brokered Northern Island type solution. Also, and independent Falklands is possible where both UK citizens and Argentinian citizens can move to the Island.

Or put another way, it will not be a big issue. They are cold barren Island. How many people petition the UK each year to move to the South Georgia Islands that are now empty?
 

yofie

Banned
Regarding Spain, the Francoist would have collapsed or turned into a hellhole during the 40s, if Argentina is in tune with all the Allied nations and join the trade embargo. Famines wouldn't have had a way to be ameliorated, creating death and desperation.

Explain exactly how that would work!
 

yofie

Banned
Not the outcome, but the way it's achieved. Argentina could very well participate the WWII in the same scale as Canada or near it.

Imagine the Argentines being one of the main forces in the Mediterranean. That would free troops to be used elsewhere. In East Asia or Normandy to be precise.

Almost 1 million Canadians served in the war. Imagine what would 500.000 Argentines do. More than anything it would give the country great prestige.

Imagine Argentines being of the main force invading Italy. That would have great effects in the international relevance of Argentina.

If the Argentines had fought more effectively as Allies during WWII than OTL, would they have been fighting mainly in Italy (and possibly North Africa too), and not so much also in Normandy and elsewhere in NW Europe?
 
The Falklands until recently have been of no economic value so toning down borders wont win over many Argentines, its down to national pride and anti-colonialism (YMMV).

Really either a stronger Argentina will ignore the islands because they have no need for a jingoistic unifier or they'll buy them.

Until the Junta invaded the British government cared little about the islands and the British public even less. Have the Argentines get it as compensation for doing its bit in World War 2 (with guaranteed basing rights for the Royal Navy) or a Hong Kong style slow handover combined with money to Westminster and the islanders if they wish to leave. Best bet might be promise the islands will have strong autonomy within the Republic.

The Falklanders might be Queen loving whites but they're frankly only a negative to the Exchequer and very few in number. Have a powerful Argentina which approaches the issue sensibly and is a major anchor politically, military and economically for the Western powers in the World War and/or Cold War and they'll get the islands eventually.

How about during the dodgy days of the 1970s Argentina offers Britain a trade deal plus cold hard cash, the government quietly agrees. By the time people notice and a fist shaking spell takes place in the tabloids it at best helps influence an election but the outrage wont affect the hand over.

Fall out? British economists groan when oil is found near the now Argentine-majority Malvinas islands, thinking of the wealth that might have been. Britain is a less confident nation geopolitically but politicians are free of the baggage of the War.

All in all the world's probably a teeny bit better off.
 
katchen,
Britain's big mistake was abandoning Uruguay, when they didn't have to. They weren't kicked out. They would have had the muscle to hold that small country. But, when kicked out of Buenos Aires, they freaked and needlessly left Uruguay, too. Within a scant few years, they were advocating a small independent Uruguay so that they could control trade in the Plata region. They could have had that in 1807. Eventually, they could have de facto controlled the region, but not in the manner you suggest.

The rest of your post is mostly wank, though. They need plenty of troops to conquer and hold all that region. Simply occupying Bahia Blanca, and making anything out of it, is going to take significant resources to pacify the natives.

the easiest course of action is to hold Uruguay, control the rivers, and control trade. Eventually, they'd control the region economically. Militarily, they have a tough row to hoe.
 

katchen

Banned
katchen,
Britain's big mistake was abandoning Uruguay, when they didn't have to. They weren't kicked out. They would have had the muscle to hold that small country. But, when kicked out of Buenos Aires, they freaked and needlessly left Uruguay, too. Within a scant few years, they were advocating a small independent Uruguay so that they could control trade in the Plata region. They could have had that in 1807. Eventually, they could have de facto controlled the region, but not in the manner you suggest.

The rest of your post is mostly wank, though. They need plenty of troops to conquer and hold all that region. Simply occupying Bahia Blanca, and making anything out of it, is going to take significant resources to pacify the natives.

the easiest course of action is to hold Uruguay, control the rivers, and control trade. Eventually, they'd control the region economically. Militarily, they have a tough row to hoe.
Maybe not. When I started really researching the history of the region, state by state and province by province, I discovered that there were quite a few attempts by regional caciques (chiefs) to create breakaway states that the central governments of Brazil and Argentina put down with great difficulty. The two that most interest us are Ramirez's "Republic of Entre Rios" (1820) see Wikipedia "Republic of Entre Rios" and Wikipedia "Entre Rios" History and the "Ragamuffin War" in the 1820s in which following Uruguay's secession from Brazil, what is now Rio Grande de Sul state also seceded, and remained independent for a few years before Emperor Dom Pedro I was able to put it down. And then there is the conflict between Manuel Rosas in Buenos Aires and the "Insular League" centered in Cordoba, that starts in the 1830s and goes 15 years IOTL. Maybe if the British gobble up Entre Rios, Corrientes and then equally dictatorially run Paraguay, this conflict will not happen. But maybe it will.
In both cases, if the British had owned Uruguay, the British would have been sorely tempted to manipulate such a situation to Great Britain's advantage and to incorporate these areas into the Uruguay colony. The British certainly took advantage of similar situations elsewhere in the world.
And the British would have a moral imperative behind them: The elimination of slavery and the extension of free soil. Both Argentina and Brazil (and Paraguay) have legal slavery. The Argentines do not abolish slavery until 1856 IOTL. Brazil, not until 1885 IOTL.
But Uruguay, taken over in 1807, but POD not given back to Spain in 1808, has few slaves and the slave trade is abolished in 1808. So slavery will almost certainly be abolished in the new colony, as it is abolished in New South Wales. Expanding Uruguay and the area in which slavery is abolished will be quite popular in England and may build public support that might not otherwise be forthcoming for military intervention and expansion there.
And the British do respect private property. And Uruguay is largely divided up into estancias by prior Spanish land grant. Which the British are not likely to interfere with, both because doing so would be against British law and because the local elite is the key to British rule over Uruguay remaining uncontested.
So once the Napoleonic Wars end in 1814, the British (who will now look upon Uruguay as a substitute for the New Orleans they failed to capture) will want to maximize the productivity of the land by having a cheap labour force to grow tobacco, rice and cotton, all labour intensive crops. Fortunately, India is close enough so that labour can be brought in from India by the BEIC on the return trip to England, as contract labour. The system will not be put together in a day, but given the realities of land ownership and the potential of the place, it will come together. Especially if the colony expands north to the Tropic of Capricorn and beyond.
And yes, the United Kingdom is of necessity the only real exception to the United States' Monroe Doctrine--able to take over land in the Western Hemisphere still, with impunity. Without the UK on it's side, for the US there is no enforceable Monroe Doctrine. At least not south of the Caribbean Sea.
 
Well, this is a two years old thread looking for advise for an abandoned project of a TL looking for PODs in the first half of the 20th Century.

So, assuming the mods want to keep this open and Admiral Brown still has some interest on his project, I think we should focus in a Hispanic Argentina which still ends the civil war in the 1860s and starts as an agricultural exporter until something changes between the 1910s-30s.


I think we should also close the Falklands debate due two issues. First, no matter how surprised the British posters might be, the British government was willing to cede the islands in the 1970s if a deal could be arranged. So a first world Argentina would likely agree to some sort of Hong Kong deal by the 1980s-1990s. Second, it's pretty much irrelevant.

No Antartic Treaty due Argentina successfully holding her claims on the Antarctic Peninsula and nearby areas, on the other hand, is an interesting butterfly.
I also have my doubts about the relationship with the USA being all nice and dandy. Let's assume butterflies don't prevent the left winning elections in Chile in the 1970s. Maybe not through Allende, due butterflies, but some communist leader becomes the Chilean president. Since the Cold War isn't likely to be averted, we might very well see the CIA doing everything in their power to instigate a military coup, and dictatorship, in Chile. WI a more powerful, democratic, Argentina, decides she doesn't want Americans meddling to the other side of the Andes to put a dictatorship in place?
Of course, it doesn't have to play that way: the local Argentine upper class can be shaken by a communist victory in Chile and the Argentine government might help instigate the coup - or a different coup. I also wonder, if the POD prevents Peronism, does that make the Argentine leftist parties more palatable to the working class? Meaning there is also a sizeable communist minority in the Argentine Congress, which could win presidential elections eventually?
 
Top