Argentina stays rich

I got the numbers right, I wrote that the USA had a 20% illiteracy rate. And yes, the USA had more than double the population of Argentina in literate people. That means more skilled workers for more complex production, more patents, more science research, more informed voters, etc, etc.
Hmm, sorry I must have misread. I saw the "let's compare the countries literacy rates" and misunderstood.
Argentina is not a resource rich country, that's a myth. Germany is a resource rich country. The USA is a resource rich country. The UK is a resource rich country. They have the kind of resources, also easily available through relatively cheap logistics, a literate society with money to expend can turn into industrial goods, adding value and creating jobs in the process. Argentina didn't have that.
Eh, kind of.
Those resources do exist, they are just hard to acess because they are either far away from the population centers (iron and coal) or there is no economic reason to exploit them.

Though yeah, all those countries you named have an incredible lead up in resources. Hence why the "Argentina could have been SA's USA" is even more bullshit.
 
Last edited:
Peron did good things but let's not forget that he was also a strongman El Duce fan who deepened the political divisions of the country and while he did give birth to many useful industries he also pushed for many inefficient ones and/or awful economic state policies that are still haunting us 70 years later.

Saying no to the meme doesn't mean we should become apologists either.

Sadly he didn't possessed the power of predicting the future to know which industries would work or not, so he as a human had to be susceptible to failures. Still the point remains that he led Argentina during a period that was marked mostly by growth the the rehabilitation of Argentina on the political sphere. Argentina was almost locked out of the international community since there was a coup by a clique of pro axis officers in 1943 (and the situation was so awfull before the coup that it improved a bit the country situation). It was the Perón administration that allowed Argentina to return for the diplomatic scene.

And who deepened the political divisions were the opposition, they went so far to burn argentinian flags, they exploded bombs during political meetings, they bombed their own capital to remove Perón and during the final moments of the coup they locked the headquarters of the Justicialist party with the members inside and set fire (thankfully they escaped). The Argentinian opposition was too reactionary, too harsh and Perón reforms drove them to a "all or northing" that resulted on the series of dictatorships and the current sad state of the country.
 

kernals12

Banned
Assumptions about Argentina's GDP per capita at the beginning of the 20th century come from data that is, by its nature, incomplete and with questionable accuracy.
The most common source is from the late Angus Maddison, whose organization still produces historical data on GDP per capita. According to Maddison, in 1985, Argentina's GDP per capita in 1913 was a rather unimpressive 57% of the British level, but in 1990, that suddenly rose to 75%.
GDP-Table-624x563.png

The reason? Argentina began including estimates of the size of its informal economy in its GDP measure which completely threw off the measurements, and hence the "Argentine paradox" was born.
Argentina-GDP-624x533.png

An adjusted version shows Argentina's relative GDP per capita was roughly the same in 1980 as in 1930.
 
Sadly he didn't possessed the power of predicting the future to know which industries would work or not, so he as a human had to be susceptible to failures. Still the point remains that he led Argentina during a period that was marked mostly by growth the the rehabilitation of Argentina on the political sphere. Argentina was almost locked out of the international community since there was a coup by a clique of pro axis officers in 1943 (and the situation was so awfull before the coup that it improved a bit the country situation). It was the Perón administration that allowed Argentina to return for the diplomatic scene.
Yeaaah, that's not what I meant and you know it.

Peron's industrial developement focused just as much on reliable necessary industries as it did on bullshit "self sufficiency" and other such facist/soviet/old emprie style pipe dreams. There were some areas (eg planes) where trying our luck seemed like a good idea at the time but there were also many others were we knew we weren't going to be able to compete with the foreign competitors but we tried anyway because "muh nationalism".

Also what "rehabilitation of Argentina on the political sphere"? I assume you meant only in the world stage, because the previous coups had already ruined the political stability of Argentina and the Peronist regime only made it worse, leaving us with 50 years of Peronism vs everyone else and giving birth to everything from ultra right genocidal idiots to leftist guerrilla movements.
The meme that "Peron ruined Argentina politically" may be wrong, but the idea didn't originate from the ether.

And who deepened the political divisions were the opposition, they went so far to burn argentinian flags, they exploded bombs during political meetings, they bombed their own capital to remove Perón and during the final moments of the coup they locked the headquarters of the Justicialist party with the members inside and set fire (thankfully they escaped). The Argentinian opposition was too reactionary, too harsh and Perón reforms drove them to a "all or northing" that resulted on the series of dictatorships and the current sad state of the country.
Look, I get that you want to defend him but this is bullshit. Both sides were equally violent and extremist. The Peronist regime jsut happened to be the biggest unified force while the rest were all coalitions formed against them.

Or is this the moment where you deny Peronist Argentina was something straight out of fascist Italy and that Peronism "dindu noting wrong"? Because you don't need for one side to be good for the other to be shit. For the last 70 years or so all factions fighting for power in Argentina have been different variations of the same cancer. You want an example of this? Peronism invented the AAA and the anti-peronist junta that came later continued to use them.
 
Look, I get that you want to defend him but this is bullshit. Both sides were equally violent and extremist. The Peronist regime jsut happened to be the biggest unified force while the rest were all coalitions formed against them.
Well, no. Peron didn't bomb downtown Buenos Aires.

Anyway, it's possible to look at Libya's gdp per capita growth during the 1960s and claim the country is destined to greatness... but we know that's just not true. So, why apply the same standards to late 19th century Argentina
 
Peron's industrial developement focused just as much on reliable necessary industries as it did on bullshit "self sufficiency" and other such facist/soviet/old emprie style pipe dreams. There were some areas (eg planes) where trying our luck seemed like a good idea at the time but there were also many others were we knew we weren't going to be able to compete with the foreign competitors but we tried anyway because "muh nationalism".

Also what "rehabilitation of Argentina on the political sphere"? I assume you meant only in the world stage, because the previous coups had already ruined the political stability of Argentina and the Peronist regime only made it worse, leaving us with 50 years of Peronism vs everyone else and giving birth to everything from ultra right genocidal idiots to leftist guerrilla movements.
The meme that "Peron ruined Argentina politically" may be wrong, but the idea didn't originate from the ether.

Nope. I meant a ideology that was under development at the time with a group of young economists from the UN Comission for development of Latim America, the CEPAL, these economists gave birth for something new, a economic doctrine based on self reliance but not on a fascist or a communist kind, this doctrine is national developmentalism and is more respected than nowadays on brazilian and argentinian academic circles

And Yes I mean on the world stage. Since Ramirez and Farrel took too long to declare war on the axis and accepted nazi refugees they made their state a pariah on the eyes of the world. Heck, Brazil even got addition land lease since the land lease destined to Argentina couldn't be given as they didn't joined the allies. (On this side, thank you Ramirez, appreciated).

Look, I get that you want to defend him but this is bullshit. Both sides were equally violent and extremist. The Peronist regime jsut happened to be the biggest unified force while the rest were all coalitions formed against them.

Well, no. Peron didn't bomb downtown Buenos Aires.

Juan answered for me. The putschists started the whole thing. The main reason why the catholic church left Perón is that he approved the divorce law and DARED to give the voting rights for women! That monstruous communists who think that women should be allowed to vote!

The conservatives in Argentina were reactionaries just like in Brazil, they didn't wanted a slow, sane and well planned modernization process, it was because of them, the infamous decade and successive failed governments that argentina was one of the last countries in earth to allow women to vote, in 1949, that while Perón was under massive fire from the conservatives and the church.

Furthermore, it didn't started with the bombing of Buenos Aires (that itself was the worst kind of crime I can Imagine a military doing, not even the brazilian junta bombed our capital, only the Chileans and the Argentinians). You had already a coup attempt in 1951 to prevent Perón's reelection and when the crisis in 1955 began he tried to resign, but the people didn't allowed him to, this was not a political stunt as the resignation was even broadcasted. The crimes comitted by peronists (that again, were the exception not the rule while the great majority of the opposition supported the coup, a illegal seizure of power that they called a "revolution") didn't reached the same escalation as the putschist size.
 
Australia’s elite were repeatedly forced to buy off progressivist labourites (including the CPA) which were prodded to stay left by IWW and the CPA industrial members. However, these movements were never threatening enough to require their physical liquidation outside of shearer’s and underground coal. This lead to higher returns to labour and thus higher capital goods purchasing.

I doubt Argentina has this class war setup.
 

Ian_W

Banned
What sort of military does our rich Argentina raise? What aims does it have for the Falklands?

A rich Argentina doesn't have a culture where it has a large military, because that is the sort of culture that gets a poor Argentina.
 

Marc

Donor
Perhaps to really understand why Argentina went wrong in the 20th century is through reading, Los cuatro jinetes del Apocalipsis by Vicente Blasco Ibáñez.
The English translation is The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Yes that might jog a faint allusion to a long ago famous actor, Valentino, but the novel is quite insightful. In the ways that "pure" history missses.
 
Last edited:

MatthewB

Banned
A rich Argentina doesn't have a culture where it has a large military, because that is the sort of culture that gets a poor Argentina.
The richest and often the most democratic and politically stable countries often have the largest militaries. Germany, UK, France, and especially the USA have large militaries. Why doesn't ITTL Argentina? South America is a dangerous place, so Argentina needs to protect itself.
 
Last edited:
The richest and often the most democratic and politically stable countries often have the largest militaries. Germany, UK, France, and especially the USA have large militaries. Why doesn't ITTL Argentina? South America is a dangerous place, so Argentina needs to protect itself.
South America in general is not *that* dangerous a place; the only real threat for Argentina lies in the NE and that can best be done with international cooperation and beefing up the local and national security forces. It's not something that requires a full-blown army even historically, not to mention in the 20th century there was a division in the Argentine army between looking to France or the US as models.

I'll come back to this when I might have more time, but I'll take the 'controversial' route and say that if you want the OP fulfilled, the best bet would be retaining Perón for a couple of decades (in other words, the 1955 coup fails) before he gets eased out in favor of a democratic transition led by among other things Argentina's own counterpart of Adolfo Suárez.
 
What sort of military does our rich Argentina raise? What aims does it have for the Falklands?
It depends. When it's the POD? If it's due no Yom Kippur War (so no 1973 oil crisis) or riding better the oil crisis and avoiding the 1976 coup, Argentina may end up in a political situation not unlike Brazil: The Armed Forces and the coups aren't really discredited (but the latter no longer happen anyway). In this scenario, Argentina and the UK agreed on a 99 years lease on the Falklands, so that's no longer an issue. For all we know, the Argentine Coast Guard may end up setting a base there to assist in SAR operations in the sea. Argentina may have still bought French aircraft because the USA isn't selling supersonic fighters. By the early 1990s Argentina may end up replacing its carrier, specially if the 1st Gulf War goes as in OTL and an ATL president sends ships to the coalition in order to ingratiate the country with the USA. But as regional integration goes on, there will be less of an interest in the armed forces, so military procurements ends up as a combination of corruption, giving the military shiny expensive toys to play with and some small keynesian stimulus. The navy will want a nuclear powered sub, but Uncle Sam is likely to oppose that, so the icebreaker Almirante Irizar is the one to get a nuclear power plant. F-16s are bought by the mid-90s to replace the older Skyhawks, they come only with sidewinders and unguided bombs because the Americans aren't selling anything more advanced than that to Latin America. The older ships of the surface fleet get replacements during the 2010s, maybe bought to China as China's importance grow. Argentina still can't export TAMs tanks because of the German veto (Germany still has plenty of Leopard tanks in stock to sale). Maybe the Pampa jet trainer and an improved Pucara COIN aircraft become export models.

If the POD is no convertibility in the 1990s, the UK will still try to discourage Argentine armaments purchases, the military will still be discredited and the unilateral disarmament policy of OTL also happens ITTL. No carrier replacement, no F-16s in the 90's, only upgraded Skyhawks. The Pampa and Pucara may still become export models. A nuclear powered icebreaker is less likely, but still possible. 10-20 supersonic jets may end up being bought when the Mirages are retired, possibly Chengdu FC1 or Mirages F1. Maybe a destroyer or two are bought.
 
South America in general is not *that* dangerous a place; the only real threat for Argentina lies in the NE and that can best be done with international cooperation and beefing up the local and national security forces. It's not something that requires a full-blown army even historically, not to mention in the 20th century there was a division in the Argentine army between looking to France or the US as models.

I'll come back to this when I might have more time, but I'll take the 'controversial' route and say that if you want the OP fulfilled, the best bet would be retaining Perón for a couple of decades (in other words, the 1955 coup fails) before he gets eased out in favor of a democratic transition led by among other things Argentina's own counterpart of Adolfo Suárez.

Since he was not a dictator after his second therm was due he would need to find a sucessor. I think what you meant is that the democracy that began in 1946 should remain.
 
Since he was not a dictator after his second therm was due he would need to find a sucessor. I think what you meant is that the democracy that began in 1946 should remain.
When I have time, I'll explain myself. It is basically more complex and complicated than it sounds.
 
Top