Argentina stays rich

Ian_W

Banned
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.

You'll note when the US got rich - the nineteenth and early 20th century - it had a very small military. It's also notable that the period when the US has had a large military has also seen it lose it's world leadership.

Today, Germany is the healthiest of the countries you list. It also has a very small military.
 
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.
I would dispute that Claim, We are seeing that a bigger military in the USA is tied to an ever increasing internal political polarization and destabilization , the same you could say of Germany, the Uk never have a big Army, a big navy, yes, but not a big Army, and France is well france
 

MatthewB

Banned
I would dispute that Claim, , the Uk never have a big Army, a big navy, yes, but not a big Army
UK never had a big army? Perhaps you mean post-WW2 or only troops raised and or stationed in the UK? You can’t build one of the largest empires known to man, fight WW1, WW2, Korea and act as a bastion in NATO without a big army.
 
UK never had a big army? Perhaps you mean post-WW2 or only troops raised and or stationed in the UK? You can’t build one of the largest empires known to man, fight WW1, WW2, Korea and act as a bastion in NATO without a big army.
The second, and even including the empire at his cenit the UK army was a relatively small force for the size of their empire and how much population they have, barely 430.000 during the Boer war, a small army for an Empire that covered 1/3 of the world and 2/5 of the population. Teh german Empire in 1871 boasted 500.000 troops, and France 400.000 in 1871

_54291041_british_army_464.gif
 
The second, and even including the empire at his cenit the UK army was a relatively small force for the size of their empire and how much population they have, barely 430.000 during the Boer war, a small army for an Empire that covered 1/3 of the world and 2/5 of the population. Teh german Empire in 1871 boasted 500.000 troops, and France 400.000 in 1871

_54291041_british_army_464.gif

Does this picture count the Colonial forces like the Indian Army? If not, it present a very skewed situation.
 
Does this picture count the Colonial forces like the Indian Army? If not, it present a very skewed situation.
The image is only the british regular army, the distinct Militias and Colonial forces are not included, but even if we included them they don´t distortion much the numbers for example in 1855, That was the period when Britain was able to fight and win wars in Russia, China and India at almost the same time (admittedly with the help of allies), and the country was at the peak of its wealth and relative influence. Britain alone — not counting its empire — accounted for about 10% of the world's GDP during this period. they still have a smaller army than Prussia

main-qimg-0734f40b52816906e01b4aa3e22c6114.webp

main-qimg-5bf2f6718266fc22fc21ea28de9a989a.webp

 
Last edited:

SsgtC

Banned
The image is only the british regular army, the distinct Militias and Colonial forces are not included, but even if we included them they don´t distortion much the numbers for example in 1855, That was the period when Britain was able to fight and win wars in Russia, China and India at almost the same time (admittedly with the help of allies), and the country was at the peak of its wealth and relative influence. Britain alone — not counting its empire — accounted for about 10% of the world's GDP during this period. they still have a smaller army than Prussia

main-qimg-0734f40b52816906e01b4aa3e22c6114.webp

main-qimg-5bf2f6718266fc22fc21ea28de9a989a.webp
And the UK has a Navy a hundred times larger than Prussia's. The UK had no need for a large standing Army. They are an island nation. What they needed, and what they had, was a Navy bigger than the next several navies combined. Comparing just the size of the armies is extremely misleading bordering on disingenuous.
 
Last edited:
And the UK has a Navy a hundred times larger than Prussia's. The UK had no need for a large standing Army. They are an island nation. What they needed, and what they had, was a Navy bigger than the next several navies combined. Comparing just the size of the armies is extremely misleading bordering on disingenuous.
And I never disputed that the UK had a a big navy, just that they don´t had a big army
 

SsgtC

Banned
And I never disputed that the UK had a a big navy, just that they don´t had a big army
Except the argument has been that having a large military was a sign of a collapsing regime. Since when does the Navy not count as part of the military?
 

Ian_W

Banned
Except the argument has been that having a large military was a sign of a collapsing regime. Since when does the Navy not count as part of the military?

To be precise, I'm saying having a small military is the sign of a country that is in the process of getting rich.

Rich countries also find big militaries harder to do, because they need to pay more for soldiers (and sailors) - see also First World military recruiting difficulties when economies are going well.

This article is worth a review

From the great illusion to the Great War: Military spending behaviour of the Great Powers, 1870-1913
JARI ELORANTA
European Review of Economic History
Vol. 11, No. 2 (AUGUST 2007), pp. 255-283

Which is available here

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8af6/ebf80fe035dcbff1c9c060305de903d92f43.pdf

Skip to figure 1 if you want to see the summary of the data - see how low the USA was, compared to it's European competitors ?
 

MatthewB

Banned
The image is only the british regular army, the distinct Militias and Colonial forces are not included, but even if we included them they don´t distortion much the numbers for example in 1855, That was the period when Britain was able to fight and win wars in Russia, China and India at almost the same time (admittedly with the help of allies), and the country was at the peak of its wealth and relative influence. Britain alone — not counting its empire — accounted for about 10% of the world's GDP during this period. they still have a smaller army than Prussia
Look, you it was claimed above that Britain had a small army, not the largest army. No one has thus far proven that Britain has a small army.
 

Ian_W

Banned
Going back to the original post.

You need to do three things, all of which will be very hard for Argentina.

You need to have a very very small military, because everything Eisenhower said about the Military-Industrial Complex is true. As a reason why Australia did better than Argentina, look at how many men Australia had under arms between 1880 and 1910, and compare it to Argentina. Do the same for the USA to Argentina.

You need to break the power of the large landowners, because they are going to what Argentina to continue to export beef and wheat and so on, and import everything else. You also need to hand out that land to immigrants, to get the Irish, Germans and so on to choose Argentina over the US, Australia or New Zealand.

You need to encourage local industry, because industry keeps getting better between 1850 and 1910, and agriculture stays about the same. Note this is going to need to disadvantage the agricultural sector, which is why the power of the large landowners needs to be broken.

None of these things are easy, because once a Landlord/General class get power, they have the guns and the money to want to keep it.
 
You need to have a very very small military, because everything Eisenhower said about the Military-Industrial Complex is true. As a reason why Australia did better than Argentina, look at how many men Australia had under arms between 1880 and 1910, and compare it to Argentina. Do the same for the USA to Argentina
The thing is, unlike Australia and the US, Argentina had enemies (or at least possible enemies) next to them. Brazil and Chile weren't friends and a war could have started at any time. They even had an arms race with dreadnoughts.
You need to break the power of the large landowners, because they are going to what Argentina to continue to export beef and wheat and so on, and import everything else. You also need to hand out that land to immigrants, to get the Irish, Germans and so on to choose Argentina over the US, Australia or New Zealand
They would still choose the US. Closer to then geographically and culturally. Never mind that it was still the better option.

Also, the whole "small farms are better" is a lie and by the start of the 20th century big landowners started becoming the only viable option. Never mind that the middle class is and always was industrial and urban.

You need to encourage local industry, because industry keeps getting better between 1850 and 1910, and agriculture stays about the same. Note this is going to need to disadvantage the agricultural sector, which is why the power of the large landowners needs to be broken
How can you have any local industry worth a damm when your internal market is microscopic (less than 5 million people before 1900) and all the necessary resources are either hard to get or really far away from the populated areas?

Also, unlike the US, Argentina can't go full protectionist when they depend so much on British capital.
 
The thing is, unlike Australia and the US, Argentina had enemies (or at least possible enemies) next to them. Brazil and Chile weren't friends and a war could have started at any time. They even had an arms race with dreadnoughts..
Chile and Argentina were mostly friends until argentina in the Late XIX century early XX started to do a series of agressive land grabs against Chilean Territory, that Chile mostly let´s go. In Fact most of the International tensions between Argentina and Chile Started in Buenos Aires not in Santiago.

Brazil is a different Beast, but they did not have bad relations during the XX century
 
Chile and Argentina were mostly friends until argentina in the Late XIX century early XX started to do a series of agressive land grabs against Chilean Territory, that Chile mostly let´s go. In Fact most of the International tensions between Argentina and Chile Started in Buenos Aires not in Santiago.

Brazil is a different Beast, but they did not have bad relations during the XX century
Eh, what?

Argentina and Chile have hated each other since shortly after their respective independences. Both countries were direct competitors for the Patagonia who also shared literally the entire lengths of their countries as borders.
What happened wasn't that they got along well enough, but that Chile either had other, more pressing, problems (eg war with Peru-Bolivia) to deal with when Argentina pushed their claims or that Argentina was simply strong enough to make a war an unwinnable proposition.
Even then the partition of Patagonia amongst the two had heavy foreign involvement to make sure neither country got control of both a Pacific and an Atlantic port. By the 20th century the territorial disputes between the two were about to blow up because there were no other (not internal) problems.

And Brazil was the enemy of Argentina. The Germany to our France (or vice versa). While there was no real hate that I know off, Brazil was the direct economic, politic and military competitor. I mean, both countries almost had a nuclear arms race during the 20th century, so this is not me making this up.

Until relatively short time ago the area of the Southern cone+Brazil was a powder keg waiting to blow up, with the only thing stopping them being that none of them could be sure of winning (or even getting something good out of such war) or an actual reason to escalate.
 
Eh, what?

Argentina and Chile have hated each other since shortly after their respective independences. Both countries were direct competitors for the Patagonia who also shared literally the entire lengths of their countries as borders.
What happened wasn't that they got along well enough, but that Chile either had other, more pressing, problems (eg war with Peru-Bolivia) to deal with when Argentina pushed their claims or that Argentina was simply strong enough to make a war an unwinnable proposition.
Even then the partition of Patagonia amongst the two had heavy foreign involvement to make sure neither country got control of both a Pacific and an Atlantic port. By the 20th century the territorial disputes between the two were about to blow up because there were no other (not internal) problems.
So again Argentina was taking or wanted to take Chilean Territory when Chile was Incapable to defend itself, How is this different to what I just say? Literally the diplomatic conflict between both Countries was about claims of Argentina over territory that was Chilean, or that Chile considered Chilean Territory, an not About Chile Wanting to take Argentianean Territory.
 
So again Argentina was taking or wanted to take Chilean Territory when Chile was Incapable to defend itself, How is this different to what I just say? Literally the diplomatic conflict between both Countries was about claims of Argentina over territory that was Chilean, or that Chile considered Chilean Territory, an not About Chile Wanting to take Argentianean Territory.
Eh, no? It was indian/no one's territory. Both Chile and Argentina had (more or less equally valid) claims to it. The difference was that Chile couldn't realistically project power to the other side of the Andes so when Argentina said "I keep everything east of the Andes, you get the rest" they weren't able to object much.

I mean really, that land was as chilean as it was argentine. That is to say, it wasn't.
 
Top