Argentina stays rich

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.

As was the Beagle Channel? the Southern Patagonia Ice Field? The Puna de Atacama Dispute? The Cordillera of the Andes Boundary Case? all those are Argentina Trying to Claim Chilean Territories with Treaties where they Accept they are Chilean Territories. I insist most of the Diplomatic Tension between Santiago and Argentina is Buenos Aires bid, not Santiago Hell Chile Even give up Half of the Isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego, with the intention to maintain good diplomatic relations, when Chile have control of all the Island and the only settlement in the Region, Punta Arenas founded in 1843, in the, vain, objetice to maintain peace and friendships between the countries.
 
As was the Beagle Channel? the Southern Patagonia Ice Field? The Puna de Atacama Dispute? The Cordillera of the Andes Boundary Case? all those are Argentina Trying to Claim Chilean Territories with Treaties where they Accept they are Chilean Territories. I insist most of the Diplomatic Tension between Santiago and Argentina is Buenos Aires bid, not Santiago Hell Chile Even give up Half of the Isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego, with the intention to maintain good diplomatic relations, when Chile have control of all the Island and the only settlement in the Region, Punta Arenas founded in 1843, in the, vain, objetice to maintain peace and friendships between the countries.
Eh, those are all from the 20th century though.

And even then, the problem with those areas was that the treaties didn't properly define them, with both countries having different ideas of where their borders lay. When the treaties were amended or new ones made most, if not all, of those disputes stopped.
 
Eh, those are all from the 20th century though.

And even then, the problem with those areas was that the treaties didn't properly define them, with both countries having different ideas of where their borders lay. When the treaties were amended or new ones made most, if not all, of those disputes stopped.
We Almost going to war in 1981 for the Beagle, The Southern Patagonia Ice Field is still an Issue because the Argentina´s Congress don´t want to ratify the treaty and we are in the POST 1900 forum the 20 century Conflicts are the important ones, We are speaking of what would be if Argentina Stay rich as was in the early 20 century, we will see a more aggressive Argentina with their claims over Chilean territories, and a Try to Sphere Chilean Diplomacy
 
We Almost going to war in 1981 for the Beagle, The Southern Patagonia Ice Field is still an Issue because the Argentina´s Congress don´t want to ratify the treaty and we are in the POST 1900 forum the 20 century Conflicts are the important ones, We are speaking of what would be if Argentina Stay rich as was in the early 20 century, we will see a more aggressive Argentina with their claims over Chilean territories, and a Try to Sphere Chilean Diplomacy
Eh, and? Just because one country says "this is mine" it doesn't mean anything. Not until everyone else recognise's said claims.

Regardless, this is getting derail'ish and has little to do with the subject of the thread.
 
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.

Potential solution - have Argentina and Chile come together as one country to reduce the tension. Among other things.
 
Potential solution - have Argentina and Chile come together as one country to reduce the tension. Among other things.

latest

This guy approves the idea. Bring Paraguay and Uruguay too because why not?
 
Potential solution - have Argentina and Chile come together as one country to reduce the tension. Among other things.
Hard to do, but not impossible, with the Andes in between. It made a lot of sense for the Spanish to make the lands south of the Atacama and west of the Andes a separate administrative division than those north of the Atacama or east of the Andes. National identities would end up evolving from that.
 
latest

This guy approves the idea. Bring Paraguay and Uruguay too because why not?
In that case - with pre-1900 being a better place for it - we'd need some big-time changes in the proto-Argentina itself. Maybe having Artigas' crew have the upper hand early on? My linguistics section of my brain/mind would thus start thinking of ways either to make Standard Spanish more Portuñol-like or at least in a situation similar to Swedish, where different areas of the country have regional standards alongside the national standard based on the speech of the capital city.
 
Hard to do, but not impossible, with the Andes in between. It made a lot of sense for the Spanish to make the lands south of the Atacama and west of the Andes a separate administrative division than those north of the Atacama or east of the Andes. National identities would end up evolving from that.
Definitely. We would just need to figure out a way after independence to bring Chile and proto-Argentina closer together so a union would be desirable.
 
Butterfly Jorge Rafael Videla's coup. His regime saw Argentina incurr too much foreign debts, not to mention selling off lots of domestic industries.

That would help a lot, but Argentina had a very high dissent at the time and a real possibility of a communist takeover. Maybe if we have a healthier Perón and he doesn't dies in '74 and ends his mandate things would more succesfull. I'm not saying that Isabel Perón (his VP and wife) didn't had the skill, but the death of Perón was almost a greenlight for the coup since she didn't had the respect of the army like him.

What do you think @juanml82 ?
 
That would help a lot, but Argentina had a very high dissent at the time and a real possibility of a communist takeover. Maybe if we have a healthier Perón and he doesn't dies in '74 and ends his mandate things would more succesfull. I'm not saying that Isabel Perón (his VP and wife) didn't had the skill, but the death of Perón was almost a greenlight for the coup since she didn't had the respect of the army like him.

What do you think @juanml82 ?
The left wing insurgencies were not going to take over the country, it was a matter of how much damage they'd do before they ended up defeated and how much damage those who defeated them caused (OTL: A lot). A healthier Peron should have been able to fight them without the disasters of the Estela Martinez de Peron and Videla governments
 
The left wing insurgencies were not going to take over the country, it was a matter of how much damage they'd do before they ended up defeated and how much damage those who defeated them caused (OTL: A lot). A healthier Peron should have been able to fight them without the disasters of the Estela Martinez de Peron and Videla governments

We both agree then.
 
Top