Challenge: Argentina as a superpower

[Mirza Khan]

Based on my limited knowledge of Argentine history...

Wouldn't having no Juan Peron be a start? I mean, from what I understand, he was a dictatorial populist who kicked Argentina's progress towards democracy back a couple decades, so maybe if no one has his mass appeal, the country might transform into a full democracy sometime before 1950. It wouldn't be a superpower, but it would be on the level of say, Canada or Australia.

 

[minifidel]

Wouldn't having no Juan Peron be a start? I mean, from what I understand, he was a dictatorial populist who kicked Argentina's progress towards democracy back a couple decades, so maybe if no one has his mass appeal, the country might transform into a full democracy sometime before 1950. It wouldn't be a superpower, but it would be on the level of say, Canada or Australia.

Argentina was a fully democracy from 1912 to 1930, and it was the 1930 coup which did more to undermine democracy than Peron ever did.

 

[Dan1988]

Argentina was a fully democracy from 1912 to 1930, and it was the 1930 coup which did more to undermine democracy than Peron ever did.

So, either have Yrigoyen not become President or find a way for the military to not launch an anti-Yrigoyen coup. That sounds perfect!

 

[juanml82]

Wouldn't having no Juan Peron be a start? I mean, from what I understand, he was a dictatorial populist who kicked Argentina's progress towards democracy back a couple decades, so maybe if no one has his mass appeal, the country might transform into a full democracy sometime before 1950. It wouldn't be a superpower, but it would be on the level of say, Canada or Australia.

It was an authoritarian government without any doubt. However the 15 previous years can hardly be called democratic and following antidemocratical acts were pursuited by the military. I'd say any proper Argentina wank needs to keep a government which makes the social and labour reforms Peron did, as well as institute women sufrage and keep away from all negative aspects of Peronism.

 

[Dan1988]

It was an authoritarian government without any doubt. However the 15 previous years can hardly be called democratic and following antidemocratical acts were pursuited by the military. I'd say any proper Argentina wank needs to keep a government which makes the social and labour reforms Peron did, as well as institute women sufrage and keep away from all negative aspects of Peronism.

So I guess that means retaining Yrigoyen, then?

 

[juanml82]

Given the impact of the '29 crisis, I think a coup was plausible as long as the radicals were in power and divided. I might be wrong though.

 

[maverick]

Given the impact of the '29 crisis, I think a coup was plausible as long as the radicals were in power and divided. I might be wrong though.

Check Rosendo Fraga's opinion in "Que Hubiera Pasado Si?"

On the other hand, even if they were the minority in the army (pretty much always till Peron won the Presidency) the nationalists were pretty strong.

Interestingly enough, Putschists always represented a minority section of the armed forces in five out of six coups...but of course, a strong and united minority will always beat a divided majority.

 

[Admiral Brown]

I don't think having Bolivia in would be a good idea. Bolivia was, in the XIX century (and much later), a very divided society: the descendants of the conquerors were at the top, and Indians were practically serfs. In order to brake that societal scheme, you'd need an active involvemt of the central government (if we assume it's in Buenos Aires), that would be highly resisted by the local elites (and probably won't have much support by the oppressed, at least at first). No Argentinian government would have the resources to do that in the XIX century, even if they really wanted to: most likely, they would pact with the "Bolivian" elites: keep the minerals flowing, and we'll let you stay in power, no matter how you treat workers. But by doing so, these sort of informal servitude would destroy the fundaments of the Argentinian state. It would make it impossible to have a modern, secular and liberal Argentina. And once democracy starts, rich Bolivian mine owners and landwoners would try to create a clientelistic structure to get elected. This in turn might lead to populism, or to a violent revolution. No mineral wealth would compensate this troubles.