I want to comment on some posts from a thread from almost two years ago, found here: https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...en-more-prosperous-and-populous-today.409100/. But there's a rule against replying to threads over 1 year old, so I'm starting a new thread here. In this new thread, I'm making a series of posts commenting on some posts from the older thread. The first post is here. It's just on the surface that Argentina (along with Uruguay) was as wealthy per capita and as democratic as Western European countries or even the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. It's also just on the surface that it was because of the coups, juntas, etc. from 1930 that made Argentina go on its downward slide. The truth is much more complicated than that. And no, it's not just that Argentina had an unequal land distribution such that the wealthy landowning class controlled much of the land, and it's not just that Argentina had a corrupt political culture less conducive to long-term economic development than in many Western European and Anglo countries. One also has to consider the following factors: 1) From independence in the 1810s to roughly 1865, there was an interminable series of devastating civil wars. That put the brakes on serious economic development (plus at least a semblance of democracy) until 1865 or so. That period for Argentina was more like from 1930 to the present day than like between 1865 and 1930, in that there was lots of chaos and tension one way or another. Nothing like it existed in the Anglo countries in the 19th/20th centuries, except for the American Civil War (which was only for a few years). Western Europe did experience some devastating wars in the later 19th and 20th centuries, but economic development wasn't impacted on quite as long or continuous a basis. 2) The apparent prosperity that Argentina enjoyed was mainly limited to Buenos Aires as well as the rest of the Pampas/Littoral. This was where European immigrants flocked to and this was where modern agriculture took hold. Other parts of Argentina (aka the interior) just didn't enjoy that sort of prosperity and it has been more stereotypically Latin American in economic development. Many people from the interior have exerted great influence on Argentine affairs as a whole, whether we're talking about various politicians from there (e.g. the younger Uriburu, who instigated the 1930 coup) or the many poor immigrants from the interior who moved to Buenos Aires and other major cities in the Pampas/Littoral. In my opinion, a formal British presence in Argentina would have made a huge difference in butterflying away the 19th century civil wars, the 1930 coup, Peronism, etc. As some posters have already said, the British political culture and approach to economic development (at least for an area like Argentina that's conducive to large-scale European agriculture/development) does a much better job than the Spanish legacy. Also, over time, such a presence would have moderated - if not eliminated - the gap between Buenos Aires and the interior.