Had Argentina Been Anglophone, Would It Have Been More Prosperous & Populous Today? (ctd.)

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by dovibear, Nov 22, 2018.

Loading...
  1. dovibear Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2013
    Location:
    Montreal
    So the OTL Argentines couldn't just sail through the Beagle Channel or the Strait of Magellan to get to Mapuche country? Then again, the new Chilean settlement of Punta Arenas is on that route (on the Strait of Magellan anyway), so maybe then and there not viable either.

    Now I'm starting to realize, that the Mapuche attacks, raids, malones, etc. weren't simply indigenous attacks on expanding Europeans the way that the Maori or black South African or Sioux/Comanche/Apache attacks were, no matter how fierce or defensive those latter tribes were - the Mapuche attacks were, in a way, indirect attacks by no less than a whole European-established country like Chile. In other words, the Mapuches are attacking not just on their own behalf but on Chile's behalf as a whole, if only to try to advance Chilean claims on the southern Pampas, Patagonia, etc.

    On a slightly different note, some posters on this thread were saying that the rebellions and other attacks on the British would have been the ATL parallel of the OTL Argentine Civil Wars. If so, would the Spanish-speaking people (whether in Buenos Aires or in Chile/Bolivia/Paraguay) be to the British what the OTL Federalists were to the OTL Unitarists, or the OTL provinces be to OTL Buenos Aires, or would it have been a little different?
     
  2. Lenwe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Location:
    Santiago
    They can, but all the ports, facilities, supply lines and miscellaneous, are in Chileans Hands, plus the "hostile" indian tribes are far from the coast in the middle of Andes, the coast are inhabited with "allied" indians, that are to European level civilization and knowledgeable, that will not help a military force or be another enemy to fight in the back

    Up to a point, there was division inside the Mapuches tribes some act as you say, some act as the Maori or black South African or Sioux/Comanche/Apache attacks, some were completely integrated and were part of the Chilean Society and part of the army.
    During the Chilean Independence war a lot of Mapuche tribes allied themselves with the Spanish against the Chilean rebels, after 200 years of war. The mapuche are a complex civilization as any other, you have to think as them being a Eurasian nomad or semi-nomad Tribe, turks, Mongols, Cumans, more than a New world or Sub-Saharan Africa civilization

    Up to a point it will be the same,
     
    deathstrokenorris and juanml82 like this.
  3. dovibear Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2013
    Location:
    Montreal
    I'm now thinking, that with respect to the region around OTL Bahia Blanca (or ATL White Bay), the British could first make their try in founding a village/outpost/fortress at the present site of White Bay, among other things in order to trade with the "friends" and "allies" among the local Indians. It would doubtless be subject to raids by the Indian "enemies"; the British may even have to abandon the site and retreat to safer outposts further south (including the Malvinas/Falklands) as well as to Uruguay, but in that case, the British would eventually make a second founding of the place when they're more ready to fight the "enemy" Indians. At the same time, the British would make the equivalent of a Desert Campaign that Rosas did IOTL in the 1830s to try as much as possible to secure the region for European settlement.

    When push comes to shove, the British - with the help of native "friendly" and "allied" soldiers - would at least try to attack the "enemy" Indians along the routes of the various malones (connecting Mapuche country with the southern Pampas). They might take advantage of their claim to the Strait of Magellan region - including Sandy Point/Punta Arenas, founded by the British in the late 1830s to (among other reasons) thwart Chilean advances there* - to perhaps go up to Mapuche country, which at that point wasn't fully in Chilean territory, to try their hand at fighting the Mapuche.

    *The Chileans will have to settle with founding settlements in the Aysen region, which IOTL wasn't settled until the early 20th century.
     
    Lenwe likes this.
  4. Lenwe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Location:
    Santiago
    You know that in this Campaign Rosas Asked The help of the Mapuches, and that the Lion Share of the war was done by those groups? That The "european" Rosas Army was constantly stooped by The Pampas natives?
    That the principal Mapuche Cacique Allied to Rosas Calfucura was firm supporter of the Independence of Chile and Argentina,that he produced most of the Malones after The Rosas dead?.and The one that stoped Bahía Blanca expansión? This guy was still in Chile in 1830, and Will gladly assist The Argentinean resistence of the England conquest, for a price

    But this mean that all the Saltpeter depósit Will continue in Chilean hands, and not in North hands after The war of the Pacific, and Chile Will be more strongly in in
    The French/Germán hands?

    You don't know Chileans if you think this Will be The Case
     
    Ciniad and juanml82 like this.
  5. Masked Grizzly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2011
    Within this scenario does that mean the Peru-Bolivian Confederation (aka Perulivia) triumphs in the ATL War of the Confederation, with the former even managing to take much of Chile plus parts of northern Argentina (the latter suffering a worse defeat compared to OTL)?
     
  6. Lenwe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Location:
    Santiago
    I doubt It, The war against The Confederation, could be best descrived as a Peruvian civil war With intervention in support of one or other faction by Chileans and Bolivians, With Argentina being a third participant.
    That being Said The Argentinean prescense in ththe war was minimal and mostly irrelevant to the War
     
  7. Masked Grizzly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2011
    Is it known whether a surviving Peru-Boliva / Peruliva would have territorial ambitions against its neighbors that was claimed by opponents of the confederation?

    An ATL War of the Pacific where Chile loses would have potentially meant they would not be in a position to challenge Argentina (whether OTL or ATL Anglo-Argentina) over Patagonia as well as hastened intestine war such as the OTL 1891 Chilean Civil War, which would have likely broken the Chilean economy.
     
  8. Lenwe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Location:
    Santiago
    Yes, they did have, at least offically, territorial ambitions over Chile, Ecuador and Argentina, With the intent to found again The Inca Empire, ideally by voluntary union, but war was an option
    No, not really, the fact Is that in this scenario Argentina also don't have the position to Challenge Chilean claims, and in a scenario more like OTL Chile give up his patagonia claims in exchange that they remain neutral during The Pacific war.
    Also The 1891 civil was caused BECAUSE Chile win The war, as the spoils and taxes of new found richess was The point of discord, one faction wanted to tax more heavy The Saltpeter and use that money to industrialize and Modernized The country, and The other wanted to Maintain The los level of the taxes and do nothing, as this could bother The English
    The later faction won The war. With a lost war of the Pacific, is more probable that you don't have a civil war
     
  9. Masked Grizzly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2011
    I see, so Peru-Bolivia saw themselves as successors of sorts to the Inca Empire?
     
  10. dovibear Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2013
    Location:
    Montreal
    Throughout all this time, I should have given weight as well to what James Belich, in his 2009 book Replenishing the Earth: The Settler Revolution and the Rise of the Angloworld, gives as the reasons for OTL Argentina's decline from 1930 down to the present (he didn't include OTL Uruguay but I would add that). He feels that it's not because of Anglo vs. Hispanic institutions and mores by themselves, but rather because of a difference between where the bulk of the migrants came from in Europe and where the money and technology came from in Europe that didn't exist in the same way in the USA, Canada, Australia, NZ, and even South Africa (the latter four being the "white dominions"). In other words, whereas in the 19th and early 20th centuries many immigrants to the US and most immigrants to the white dominions (as well as many of the investments) came from the British Isles, most immigrants to Argentina/Uruguay in the same period came from Italy/Spain while the investments largely came from the British Isles. This difference can be further analyzed threefold, as follows:

    1) The settler transitions were more partial and less comprehensive in Argentina/Uruguay than in the Anglo New World countries. The Italian and Spanish immigrants to Argentina and Uruguay didn't become Argentine citizens for a long time and were otherwise not as committed to their new countries as the immigrants in the Anglo lands were to theirs. Furthermore, while Spain provided many new immigrants after 1900, Argentina and Uruguay were much less attached to Spain all along commercially than the Anglo lands were to the UK. In short, settler integration was much less in Argentina/Uruguay than in Anglo countries.

    2) The elite in Argentina (I'm not sure about Uruguay as much) was more cohesive, influential and well-connected than in the Anglo lands. This was to the detriment of surviving small-scale farmers, who fared worse in busts than in the Anglo countries.

    3) While the links with the UK were better in Argentina and Uruguay than elsewhere in Latin America, they were worse than in the white dominions (not sure as much about the USA).

    In my opinion, all of these factors would have been different in an ATL British Argentina (which includes Uruguay) than in OTL Argentina/Uruguay.
     
  11. juanml82 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Location:
    Buenos Aires
    You shouldn't give credit to racists.
    First, Argentina didn't decline from 1930 onward but from 1975. Second, South Africa is in much worse shape than Argentina. Third, small-scale farmers vs large landowners depended on politics, not race or culture. Fourth, don't listen to racists.
     
  12. dovibear Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2013
    Location:
    Montreal
    So then the British could get allied to some Mapuche groups that aren't affiliated with Chile and so forth, as in being allied with different Mapuches than what Rosas was allied with.

    I could see Chile being a German proxy colony around the turn of the 20th century, sort of like the Ottoman Empire at that time.

    In other words, the wild geography and terrain (and consequently the poor transportation) of Aisen would have turned off 19th century potential Chilean settlers regardless? But at least they could make a claim to the area in response to the British setting up shop at Sandy Point/Punta Arenas.
     
  13. dovibear Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2013
    Location:
    Montreal
    I don't think that Belich is a racist, but I refuse to talk anymore about his credentials, as this is not the space to talk about racism or who is a racist.

    And you're right that South Africa is in overall worse shape than Argentina, but its white sector is every bit as well off as in the developed countries and, unlike most Latin American countries, its financial record has been as sound as in developed countries.
     
    John I of Brazil likes this.
  14. Lenwe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Location:
    Santiago
    There Is No Mapuches groups in Argentina Not Afilliatd to Chile, even in an indirect way, When Calfucura get all the pampas as his Domain/kingdom, he called it Chillué, or new Chile in Mapudungun, and in the pampas The same 300 years of constant warfare I'm continue pointing, make them The most powerfull group in the pampas.
    The only group strong enough to fight Mapuches áre other Mapuches.

    This Is like Say The USA was a Germán proxy colony, after all the principal source of immigration to The USA was all the little germanies, or that Argentina was a Italy proxy colony, itcould be Argued was The case, but it's wrong.


    No, my point was that The Chileans will not "Settle" With take posessión of the Aysén región, if they have to fight againts the english yo take possesion over The strait, they Will, The place it's just too important to not fight for it.
     
    juanml82 likes this.
  15. dovibear Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2013
    Location:
    Montreal
    Ok, so perhaps at least some of those Mapuches that are less linked with Chile could be good as British "allies" or "friends"?!

    I don't mean in terms of immigration so much as in exerting political/military influence.

    Ok, so the Chileans could take possession of Puerto Natales in reaction to the British establishing a settlement at Punta Arenas, or - worse comes to worst - Punta Arenas could be Chilean and all of Tierra del Fuego could be British.
     
    Lenwe likes this.
  16. Lenwe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Location:
    Santiago
    This argument it's like taking the Quality of life of the Upper 20% of soviet era east germany, and comparing With the overall Quality of life of the UK during The 70's and call it a Clear indication on how The soviét style communist Is better system than The Capitalism, it's just wrong.
     
    Soverihn, Ciniad, NiGHTS and 2 others like this.
  17. juanml82 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Location:
    Buenos Aires
    Claiming the nationality of migrants is what causes economic downturn is pretty much a definition of racism - specially when the man saying so claims to be a historian and doesn't even bother to check Argentina's gdp data at the Madison Project website to verify if the year he gives for the start of economic issues is even right.
    There is simply no correlation, let alone causation, whatsoever between Argentina's economic issues and the nationality of its immigrants for the sole reason that the economic problems start at a time when the country wasn't receiving immigrants.
     
  18. rfmcdonald Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2012
    Location:
    Toronto
    Even more importantly, it is not clear to me how it would be possible for Britain to disrupt the elites of the Platine basin? What is Britain going to do? If it is going to be waging a wholesale ethnic repression of Argentina, in the manner perhaps of Cromwell in Ireland, how is this chaotic territory going to be an attractive destination for immigrants?

    Regarding Belich's argument, I would need to see his book. If it is true that British immigrants tended to settle permanently more so than Spanish and Italian immigrants, maybe there might well be an effect? Maybe. Circular migration is something that Britons (and Irish) did, too.

    I also think it important to note that Argentina (and Uruguay) lagging as much as they did was not inevitable. This EconoMonitor article

    https://moneymaven.io/economonitor/...-a-century-of-decline-4hGmoqTg9EyqcwCcevCtjQ/

    which made the point that Argentina experienced significant divergence only in the 1970s, when the military dictatorship took over and began to run the country into the ground, raises an important point. An Argentina that did not have such a calamitous decade but just muddled along would have been, among other things, decidedly richer.
     
  19. dovibear Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2013
    Location:
    Montreal
    If only Videla, Galtieri, or any of the other Dirty War-era dictators had done like Pinochet in neighbouring Chile and recruited either the Chicago Boys themselves or similar economic wunderkinds!

    In my opinion, while it is true that the economic decline started in earnest in the mid-1970s, Juan Peron and his policies starting in 1945 certainly didn't help matters. That - along with the 1930 coup - really set the stage for the serious decline that started in the mid-1970s, because even in the 1950s and 1960s there were already serious political and economic crises in Argentina.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2018
    TeePee likes this.
  20. Lenwe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Location:
    Santiago
    I have to stop you right here, The myth that Pinochet make an "economic milacre" in the Chilean economy It's that a myth, if anything Pinochet and The Chicago boy crashed the chilean economy worse than anything Allende did, making Chile THE poorest south american country during The 80's, With worse HDI, economic growth, population growth, and industrial production in the Century, literally Pinochet destroyed all the industry The Radical goverments start un The country. It's not until The return to The democracy in The 90's that the Chilean economy develop
    [​IMG] [​IMG]
    https://libcom.org/library/chile-anatomy-of-an-economic-miracle

    There Is a reason most people that speak about the "miracle" only show data until 1976-78, as after that the Chilean economy tanked, HARD
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
Loading...