How can we make South America stronger?

I think the raise of the UCR during the early 20th century is inevitable unless the socialists manage to get their act together and become some sort of ATL peronism. And that's a very long shot.

True - I take the rise of the UCR as a give-in. But if we butterfly away Yrigoyen's second term, after Alvear who's left?

Still, since neither party would have the support of the rather aristocratic military, coups are still on the cards - unless the military decisively stays out of politics. The coup against Yrigoyen might actually be decisive there is loyalist officers avert it, maybe even with force.

It's the military staying out of politics that I think is necessary in this case, because the military getting involved with the coup against Yrigoyen that's at the root of where Argentina is at. If the coup is avoided (the POD I'd focus on), that could help out a lot. Of course, there's other problems that have to be dealt with, but getting the military out of the picture would definitely help, à mon avis.

Plus, in any case, that doesn't mean the economy is properly managed. A fair portion of the industrialists of that period were military officers who thought in terms of heavy dual use industry which depended a lot on public expending.

Hmm, very interesting.

Looking back at the 19th century, I think an earlier public education law in, let's say, the 1820s or 30s is not *that* farfetched, but hard to get. The civil wars are unavoidable but, even with it, if a generation or two of urban dwellers get used to kids going to school until, let's say, they are twelve, there might be major changes in the long run. Even if the country isn't totally pacified until the 1860s-80s

That would be interesting to see happening.
 
True - I take the rise of the UCR as a give-in. But if we butterfly away Yrigoyen's second term, after Alvear who's left?
Not a clue. Maverick would know, but we know what happened to the mind of our resident expert in Argentine histoy.
(Or at least, we think we do...)

In any case, maybe because I'm not a believer in personalisms in history, except... well, exceptions, but I think the social forces leading to the 1930's coup would still be there even if someone else is president. Unless, of course, we butterfly away the 1929 crisis. What I do think is that the forces working against the coup, specially in the military, were also present. So, going for a smaller pod: Uriburu doesn't get the support of the Military College, but still tries to stage the coup. However, instead of marching with cadets (many of them, the officers sons), he marches with regular conscripts. Generals opposing the coup attack and defeat the column in a series of bloody skirmishes in the streets of Buenos Aires. Uriburu is arrested and eventually condemned to the highest possible penalty for his crimes. The army, and adding some luck, the Navy, is purged and only officers believed to be loyalists remain. Such a precedent will deter later coup attempts, at least until we get into the worst moments of the Cold War and the French and American advisers co-opt the Latin American generals for their own purposes.
 
I'm gonna say (for the Spanish colonies anyways) that a stronger Spanish empire is the key. Spain kinda (repeatedly) imploded, leaving the colonies with little to no government. No strong hand meant that anybody who could get enough followers could set up a government, and overthrowing the Spanish wasn't all that big a problem. Compare this to the U.S., and you will see that there were many just plain foolish rebellions, that with a weaker British empire might have succeeded in becoming exceptionally poorly run nations. Only when a rebellion became strong and smart enough to throw the British out did it take hold, and having the capacity to defeat the British meant that they had the capacity to face most lesser challenges that they would face in the future. In the Spanish colonies, with little to oppose them, the foolish early rebellions, lead by men who in all likelihood would have failed to get anywhere against a strong Spain, were allowed to come to power, and once there they proved that they in fact did not posess the qualities necessary to lead a successful nation. If they had continued to fail to seccede from Spain until a truly competent government lead them, then they might have done better in the long run.

Also, a Spanish Empire strong enough to hold its' colonies might have no successful revolutions at all, and might survive until colonies have become unprofitable, and decide to peacefully decolonize, creating states like Canada, Australia, and South Africa.
 
Not a clue. Maverick would know, but we know what happened to the mind of our resident expert in Argentine histoy.
(Or at least, we think we do...)

In any case, maybe because I'm not a believer in personalisms in history, except... well, exceptions, but I think the social forces leading to the 1930's coup would still be there even if someone else is president. Unless, of course, we butterfly away the 1929 crisis. What I do think is that the forces working against the coup, specially in the military, were also present. So, going for a smaller pod: Uriburu doesn't get the support of the Military College, but still tries to stage the coup. However, instead of marching with cadets (many of them, the officers sons), he marches with regular conscripts. Generals opposing the coup attack and defeat the column in a series of bloody skirmishes in the streets of Buenos Aires. Uriburu is arrested and eventually condemned to the highest possible penalty for his crimes. The army, and adding some luck, the Navy, is purged and only officers believed to be loyalists remain. Such a precedent will deter later coup attempts, at least until we get into the worst moments of the Cold War and the French and American advisers co-opt the Latin American generals for their own purposes.
Well, one thing displacing Yrigoyen might do is mitigate the conflict between the different factions within the UCR, meaning that the government would have a greater margin to react to the crisis rather than being paralyzed by opposition both within and without the party. There really is no shortage of other politicians who could get the nomination in 1928 instead of Yrigoyen -- the then-vicepresident Elipidio González, former chancellor and ambassador Honorio Pueyrredon, and even members who supported the coup such as Leopoldo Melo. You could even short-circuit any eventual rise of peronism by having the UCR nominate Carlos Washington Lencinas, but seeing as he was opposed by both the Yrigoyenists and the Alvearists, that seems rather... unlikely.
 
You would have to have some equivalent to the Magna Charta happen in Spain and Portugal limiting the aristocracy.
 
People always blame the fall of the emperor for why Brazil wasn't more prosperous.

Can someone explain why to me?
Because the monarchy was the most politically stable regime in Brazil until the 1990's and D. Pedro II was competent, as well as his successor Isabel, unlike all Brazilian presidents until Getúlio Vargas came in 1930. The last major rebellion in the Empire occured in 1848, as a backlash of what was happening in Europe, while the Old Republic had to deal with revolutionaries every five years or so.
 
That;s a good start. Now, we just need to fill in some personalities to take over after Alvear, and we're onto something.

In any case, maybe because I'm not a believer in personalisms in history, except... well, exceptions, but I think the social forces leading to the 1930's coup would still be there even if someone else is president. Unless, of course, we butterfly away the 1929 crisis. What I do think is that the forces working against the coup, specially in the military, were also present. So, going for a smaller pod: Uriburu doesn't get the support of the Military College, but still tries to stage the coup. However, instead of marching with cadets (many of them, the officers sons), he marches with regular conscripts. Generals opposing the coup attack and defeat the column in a series of bloody skirmishes in the streets of Buenos Aires. Uriburu is arrested and eventually condemned to the highest possible penalty for his crimes. The army, and adding some luck, the Navy, is purged and only officers believed to be loyalists remain. Such a precedent will deter later coup attempts, at least until we get into the worst moments of the Cold War and the French and American advisers co-opt the Latin American generals for their own purposes.
 
Promote immigration, promote infrastructure, and minimize the wars. Have Gran Colombia stay together and let Argentina unite the Spanish-speaking countries south of Peru (which might get gobbled up by Gran Colombia or Argentina). Have all three compete against each other militarily and promote Catholic immigration, maybe even sending representatives to Ireland and Italy or openly accepting Jewish refugees. Promote local talent early/often and have the railroads in ASAP. By 1880 there might not be a great power but if the three secondary powers work together they could be quite potent.
 
and let Argentina unite the Spanish-speaking countries south of Peru (which might get gobbled up by Gran Colombia or Argentina).

Problem - not everyone would like being under BS-AS's thumb. Certainly not Chiloé (during the Chilean War of Independence, Chiloé was a huge hangout for Spanish loyalists), for example.
 
You would have to have some equivalent to the Magna Charta happen in Spain and Portugal limiting the aristocracy.

In what universe did the magna carta limit the aristocracy? It empowered the aristocracy significantly and hurt the kings power.
 
Also the Church.

Another point would be to look how North America, Canada and US but not Mexico, have had free elections with none of the coruption seen in Catholic countries. Could it be that because of the Church's supporting the aristocracy over the people, freedom as the US and Canada knew it never grew? Freedom of thought was not something that the Church supported. Without free thought (will) business and nation building never was able to get off the first step.


You would have to have some equivalent to the Magna Charta happen in Spain and Portugal limiting the aristocracy.
 
Well, I don't know about other countries, but Argentina had a very bad relationship with the catholic church during the 19th century, specially during the most aristocrat-like governments (Rivadavia, Roca). OTOH, the USA isn't exactly an example of religion not getting into politics, so I don't see the relationship between rigged voting, "aristocracy" (with a huge grain of salt, as we are actually talking about rich bourgeois) and religion
 
Well, I don't know about other countries, but Argentina had a very bad relationship with the catholic church during the 19th century, specially during the most aristocrat-like governments (Rivadavia, Roca). OTOH, the USA isn't exactly an example of religion not getting into politics, so I don't see the relationship between rigged voting, "aristocracy" (with a huge grain of salt, as we are actually talking about rich bourgeois) and religion

Not to mention that election fraud and manipulation was just as rife in non-Catholic countries -- "gerrymandering" (the term) originated in XIXth century America, the United States was full of famous political machines which won or lost elections (such as the infamous Tammany Hall), and the UK had the rotten boroughs up until... the early XXth century I think.
 
Top