Does culture matters? Yes, of course. It's an important factor, and may well be discussed here. I'm Argentinian, and, personally, I don't mind at all this subject being discussed.
But a few things must be clear:
1)
"Culture" is not genetical. (
Of course, you haven't said so, Bill, and i know you don't believe so, but i just want to leave this clear ). Each "culture" has become what it is because its society has responsed differently to different historical circunstances. The English hadn't always had the culture they have now. Had things gone differently around 1400 (or 1200, if you prefer), you could easily have an absolutist monarchy in Britain by 1700, and a constitutional monarchy in Spain or France. ITTL, Spanish or French culture would be much more favourable to democracy than English one. As you know, by, 1500, Parliaments existed not only in England, but also in Spain ("Cortes"), France ("États généraux") and many other countries. But, for different circunstances, the English one grew in power, while the other ones didn't.
Medieval Spain had institutions that, given different circunstances, may well have evolved into a more "democratic" society. The same thing applies to other aspects of culture, such as how work is viewed by people from a certain culture.
2)
Culture may change, as Faeelin stated. And change may be quite fast. If not, how did Spain suddenly abandon it's
supposedly more backwards culture (in European terms) and become a First World Nation... in less than 30 years? Or, what made Argentina become a reasonably rich nation by 1910, after being one of the poorest in the region in 1850?
Finaly, concerning this:
A Peronist or Peronist-style government joins the Allies? We're talking ASB now. Of course we could tweak things to prevent the predeliction of Southern Cone polities to develop 'strongman' and other psuedo or near facist government types, but that would mean changing their culture because everything else flows from it.
First, not all governments were "Peronist or Peronist-style". Among the democratic ones, Alvear's, Frondizi's, Illia's or Alfonsin's definetely weren't. I'm going to write a TL someday in which Roberto Ortiz (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberto_María_Ortiz) doesn't get ill and resign in 1940. Had it been so, you could
very easily have had no Peron, a democratic government by 1944, and Argentina in WWII with the allies.
Secondly, you don't need a non "peronist-style" government to have Argentina siding with the allies. Vargas, in Brazil, wasn't very different form Peron, and led his country into WWII on the side of the allies. (But this doesn't undermine your point, of course.)
So, to sum up, I agree with you in the sense that culture is comething to keep into account. But, as Faeliin states, you don't need a different colonization to industrialize South America. Minor changes could have modified culture in order to make it more favourable to such a process. If, for example, Cabildos
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabildo_%28council%29) had been stronger in America as they had been in mediaval Spain, the region would have been much more used to self-governing after the independence. If more Spanish peasants or merchants had came, instead of soldiers, things wouldn't have been the same. If no cheap labour had been available, other would have been the colonizers attitude towards work. If President Sarmiento had succeded in his proyect to give cheap land to immigrants, you would have a middle class made of farmers by 1910, and so, a more stable democracy (this has to do with
Baron von Feldspar's post).
All this is important, but may be even unnecesary. Because you can have industrialization
first, and
then a change in culture, adjusting to the new model. Like in South Corea.
Best regards,
Adm Brown