top two means to achieve a better-off Argentina

[yofie]

That happened in a lot of the Anglo world as well (and still is to this day, albeit to a limited degree).

But see this article - and pay attention to the second and third paragraphs. It goes a long way towards explaining why the core English-speaking countries (in North America, the UK, etc.) have performed quite well politically, economically, etc.

 

[Petete123123]

But don't forget that Argentina, just like many other parts of the Latin world, had farms that were mostly owned by absentee landlords (and worked upon by little more than serfs). Whereas in the developed Anglo world (e.g. North America), the farms have tended to be owned by families themselves - a great deal more equal. The landlord-owned farming pattern as seen in Argentina cannot have helped in terms of later political history!

Never denied this, but this you are mentioning, the big farms common to all of Latin America, and as well the Latin American culture, weren't the causes of Peron's goverment. With this I'm not saying Argentina do not share the same culture and all that, but the rise of Peron has much more to do to the rise of Fascism and Nazism than to the Latinamerican political culture.
Obviously, culture has much to do with politics, but the size of farms is not what really counts and definetively was neither the cultural background. Politics in Argentina after 1870 have more to do with the democratic push in Europe and the Germans Junkers than to the rest of Latin America.

TE=yofie;4580032]I don't know if Rivadavia would have been able to overcome enmity from those who wanted Argentina to be a federal country (the federalists). Rivadavia himself was a unionist, and wanted centralized government based in Buenos Aires. We're talking, remember, about the nasty unionist-federalist conflict of the early-mid 19th century.[/QUOTE]

First, its called unitarian, not unionist.
Then the conflict with the provinces could be at first avoided if Rivadavia manages to win the war with Brazil. If Argentina was a bit more succesful both at sea and land and Brazil had some tougher rebellions in the North, then the borders of the Viceroyalty would have been kept. That way, Rivadavia would have proven two things: That he was capable of defending the country and its integrity, and that Buenos Aires was powerful enough to wage war against Brazil. Also the province of Uruguay would be at first in Buenos Aires favor, as it would be a unitarian who would be put in charge. Likely some groups in the provinces will try to revolt against Rivadavia, but likely with a veteran army from the war, he would be able to defeat them, and thus, installing unitarian governors in the provinces. After this, lets say 15 after Rivadavia, the push for a federal goverment would become big again and this time the provinces will be able to beat Buenos Aires, because Uruguay would be in the federalist side(the people there where very federal and when they see the chance, the unitarian governor will be taken out) and this way avoiding their economic collapse. Buenos Aires won't be able to wage war against such a powerful coalition of provinces and will make an agreement where the constitution is reformed to include federalism but keeping Rivadavia's other ideas.

TE=yofie;4580032]As for the other two options, I don't know how the Radicales could have come about truly changing the government structure, and how Yrigoyen's second government could have been avoided.[/QUOTE]

Yrigoyen died 5 years after being elected. He wasn't in his best shape by then, as he already was 76 when he got elected and was suffering from a health condition I don't remember right now. He could have died 2 years before the elections.

 

[yofie]

Never denied this, but this you are mentioning, the big farms common to all of Latin America, and as well the Latin American culture, weren't the causes of Peron's goverment. With this I'm not saying Argentina do not share the same culture and all that, but the rise of Peron has much more to do to the rise of Fascism and Nazism than to the Latinamerican political culture.
Obviously, culture has much to do with politics, but the size of farms is not what really counts and definetively was neither the cultural background. Politics in Argentina after 1870 have more to do with the democratic push in Europe and the Germans Junkers than to the rest of Latin America.

When I talked about the size of the farms, I really meant more that there wasn't as much of a rural middle class in Argentina as in the anglophone countries I'm comparing it to. The existence of a rural middle class can very much affect politics as well. The fact is, OTL Argentine farms were dominated by an oligarchy that was corrupt and leaned towards authoritarianism.

As for the Peronist movement, it may be true that the rise of Fascism/Nazism in Europe paved the way for Peron, but factors quite particular to Latin American political culture also played a role (look, too, at Vargas in Brazil as an example). After all, why else would the developed anglophone countries not have had radical fascists as the president or prime minister at one point or another around that time?!

Moreover, looking at my British Argentina site might help, especially this page.

Yrigoyen died 5 years after being elected. He wasn't in his best shape by then, as he already was 76 when he got elected and was suffering from a health condition I don't remember right now. He could have died 2 years before the elections.

I had forgotten about that fact, but that makes sense. The following is a paraphrase from another forum: It's possible that even if Yrigoyen dies before 1928, his followers within the Radical Civic Union may resent Melo's anti-Yrigoyen politics. Melo never reconciled with the Yrigoyenists and went on to support the conservative "Concordancia" in the 1930s) In OTL Melo lost by a landslide to Yrigoyen. Perhaps some pro-Yrigoyen Radical may defeat Melo, even if not as overwhelmingly.

 

[Petete123123]

When I talked about the size of the farms, I really meant more that there wasn't as much of a rural middle class in Argentina as in the anglophone countries I'm comparing it to. The existence of a rural middle class can very much affect politics as well. The fact is, OTL Argentine farms were dominated by an oligarchy that was corrupt and leaned towards authoritarianism.

But there was a big urban middle class, which tended towards the liberals and was by far the main protagonist in the rise of Yrigoyen and democratic values. And their authoritarianism was not in the economic aspect, where they were market liberals.
Again, I'm not denying the existence of the big farms, the corrupt oligarchy and their huge effect in politics. But they weren't the cause of Peron's rise. Economic and social issues were.

As for the Peronist movement, it may be true that the rise of Fascism/Nazism in Europe paved the way for Peron, but factors quite particular to Latin American political culture also played a role (look, too, at Vargas in Brazil as an example). After all, why else would the developed anglophone countries not have had radical fascists as the president or prime minister at one point or another around that time?!

Surely, Latinamerican culture played its role in the rise of Peronism, but it was not its sole cause neither its main one. Remember that the backbone of the democratic, socialist, sindicalist and labourers movements in Argentina were the European immigrants and their descendants. And with them they brought their ideas and ideology. It not just a random thing that Argentina was one of the countries were Anarchism had more supporters. It wasn't after 1950's 1960's that the immigrants from the other provinces became the backbone of the lower classes.

Moreover, looking at my British Argentina site might help, especially this page.

I know the page, it gave me ideas for my halted TL.

I had forgotten about that fact, but that makes sense. The following is a paraphrase from another forum: It's possible that even if Yrigoyen dies before 1928, his followers within the Radical Civic Union may resent Melo's anti-Yrigoyen politics. Melo never reconciled with the Yrigoyenists and went on to support the conservative "Concordancia" in the 1930s) In OTL Melo lost by a landslide to Yrigoyen. Perhaps some pro-Yrigoyen Radical may defeat Melo, even if not as overwhelmingly.

Yrigoyen won by a landslide because he had popular support. Half of his support was from fellow radicales. The other half from common people who thought he was the best option, or felt under his charisma or were given a job by him.
With him out of picture, the whole division in the UCR likely will be undone. The division itself happened because Yrigoyen wanted to appoint in the goverment people who he could trust and control, and who were close to him(to him, not to his ideas or followers). This is called "Personalism" Alvear and his followers were against this and wanted to have a clear and efficient bureocracy based in personal merit and capabilities.
Having him dead will mean the only leader that remains among the Radicals is Alvear.

 

[basileus]

There are a number of ways in which Argentina, which had the same economic potential early in the 20th century as Canada or Australia, could have infinitely become better off than the mess it has become in the past 60-plus years. I find that the two best ways are:

1) have the British succeed in their invasions of Buenos Aires in 1806-07 and follow up on that success - the River Plate area joins the British Empire, and lots of British settlers move to Argentina in much the same manner as Canada or Australia (and the country develops accordingly)

2) have Roberto Ortiz remain the president for longer, into the early 1940s, assuming he survives coup attempts (OTL his term was cut short because of severe diabetes) - Ortiz joins the WWII Allies ca. 1940-41 (rather than Argentina being neutral till almost the end), and down the road, Argentina develops much like Spain or Italy

Both of these scenarios, at best, would forestall Peronism and all its deleterious effects, and Argentina would thus be a developed country in the same league as Western Europe, North America, Japan, and Australia. Which of these two scenarios sounds better in terms of turning Argentina into a First World country?

1) Wrench power from the landowning elite, and give strong state support to indigenous industrial development and education of the masses.
2) Get rid of the armed forces with their fascist leanings.

 

[juanml82]

Never denied this, but this you are mentioning, the big farms common to all of Latin America, and as well the Latin American culture, weren't the causes of Peron's goverment. With this I'm not saying Argentina do not share the same culture and all that, but the rise of Peron has much more to do to the rise of Fascism and Nazism than to the Latinamerican political culture.
Obviously, culture has much to do with politics, but the size of farms is not what really counts and definetively was neither the cultural background. Politics in Argentina after 1870 have more to do with the democratic push in Europe and the Germans Junkers than to the rest of Latin America.

TE=yofie;4580032]I don't know if Rivadavia would have been able to overcome enmity from those who wanted Argentina to be a federal country (the federalists). Rivadavia himself was a unionist, and wanted centralized government based in Buenos Aires. We're talking, remember, about the nasty unionist-federalist conflict of the early-mid 19th century.

First, its called unitarian, not unionist.
Then the conflict with the provinces could be at first avoided if Rivadavia manages to win the war with Brazil. If Argentina was a bit more succesful both at sea and land and Brazil had some tougher rebellions in the North, then the borders of the Viceroyalty would have been kept. That way, Rivadavia would have proven two things: That he was capable of defending the country and its integrity, and that Buenos Aires was powerful enough to wage war against Brazil. Also the province of Uruguay would be at first in Buenos Aires favor, as it would be a unitarian who would be put in charge. Likely some groups in the provinces will try to revolt against Rivadavia, but likely with a veteran army from the war, he would be able to defeat them, and thus, installing unitarian governors in the provinces. After this, lets say 15 after Rivadavia, the push for a federal goverment would become big again and this time the provinces will be able to beat Buenos Aires, because Uruguay would be in the federalist side(the people there where very federal and when they see the chance, the unitarian governor will be taken out) and this way avoiding their economic collapse. Buenos Aires won't be able to wage war against such a powerful coalition of provinces and will make an agreement where the constitution is reformed to include federalism but keeping Rivadavia's other ideas.

I would bet on Dorrego though, if we can devise a POD in which he isn't overthrown. He can, being a federal, unite the provinces and he would just need to control the Buenos Aires elite. And he (claimed to be) the most pro-democratic politician we had until Alem.
I don't know which economic policies he would devise, though, although there weren't much other options at that time. No idea about education, civil law, etc, either.

About Peron, he was a charismatic democratically reelected leader. While authoritarian, his government wasn't neither a dictatorship nor was against the will of the people. He did make several serious long term decisions which hampered Argentina: protecting uncompetitive industries, managing to control the unions, needed social programs which couldn't be afforded in the long term, corporativism in general.
However, to butterfly him away, we need a previous government that makes the necessary social reforms, which will alienate the upper classes.

 

[yofie]

Surely, Latinamerican culture played its role in the rise of Peronism, but it was not its sole cause neither its main one. Remember that the backbone of the democratic, socialist, sindicalist and labourers movements in Argentina were the European immigrants and their descendants. And with them they brought their ideas and ideology. It not just a random thing that Argentina was one of the countries were Anarchism had more supporters. It wasn't after 1950's 1960's that the immigrants from the other provinces became the backbone of the lower classes.

The way I now understand it is that it was largely the Italian immigrants who were responsible for anarchist tendencies in Argentina in the first decades of the 20th century. Large immigrant groups from Britain, Germany, or similar countries have tended not to be as anarchist as a whole at that time. So, it would maybe take no less than a fundamental cultural transformation of the Argentine population like that to make the country less susceptible to long-term failure than OTL.

 

[yofie]

From all that we've discussed in this post so far, it seems to me that Peron came to power as a result of the mixture of the Latin American political/economic culture in existence in Argentina with the European immigrants (particularly Italian) coming to the country and the Great Depression with all its effects. In other words, when the Italian (and other) immigrants came to Argentina, they were anarchist or syndicalist or what have you, and wanted to integrate themselves there and get full rights, etc. They were put down for a long time by the old conservative elites (representative of at least part of Latin American political culture) that engineered the coup of 1930 in the midst of the Depression, and that paved the way for Peron's popularity among the descendants of European immigrants. Is that a fair way of portraying the lead-on to Peronism, and why Argentina's political development was different than with many other Latin American countries (given that not nearly as many immigrants - particularly Italian - proportionally came to those other countries)?

If that's so, then even a scenario where Yrigoyen is dead sooner or where Ortiz is president for longer may merely buy some time in terms of avoiding a coup or what not - by a few to several years. Then, Argentina would have perhaps developed much like OTL anyway - who knows?

 

[Eurofed]

In addition to what has been said, I would point out that a good way to improve the fortunes of Argentina is to keep Banda Oriental (AKA Uruguay). Retaining a second major port outlet in Montevideo would substantially diminish the Buenos Aires - interior provinces dualism that early Argentina suffered, and make its 19th century nation-building less troublesome.

 

[Joseph Solis in Australia]

To have a better-off Argentina since this thread is in post-1900, my lists of PODs would be:

Shorter WWI or being butterflied away.

No Great Depression.

1930 Coup never happens, therefore butterflying away Peron from politics.

Roberto Ortiz never have illness, then political reforms are enacted and enters the WWII.

1943 Coup never happens, thus prevents Peron of taking power.

Juan Peron is being defeated by Tamborini in 1946 election.

Eva Peron remains healthy and runs for vice-presidency.

1955 Coup fails then Juan Peron consolidates to power, becoming more authoritarian, then 10 to 15 years later, Peronism is being discredited.

1962 Coup fails or being butterflied away, thus continuing Frondizi's reform to industrialize Argentina fully.

1966 Coup never happens.

Juan Peron never returns in 1973.

Juan Peron dies earlier.

1976 Coup fails or butterflied away, thus ensuring the democracy to preserved by defeating Isabel Peron in the election by Raul Alfonsin.

No Falkland Wars, thus Junta falls one year earlier.

Raul Alfonsin appoints sensible economic advisers.

Raul Alfonsin succeeds of his plan of transferring the Argentine capital to Viedma and shift to parliamentary system of government.

Carlos Menem never gots the Peronist nomination.

Carlos Menem never re-elects for a new term.

Mexican or Asian economic crisis butterflied away.

Carlos Reutemann instead of Nestor Kirchner is the candidate of Eduardo Duhalde for 2003 elections.

 

[juanml82]

In addition to what has been said, I would point out that a good way to improve the fortunes of Argentina is to keep Banda Oriental (AKA Uruguay). Retaining a second major port outlet in Montevideo would substantially diminish the Buenos Aires - interior provinces dualism that early Argentina suffered, and make its 19th nation-building less troublesome.

Yep, I agree

 

[Petete123123]

From all that we've discussed in this post so far, it seems to me that Peron came to power as a result of the mixture of the Latin American political/economic culture in existence in Argentina with the European immigrants (particularly Italian) coming to the country and the Great Depression with all its effects. In other words, when the Italian (and other) immigrants came to Argentina, they were anarchist or syndicalist or what have you, and wanted to integrate themselves there and get full rights, etc. They were put down for a long time by the old conservative elites (representative of at least part of Latin American political culture) that engineered the coup of 1930 in the midst of the Depression, and that paved the way for Peron's popularity among the descendants of European immigrants. Is that a fair way of portraying the lead-on to Peronism, and why Argentina's political development was different than with many other Latin American countries (given that not nearly as many immigrants - particularly Italian - proportionally came to those other countries)?

It's pretty much what, it happened, but remember it weren't the Italians alone. They brought with themselves the ideas of freedom and fighting for their rights, and most of the Argentinean lower classes adopted them. But Anarchism was not important anymore by 1920. Most of them were now either syndicalist or were improving their life quality to become part of the middle class.
The elite paved the way, but it was the depression, the push for answer from the government and the need for a strong leader in who they could trust and put their hope. Like their fathers did 30 years before with Yrigoyen.

If that's so, then even a scenario where Yrigoyen is dead sooner or where Ortiz is president for longer may merely buy some time in terms of avoiding a coup or what not - by a few to several years. Then, Argentina would have perhaps developed much like OTL anyway - who knows?

Not necesarily. A coup could be avoided if Yrigoyen was not elected. Alvear was a peacemaker and was in good terms with almost everybody. Remember he was elite and when Radicalism divided itself, he grouped with the rest of the elite. In a scenario where Alvear is the leader of a united UCR and he puts in power a candidate like him or who he can control, then the coup could very well be prevented. Ortiz is an option for a 1928 to 1934 president.
And Ortiz was a strong and good president except for his health. He was one of Alvear boys, and a very good way to prevent a coup would be to participate in the war. Suppose he enters in 1941 the same time as Brazil and very risked because of the pro Fascist groups in the military. He apeases them by giving them more funds and promising to see action in Europe, which many soldiers want. Anyway, once they enter the war, the pro fascist can't coup the goverment. It would have too strong support from the people and also from the allies. And most of the soldiers would oppose.
After the war, Argentina is more developed, and with strong anti-autoritarism sentiment. So a coup would be very difficult as long as no president starts doing stupid things, and 20 years after the war, impossible.

In addition to what has been said, I would point out that a good way to improve the fortunes of Argentina is to keep Banda Oriental (AKA Uruguay). Retaining a second major port outlet in Montevideo would substantially diminish the Buenos Aires - interior provinces dualism that early Argentina suffered, and make its 19th nation-building less troublesome.

I mentioned this before. As a port, Montevideo has the advantage to be a better natural port, and easy to access from the Parana and Uruguay rivers. This is better in the short term, which is great to complete national unity and prevent a civil war.
But in the long term, Buenos Aires dominates anyway. When railroads come, Montevideo will loose it's importance. Most of the provinces don't have a good water connection to the sea. So their only possible choice is Buenos Aires. And the city is the gateway to Patagonia and the Pampas.

To have a better-off Argentina since this thread is in post-1900, my lists of PODs would be:

Shorter WWI or being butterflied away.

No Great Depression.

Difficult, but anyway the great depression was needed. The primary exports system had to be changed sooner or later. It halted long term development.

1930 Coup never happens, therefore butterflying away Peron from politics.

This has been discussed

Roberto Ortiz never have illness, then political reforms are enacted and enters the WWII.

I explained this above

1943 Coup never happens, thus prevents Peron of taking power.

You have to somehow control the pro Fascist elements in the military. And raising their funds is not an option. They want action, they haven't done nothing important since the early XX Century.

Juan Peron is being defeated by Tamborini in 1946 election.

By this time defeating Peron was very difficult.

Eva Peron remains healthy and runs for vice-presidency.

That's even worse!

1955 Coup fails then Juan Peron consolidates to power, becoming more authoritarian, then 10 to 15 years later, Peronism is being discredited.

Very good one, if all keep going more or less good, today we would be about to re-enter rich and developed countries status.

1962 Coup fails or being butterflied away, thus continuing Frondizi's reform to industrialize Argentina fully.

Another good one, but Peronism will be a problem.

1966 Coup never happens.

Yes, this coup made the Peronist eager to return to goverment, and gave them more strenght.

Juan Peron never returns in 1973.

Peron would continue to manage politics from exile. But a good propaganda campaing could make Peron look as weak and unable to defend his followers, thus killing Peronism with a headshot.

Juan Peron dies earlier.

I don't know. By this time Peronism is part of Argentina, and Peron dying would only make him look as a martyr of autoritarism, even strengthening Peronism.

1976 Coup fails or butterflied away, thus ensuring the democracy to preserved by defeating Isabel Peron in the election by Raul Alfonsin.

One more year with Isabel could do more economic and social damage than the Juntas

No Falkland Wars, thus Junta falls one year earlier.

Could go either way, but the Armed Forces won't be as discredited as OTL, which could be good or bad, tending to the later.

Raul Alfonsin appoints sensible economic advisers.

The Junta destroyed the economy. The crisis was almost inevitable. But he should have carried an industralization program.

Raul Alfonsin succeeds of his plan of transferring the Argentine capital to Viedma and shift to parliamentary system of government.

Absolutely. Two of the evils in the country corrected, a strong executive and the capital in the economic center of the country. How does he manage to get it done? I don't really know. Many important people will be against him.

Carlos Menem never gots the Peronist nomination.

It depends on who gets it.

Carlos Menem never re-elects for a new term.

Something will have to be done with his neoliberal policies

Mexican or Asian economic crisis butterflied away.

I don't know how possible it would be just to butterfly crisis

Carlos Reutemann instead of Nestor Kirchner is the candidate of Eduardo Duhalde for 2003 elections.

Nestor did very good in some areas, and I doubt if Reutemann would have done as good, but at least he won't dominate as much the politics of the country.

 

[Joseph Solis in Australia]

I think Nestor Kirchner's presidency will be much worse than Menem's one especially the economic policies. Instead of paying the Paris Club debts, he slams them. His wife if she choose to run for reelection would be the worst for Argentina in a long run and will destroy Argentina ones and for all. Kirchner couple is turning Argentina into a North Korea of South America.

 

[yofie]

Not necesarily. A coup could be avoided if Yrigoyen was not elected. Alvear was a peacemaker and was in good terms with almost everybody. Remember he was elite and when Radicalism divided itself, he grouped with the rest of the elite. In a scenario where Alvear is the leader of a united UCR and he puts in power a candidate like him or who he can control, then the coup could very well be prevented. Ortiz is an option for a 1928 to 1934 president.
And Ortiz was a strong and good president except for his health. He was one of Alvear boys, and a very good way to prevent a coup would be to participate in the war. Suppose he enters in 1941 the same time as Brazil and very risked because of the pro Fascist groups in the military. He apeases them by giving them more funds and promising to see action in Europe, which many soldiers want. Anyway, once they enter the war, the pro fascist can't coup the goverment. It would have too strong support from the people and also from the allies. And most of the soldiers would oppose.
After the war, Argentina is more developed, and with strong anti-autoritarism sentiment. So a coup would be very difficult as long as no president starts doing stupid things, and 20 years after the war, impossible.

So who would be the president after 1934 if Ortiz is president from 1928 to 1934? And would there really still not have been a coup anytime from the mid-1930s?

Another point is that since Argentina and Brazil were rivals, it would have been risky for Argentina to be on the Allied side so early in World War II, or certainly to fight alongside the Brazilians in that war.

 

[Petete123123]

So who would be the president after 1934 if Ortiz is president from 1928 to 1934? And would there really still not have been a coup anytime from the mid-1930s?

Alvear again(1934-1940). And then Tamborini(1940-1946). And then Sabattini(1946-1952). And then butterflies.
About the coups, it's esential to have a strong president who is not alienated to everyone with power. Alvear and Ortiz both had friends in the elite. So the elite won't be a problem for them. And without the cooperation with the elite, the military won't have a precedent of participating in a coup and would stay as democratic as it was.

Another point is that since Argentina and Brazil were rivals, it would have been risky for Argentina to be on the Allied side so early in World War II, or certainly to fight alongside the Brazilians in that war.

Argentina can then enter before.
But entering at the same time is very possible. As part of the rivalry between both countries, Argentina can very well feel that they are being less for not fighting the war, and would try to outmatch Brazil in any field they can.
Brazil sends 2 divisions? We'll send 4. Brazil is fabricating their own airplanes? We will fabricate our owns too. And they will be better.

That's the kind of rivalry you could see from a democratic goverment in Argentina. Nowdays we are still rivals. But we are in the same trade union, we aren't fighting against each other. I mean, we hadn't fought since they helped overthrown Rosas.

Also, many people in Argentina wanted to join the allies. So once you got the president to declare war that's it. No coup would be able to oppose the people.
There are two groups that had power to complain against such a decisition. The elite, which was uber-anglophilic. And the military, who was equally divided between pro-allies and pro-fascists. And those pro-fascists can't do more than shut up after the war starts or the president has arranged too, because nobody would support them.

 

[Ward]

Alvear again(1934-1940). And then Tamborini(1940-1946). And then Sabattini(1946-1952). And then butterflies.
About the coups, it's esential to have a strong president who is not alienated to everyone with power. Alvear and Ortiz both had friends in the elite. So the elite won't be a problem for them. And without the cooperation with the elite, the military won't have a precedent of participating in a coup and would stay as democratic as it was.



Argentina can then enter before.
But entering at the same time is very possible. As part of the rivalry between both countries, Argentina can very well feel that they are being less for not fighting the war, and would try to outmatch Brazil in any field they can.
Brazil sends 2 divisions? We'll send 4. Brazil is fabricating their own airplanes? We will fabricate our owns too. And they will be better.

That's the kind of rivalry you could see from a democratic goverment in Argentina. Nowdays we are still rivals. But we are in the same trade union, we aren't fighting against each other. I mean, we hadn't fought since they helped overthrown Rosas.

Also, many people in Argentina wanted to join the allies. So once you got the president to declare war that's it. No coup would be able to oppose the people.
There are two groups that had power to complain against such a decisition. The elite, which was uber-anglophilic. And the military, who was equally divided between pro-allies and pro-fascists. And those pro-fascists can't do more than shut up after the war starts or the president has arranged too, because nobody would support them.

Could you people from south America name some good books to read on south American History . As a citizen of the US I hate to say it I only read English .

 

[Admiral Brown]

I think Nestor Kirchner's presidency will be much worse than Menem's one especially the economic policies. Instead of paying the Paris Club debts, he slams them. His wife if she choose to run for reelection would be the worst for Argentina in a long run and will destroy Argentina ones and for all. Kirchner couple is turning Argentina into a North Korea of South America.

Well, I'm not particularly fond of this administration (though they did great things, such as giving a lot of funs for scientific research), but this post is an exageration.

And I'm not sure their economic policies were bad, specially at first. During his presidency, Kirchner renegotiated the debt (which was a necessity) and kept both public spending and inflation under control. The econommy grew at a very high rate without inflation, and so did investment. Exports augmented, induestries expanded, and unemployement fell inmensely.

Inflation only started to grow by the end of his presidency (under 2007), making aur currency less competitive in real terms; public spending augmented a bit too much, and investment didn't grow as it should have due to "political risks". But even so, i wouldn't say he is worst than Menem.

In any case the last bit of the post, marked in bold, is simply absurd.

 

[Petete123123]

Well, I'm not particularly fond of this administration (though they did great things, such as giving a lot of funs for scientific research), but this post is an exageration.

And I'm not sure their economic policies were bad, specially at first. During his presidency, Kirchner renegotiated the debt (which was a necessity) and kept both public spending and inflation under control. The econommy grew at a very high rate without inflation, and so did investment. Exports augmented, induestries expanded, and unemployement fell inmensely.

Inflation only started to grow by the end of his presidency (under 2007), making aur currency less competitive in real terms; public spending augmented a bit too much, and investment didn't grow as it should have due to "political risks". But even so, i wouldn't say he is worst than Menem.

In any case the last bit of the post, marked in bold, is simply absurd.

Totally agree. Personally I don't see Cristina running for a second term, she's just waiting to give the party time to prepare. And well, Nestor is not here anymore.

 

[Joseph Solis in Australia]

Totally agree. Personally I don't see Cristina running for a second term, she's just waiting to give the party time to prepare. And well, Nestor is not here anymore.

If Cristina never runs, Kirchnerism will die with her or may splinter between Alicia Kirchner, Daniel Scioli, and the worst Hugo Moyano

 

[Petete123123]

If Cristina never runs, Kirchnerism will die with her or may splinter between Alicia Kirchner, Daniel Scioli, and the worst Hugo Moyano

Alicia can't hope for anything better than governor of Santa Cruz. Scioli is not kirchnerist, is an ally of them. Moyano won't run for president, God was isn't so cruel