Could a South American country have become as dominant in South America as the USA is in North America?Why does Brazil not seem nearly as dominant considering their population (216 million) is 4 times the size of the second most populated country Colombia (52 million)I really feel Argentina squandered the best hand dealt to them.>much more temperate climate than Brazil >could have had coastal access to the Atlantic and pacific if they’d taken the south cone>could have taken Uruguay and at least parts of Paraguay>massive European migration>tons of resources>fails in spite of all this
>>18285257GeographyThe Amazon and the Andes mountains prevent Brazil from exerting as much influence over other countries as they could
>>18285257>brazilpopulated by niggers>argentina populated by shitalians (niggers)/thread
>>18285257Argentina was not dealt a good hand. It was the most backwards and remote colony of the Spanish Empire. It was sparsely populated, with only 600 thousand people in the territory at independence. Most of the land was wild and unexplored, ruled by aggressive nomadic plains indians. Buenos Aires was a sleepy village that survived during Spanish times by smuggling goods to and from Brazil. (As trade was outlawed by Spain except through authorized ports) Your idea of Argentina taking over Chile is unrealistic. Argentina only surpassed the population of Chile well into the 1900s. In fact it's a miracle the opposite didn't happen, or that Argentina didn't balkanize further.Given all of this, I feel like Argentina has been fairly successful. It managed to defend its borders, survive and annex Patagonia and Chaco regions. It managed to become a stable republic and attract millions of Europeans to populate its empty territory from 1880s onwards. By WW1 it had become basically a Spanish-speaking Australia, it was one of the richest countries in the world, and American journalists would look towards its government and republican institutions with admiration. Argentina achieved industrialization by WW2 and by the 1960s it was making jet aircraft, cars, machinery, the first computer in Latin America, etc. It was also wealthier than most of Europe still at this time.Most of Argentina's economic problems are relatively recent, it started to stagnate during the first Peron government and then really went to shit in the 1970s with Peron returning to power with a more radical agenda, dying in power, leaving a mess, and the 1976 coup and dictatorship which made an even bigger mess with foreign debt crisis, Falklands War, etc.But until the 1970s I would call it a successful country. It was never going to be a world power with a population the size Canada. But it did pretty well. (As recently as the 1980s it was still wealthier than Spain)
>>18285364As for Brazil, that's the real question mark because Brazil does have the resources and population to rival the United States.
>>18285368I know the answer
>>18285257How would you define dominant? Brazil was one of the most expansionist countries in South America, and economically 8 of the 10 biggest companies in South America are brazilian
>>18285368Agreed. Problem with brazil is they have a even bigger population of blacks. Let's me honest, they are incapable of building bussiness and following the law. You think America has it rough, nearly half of brazilians are black. They were demographically doomed from the start.
>>18285364Agreed. Argintina was doing fantastic until Peron took over. Then after he died many politicans try to continue his failed policies. Then you had the coup. All of which fucked everything up.
I'd add re Argentina / Chile there were a few governments mutually simpatico with the other. One problem here is that the Andes are a fucking WALL between those two nations. You'd spend a billion to carve out a nice tunnel and then some earthquake would bury it again. It's not like the Colorado Rockies.
>>18285847 [samefag]I understand the Andes are a little more lenient in the south, but nobody lives in Patagonia because it is a desert scourged by high wind. Roaring 50s S. People from Buenos Aires don't want to drive hundreds of miles south, more hundreds of miles west and up (into the wind), and then down a cliff before driving back north through Chile again.
>>18285364Nah, if the British had conquered the La Plata region modern day Argentina would be a thousand times better
>>18286604>>18286604Hmmm. Maybe they'd have turned it into a successful Anglo-style settler dominion. But maybe they would also have imported millions of jeets like in South Africa or the Guyanas.Also there's only so many Anglo settlers to go around, a world in which they mass settle in La Plata region is also a world with no Australia or New Zealand. (Or with a much weaker British hold on those lands)Seems easier to just delete Peron from history and course-correct from that.
>>18286604>>18286733I also wonder, assuming a British Dominion settler-style La Plata, what would have happened to the millions of Italians and Spaniards that migrated to the Argentina IRL (as well as the French, Germans, Swiss, Poles, Croats and others - mostly Catholics) ? I assume these people would not be allowed to migrate to British La Plata due to fear of Catholics or Spanish-speakers outnumbering Anglos in the Dominion. Judging by British policies in Australia and Canada they'd restrict immigration to keep an Anglo-majority. I assume most would try to go to the USA (leading to earlier and greater tensions against Southern Euros in the USA), or they'd spread around other LatAm countries with more going to South Brazil or Cuba. But it's an interesting situation.For the British there would be no economic gain since IRL their companies already invested into Argentina heavily as if it was a Dominion. The Argentine government was pragmatic and invited them in (along with French, German and other foreign capital), with no need for them to exert control over the territory. The country was integrated with the British economy already as a major source beef and wheat to the British Isles. And even when Peron wanted to nationalize the British-owned railways he paid very handsomely for them rather than do a Suez-style chimpout (reportedly the British companies were ecstatic about the deal), so they never lost a penny in Argentina.But an Anglo-style settler colony would have been expensive to set up (in terms of men and public money), and would have heavily damaged their relations with the rest of Latin America. I imagine Boer-republic style uprisings by Spanish-speakers in the interior throughout the 19th century having to be put down with force. As well as an hostile Chile and Brazil.Could have been a successful venture but it's not a given, and there's an uphill battle for it to work out.It's a very interesting scenario to ponder with lots of consequences.
>>18286733>>182867623/3The easy scenario if you want a rich Southern Cone, is just to remove the 1930 coup from history, which was a big anomaly in terms of Argentine history up to that point. This leads to the Army not getting involved in politics, some boring social democrat wins the elections in the 1940s (probably Amadeo Sabattini or a similar politician) and enacts moderate welfare state reforms but without going full retard like Peron did, the country joins the Allies in WW2, elects some conservative in the Cold War and basically can follow a boring path of prosperity.That also has knock-on effects in Uruguay and maybe Chile and Brazil as they get more economic growth as well.
>>18286733>Also there's only so many Anglo settlers to go aroundIRL places like South Georgia received some Norwegian migration as they were surprisingly active in the area. We could easily imagine a multiethnic N-European Protestant Dominion with a large contingent of Norwegians, Icelanders, and Welshmen settling in semi-autonomous areas along the frontier.
>>18286846Also more area of settlement could allow for greater population growth, there could just be more anglos in the world
>Peron bad!Jesus Christ, and this is supposed to be a history board?Peron reduce illiteracy, started industrialization and a burgeoning nuclear program.The country went to shit with the neolibshit dictatorship
>>18285257>Could a South American country have become as dominant in South America as the USA is in North America?Yes, through socialism. The JewSA realized this and its why they funded war everywhere and promoted corrupt, evil rightoid puppets.
>>18286768>>18286846If you intend to create an Anglo Dominion in Argentina and Uruguay you need *at least* 700K settlers in the 19th century to outnumber the ~630K Spanish colonists already living there (600K in Argentina, 30K in Uruguay) so as to form a solid majority. This would soak up most of the pool of settlers that eventually went to Australia and New Zealand in the 19th century (300K) and a good number of Canadians and elsewhere too.Keep in mind French Canada only had 55K residents when the British took it, and Quebec identity is still a headache in Canada with a referendum for independence almost succeeding as late as 2000, the country having to use the two languages everywhere, etc, etc.This alt-history scenario of British La Plata is very popular but I always found it fancyful, even with 1M Anglo/Norwegian/whatever settlers in 1800s, you are still gonna deal with some nasty Boer-republic type uprisings for little gain for Britain. And again that's assuming the British wanted to settle the place and not just build a jeet plantation like they did in Guyana... the only actual British colony in mainland SA is not very encouraging. The British invasions of Rio de la Plata in 1806 were done by a random general on a whim (he was acting on his own and was court martialed for his adventurism), and there was no actual plan behind them so there's little idea of what would have happened if he succeeded.
>>18286604It’d be jeeted like Guyana.
>>18286877There is no question that Peron fucked up in his first presidency (1945-1951), he ran unsustainable spending, printed money leading to the appearance of inflation, shut out the economy from world trade with massive protectionist barriers and made Argentina miss the post-war economic boom, etc. It was some Hugo Chavez type socialist bullshit.His second presidency however is interesting (1952-1955) because Peron was a pragmatist, and realized he had fucked up and veered right, he did an austerity program to balance the budget, lowered inflation back to normal levels, he made a deal with the Americans to secure foreign investment, his second presidency was shaping a lot like Franco in Spain which started as a turbostatist but then implemented free market reforms and set Spain on a good path. However in 1955 Peron was overthrown so that second presidency was cut short.His third presidency (1974-75) was a shitshow, he was 78 years old, his political party was infiltrated by commies who did a radical economic program of price controls and money printing (Ber Gelbard), Peronists of the right and the left were killing each other, etc.Like I said the main problem was the breakdown of the political system which happened in 1930 with the first coup, this led to a series of coups and countercoups which created a shitstorm of political instability. Between 1880-1930 Argentina had a very stable political system with separation of powers, elected presidents (first with limited suffrage then with universal), but between 1930-1983 it was basically a shitshow which derailed the country.And everything good Peron was credited with, would have happened regardless. Every rich country implemented welfare states in the post-war, the economy had been industrializing since 1900s, elimination of illiteracy in the 1950s was gonna happen regardless, just any random boring Soccdem would have done that without the need to go full statist, but they were kept from power by coups.
>>18287048One could also imagine a smaller settler colony in Patagonia keeping the Platine colonies in line similar to South Africa.
>>18287113Yes, British Patagonia or Buenos Aires like a Hong Kong type colony were much more realistic possibilities, but that's never the scenario of British La Plata the alt-history crowd envisions. It's also of questionable benefit because the British would lose their economic foothold in South America. In exchange for direct control of some small region like Patagonia or Uruguay/BA you turn Brazil and all the other nations in the continent into enemies.By the 19th century the British were moving away from the idea of settling new colonies because of the ideas of William Pitt the Younger which favored trade and economic relations over direct control. Colonial ventures were hardly profitable.If the British were interested in the La Plata region because of the possibilities for trade and the import of beef, wheat and wool they got all that by having friendly relations rather than costly direct control.
Brazil is seen as a big nation today but it was historically quite underpopulated even compared to the United States and that population growth has only resulted rather recently in the explosion of the less desirable racial elements. Even if South America was 100% white I doubt they would have ever produced a power like the United States.
>>18287097>separation of powersNo such thing
>>18287135In the year 1800, Brazil had 3-4 million people compared to 5 million people in the US. Brazil as a world power was totally doable.You'd need to abolish slavery and move towards mass migration to populate the land, focus on improving education and infraestructure, then investing on science and technology as well as industrialization (which Brazil did, but mostly after WW2 rather than starting in the 19th century)Sadly Brazilians online simp a lot for their monarchy but it kept their country backward and reliant on slavery for longer than it should have.>>18287162Yes such thing, you need solid institutions for countries to be successful, it's the secret sauce of all prosperous nations even those that are dictatorships tend to have some sort of independent judiciary to guarantee property rights and orderly transfers of power. Check how much China's growth rate has been slowing down since they moved away from the oligarchy of the Deng Xiaoping-Jiang Zemin-Hu Hintao years to centralized control under President for Life Xi. One man rule is generally never a good idea.
>>18287175>independent judiciaryIndependant judiciary which is restricted to people who dedicated half their life to studying at schools with state prescribed curriculums>China's growth rate has been slowing downMostly because of their abysmal demographics which are locked in for at least a century, even if they embraced immigration, they'd need like 20 million people a year and there simply aren't enough people around.
>>18287097What was the citizen doing during that shit storm? They didn't realize where their country is slipping?
>>18285257>Could a South American countryNo>Why does Brazil not seem nearly as dominantStopped right there, its a shithole run by socialists>I really feel Argentina squandered the best hand dealt to them.Correct
>>18287238>>Could a South American country>Nohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT13kk8HDDo
>>18285257To build a strong, industrial requires a very specific set of economic institutions.You need a mostly free market and a landscape where industry, as risky as it is, is still more profitable than resource extraction.South America lacked more modern economic theory, and was rich enough from agriculture and mining that industrialization couldn't take off.Could South America have developed a major industrial economy? Probably. But that would require changing how Spanish colonialism worked
>>18287213Well, military dictatorships are not very amenable to protests and riots. Lots of people were killed resisting military dictatorship in the 1930s and again in 1976-1983. If you are talking about Peron that's more complex, because a lot of the working class and middle class supported him, at least at first (minimum wage, labour rights, social welfare and free healthcare, easier home ownership, etc. were popular causes). Peron started out as the "labour minister" in a military government (managing relations with the trade unions), he used this position to appeal to the working classes, and basically stole the powerbase from the social democrats by implementing many of the policies that the social democrats had been calling for. Then the military dictatorship he had been part of, imprisoned him because he was becoming a threat to them, which made him even more popular and gave him more streetcred as a pro-democracy dude. After he was elected president in 1946, he was authoritarian in some aspects (ie. nationalized an opposition newspaper he didn't like, imprisoned a senator after suing him for defamation) but he never actually implemented a full blown dictatorship, he never shut down congress, and was always democratically elected. The knee jerk reaction of violent opposition and coups against him also made him more popular, because compared to the coup that overthrew him, he was tame. if they'd just let him be rather than overthrowing him at the peak of his popularity then he wouldn't have made such a splash.
>>18287278>Peron started out as the "labour minister" in a military government (managing relations with the trade unions), he used this position to appeal to the working classes, and basically stole the powerbase from the social democrats by implementing many of the policies that the social democrats had been calling for.Exactly the same as Little Tapia
>>18286604Buenos Aires would be like Hong Kong, that's it
>>18286604Considering how Chile was essentially a British protectorate after the Spanish empire collapsed I could see a British Argentina either merging with chile or it being like Australia and New ZealandPlus you’d have a similar Canada situation where most speak English but Spanish speakers are a huge minority dominating parts of the county
>>18287657You have it backwards, Argentina itself was the closest to a 'British protectorate' in South America in the sense that the British had invested the most heavily there. More British money invested there than in South Africa or Australia. (Mostly in railroads, banking, ranching, department stores like Harrod's having its Buenos Aires presence, etc). It was the main source of beef and wheat imports in Britain. There is also a large community of Anglo descendants, Welsh in Patagonia, etc. What put a wrench in the relationship was the Great Depression when Britain enacted the Imperial Preference tariff system due to pressure from Australia and Canada, Argentina had to negotiate a treaty (Roca-Runciman Treaty) to be granted an exception from the tariffs, but had to cave in to a bunch of trade concessions to Britain in return, which was considered humiliating. The perception of Britain changed from one of equal trade partners to that of a bully after Roca-Runciman. And in turn that explains the rise of nationalists like Peron who resented the large British influence over the economy. One of his slogans was 'economic independence'.Although the British did have economic interests across all of South America, maybe it was nitrates, saltpeter and other mining in Chile? Which was a big deal until WW1 when artificial methods to synthetize nitrates and saltpeter were deviced.
>>18285257Brazil and Argentina both could’ve done amazing, but nowhere near US global hegemon level. The US simply has a geography too perfect. The problem was unnecessary wars, internal strife, corruption, lack of ambition. If a hypothetical country existed that consisted of Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Chile, and perhaps all Guayanas, that then focused on robust institutions, unique agriculture and then industrialization, and colonized some parts of West Africa and Cabo Verde, necessitating a large naval buildup, it could’ve been very powerful
>>18285257>>18287743I call it Megabrazil
>>18287705No, Britain definitely had Chile as part of its informal empire as well as Argentina >During the 19th century (especially c. 1820–1914), Britain had substantial influence in Chile:>Trade dominance: Britain was Chile’s main trading partner for much of the century.>Investment and finance: British capital financed railways, ports, banks, mining, and utilities.>Nitrate industry: British firms and investors played a major role in the nitrate (saltpeter) boom after the War of the Pacific (1879–1884).>Commercial presence: British merchants, shipping companies, and insurers were prominent in Valparaíso, a key Pacific port.Naval and diplomatic influence: Britain had strong >naval presence and diplomatic weight, though it rarely intervened directly.>Britain recognized Chile early after independence (1820s)>British diplomats generally treated Chile as a stable, legitimate state, improving its standing>Britain often favored Chilean territorial gains indirectly when they aligned with British commercial interestsWhile it never had direct control or deliberate orders for chile, it clearly heavily favoured them Britains support during the War of the Pacific (1879–1884) is the clearest exampleBritain officially remained neutral but in practice British merchants, financiers, and shipbuilders favored Chile British-controlled nitrate interests benefited from Chile’s victory, Chile had better access to British shipping, credit, and arms markets.And like previously mentioned, britain immediately recognised Chile’s territorial gains as legitimate, preferring Chilean expansion over their neighbors
>>18285257Only way possible would be for Argentina and Brazil to get ruled by a Chilean elite in some sort of stronger UE-like agreement (not MERCOSUR).
>>18285466I would define dominant as in they have a hegemony over South America in general. Strong enough to be more influential than the USA is Same way Germany is more influential to neighbouring countries utopian countries than the USA is even though the USA is far more powerful and wealthy >>18287135The question isn’t whether Brazil or another SA country could have rivalled the USA in terms of actual power and wealth, but whether a South America country like Brazil could have become powerful enough to bring most if not all of South America under its personal sphere of influence rather than them all being under the USA’s
>>18287175>Sadly Brazilians online simp a lot for their monarchy but it kept their country backward and reliant on slavery for longer than it should have.Huh? Slavery was only abolished in Brazil without a civil war like the US because the emperor forcefully abolished it. An act so extreme ir ended the monarchy due to the monied interests and land barons hating it for the same reasons the plantation owners in the American south hated the ides
>no one mentioning PeruWhen the Spaniards arrived the Inca empire had over 12 million people and was so productive they had basically eliminated hunger within their empire. If the conquistadors were less retarded and didn't intentionally spread smallpox across the new world and repeatedly sabotage peace negotiations by raping and pillaging the nobility they could have just absorbed this entire empire. Then if the Spanish empire handled it better than their other colonies by building infrastructure instead of just squeezing every last cent out of the land to send to spain, it would absolutely have been a south american superpower. Instead:>"The population of the former Inca Empire saw a catastrophic decline, with estimates suggesting a loss of 90% to 95% within the first century after Spanish contact, primarily due to devastating epidemics (like smallpox and influenza) that struck populations lacking immunity, coupled with warfare, famine, and colonial exploitation, turning it into a massive demographic collapse known as the "Great Dying". It's like being given a free lamborghini and wrapping it around a lamp post 5 minutes later.
>>18288020This is so retarded. How exactly do you expect the European colonists to prevent smallpox and other oild world diseases spreading and decimating the natives?A) they didn’t understand germ theory or believe in itB) even if they did, tons of people are asymptomatic carriers. There would be no way to prevent some infected person spreading it
>>18285368Brazil's population was a meals 40-50 million when the USA was already 130+ million. Brazil's population boom is also a very recent development that only occured in the post-war era
>>18286604I'm actually British-Argentinean myself and don't believe this desu.
>>18287922>chatGPT ass postThe informal empire situation was present in all South America, but the British presence was strongest in Argentina in terms of foreign investment, companies, immigrants, etc. The railroads for example, it was the 8th largest railroad network in the world. Definitively the strongest British interests were there. The Imperial Preference kerfuffle illustrates this, Argentina was granted an exception from tariffs (but it was controversial, as explained), not Chile. The nitrate thing just wasn't as important after WW1. You can also see the cultural impact for example in the fact rugby is popular in the country.Still, neither was a protectorate.I don't think you understand what a protectorate is.
>>18285257I think that if CSA-USA War had ended in a victory of CSA, millions of migrants from USA would have flooded to Brazil and Argentina, so they could have become dominant countries instead of CSA itself.
>>18288110Of course you don’t believe it, your argentinean half is retarded
>>18288186nta but>a latinx country that managed to become so wealthy it even attracted anglo immigrants>let's replace this historical oddity with another canada from a historian's viewpoint your idea is lame and gay
>>18288020I need silver to fund losing wars against the protestants and I need it NOW, Pacha.
>>18287175lol you're a fool, the monarchy had long wanted to end slavery but you can't just wave a magic wand and do it when all the oligarchs who own the economy are against it, the royal family spent 70 years preparing to do it without causing a civil war and even then it plunged the country into a banana republic coup to the point even some of those behind the coup would eventually claim they regretted it because the republican governments were full of retards and wannabe dictators
>>18288186My Argentinean half is my British half lmao. My grandfather from Scotland worked as a manager for cattle stations here in properties owned by British families.
>>18288077the diseases would have been awful no matter what but they were FAR worse than they could have been because the spanish spread them intentionally in a lot of places, deprived large amounts of people of proper food and medicine, and moved shitloads of people long distance around the the colonies for slavery
>>18288126>our massive failure back in yankeeland will surely work this time
>>18288548Attracting anglo-immigrants is not actually that rare during the late 19th century in Latin America. Attracting them in bulk is another thing entirely.Argentina in the late 19th century was not really that odd, if you look at it from a regional context. Nearly every single regime at the time was an 'Order and Progress' dictatorship under the tutelage of some power or another.
>>18289157The most unique thing Argentina had going for it was that it was a single-party pseudo-dictatorship. Rather than a normal dictatorship.Fate threw that back at them by giving them Perón, though.
>>18289157Anon, it was a pretty sizeable migration and unique in the region, 500K Irish, 100K Anglos and Scots, another 100K Welsh... IIRC it was the largest British community outside of the English-speaking world, which is significant. They were also quite influential in the history of the country, since it was one of the oldest migrations. Many towns with English or Welsh names.But it was obviously dwarfed by Italians, Spanish, French, Germans, Poles, Ottoman minorities (Syrian and Lebanese Christians, mostly), Swiss, Croats, etc. The immigration to Argentina was mostly Catholic-leaning. >>18289159Calling the PAN a one-party dictatorship is oversimplification and bs.It was a republic with a (very limited) franchise. But there was separation of powers, free press, a legal opposition, ideas were debated in Congress and there were orderly transitions of power. It's just that the elections weren't representative of anything but the upper classes. But even as early as 1904 the first Socialist parlamentarian in the whole Americas (Alfredo Palacios) was elected, so it certainly wasn't any sort of one party state. This gradual process of reform ended with universal (male) franchise being established in 1916 which meant the transition to a full democracy, around the same time most Western countries were doing it. And that worked well for a while too, until the Great Depression.It was certainly more orderly than the military coups and one-man dictatorships and strongmen that ruled in other parts of the continent. But in 1930 Argentina lost this claim to exceptionalism, conservatives had expected that people would keep voting for them under universal suffrage because they believed they were doing a great job, but the middle classes chose the centrist UCR instead. Theyy couldn't deal with being locked out of power for 14 years and chimped out. And so it went from being one of the more stable countries to becoming one of the least stable countries in the Cold War.
>>18288919>>18288005I will admit I don't know that much about Brazil.Just that 1888 to abolish slavery was very late.But it did avoid a disastrous civil war.I don't know anything about the social dynamics so maybe you are right and the Emperor did a good job.Brazilian government was also very stable during the monarchy.
>>18289312How come you didn't add Uruguay and Paraguay?, they also had received a ton of germans and italians immigrants
>>18289338I didn't make the pic. If I did, I would have added them.Uruguay had basically the same migration patterns as Argentina. Uruguay is to Argentina what New Zealand is to Australia.Paraguay didn't have that much of a significant migration. But it did receive a large amount of Germans.There was some weird settlement project called New Germania being promoted there.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nueva_Germania
>>18285257Brazil is the dominant economyArgentina used to be the media empireVenezuela used to be the main oil producerSince we don't have those resources concentrated ina single country, we don't really have that risk.
