The Riddle Of Argentina Discussed

[Pensador]

The 1940's should have been the glory days for Argentina. It's main competitors were all mired in war.

Many commentators believe that the reason the US shined in the 60 and 70's was because it's main competitors were devastated, viz. Western Europe. The USA rode in to fill the vacuum of manufacturers that were burnt to the ground. Argentina was in an even better position because unlike the US it didn't have to waste money on war (soldiers and weapons).

It just shows how destructive corruption and incompetent economic management is.

And the US had a massive manufacturing infrastructure it built during the war to support the war effort that was easily converted over to industrial and commercial manufacturing. And none of that infrastructure was even touched during the war. WW2 is allot of what made the USA what is today. After that war the prosperity was insane to say the least.

 

[ElQueso]

The article was a scientific analysis of what economic factors played into Argentina's demise, not an all-encompassing article of what caused Argentina's downfall. I.e., what forces, scientifically, seemed to have the most impact on Argentina's demise.

The article was pretty specific that although external market influences and internal influences like bad economic decisions by successive governments, counted for something, they counted mostly in the short term as negatives (which can more easily be overcome), not the long term.

The conclusion of the author based on scientific data as to what actually hurt Argentina in the long run was its crazy, unstable political situation.

Seems to me that blaming any external factor has some validity (again in the short term) but in actuality over the long term what has caused the most problem in Argentina is its internal instability.

Of course, much of Argentina itself, and even some expats, seem to think that all of Argentina's problems have a root in the US and Europe. I posit, based on the article and my own feelings on the matter, that at best these issues are short term irritants of external forces taking advantage of internal instability, not the root causes.

 

[JoeGillis]

The article was a scientific analysis of what economic factors played into Argentina's demise, not an all-encompassing article of what caused Argentina's downfall. I.e., what forces, scientifically, seemed to have the most impact on Argentina's demise.

The article was pretty specific that although external market influences and internal influences like bad economic decisions by successive governments, counted for something, they counted mostly in the short term as negatives (which can more easily be overcome), not the long term.

The conclusion of the author based on scientific data as to what actually hurt Argentina in the long run was its crazy, unstable political situation.

Seems to me that blaming any external factor has some validity (again in the short term) but in actuality over the long term what has caused the most problem in Argentina is its internal instability.

Of course, much of Argentina itself, and even some expats, seem to think that all of Argentina's problems have a root in the US and Europe. I posit, based on the article and my own feelings on the matter, that at best these issues are short term irritants of external forces taking advantage of internal instability, not the root causes.

Thanks (again), ElQueso, for another excellent post. I couldn't agree with you more.

 

[Matiasba]

Unstable political situation explained in a high porcentage by external political forces. You can not explain Latin Americans dictatorships without the US. That is politics ABC.

Again: the US implanted by force friendly militars in power without democracy.

So if the unstable political situation explains decadency, ergo, a big percentage of the decadence can be explained by "the external factor". Like Iraq, you cant explain a 10 year war if their main export are oranges. Once you realize they have oil, and the need the US have for that, theres your answer of the main cause of thousands of deaths. Totally external from Iraq decisions.

 

[ElQueso]

Way to miss the point and put it all on the US Matias.

And BTW - the latest military occupation of your country took place in the latter 3rd of this century. Were all military dictatorships and other times of political instability (both of which, aside from the latest dictatorship, encompasses large amounts of time from 1900 all the way to today. Do you even call Peron's times in office stable? Maybe it's all in the eyes of the beholder.) the fault of the US or GB or Europe? I'm sure you will think so.

If you would prefer to take the latest military dictatorship as an example, that's cool. If there were some way to replay things and repeat the 60s and 70s over again, and Argentina was somehow different - stabilized, actually democratic (instead of paying lip-service), economic free-fall under control, much less corruption, less controls, whatever it would have taken (it would probably have taken an outside act - will Argentina ever stabilize?) I would ask you: Do you really think that the US would not have dealt with such an administration instead of supporting a military coup?

If you think the US is truly evil, you'd probably have to say the US would have supported a military dictatorship over a democratic, stable country that may prove to be a stable trading partner in the future. If you think the US is more like a bumbling, heavy-handed teenager who often doesn't realize the result of its actions, backed by maybe a bit of larceny, then you'd have to realize it preferred to deal with a dictatorship than someone who it feared would turn "communist".

I abhor the US' practice of supporting, and even in some cases causing, dictatorships who they think will support the US in favor of a regime that the US does not agree with, or fears, etc. It is a stupid policy. It is a damaging policy, both to the US and to the countries it affects.

But my point is that the military came from Argentina and would have made a run for it either way. It happened more than once previously. The US' involvement in that particular series of events was a temporary influence over a more prominent feature of Argentina itself - the long-term instability.

Argentina has shot itself in the foot many times in the past century+. Outside elements have taken advantage at times of that self-wounding and have perhaps helped to perpetuate things on a short-term basis. But let's face it. Argentina isn't Russia, invaded from the outside and chaotic for centuries under oppressive rulers, with a wounded soul that searches to survive come what may.

Argentina has been taken advantage of when it's caused its own problems, the advantage-taking is not the root cause of Argentina's long-term problems, but rather are short-term symptoms of its own policies mixed other stupidity from the outside at times.

Other countries have faced worse interference, up to and including invasions and all-out war and somehow managed to recover in less than a century. Argentina needs to grow up at least into adolescence, as I wish the US would grow up to adulthood.

 

[Matiasba]

You think US involvement began or was only a thing of last dictatorship? I once read a book that explained meticously the work done by the german embassy in Argentina during the WWII. They competed with the US embassy and with the english embassy. Argentina remained neutral, but the work done by these embassies were huge!

After the war ended, in 1946, Peron won an election, competing with Braden, the US ambassador. Go figure the work the embassy did to put someone at the same height than Peron. The slogan in that election was "Braden o Peron".

So lets think, if the candidate of the US embassy lost against Peron, that means that yes they respected the results but also that they would destiny all their resources to oppose to everything Peron would do. So they did, when the militars bombed Plaza de mayo in 1955 and afterwards overthrew Peron, the US were on their side.
Embassies do a lot to make things happen. German embassy during WW2 was one of the causes of Argentina neutrality.

My point is that if they weren’t directly supported by the US in the previous dictatorships, that does not mean that they didn’t have support at all. They had the main super power (military, economically, etc) on their side. If things get difficult, as they finally did, they, the militars, knew they could count with them. Every dictatorship and even democratic governments (who won without letting Peron to postulate-how absurd is that) had the explicit support from the US.
The democratic and “stable” governments after Peron was overthrew were 100% under control of the militars, so there wasn’t really a possibility of a democracy. The options were or the militars, or some kind of fake elections between Conservatives and UCR. Again: they did not allow Peron or any form of Peronismo to participate in those elections. That for 20 years. IMO that was the cause of the guerrilla. Of the Resistencia Peronista. Of the bloodiest dictatorship that followed.

Of course the militars weren’t born in the US, they were 100% argentines, born and raised. As the half of the country that was anti peronista as well (well, in fact, less than the half, Peron won in 1973 with 62%). But it was like we have it today, half and half. I don’t think is Argentinas fault for having two world views incompatibles. It happens everywhere, almost. It wasn’t the US entire fault of course. Corruption is 100% Argentine.

But the geopolitics, what the US wanted for the region, as well as we have it today, working with narcos, insecurity, terrorism, etc , played a very important roll. They always had the power and the control of the situation, and if it goes out of it, then they always could have done what they did. The result of the fight between the two halves, peronistas & anti peronistas, was in fact a direct product of a US government implanted by force. The destiny of Argentine dispute was to be solved by forces from outside. Geopolitics decided the battle, if we can call it battle cause it was an entire army plenty of resources, trained in the School of the Americas (how to torture, to disappear, etc) with intelligence, tanks, planes, etc, versus a 5 thousands young soldiers armed with pistols supported by Cuba.

As we say in Spanish, cuando las papas queman… so that’s the evidence that the scenario before the last dictatorship was under control by the US, only that they didn’t need too much force, it wasn’t so explicit.

 

[Napoleon]

I often don't agree with Matiasba, but as much as I'm not a fan of Peronismo, the country made several changes under Peron that allowed for the explosion of a middle class.

Argentina & Peron were punished by external forces for wanting to have a nuclear program, for being too populous, for jar boring more than their share of nazis maybe (at least without covering it up as well as the US did) and they were punished for trying to become too independent.

Look at Iran & Russia now. Iraq under Saddam.

When the powers that be turn on you, even if you are most self-sufficient, there isn't a country in the 20th Century that hadn't become dependent on international trade. Without a concerted effort to punish Argentina & Peron after he won reelection in '52, there wouldn't have been a successful coup attempt in '55. And it took two coup attempts (with US backing) to oust Peron even then.

 

[ajoknoblauch]

You mean, Matías, that Perón actually got more votes? How did Braden manage to get on the ballot, and how many Argentines voted for him?

 

[Pensador]

You think US involvement began or was only a thing of last dictatorship? I once read a book that explained meticously the work done by the german embassy in Argentina during the WWII. They competed with the US embassy and with the english embassy. Argentina remained neutral, but the work done by these embassies were huge!

After the war ended, in 1946, Peron won an election, competing with Braden, the US ambassador. Go figure the work the embassy did to put someone at the same height than Peron. The slogan in that election was "Braden o Peron".

So lets think, if the candidate of the US embassy lost against Peron, that means that yes they respected the results but also that they would destiny all their resources to oppose to everything Peron would do. So they did, when the militars bombed Plaza de mayo in 1955 and afterwards overthrew Peron, the US were on their side.
Embassies do a lot to make things happen. German embassy during WW2 was one of the causes of Argentina neutrality.

My point is that if they weren’t directly supported by the US in the previous dictatorships, that does not mean that they didn’t have support at all. They had the main super power (military, economically, etc) on their side. If things get difficult, as they finally did, they, the militars, knew they could count with them. Every dictatorship and even democratic governments (who won without letting Peron to postulate-how absurd is that) had the explicit support from the US.
The democratic and “stable” governments after Peron was overthrew were 100% under control of the militars, so there wasn’t really a possibility of a democracy. The options were or the militars, or some kind of fake elections between Conservatives and UCR. Again: they did not allow Peron or any form of Peronismo to participate in those elections. That for 20 years. IMO that was the cause of the guerrilla. Of the Resistencia Peronista. Of the bloodiest dictatorship that followed.

Of course the militars weren’t born in the US, they were 100% argentines, born and raised. As the half of the country that was anti peronista as well (well, in fact, less than the half, Peron won in 1973 with 62%). But it was like we have it today, half and half. I don’t think is Argentinas fault for having two world views incompatibles. It happens everywhere, almost. It wasn’t the US entire fault of course. Corruption is 100% Argentine.

But the geopolitics, what the US wanted for the region, as well as we have it today, working with narcos, insecurity, terrorism, etc , played a very important roll. They always had the power and the control of the situation, and if it goes out of it, then they always could have done what they did. The result of the fight between the two halves, peronistas & anti peronistas, was in fact a direct product of a US government implanted by force. The destiny of Argentine dispute was to be solved by forces from outside. Geopolitics decided the battle, if we can call it battle cause it was an entire army plenty of resources, trained in the School of the Americas (how to torture, to disappear, etc) with intelligence, tanks, planes, etc, versus a 5 thousands young soldiers armed with pistols supported by Cuba.

As we say in Spanish, cuando las papas queman… so that’s the evidence that the scenario before the last dictatorship was under control by the US, only that they didn’t need too much force, it wasn’t so explicit.

In South America it is always someone else's fault. The buck stops with you Matias not your politicians and not the US you!

 

[Joe]

I think this inability to take responsibility is a national trait. The end result is people feel that everything is out of their control and there is no point in trying to improve things.

“Attack the evil that is within yourself, rather than attacking the evil that is in others.”
― Confucius

“If you could kick the person in the pants responsible for most of your trouble, you wouldn't sit for a month.”
― Theodore Roosevelt

“The victim mindset dilutes the human potential. By not accepting personal responsibility for our circumstances, we greatly reduce our power to change them.”
― Steve Maraboli, Unapologetically You: Reflections on Life and the Human Experience