Considering that the armed forces had held Argentina in their grip for years by then, it amazes me that they even allowed that election to go ahead. When an election can only take place when permitted by a nation's military top brass, real power in the country still lays with the armed forces and therefore you DO NOT have a democracy.cassowary wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:59 am
First of all, Neverfail, Peron was elected in 1946 Presidential election. He was not brought to power in a coup. See your own link.
Perón and his running mate, Hortensio Quijano, leveraged popular support to victory over a Radical Civic Union-led opposition alliance by about 11% in the February 24, 1946 presidential elections.
That they allowed it to happen at all may well have been because they accepted Peron as being one of their own.
Wishful thinking on your part cassowary. The Argentine military were complicit in bringing about the catastrophe on two seperate ways. First is that, despite being the nation's power broker (not unusual in Latin America I believe) they permitted the Peron's to make their run unimpeded. Second, after Juan Peron was allowed exile in Spain following his overthrow in 1955, Argentina was destined to have decades of military rule and yet these did absolutely nothing to wind back the errors of Peronism with free market reforms. Meaning that the consensus among the top brass endorsed Peronist policies even while disowning their innovator.cassowary wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:59 am
Had the military triumphed and kept Peron in jail, Argentina would have been spared Peron's Socialist policies. See your own quote. MInimum wage, laws that favor the unions, state ownership etc are all leftist prescriptions. Such policies led to economic disaster.
(By the way: like Juan Peron, Victor Chavez in Venezuela was a former military officer who was just as clueless about how to manage a national economy which he combined with a know-alls proud conviction that he knew better. Military officers demand absolute obedience from the officers and soldiers of lesser rank. When they take control of a nations government that usually defines the way they like to organise society at large. So the overregulated Fascist style corporate state structure appeals to men of this background. The command economy appeals to men who like to be in command. )
Alas, you seem to associate military rule in Latin America with Chile's General Pinochet. Argentina's juntas were never like that.
A valid point.
I believe that, like all other food surplus and raw materials exporting states of the time that had survived WW2 reasonably intact, Argentina did get considerable economic mileage out of that European period of reconstruction but as you say squandered the benefits. About 1953 the big party ended; prices for food and raw materials dropped considerably and before too many years such countries were in current account trouble (it happened in Uruguay and New zealand as well). That it did not happen here in Australia as well testifies to how prudently our government back in the 1950's managed to eke out the accumulated surpluses from the preceeding boom.