Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Argentina's Infamous Decade
Consider the political instability that existed in Argentina during the 1930s. Do you think the experience is more violent than what we have studied in the United States and Canada? Why or why not? What do you think Argentina's government needed in order to provide for a more stable existence? Did any political strategies work better than others?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Although the economy went up from the 1920s to the 1930s, with the dictator ship in Argentina, in the 1930s the government was so corrupted and people stopped trusting it. The experience is much more violent than in the US or Canada, in my opinion because there was such an instability of the government. In 1930, Irigoyen, suffered the first military coup by Uriburu who became the president. After that a bunch of errors were done by him and the government and radicals started to take the power of the government. In the gap of only one year, the government changed so much, since after his military coup, Uriburu retired because he was suffering of a cancer. After that radicals decided to boycott the government etc.
ReplyDeleteI believe they needed a serious president and to fix the goals that the country wanted to achieve as a nation (for example get the economy up or whatever). they needed to understand that they had serious problems and they were not going to be able to deal with the Depression that way. They were making things worst, therefore they needed someone wise and serious as president for the country and maybe not a dictator ship
Overall I think that the government that existed in Argentina during the 1930s was a lot more violent than what we have studied in the United States and Canada. I think this because like Laura said their government is unstable and in the US and Canada the governments were never so bad that they had to get a military dictatorship. The reason why Argentinas government needed to provide a more stable government experience because the people of Argentina were at a risk and so were surrounding countries the more the government and the people leave themselves in the open. In Argentina there are many other political parties besides the military dictatorship like the conservatives and the independent socialist party, one of those parties might have been better suited for the government than a military dictatorship because that is a little extreme however maybe the country was in a extreme place.
ReplyDeleteOkay well my computer just restarted and i had written a really long post already but ill rewrite it but it might not be as good so just a warning. So the government in Argentina was much more violent then any of the countries that we have yet to have studied (US or Canada). The reason for this was Argentina was at such a fragile place in its economy that it needed something like a military ditatorship to get it back on its feet. However, like any country, there are many different politcal parties each with their own idea of how the country should be run. but overall i think the military dictatorship was a good idea.
ReplyDeletePaxi no one cares..... Yes the Argentina was much more violent then what we have talked about. this was because the dictatorship made the government so corrupt. But was was very odd to me was that they were still very successful even with this corrupt government. I agree with Laura when she says they needed a president/leader instead of a dictatorship. I would never want someone forcing things to happen with out anyone else having the ability to have a say in.
ReplyDeleteIt is definitely more violent than US and Canada. In my perspective, more violence reveals more fragility within Argentina's economy and government. Argentina is not one of the world powers like the U.S. Argentina is just like other south American countries depend on U.S. and Europe to run their economy. Therefore, once the economy in U.S. collapses, Argentina contracts the bad economy right away. Another problems in Argentina would be the economic gap between the rich and the poor. The middle-class has a strong aversion toward the elite. Their animosity has been stimulated before the Great Depression, and it explodes when the middle-class starts to lose their jobs and money. Obviously neither radical government nor military dictatorship has helped Argentina get back on track.
ReplyDeletethe 1930s of Argentina was known was the "Infamous Decade" because of the corruption and intimidation. It was the period of military dictatorship although the leaders governed as civilians. However, the onset of Depression tended to quiten industrial upset and either fear or indifference weakened overt political opposition. Despite their reputation for corruption, politicians introduced substantial reforms to move Argentina out of depression and these largely worked. In addition, this period saw more direct government intervention in the economy and greater diversification. Whilte the elites were little changed, the period also saw the introdctuon of urban middle classes into the power-sharing process. In September 1930, Argentina's first military coup saw the appointment of Jose Felix Uriburi as president. Uriburu became president and promoted the paramilitary Legion Civica Argentina. He appointed supporters of Key position and purged known radical sympathizers from government position in the guise of cutting expenditures. This coup demanded that the traditional elites, the Church, and army replace those who had participated in government since the onset of democracy in 1916.
ReplyDeleteI think the political situation was chaos in Argentina. Compare to the U.S. and Canada at that period, Argentina was more violent than those two countries. In fact, I don't remember any violence during the 30s in US and Canada. Argentina was just being very unstable. Irigoyen was militarily coupped by Uriburu who became president. Not soon after, Uriburu suffered from cancer and retired. It was just too much power shifting which made the economy worse. I don't think there was any obvious better political strategy at that time. It was what it needed to go through.
ReplyDeleteArgentina was a mess. The reason was the instability of the political leaders and of the government.The first government was corrupt because they changed the voting procedures in order to stay in power because they were looking after themselves which made the people not trust the government and want the radicals to take over. However, Irigoyen wasn't the most straight forward president either. Yes, he did get elected by the people which in a way made Argentina "Democratic" but he also abused his power. At this point, Argentina had gone through two corrupt presidents and had no faith in the government what so ever. Then Uriburu took over the government through force creating chaos. The government was completely unstable under constant leadership changes because of the people fighting for power in the government did not really care about the people but about the power. In a time of crises such as the depression a strong leader is needed in order to enforce change and help move the government along. Not only this, but the government in a time of need helps give people hope for a better future and that someone is trying to make this better. Even after Uriburu retirement because of cancer the radicals began an uproar which worsened the chaos in Argentina.
ReplyDeleteI believe that, politically, Argentina during the 1930s was more violent than the United States and Canada. Argentina was ruled by a military dictatorship that were ruthless to those who opposed them. When the Depression came it, “ quieted industrial unrest and either fear or indifference weakened overt political opposition.” Though the politicians may have, “introduced substantial reforms,” in order to get Argentina out of the Great Depression, I think it was overshadowed by their brutal assassination attempts to get rid of political opponents. I believe what made Argentina so unstable in the 1930s was the military coup that occurred, appointing Jose Felix Uriburu as president. In the 1930s, there was a political strategy called the Concordancia, which did relatively little. “The biggest demonstrations in Buenos Aires in the 1930s were those at the funerals of Yrigoyen in 1934 and the much-beloved tango dancer Carlos Gardel two years later.”
ReplyDeleteDuring the 1930's Argentina was much more prone to violence and aggressive actions against the people and its government. This was mainly caused by the oppressive nature of the Argentine government and the constant coups by leaders of the military. I think Argentina needed a more unified population (obviously) to achieve more stability. However, I think that it is necessary for certain countries to use oppression and violence to a certain point so they do not fail. In other words, for many developing countries to achieve industrialization "the end justifies the means"
ReplyDeleteThe experience in Argentina was more violent than what we have studied in the United States and Canada since there were coups and riots happened. Military coups were really one major thing that caused instability and violence. I think what Argentina should do it to unify the government and military (I really believe that military is a big section) and learned what other developed countries do so it can have more ideas of solving problems. They should consider removing dictatorship because people need to be able to act and response to those problems so economy can recover better. At the same time, innovation in politic is also important because it may change the future of a country, if one country stuck in the same old situation over and over, it is time to consider reforming the system.
ReplyDeleteThe government was definitely more violent than America and Canada. Typically, dictatorships are more violent because of the total control of one leader. And with that power, more laws are put in place. The rebellions against the government became violent as resistance turned into mobs and riots, which were then have to put down by force by the government. Argentina needed more nationalism in order to get them out of the depression. Although diversity is good, it caused many different feelings, so no one was satisfied. If they were more of a pure nation, the nationalism could help them settle any disputes.
ReplyDeleteDuring this whole process Argentina was a mess. The experience in Argentina was much more violent than what we have studied in the United States and Canada. don't remember any violence during the 30s in US and Canada. Argentina was just being very unstable. Irigoyen was militarily coupped by Uriburu who became president. Not soon after, Uriburu suffered from cancer and retired. It was just too much power shifting which made the economy worse. I also do not think there were many other better political strategies.
ReplyDeleteThe "Infamous Decade" was full of corruption, under the dictatorship of the military. However, this period saw more direct government intervention in the economy and the urban middle classes were beginning to share in the power. In my opinion, I think the political instability was much more violent in Argentina than it was in the US or Canada. Sympathizers and potential opponents were attacked, tortured, and/or assassinated.
ReplyDeleteThere was a lot of changes in leadership, especially in corrupt leadership. To provide a more stable government, Argentina needed a just president, one that would actually help Argentina. Instead, there were ruthless dictatorships such as the military.
Argentina was so corrupt it was almost as if they did not have a government at the time because no one could trust it. I do think the experience was way more violent than what we have estudiad in the United States and Canada because the government was so unstable so there was drastic measures taken to get it back. As Phoebe said "sympathizers and potential opponents were attacked, tortured, and/or assassinated." This did not occur in the United States or Canada. I also agree with Laura in that they needed a serious president that wanted to fix and set new goals. Also I do not believe a dictatorship for any country would/will work so in that case I think they should have changed the style of government
ReplyDeleteI think there was a lot of political instability in argentina during the depression. Even before the depression there was instability. Their government was never really strong and their citizens weren't able to depend on a leader. Also, the citizens couldn't trust their leader and the military took over the government. That right there shows that they weren't very stable and had a lot of issues. I think this is way worse than canada and america because canada and america both had leaders the whole time who they could mostly trust. Also america had plans to get out of the depression and argentina didnt have any strong structured plans because they didnt even have a real leader that knew what he was doing.
ReplyDeleteI think that Argentina's experience was much more violent than in Canada and the US. I think the reason it was more violent was because they did not have a strong influential leader. The military could also not be trusted because they were under the rule of the dictatorship. When the rebellions happened the military had to either take their side or fight against them, and ultimately fought against. I think they needed a more stable government because there was so much corruption and unloyalty that they tried to put in laws to control the unruliness but that just caused more riots and rebellions.
ReplyDeleteThe Argentinean depression was definitely more violent because it was less industrialized and more impoverished. Despite Canada and the US being in a depression, they were still more economically stable and the country was more developed. There was also a democracy implemented in those countries and Argentina's dictatorship is more violent. Dictatorships typically use means of force to carry out their actions and that is not required in democracies. And there were more rebellions because they wanted to overthrow the government, and in the US and Canada, there was not as strong of a case of that.
ReplyDelete