Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T02:10:27.509Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Anglo-Argentine Connection and the War of 1914—19181

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Roger Gravil
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The hypothesis of Andre Gunder Frank that Latin America's underdevelopment is partly attributable to unequal exchange in economic relations with the advanced world includes the obverse proposition that Latin America's growth has been most substantial in periods such as wartime when links with the metropolitan countries were weakened. The most explicit statement of this view occurs in the book, Latin America: Underdevelopment or Revolution: … the satellites experience their greatest economic development and especially their most classically capitalist industrial development if and when their ties to their metropolis are weakest. This hypothesis is almost diametrically opposed to the generally accepted thesis that development in the underdeveloped countries follows from the greatest degree of contact with and diffusion from the metropolitan developed countries.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Latin American Studies , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , May 1977 , pp. 59 - 89
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 Frank, A. Gunder, Latin America: Underdevelopment or Revolution (New York, 1969), pp. 9–10.Google Scholar See also his Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America (New York, 1969) and Lumpen-Bourgeoisie and Lumpen-Development (New York, 1972).Google Scholar

3 Kirkpatrick, F. A., South America & the War (Cambridge, 1918), pp. 19–40 is very interesting on the position of German companies in South America.Google Scholar Also, Hauser, H., Germany's Commercial Grip on the World (London, 1917) especially Pt. 3.Google Scholar There is a good modern discussion in Small, M., ‘The United States and the German Threat to the Hemisphere 1905–1914’, The Americas, 28 (01 1972), p. 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Bailey, T. A., The Policy of the United States towards Neutrals 1917–18 (Baltimore, 1942), p. 306;Google ScholarSmith, G. Connell, The Inter-American System (Oxford, 1966), p. 55;Google ScholarRobertson, W. S., Hispanic American Relations with the United States (Oxford, 1923), pp. 412–16;Google Scholar and, more generally, Bott, E. J., El Comercio entre los Estados Unidos y América Latina durante la Gran Guerra (Buenos Aires, 1919);Google ScholarBarclay, G., Struggle for a Continent (London, 1972).Google Scholar

5 The Times History of the War (London, 1918), p. 29;Google ScholarPeterson, H. F., Argentina and the United States (New York, 1964), p. 309;Google ScholarStimson, F. J., My United States (New York, 1931) contains the American ambassador's reminiscences.Google Scholar

6 Extracted from The Argentine Annual (Buenos Aires, 1921), p. 303. It should be remembered that Britain's percentage was inflated by purchasing services' grain on behalf of France, Italy and also for certain neutral countries as explained in the text. Obviously, the official figures cannot disclose evasions.Google Scholar

7 Olson, M., The Economics of the Wartime Shortage (Duke, 1963), pp. 73–6.Google Scholar

8 Beveridge, W. H., Economic and Social History of the World War: British Food Control (London, 1928), p. 10.Google Scholar

9 London, Public Record Office, Archives of the Foreign Office (hereafter FO), 902/2, War Trade Intelligence Department (hereafter WTID) Weekly Bulletin, 12–18 Feb. 1916, p. 25;Google ScholarWTID Weekly Bulletin, 26 Feb. 3 Mar. 1916, p. 28; WTID Weekly Bulletin, 25–31 Mar. 1916, p. 24; FO 902/5 WTID Weekly Bulletin, 2 Sept. 1916, p. 39.Google Scholar

10 Nemirovsky, L., Estructura económica y orientación politica de la agricultura en la República Argentina (Buenos Aires, 1933) has a good account of the world-wide operations of these firms.Google Scholar

11 Compiled from FO 368/1203, 25 Oct. 1915; FO 368/786, Commercial Confidential No. 164, 30 July 1913.Google Scholar

12 FO 368/786, Tower to Grey, Commercial Confidential No. 164.Google Scholar

13 FO 371/2239, Tower to Grey, Annual Report 1914, p. 24. FO 371/2601, Tower to Grey, Annual Report 1915, p. 37.Google Scholar

14 FO 902/1, WTID Weekly Bulletin, 15–21 Jan. 1916.Google Scholar

15 FO 902/2, WTID Weekly Bulletin, 26 02–3 Mar. 1916, p. 28.Google Scholar

16 FO 902/2, WTID Weekly Bulletin, 4–10 Mar. 1916, p. 24.Google Scholar

17 FO 902/2, WTID Weekly Bulletin, 19–25 02 1916, p. 33.Google Scholar

18 The Argentine Annual (Buenos Aires, 1921), p. 303; FO 368/922, Argentine Republic, Commercial No. 68, 2 Mar. 1914.Google Scholar

19 FO 368/1203, Tower to Grey, Commercial No. 46, 23 Feb. 1915.Google Scholar

20 FO 368/928, Mackie to Tower, 7 Oct. 1914.Google Scholar

21 FO 368/1691, Tower to Balfour, Commercial No. 233, 11 June 1917.Google Scholar

22 FO 902/11, WTID Wcely Bulletin, 16–22 Mar. 1917, p. 45; FO 902/15, WTID Weekly Bulletin, 31 Aug–6 Sept. 1917, p. 41.Google Scholar

23 FO 902/6, WTID Weekly Bulletin, 23–29 Sept. 1916, p. 37; FO 833/17, Tower to Balfour, Commercial No. 377, 30 June. 1917, p. 58.Google Scholar

24 FO 368/5479, Board of Agriculture to Treasury, 7 July 1916.Google Scholar

25 FO 368/1479, Board of Agriculture to Treasury, 7 July 1916.Google Scholar

26 Mitchell, B. R. and Deane, P., Abstract of British Historical Statistics (Cambridge, 1962), pp. 100–1.Google Scholar

27 Compiled from the Annual Statements of Trade in B.P.P. The second figure is retained imports.Google Scholar

28 FO 833/16, Tower to Grey, Commercial No. 147, 30 Sept. 1916, p. 50; FO 371/2239, Argentine Republic, Annual Report 1914, p. 24; FO 368/1204, Tower to Grey, Commercial No. 90, 27 Mar. 1915.Google Scholar

29 FO 368/1204, Tower to Grey, Commercial No. 90, 27 Mar. 1915, Document prepared by Proctor, Garrett & Marston, 20 Mar. 1915.Google Scholar

30 FO 371/2601, Argentine Republic, Annual Report 1915; FO 368/1203, Tower to Grey, Commercial No. 345, 27 Oct. 1915.Google Scholar

31 FO 368/1204, Document prepared by Proctor, Garrett & Marston, 20 Mar. 1915.Google Scholar

32 FO 833/16, Foreign Trade Department (FTD) to Chambers of Commerce, 20 Jan. 1916.Google Scholar

33 FO 833/16, FTD Memorandum, 16 Nov. 1916.Google Scholar

34 FO 833/16, FTD to Chambers of Commerce, 20 Jan. 1916. The comment was made by L. Worthington Evans who continued ‘It is admitted that the Statutory List may prove effective in crippling German trade during the period immediately after the War and evidence is accumulating which gives ground for thinking that this will be the case. This being so, it is certain that the longer the War lasts the more crippled will German commerce be after the War, because the effects of the Statutory List are necessarily slow and cumulative in their operation and require time to be fully developed.’Google Scholar

35 FO 833/16, FTD Memorandum, 16 Nov. 1916. The Chilean nitrate story is discussed in Couyoumdjian, J. R., ‘Anglo-Chilean Economic Relations during the First World War and its Aftermath, 1914–1920’, (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, London, 1975).Google Scholar

36 FO 368/928, Spenser Dickson to Tower, 14 Oct. 1914.Google Scholar

37 Braden, S., Diplomats and Demagogues (New York, 1971), p. 58.Google Scholar

38 FO 833/17, Memorandum on the Statutory List policy in the Argentine Republic, 1 Oct. 1916–30 June 1917; FO 833/16, Tower to Grey, Commercial No. 147, 30 Sept. 1916; Estanislao Zeballos was a director of La Prensa at this time. His book, The Emergency Legislation of Warring Nations (Cleveland, 1916) was widely relied upon by the opposition to British policy.Google Scholar

39 FO 902/4, WTID Weekly Bulletin, 1–7 July 1916, pp. 33–4.Google Scholar

40 FO 833/17, Memorandum on the Statutory List policy in the Argentine Republic, 1 Oct. 1916–30 June 1917.Google Scholar

41 FO 833/16, Tower to Grey, commercial No. 147, 30 Sept. 1916, p. 72.Google Scholar

42 FO 833/16, Tower to Grey, Commercial No. 147. 30 Sept. 1916, pp. 3–7, 12, 20, 44, 50.Google Scholar

43 The strength of anti-semitism in Argentina in this period owed something to resentment against the grain companies.Google Scholar

44 FO 833/16, Tower to Grey, Commercial No. 147, 30 Sept. 1916, p. 51.Google Scholar

45 FO 833/16, Tower to Grey, Commercial No. 147, 30 Sept. 1916, p. 51.Google Scholar

46 FO 368/1479, Tower to Grey, Commercial No. 194, 2 June 1916; FO 902/3, WTID Weekly Bulletin, 3–9 June 1916, p. 27.Google Scholar

47 FO 368/1479, Tower to Grey, Commercial No. 24, 5 June 1916.Google Scholar

48 Statistics for German tonnage impounded in Latin American ports appear in WTID Weekly Bulletin, 20–26 04 1917, p. 40; FO 368/1479, Tower to de Bunsen, 4 Aug 1916.Google Scholar

49 FO 368/1479, de Bunsen to Tower, 26 Sept. 1916.Google Scholar

50 FO 371/16544, Macleay to FO, 4 July 1933, D. Kelly commented that Irigoyen ‘… was hated by Sir Reginald Tower as a result of his relations with H.M. 's Legation during the war and we regarded him in 1919 as not merely an enemy but as corrupt ’, p. 260. R. C. Craigie added that Irigoyen ‘… was primarily responsible for keeping Argentina from joining the Allies during the War ’, p. 260; FO 371/3504, Tower to Balfour, No. 44, 9 Apr. 1919, pp. 5–12; FO 371/3110, memorandum by a resident of Argentina, 15 Apr. 1918 include bank statements which were circulated among foreign diplomats in Buenos Aires purporting to show that Irigoyen along with Honorio Pueyrredón, Alfredo Demarchi and others were permitted large overdrafts by the Banco Germánico Transatlántico, FO 371/16544, 4 July 1933. An unidentified hand in the British Foreign Office wrote, ‘A good riddance ’ when Irigoyen died on 3 July 1933, p. 260. FO 368/1479, Tower to FO, Commercial, No. 394, 26 Oct. 1916.Google Scholar

51 FO 368/1479, Royal Commission on Wheat Supplies to FO 27 Dec. 1916.Google Scholar

52 FO 368/1479, Board of Agriculture to Treasury, 7 July 1916.Google Scholar

53 First Report of the Royal Commission on Wheat Suppliers, BPP.XVIII, 1.Google Scholar

54 Ibid., I.

55 MAF 60/1, File N. Cereals 3. The prominent Anglo-Argentine, Sir Herbert Gibson, received his knighthood for his work in the wartime grain trade.Google Scholar

56 The standard authorities on shipping are Fayle, C. E., History of the Great War: Seaborne Trade (2 vols., London, 1920);Google ScholarFayle, C. E., Economic and Social History of the World War: The War and the Shipping Industry (London, 1927);Google ScholarSalter, J. A., Economic and Social History of the World War: Allied Shipping Control (London, 1925).Google Scholar

57 FO 368/1690, Tower to Balfour, Commercial No. 124, 27 Mar. 1917.Google Scholar

58 FO 368/1690, Tower to Balfour, Commercial No. 127, 28 Mar. 1917, FO 902/11 WTID Weekly Bulletin 23–29 03 1917, p. 38;Google Scholar FO 902/12 WTID Weekly Bulletin 20–26 Apr. 1957, p. 40.Google Scholar

59 FO 902/12, WTID Weekly Bidletin, 20–26 June 1917, pp. 40–1; FO 368/1690, Tower to Balfour, Commercial No. 160, 19 Apr. 1917; FO 902/11, WTID Weekly Bulletin 13–19 Apr. 1917, p. 37; FO 902/12 WTID Weekly Bulletin, 3–10 May 1917, p. 40; FO 902/12, WTID Weekly Bulletin, 11–17 May 1917, p. 40; For pressure from English flour interests, Parliamentary Debates: Commons, xcv, 25 June-13 July 1917, Tyson Wilson to Lord Cecil, 5 Mar. 1917, p. 1259.Google Scholar

60 FO902/13, WTID Weekly Bulletin, 8–14 June 1917, p. 38.Google Scholar

61 FO 902/15, WTID Weekly Bulletin, 24–30 Aug 1917, pp. 38–9; FO 902/35, WTID Weekly Bulletin, 31 Aug-6 Sept 1917, p. 41.Google Scholar

62 FO to Royal Commission on Wheat Supplies, 18 June 1917; FO 902/15, WTID Weekly Bulletin, 24–30 Aug. 1917, p. 38; FO 902/16, WTID Weekly Bulletin, 7–13 Sept. 1917, p. 34.Google Scholar

63 There are two general accounts. Surface, F. M., The Grain Trade during the World War (New York, 1928)Google Scholar and Coller, F. H., A State Trading Venture (Oxford, 1925)Google Scholar, FO 902/17, WTID Weekly Bulletin, 9–15 Nov. 1917, p. 42; FO 902/19, WTID Weekly Bulletin, 4–10 Jan. 1918, p. 28.Google Scholar

64 First Report of the Royal Commission on Wheat Supplies. British Parliamentary Papers (BPP), xviii (1921), pp. 64–5 gives a printed version of the formal terms of the Loan Convention. Another prominent Anglo.Argentine, Sir Hilary Leng, got his knighthood as adviser to the British on Argentine wheat.Google Scholar

65 FO 902/18, WTID Weekly Bulletin, 7–13 Dec. 1917, p. 42.Google Scholar

66 First Report of the Royal Commission on Wheat Supplies, BPP xviii (1923), p. 28. There was no maximum price for Oats which were indispensable for army forage.Google Scholar

67 FO 902/19, WTID Weekly Bulletin, 21–27 Dec. 1917, p. 36; FO 902/19, WTID Weekly Bulletin, 28 Dec-3 Jan. 1918, p. 29.Google Scholar

68 F0902/18, WTID Weekly Bulletin, 23–29 Nov. 1917, p. 40.Google Scholar

69 FO 902/18, WTID Weekly Bulletin, 14–20 Dec. 1917, p. 39.Google Scholar

70 FO 368/1876, Tower to FO, Commercial, No. 77, 24 Feb. 1918; FO 371/3130, Tower to FO, 11 Feb. 1918; James, William, The Eyes of the Navy: A Biographical Study of Admiral Sir Reginald Hall (London, 1955), pp. 158–9 for the obstruction of the wheat trade by labour problems, Irigoyen's inactivity and British interference. Hall also recommended the British Cabinet to pay £120,000 in bribes to secure Argentina's declaration of war. The expenditure of £20,000 for this purpose was authorized by the British Cabinet and the details were left to Sir Edward Carson, who, of course, failed, CAB 23/13, War Cabinet 290A, 4 Dec. 1917.Google Scholar

71 First Report of the Royal Commission on Wheat Supplies. BPP, XVIII (1921), p. 28, states ‘Had it not been for a loan contracted with Argentina in 1918 we should have been embarrased to provide funds for the large cereal purchases in the River Plate’, p. 13.Google Scholar

72 FO 902/20, WTID Weekly Bulletin, 1–7 Feb. 1918, p. 32; FO 902/20, WTID Weekly Bulletin, 7–14 June. 1918, p. 39; FO 902/23, WTID Weekly Bulletin, 17–23 May 1918, p. 22.Google Scholar

73 FO 371/3130, Tower to FO, 23 mar. 1918; FO 902/21, WTID Weekly Bulletin, 15–21 Mar. 1918, p. 27.Google Scholar

74 FO 902/21, WTID Weekly Bulletin, 29 Mar-4 Apr. 1918, pp. 34–5.Google Scholar

75 FO902/24, WTID Weekly Bulletin, 28 June-4 July 1918, p. 32.Google Scholar

76 FO 902/25, WTID Weekly Bulletin, 19–25 July 1918, p. 44.Google Scholar

77 The following five tables have been extracted from Ministeerio de Agricultura, Anuria agropecuario 1935 (Buenos Aires, 1935), pp. 268–72.Google Scholar

78 Extracted from Jones, E. G., ‘The Argentine Refrigerated Meat Industry’, Economica, 9 (1920), P. 170. These figures pre-date the ‘First Meat War’ of Apr. 1913 to Apr. 1914.Google Scholar

79 The name of H.M. Government was removed from the meat contracts in response to a request by the Argentine Government for the same reasons as in the grain trade. But because there was never a formal agreement between the two governments on meat, parallel to the one in the cereals trade, the fiction was maintained that the Orient Steamship Co. was the purchaser of all meat really intended for the Allied armed forces. FO 368/927, Tower to FO, 29 Sept. 1914. Beveridge, W. H., Economic and Social History of the World War: British Food Control (London, 1928), p. 10.Google Scholar

80 Lloyd, E. M. H., Economic and Social History of the World War: Experiments in State Control (London, 1924)Google Scholarand Wood, T. B., The National Food Supply in Peace and War (Camb., 1917)Google Scholar give a thorough account of these developments while there are some personal, and embittered, reminiscences in Beveridge, W. H., Power and Influence (London, 1953).Google Scholar

81 FO 368/1689, BOT to FO 9 Jan. 1917; FO 375/2239, Argentine Republic, Annual Report 1914, pp. 52–3. Hanson, S. G., Argentine Meat and the British Market (New York, 1937), p. 197 comments ‘On the whole the Plate packers fared better than the Australians. Plate shippers could ship 20 per cent on their own account and sell it to civilian consumers.’ However (I) Argentine-owned plants were denied most of the benefits from private trade, (2) the Australians benefited in other ways from imperial preference, (3) Australia, after all, was a belligerent nation while Argentina was neutral.Google Scholar

82 Compiled from the Annual Statements of Trade in B.P.O. The second figure is retained imports.Google Scholar

83 FO 368/1203, ‘Memorandum for Sir Reginald Tower prepared by Carlos Tornquist’, 21 Sept. 1915.Google Scholar

84 MAF 60/436, Meat Supplies. A committee of ministers was appointed to plan post-war meat supplies. In addition to expanding River Plate trade, it was agreed that the British & Argentine Meat Co. (Vestey's) should establish a branch in Brazil with a loan of £200,000 from the British Treasury. R. B. Cunninghame Graham, who wrote a book on the viceroyalty of New Granada, was commissioned to investigate meat production in Colombia and reported that prospects for expansion were excellent. FO 368/1688, BOT to FO, Apr. 1917.Google Scholar

85 Originally proposed by the socialists in Feb. 1915 for grain as well as meat. FO 371/2601, Argentine Republic, Annual Report 1915, p. 38; proposed again in Jan. 1917. FO 368/1689, BOT to FO, 9 Jan. 1917; FO 902/9 WTID Weekly Bulletin, 12–18 Jan 1917, p. 50; Congress was prorogued in March without approving the duty. FO 368/1689, Tower to FO, 6 Mar. 1917.Google Scholar

86 FO 368/1877, Tower to FO, Commercial No. 137, 27 Feb. 1918; FO 902/21, WTID Weekly Bulletin, 1–3 Mar. 1918, p. 39.Google Scholar

87 FO 368/1877, Tower to FO, Commercial No. 57, 7 Feb. 1918.Google Scholar

88 FO 368/1877, MOF to FO, 16 Apr. 1918.Google Scholar

89 Hanson, S. G., Argentine Meat and the British Market, p. 207.Google Scholar The 1913 figures date from during the ‘First Meat War

90 Extracted from Economic Commission for Latin America (CEPAL), El desarrollo económico de la Argentina (México, 1959), parte 1, 18.Google Scholar

91 Extracted from the Argentine Annual (Buenos Aires, 1921), p. 303.Google Scholar

92 FO 833/16, Memorandum prepared by the Foreign Trade Dept., 16 Nov. 1916, p. 45.Google Scholar

93 FO 833/16, Tower to Grey, Commercial No. 147, 30 Sept. 1916.Google Scholar

94 FO 833/16, Tower to Grey, Commercial No. 147, 30 Sept. 1916. The first was linked with the Deutsche Ueberseeische Bank of Berlin and the second with the Dresdner Bank.Google Scholar

95 FO 833/18, Tower to Grey, Trading with Enemy, Confidential, 14 Sept. 1915, p. 2.Google Scholar

96 FO 833/17, Tower to Balfour, Commercial No. 377, 30 June 1917, p. 59; FO 902/14, WTID Weekly Bulletin, 29 June-5 July 1917, p. 46.Google Scholar

97 FO 833/18, Tower to Grey, Trading with Enemy, Confidential, 14 Sept. 1915, p. 2.Google Scholar

98 FO 902/26, WTID Weekly Bulletin, 6–12 June 1918, p. 21.Google Scholar

99 FO 902/27, WTID Weekly Bulletin, 27 Sept.-3 Oct. 1918, p. 34.Google Scholar

100 FO 902/27, WTID Weekly Bulletin, 11–17 Oct. 1918. p. 27.Google Scholar

101 FO 833/16, Memorandum by the Foreign Trade Department 16 Nov. 1916.Google Scholar

102 Extracted from CEPAL, El desarrollo económico de la Argentina (México, 1959).Google Scholar

103 Extracted from CEPAL, El desarrollo econdmico de la Argentina, Pt. 2, p. 258.Google Scholar

104 The recent study by Jorge, E. F., Industria y conccntración económica (Buenos Aires, 1971) is influenced by Gunder Frank's ideas, but much more concerned with the Second World War than the First.Google Scholardi Tella y, G.Zymelman, M., Las etapas del desarrollo económico argcntino (Buenos Aires, 1967) adds a sixth stage to Rostow's scheme for Argentina called ‘la demora’ and dated 1914 to 1933. The republic's main industrial historian, A. Dorfman, was unimpressed with the wartime performance of the industrial sector.Google Scholar See Historia de la industria argentina (Buenos Aires, 1942). The 1970 edition still takes the same view. Also Evolución industrial argentina (Buenos Aires, 1942).Google Scholar Thus, the main points under challenge are; that during the War of 1914–18 the Argentine economy experienced more metropolitan pressure than in peacetime, not less; that in the same period Argentine industry declined overall and resumed growth in the peaceful 1920s. Further research which is to appear in the monograph by Gravil, Roger, The Anglo-Argentine Connection 1900–1939, seeks to show that, in important senses, the republic did not experience economic isolation or much industrial growth in the 1930s either. In fact, Gunder Frank's thesis can be turned on its head for Argentina.Google Scholar

105 Extracted from CEPAL, El desarrollo económico de la Argentina, Pt. 2, p. 15.Google Scholar

106 The percentages are taken from CEPAL, El desarrollo económico de la Argentina, This issue of the Journal was in the press when the attention of the Editors was drawn to the fact that the article by Gravil, Dr, with but monor differences, had already been published as ‘Argentina and the First World War’, in the Revista de História (São Paulo), vol. liv, No. 108 (otubro-dezembro, 1976), pp. 385–417.Google Scholar