AHC: Peron leads Argentina in WWII.

So, something I see a lot are non argentinians who think that Peron led Argentina in WWII, something he didn't, he only got elected in '46.

I have been wondering how could we get to have him to lead Argentina in WWII and also to think about the consequences of such thing.

In my eyes one interesting thing is that Peron is so adaptable that depending of how he takes power he can be completely different. In a scenario where Uriburu does turn Argentina into a fascist dictatorship in 1930 and Peron gets to power as a sucessor of that regime he will end being pro axis, while a Peron that somehow gets in power overthrowing that regime could be pro allies.

What do you think?
 
So, something I see a lot are non argentinians who think that Peron led Argentina in WWII, something he didn't, he only got elected in '46.

I have been wondering how could we get to have him to lead Argentina in WWII and also to think about the consequences of such thing.

In my eyes one interesting thing is that Peron is so adaptable that depending of how he takes power he can be completely different. In a scenario where Uriburu does turn Argentina into a fascist dictatorship in 1930 and Peron gets to power as a sucessor of that regime he will end being pro axis, while a Peron that somehow gets in power overthrowing that regime could be pro allies.

What do you think?
The Argentine Government did try to join the allies after River plate but word got out and their was enough people who wished to remain neutral and perhaps a tiny handful who were pro axis that the government was obliged to back down and they eventually had to wait until near the end of the war to join the allies

Still many thousands of Argentines joined the Allies (mostly Britain) and even paid for a fighter squadron via public subscription
 
If Argentina did join, what would the feasibility be of the US funding and equipping a South American Expeditionary Corps, to serve in Italy? Brazil historically sent an infantry division to Italy, I would have to think Argentina could provide one as well, and I know Mexico contributed a fighter squadron. Colombia and Bolivia entered the war in (IIRC) 1944.

If such a Corps could be formed, the US could conceivably have earmarked II Corps to France, where 34th, 88th and 91st ID could have been very usefully employed (assuming supply issues could be overcome).

Politically, I think 5th Army would have to continue to be American led, with US VI Corps, South American Corps, a French Corps and IIRC British X Corps, although TBH I would rather see the entire 5th Army HQ with VI Corps swapped to Europe and relegate Italy to a British/French led affair.

How far into la-la land am I?
 
If Argentina did join, what would the feasibility be of the US funding and equipping a South American Expeditionary Corps, to serve in Italy? Brazil historically sent an infantry division to Italy, I would have to think Argentina could provide one as well, and I know Mexico contributed a fighter squadron. Colombia and Bolivia entered the war in (IIRC) 1944.

If such a Corps could be formed, the US could conceivably have earmarked II Corps to France, where 34th, 88th and 91st ID could have been very usefully employed (assuming supply issues could be overcome).

Politically, I think 5th Army would have to continue to be American led, with US VI Corps, South American Corps, a French Corps and IIRC British X Corps, although TBH I would rather see the entire 5th Army HQ with VI Corps swapped to Europe and relegate Italy to a British/French led affair.

How far into la-la land am I?
A cute what-if la-la idea:

 
Top