WI the 1941 Ecuadorian–Peruvian War was integrated with WWII

[Namaste]

Who would the Allies and Axis side with?

Would any other surrounding countries get involved, leading to a new front?

[mailinutile2]

I do not known of the real alignment, but a japan-aligned ecuador would make the Panama situation relly interesting

[Tizoc]

It was an over-grown border clash. I don't see how it could be integrated into WW2.

[Namaste]

Originally Posted by Tizoc

It was an over-grown border clash. I don't see how it could be integrated into WW2.

Hence why this is a WI thread.

[Whanztastic]

Yeah but integrated how? Which nation would siphon of supplies, etc. to this front? Doesn't seem worth it.

[DValdron]

Hmmm.

Well, its not like the Germans and the Japanese were supplying each other.

A quick check suggests that Ecuador was ruled by a not terribly stable pseudo-fascist military junta.

Unfortunately for them, it seems that they had no planning, no logistics and no real clue as to how to run a war.

Fortunately for them Peru wasn't really interested in fighting a war.

Okay, but let's assume a POD of an Ecuadorian Junta which was smarter, more solidly rooted, more competent, and both more mililtarily and diplomatically skilled.

So this Junta V.2.0 decides on a war with Peru, and actually has some plan to pursue it competently and win. How does that work?

Well, more and better prep, obviously, better logistics, perhaps a more aggressive style of warfare. Arms purchases and military advisors from the Fascist countries, Italy, German or Japan. Actually, maybe Italy is the point of entry - after all, Mussolini was all about grand and foolish foreign adventures. He might well have gotten a few jollies trying to meddle in South America... particularly while the US was occupied with the depression.

But even so, Ecuador is pretty small compared to Peru. A serious knock down war would amount to a big swat.

So what's Ecuador's Schlieffen plan? The only way to guarantee victory over Peru is to make sure that Peru can't bring its whole force to bear. Make it fight a two front war.

Who has a grudge against Peru? Bolivia. Bolivia fought wars with Peru and Chile and ended up losing its coastal provinces. A hundred and fifty years later, they still bitch about it.

So (and I really don't know much about the Bolivian politics of the time so I can't assess likelihood), suppose that there's a secret treaty between the Ecuadorians and the Bolivians, just in case war breaks out with Peru.

The Ecuador/Peru war breaks out. Bolivia joins in. Peru is fighting a two front war.

Peru has a lot harder time of it. The Bolivian front bogs down in trench warfare, but the Ecuadorians penetrate deep and do enough damage that the Peruvians have to mobilize big time.

The Peruvians push back - and suddenly, they're marching down the the road to Ecuador. The Junta gets pushed to collapse. The Peruvians go for it.

The Columbians are unwilling to see the Peruvians overrun all of Ecuador. Regional balance of power and all that. They issue a warning. The Peruvians ignore it. Suddenly, Columbia enters the war and Columbian forces are fighting Peruvians in Ecuador.

Argentina and Brazil are staying out of it or the time being, no interests in the region.

I don't believe that Venezuala has any scores to settle with Columbia, so they probably don't go in.

Chile, I believe has fought wars with Peru and Bolivia in the past, but I don't see them as having much of an advantage to joining in, and I don't see either side having an interest in dragging them in. The Peruvians have their hands full. The Bolivians are probably not doing well enough to pick another fight.

But who knows. Maybe the Bolivians see an advantage to opening up the fight to Chile. The world is full of spectacularly bad judgement.

Paraguay fought an ugly little war over the Chaco with Bolivia. But I don't think that's going to re-ignite.

The wild card that meshes the sordid little Andean conflicts with WWII is Columbia. In particular, its Panama and the Panama Canal.

A generation ago, the United States basically raped Panama into existence from Columbia to build the Canal. Now its a linchpin of American power - particularly naval power.

The United States is sitting there watching a full scale latin American war rage up and down the Andean coast, and one of the combatants is within spitting distance of the Canal... and may have unresolved grudges.

Pearl Harbour happens. The US declares war on Japan. Germany declares war on the US, and its on.

The Peruvians, who care not completely stupid, declare war on Japan as well, prompting Japan and Germany to declare war back. Columbia suddenly finds itself on the Axis side.

The United States, perceiving at the very least a potential security threat to the canal rushes in and fortifies Panama. Unkind words are said, there's one of those border incidents that normally no one ever gives a rats ass about, and suddenly the US is officially at war with the Columbian Axis.

Brazil joins as a gesture of solidarity. In our timeline, they declared war on Germany just to be there, but didn't do much. This is pretty similar here.

For a few months, nothing much happens. Bolivia stays in trench warfare, Columbia and Peru slug it out. The Columbians see the writing on the wall and are trying to negotiate an armistice. The Peruvians also see the writing on the wall and are having none of it. American involvement is limited to fortifying the Canal, shore bombardment and some air raids.

Then the American war machine revs up - first stop Columbia. Columbia folds, Peruvian forces race through the country. In the south, Brazil opens a second front with Bolivia, which speedily surrenders.

Then its 1943 and on to the main events in Europe and the Pacific.

How big a war was this? Not all that huge comparatively - the Latin American countries were poor and undeveloped compared to Europe, they didn't have much infrastructure, not much in the way of military forces, not much industrialisation.

So the forces arrayed against each other are comparatively small and somewhat out of date, the war lasts as long as it does because the parties have such difficulty getting their forces in the field. We're looking at dollops of wars past - Trench warfare, some aerial stuff, a lot of horse cavalry, and a lot of infantry, not much armour or artillery, no naval to speak of.

Peru comes out the big winner - reorganizes the vanquished nations, Ecuador, Columbia, Bolivia and itself into an Andean confederacy - Gran Columbia Mark II. Maybe Chile or Venezuala throw in, probably not. American acquiescence is bought by repudiating all claims on Panama.

[Whanztastic]

Originally Posted by DValdron

Hmmm.

Well, its not like the Germans and the Japanese were supplying each other.

Well, because that makes sense. The Germans and Japanese offering assistance hampers the Allied effort. Why would the any the major powers bother getting involved? Would Japan really try get arms across the Pacific to South America when they're fighting an all out war on two fronts? Same with Germans. Why would the United States bother getting involved in any other efforts that were not Axis-involved.

My point is - it is a completely separate conflict that just happened to occur at the same time as the the largest conflict in history. This does not mean that there is any reason they are connected nor does it mean that either side would bother getting involved when they are already involved in such a large conflict.

Brazil was the only S. American country that was even involved in WWII and if they did not bother getting involved in this conflict, it does not make sense. I'm sorry.

[DValdron]

Originally Posted by Whanztastic

Well, because that makes sense. The Germans and Japanese offering assistance hampers the Allied effort. Why would the any the major powers bother getting involved? Would Japan really try get arms across the Pacific to South America when they're fighting an all out war on two fronts? Same with Germans. Why would the United States bother getting involved in any other efforts that were not Axis-involved.

You've missed my point. The Japanese and the Germans weren't allies except in the most nominal sense. There was simply no geographical proximity or overlap between them that allowed one to offer significant aid or support material or supplies to the other.

Japan hoovered up Dutch, British and French territories left undefended during the war, but on the other hand, it was not at war with the USSR until the last days. Germany never declared war on China. Essentially, the European war and Asian war were two basically unrelated theatres.

The United States was a meddler in the European conflict, and a threat to Japan. When it was attacked, it took advantage of that to become formally involved in both.

My point is - it is a completely separate conflict that just happened to occur at the same time as the the largest conflict in history. This does not mean that there is any reason they are connected nor does it mean that either side would bother getting involved when they are already involved in such a large conflict.

This is an alternate history site? The question is, could different circumstances have resulted in what is, in our time, a brief and local conflict becoming larger and more protracted and entangled as a nominal theatre in the whole shmozzle we call WWII.

[The Vulture]

Given how separate the Pacific and Western Theaters were, I think the idea of a separate but nominally related South American theater makes sense mostly as a proxy war with the US protecting their Panamanian interests and possibly the British protecting Guiana.

Could the US maybe talk Mexico or Nicaragua into supplying troops to free up some for use in the more pressing theaters of war?

[DValdron]

There's an argument to be made that WWII was actually a series of entangled wars featuring interlocking proponents.

Anyway, it seems to me that the entanglement of Latin American wars with WWII wouldn't be an axis connection, necessarily, but American security interests getting involved in the conflict.

[DValdron]

You know what? I just wanted to say that Namaste had a cool idea, and it has the potential to produce an intriguing and entertaining time line which would be a mile more interesting than endless goddammed American Civil War pissfests.

Nothing against the Civil War, but its been done to death, and its been a long time since anything interesting was done. People want to do those, fine. But let's at least be willing.

If I knew South American culture and history for the period better, or if I had time to research it and think it through properly, I'd love to. But I'm not in position.

If there's anyone who wants to follow this up, or even do some wild things with it, I'd love to read it.

One of the features of the Peruvian government of this time, was that it was actually reaching out to or giving some rights to the Quechua speaking Indian population who had traditionally been disenfranchised by the Spanish.

How would a serious war that demanded large social mobilisation and some industrialisation and infrastructure commitment have affected that trend?

Would it have resulted in a Spanish retrenchment? Or would we have seen a Quechua renaissance, possibly an end result of a Pseudo-Inca Empire?

Another aspect - given the geographical issues in the region, the population densities and the level of development, we'd probably see a mixture of just about every kind of warfare - Horse cavalry a la the napoleanics, mechanized railway warfare a la the boer or franco prussian, trench warfare a la the civil war or WWI, and even modern mechanized warfare. You'd see guerillas, massive logistics trains of llamas and alpacas up and down the andes, treacherous battles at mountain passes. It could just be a thrilling amount of fun.

I dunno, I just think that there's potential here for interesting things. It would be a shame if that potential was abandoned.

[The Vulture]

I also think it's an interesting idea that could make for a cool TL.

[Bill Cameron]

Originally Posted by DValdron

There's an argument to be made that WWII was actually a series of entangled wars featuring interlocking proponents.

DValdron,

And I think that's your best bet for a South American war to become "integrated" with WW2: One or more of the proponents get sucked into the wider war as a nominal ally of a major combatant and that places their opponents "sort of" on the other side. We're not looking at Romania or even Finland as a guide. We're looking at Thailand, which was a nominal Japanese ally from 1940 onwards, instead.

However, your suggestion of a war in which everyone in South America but Argentina and Brazil are fighting is just a bit too much. With the rest of the globe burning down and the idiocy of the Chaco War still very fresh in many minds, South America wisely played it's collective cards very close it's collective vest, so I think the governments there are going to just as wisely ignore the bugle calls.

So, how about this? The border skirmishes between Peru and Ecuador are nastier and last longer which leads to harder feelings on both sides. US diplomacy, which is more concerned with keeping a lid on things while vastly more important events are occurring elsewhere, fails to resolve the situation or even reduce the tensions. When December 7th rolls around and the Japanese go on their 6 month victory romp across the western Pacific, either Peru or Ecuador makes a fatal decision and decides to "ally" in some fashion with Japan.

Japan loves the idea as it should divert some US assets away from the Pacific and inks whatever understanding is hurriedly negotiated with the nation in question. Promises are made back and forth about military supplies and bases, but Japan cannot realistically lift cargo or forces that far across the Pacific. Maybe an IJN submarine or two visit some sleepy tropical Pacific port but little else actually makes the trip. The side that didn't cozy up to Japan screams blue bloody murder and the US now has to intervene.

The Canal is never in any real danger; the US simply has too many forces stationed there. Japan's new "ally" however needs to be dealt with in some fashion. The other side in the sputtering border spat gets put on the Lend Lease list, maybe a few squadrons of obsolescent aircraft dispatched southward instead of to the boneyard, and the USN makes a series of rather forceful visits along certain coastlines.

The "Andean Ally" exists in a limbo of some sort for a year or two. It's no longer a threat to the other side, but the other side hasn't the operational acumen to actually launch a war winning offensive either. Like Bangkok in Thailand, a few Allied bombing raids visit the Andean Ally's capital, a USN blockade of sorts stops most of the limited trade the nation had before the war, and again like Thailand, the political elites watch Japan begin to stumble, watch the Allied bombs fall on their villas, and start planning a coup.

By '43 or early '44 it's all over. Japan's Andean Ally never declared war on the US or, if it did, the US took care not to notice just as occurred with Thailand. When the government who allied with Japan is forced out, by any of a number of methods, the new government immediately and unilaterally declares peace. The South American portion of WW2 is now over.

The US won't be vindictive, again there are many more important things to deal with, but there will be some minor border adjustments in favor of the other side.

I should point out that either Peru or Ecuador can fill the role of Japan's Andean Ally. It just depends on which one you feel is ruled by the stupider junta.


Regards,
Bill

[mailinutile2]

sigh.
I was dreaming of a japan landing in southern america or even on panama

[Ward]

Just to make this War be more involved lets have the South Americans Nations Get into a Naval arms Race like the Did in the 1880-1890's .
And move the War back to 1938 and have Germany or Italy start sending Equpment to one side or the other . Lets have something like the Spanish Civil War in Latin America .
Rember Both France and Italy had Air Force delegations working in the countrys of South America during the 1920's-1930's .

[Bill Cameron]

Originally Posted by mailinutile2

sigh. I was dreaming of a japan landing in southern america or even on panama

mailinutile2,

Sadly, OTL Japan simply didn't have the sealift capacity to land or supply any number of troops in South America. Tokyo to Callao in Peru is roughly 15,000 kilometers and that's over a third of the roughly 40,000 kilometer circumference of the Earth. We're talking about a huge distance here.


A different Japan might have that capacity, but a different Japan would also mean a different "WW2".


Bill

[mailinutile2]

Originally Posted by Ward

Just to make this War be more involved lets have the South Americans Nations Get into a Naval arms Race like the Did in the 1880-1890's .
And move the War back to 1938 and have Germany or Italy start sending Equpment to one side or the other . Lets have something like the Spanish Civil War in Latin America .
Rember Both France and Italy had Air Force delegations working in the countrys of South America during the 1920's-1930's .

If I remember it correctly, Ciano had been ambassador in South America (I think Argentina, but I'm not sure) before being appointed to shangai

[lounge60]

Argentina,and for any reason he hated this country.

[IDR2009]

Well, I could proudly call my Grandfather a WW2 Vet (he fought in the Ecuadorian-Peruvian war ), but the chances of him living through all of is probably slim (which means I never get born > )

I'm pretty sure Peru would have been Japan's ally in South America, since they had a good amount of Japanese People living there, and Ecuador being friendly to the US.

[DValdron]

Originally Posted by Bill Cameron

However, your suggestion of a war in which everyone in South America but Argentina and Brazil are fighting is just a bit too much. With the rest of the globe burning down and the idiocy of the Chaco War still very fresh in many minds, South America wisely played it's collective cards very close it's collective vest, so I think the governments there are going to just as wisely ignore the bugle calls.

Bill, I think that if there is one thing I've learned, its that there really is absolutely no limit to the human capacity for bad judgment. In my years on this planet, I've watched a Queen's Bench Judge get nicked for stealing doorknobs from the Courthouse, another get nicked for trying to sneak past airport security, and a respected physician who left death threats on an answering machine. I've watched the largest retailer in Canada - Eatons, a company that once dominated 65% of the Canadian retail market, with billions of dollars in prime real estate space free and clear in every Canadian downtown, piss it all away into bankruptcy. I've watched General Motors, the greatest auto maker in human history do the same thing. I've even watched a man burn down his own house while trying to scare a cat with a barbecue lighter.

So, how about this? The border skirmishes between Peru and Ecuador are nastier and last longer which leads to harder feelings on both sides.

There are two problems in our timeline with the Peru/Ecuador war getting out of hand.

First of all, neither government was really up for it. In particular, Ecuador was ruled by a junta that was held together with paper clips. They were a barely stable house of cards and kept most of their troops at home to avoid a coup or countercoup. The Ecuador government had only been in power for a couple of years, and they were only the latest installment of a series of Ecuador governments which seemed like a one of those comic opera Banana Republics. Ecuadorian politics were rife with divisions and there was very little social consensus.

The point is, even if Ecuador wanted or needed to go full scale, the fragile internal consensus simply wouldn't stand up to any sort of pressure.

In Peru we had a somewhat more stable government, but it was domestic oriented and fairly progressive in approach. It was far less a comic opera state - governments were civilian, emphasis was on infrastructure, politics were moderate. It was essentially inward looking. Border issues simply did not consume its attention.

Indeed, if you look at the recent history of Peru at that time, it had signed off on its border issues with Chile from the war of the Pacific in 1929, and it had basically resolved on friendly terms another mini-war with Columbia in 1931-33 where everyone had kissed and made up.

Peru was arguably the toughest country in the region, but it just was not interested.

Now, throw in the great depression, factor in the relatively pathetic state of latin militaries of this time (Ecuador's military - about 2300. Peru's, about 11,500).... and the war they had was basically the most aggressive war they could manage.

Could we get something more ambitious?

Possibly - The stakes were actually pretty high. Ecuador in this micro-conflict ended up losing about half of its territory. Now maybe that territory was unoccupied hinterland, but still, that's substantial. It's worth noting that the 1932-33 Peru-Columbia war, which was something of a fizzle, left Columbia agreeing to Peruvian borders which flanked Ecuador and made the following conflict pretty much inevitable. Within the local context, there's plenty of room for bad blood, grudge matches and real issues.

But I think you need a POD in Ecuador going back at least a decade, because for a more serious war, you'd need an Ecuador with enough political stability that it could commit to a war and make a go of it.

I suppose we could mess with Peru - for instance, and posit that Socialist/Communist and Populist movements of the late 1920's and 1930's were able to merge, overcome the military, and essentially forge a communist/revolutionary state. Then you might have a situation where it gets embroiled in nastiness with its neighbors, with the US eventually weighing in.

But for now, I'll go with Ecuador.

1926, a guy named Ayora, who's a sort of FDR analogue, marries into one of the wealthiest families, gets elected and assumes dictatorial powers. He imports big brains from Princeton to help him run the country. He gets booted out in 1930 when the bottom drops out of the world economy.

But, supposing that Ayora is a slightly different personality. Suppose he takes his experts from Europe, importing Prussians or Brits, more focus on overall infrastructure, military reform and establishment. Ayora doesn't get booted out, but remains in office, consolidating power with a combination of nationalism and populism. When fascism in the 1930's seems to be the coming thing, he embraces that. So by the time the Peru-Ecuador war breaks out, it's a very different and much more capable Ecuador that's not willing to be bullied into losing half its territory.

Maybe? Hmmm?

Okay, how about this - From Wikipedia, History of Ecuador,

in 1931 ... Ayora was the victim of a military coup. Neptalí Bonifaz Ascázubi was then elected with the help of a quasi-fascist grouping of the serrano lower classes called the Consolidation of National Workers (Compactación Obrera Nacional). In August 1932, after various Liberal and leftist elements in Congress blocked Bonifaz's assumption of power, the Compactación fought a bloody four-day civil war against other paramilitary forces amassed by opponents of the president-elect. The latter were victorious, largely because the great majority of the government military forces remained in their barracks rather than defend Bonifaz.

After Bonifaz goes, there are elections, Martinez gets in, people cry fraud, Mera can't govern Ecuador is paralysed and within a year he's out. Velasco steps p in 1934, but he lasts 11 months and is overthrown by a military coup, which installs Paez. Paez lasts two years, ruling with the support of the right, then the left, then he gets kicked out by another coup in 1937. In comes former defense minister and social reformer Enriquez, he lasts until 1938. The next guy who takes office lasts about a year and dies of natural causes. Rio comes in November, 1939, but he's far from stable - he wins arguably fraudulent elections in 1940, and hangs on through a combination of repression and American money and support for almost 4 years. However, its the 1942 war that wrecks him. He's so unstable during the war that he keeps the balance of forces and the best troops in the capital for fear of a coup.

In short between 1930 and 1940, I'm counting seven different Presidents, one mini-civil war, two fraudulent elections, and four coups. With so much instability, Ecuador is literally unable to function - it can't enact or maintain coherent policies, plan for the future, organize itself effectively.

In 1931-33, the Columbia/Peru war takes place, and results in Peruvian border that flanks Ecuadorian claims. Bad news. In 1937-1938 boundary talks had broken down, and there were repeated border skirmishes. So the writing is very clearly on the wall. But Ecuador can't get an act together. It gets pwned militarily, and then gang-pwned diplomatically.

So, what we need is a coherent capable Ecuadorian government. Maybe that's Ayora, as I've noted.

But the best chance is Bonifaz in 1930. Bonifaz is probably the perfect candidate (from the little I know), military, quasi-fascist, populist, and with enough oomph that people actually went into the streets and fought. So, suppose Boniface squeaks through. Enough of the military leaves the barracks, his supporters fight just a bit harder, he wins.

In our timeline, most of his successors held on by pretty slender reeds. So if Bonifaz can win decisively, I'm going to assume that none of the rest of them amount to a serious challenge.

What does he do? Well, he's stuck dealing with the depression and a lot of social strife and hardship. That cramps anyone's style. But let's assume that he makes do, and enacts reasonably sensible, populist policies and manages to make the trains run on time. At the very least, coherent long term policies if they're relatively competent, may have better results than a revolving door.

What happens early in Bonifaz's tenure? The Columbia/Peru war, 1931-33. Now, this is pretty much Peru's fault, nearly as I can determine. It's about the jungle hinterland deep inland, so its practically happening on Ecuador's border.

The Columbia/Peru War is pretty small beans. Comic opera. Essentially, in 1922, there's a secret treaty that defines the border. The Peruvians find out about it and tear it up, moving troops in. The Columbians despite themselves, respond with military force. The Peruvians withdraw. The Dictator of Peru gets assassinated. The secret treaty becomes the official border.

Now, the Columbia/Peru war was small beans. But it had the potential to be nasty beans. Peru used aerial attacks and the war featured the first aerial combat in South America. This is from the Wikipedia article on Luis Miguel Sanchez Cerro, the Peruvian President:

By the end of September 1932, both Colombia and Peru were mobilizing men, money and munitions. On February 1933, at least three thousand Colombian troops with artillery and machine guns were deployed behind the Putumayo River, facing roughly equal Peruvian military forces. At Peru's Military Aviation School near Lima, President Sánchez approvingly inspected a brand new fleet of Douglas combat planes, just arrived from the United States. On April 30, 1933, while at Santa Beatriz racetrack, President Sánchez had just finished reviewing twenty thousand young recruits for Peru's undeclared war with Colombia, when Abelardo de Mendoza, a member of the suppressed APRA Party, shot him through the heart.

It seems both countries fighting blood was up. The Peruvians wanted more than they got. What they already under the secret treaty was bad news for Ecuador since it put the Peruvian border to the left of Ecuador's territory. Ecuador's Amazon claims were now surrounded on three sides by Peru.


So, what's Bonifaz going to do with this situation breaking out all around him. He can read a map. He knows the treaty sucks for him. He also knows that Peru is territorially aggressive against Columbia, and he's got his own territorial disputes with Peru.


So, Bonifaz has to throw in heavy and hard on the Columbian side. Probably not militarily, because he doesn't have anything. But that's going to be a definite wake up call for him. But he throws in heavily diplomatically, if he's got money, if he's got a way to support the Columbians, he'll move it. And most of all, he's not happy about the treaty and he's going to be talking it up as an insult to Columbian honour.


The war pretty much goes the same way as in our timeline, fizzles out and gets sorted by 1933 and 1934, but Bonifaz has managed to stir the pot so much that the Columbians come away a lot more bitter and nursing a grudge.


Okay, so timeline proceeds normally for a bit. Peruvian/Ecuadorian border negotiations break down in 1937. But this time, there's a guy in office in Ecuador who has had a stable regime for seven years, saw what happened a couple of years ago, and sees the writing on the wall. So he's arming up and preparing.


But he's also thinking strategically. A serious war with Peru... A war as serious as the Columbia/Peru war almost became, that's bad news.


Columbia isn't thrilled with Peru, so they're sympathetic and helpful. But they're not going to join in. Columbia won't move unless their strategic interests are under serious threat.... such as by an Ecuador collapse.


So what's he going to do? Circa 1938-1942?



Let's go take a look at Bolivia. Bolivia was the big shlump of Latin America. They'd lost a war with Chile in 1883 and lost their seacoast. They're still bitter about that. They cede territory officially to Chile in 1903, cede more territory to Brazil in 1904. 1932 to 1935, Bolivia fights and loses to the other shlump of latin America, Paraguay in the Chaco war.


Now, you'd think that the Chaco war would make Bolivia gun shy. Maybe it does. But people aren't always sensible. The Bolivians are an unstable, dispirited people with a discredited ruling class and all sorts of grudges. How does that sort of thing work out for Europe?


Now, the interesting thing about Bolivia is that once upon a time, believe it or not, they actually managed to win a war with someone. That's pretty astonishing. From Bolivian history, wikipedia:

Peruvian president General Agustín Gamarra invaded Bolivia. The Peruvian army was decisively defeated at the Battle of Ingavi on November 20, 1841, where Gamarra was killed. The Bolivian army under General José Ballivián then mounted a counter-offensive managing to capture the Peruvian port of Arica. Later, both sides signed a peace treaty, the Declaration of Independence of Bolivia, in 1842, putting a final end to the war.

Okay, now that could technically give some Bolivian nationalist a grudge against Peru and even some half baked claim on a Peruvian port, which would give Bolivia access to the sea, kind of a sore point.


Now, I know what you're thinking: "DValdron, why that's just plumb crazy to suggest that a self respecting latin American country would even contemplate military action on the basis of a flimsy century old ambiguous historical incident... why, that's just as crazy as Argentina deciding to invade the Falkland Islands."


I hang my head and admit that you're right. It's completely implausible. Especially the Falklands stuff.


Bolivia is a mess of conflicting parties and movements, depression, resentment, instability. Bonifaz goes down south, and stirs the pot. He spares a few dollars, he sends a few guns, he talks some inflammatory stuff.


This, of course, does not go without notice. This kind of crap gets around. The Peruvians notice it. They don't appreciate it. Relations worsen with Ecuador. And as a side effect, Peruvian/Bolivian relations worsen. Peru also meddles in Bolivian politics, but their message isn't nearly so appealing as Bonifaz... Bonifaz is basically talking up Bolivian pride and offering a seacoast. Peru's message is 'shaddup you bums, or you'll get whatfor.' Maybe they're a lot more diplomatic, and offer guns and money, but that's basically it.


Now, here we're on one histories cusps. Maybe Bolivia will do the sensible thing, take a lesson from the Chaco War, and mind its own business. Maybe my neighbor could have not burned his house down with a barbecue lighter while trying to punish the cat for peeing on the couch.


Or maybe it goes the other way. Relations get poor with Bolivia. Peru figures its got to keep troops on the southern border, just in case. In which case, Bonifaz is happy, even if nothing else happens, it ties down Peruvian forces.


Or maybe Bonifaz signs a secret treaty. 19th and early 20th century, secret treaties and backdoor deals were all the rage. I'm betting Bonifaz will be able to find someone to put a pen to paper in Bolivia. That person may be sincere, or maybe he's just shining Bonifaz on and cashing a cheque. But Bonifaz gets his secret treaty, and he puts enough covert money and ammo that his buddy rises high in Bolivian politics.


This is Bolivia, highly unstable, damned poor. Bonifaz doesn't have a lot of money or weapons to splash around. But Bolivia's so poor and volatile, that even a little goes a long way. Of course, Peru notices this as well. Indeed, Peru may even know about the secret treaty - hell, Bonifaz probably makes sure they get a copy, it's a major psych tactic.



For that matter, Bonifaz could just invent a nonexistent Bolivian treaty and make sure that the Peruvians get it, to fake them out. Bismarck did something similar for the Franco Prussian war. The idea is to lock the Peruvians down, keep them wary, tie up their troops and resources. Maybe provoke them into doing something stupid, like a pre-emptive attack on Bolivia.


Now, let's back it up a little bit - back to Ecuador.


I submit to you all that it is damned near a historical inevitability that an Ecuador/Peru war is going to have to happen. The territorial disputes and the outcome of the Columbian/Peru conflict guarantee that it does.


And if we accept a Bonifaz POD, then it is almost absolutely guaranteed that the Ecuador/Peru war will be longer, fiercer and bloodier than in our timeline. You can take that to the bank.


I further submit to you that in Bonifaz situation, meddling in Bolivian politics is not something that he is guaranteed to do. But it is something that makes perfect sense for him in his position. And that it is consistent with the sort of conduct that took place in Europe and Latin America during the 19th and early 20th centuries.


Finally, if we do assume that Bonifaz meddles in Bolivia, then there will be some sort of results or effects, given the delicacy of the situation.


So, ladies and gentlemen, I submit to you that in this time line, Bolivia hinges entirely upon a single moment of very bad judgement either by someone in Bolivia or someone in Peru.


History sits upon the flip of a coin.


And I firmly believe that people will always do the sensible thing.... once all the alternatives are exhausted.


So, one front war, guaranteed in any timeline. Nasty one front war, guaranteed in this timeline. Two front war? Pretty good bet. Plausible.

Bill Writes: US diplomacy, which is more concerned with keeping a lid on things while vastly more important events are occurring elsewhere, fails to resolve the situation or even reduce the tensions.

In our timeline, both Peru and Ecuador were strongly kissing American butt. The US at that time was ramping up for an anticipated Pacific war, and was actively engaged in diplomatically strong-arming a doublequickfast ceasefire and peace agreement. Unfortunately, Ecuador got bent over a table on this one, largely because Peru was the more valuable fish.


In this timeline, the US is likely to get heavily diplomatically involved. But at the same time, Ecuador is a lot less prone to go with the flow, so the US probably has a lot less influence over the situation.

When December 7th rolls around and the Japanese go on their 6 month victory romp across the western Pacific, either Peru or Ecuador makes a fatal decision and decides to "ally" in some fashion with Japan.

Possible. All it would take would be some seriously bad judgement on the part of someone. Spectacularly bad judgement. Falklands war judgement.


Off the top, I'm thinking that the US would tend to back Peru, as they mostly seemed to in this timeline. Bigger country, more population, more critical resources, etc. Which would push Ecuador into the other camp.

But would Bonifaz actually make that mistake and overtly ally with Japan? I suspect that he can look at a map the same as you and I can. My thinking is that his best option is to keep his nose clean and stay out of it. American involvement with Japan is a good thing in that it diverts American attention and resources. That's all he can really hope for.

So, let's say: 15% chance of spectacular stupidity. 30% chance of official neutrality but sympathy. 40% chance of not going anywhere near the mess. 15% chance of trying to go on board with the USA.

Japan loves the idea as it should divert some US assets away from the Pacific and inks whatever understanding is hurriedly negotiated with the nation in question. Promises are made back and forth about military supplies and bases, but Japan cannot realistically lift cargo or forces that far across the Pacific. Maybe an IJN submarine or two visit some sleepy tropical Pacific port but little else actually makes the trip. The side that didn't cozy up to Japan screams blue bloody murder and the US now has to intervene.

Entirely possible.

But I'll argue that perceptions of a cozy Peru/Colombia relationship may create enough insecurity about the Panama canal that this may trigger American concern.

Let's go back to Colombia/Ecuador relations under the Bonifaz timeline. Bonifaz supported Colombia strongly in the 1932-33 War. The outcome in this timeline left Colombia a bit more hostile, and a bit concerned about Peruvian action.

Back to Bonifaz-style realpolitik. He's got to know Bolivia is pretty unreliable. If he gets a two front war, gravy. If he gets Peru to lock some forces down on the Bolivian border patrol, gravy. But I don't think he can seriously expect the Bolivians to win.

Best outcome is that on a two front war, Peru has to sue for peace.

But he can't rely on that, he can't guarantee it. He can't even guarantee that Bolivia will even enter. And he can't guarantee that Bolivia will be a factor. They might fold fast. Or they might never play.

So his diplomatic back up has to be Colombia.

The trouble is that Colombia just doesn't have any real motivation, and there's no levers to manipulate them. They don't like Peru. But they're not going to go to war over it.

They'll only intervene if it looks like Ecuador is in trouble - ie, not a negotiated peace settlement, but actual military defeat and conquest.

Would it get to that point?

Usually with South American wars, they were for the most part, diffident. Governments that fought the wars were generally not conquered or overrun. If they lost, well, they'd come to bad ends later.

But let's look at Bonifaz - he fought and almost lost a mini-civil war to take and keep power. I'm pretty sure he's aware that if he goes out, its not going to be a gentle retirement. It's going to be feet first and people pissing on his corpse. So, he is, as they say, motivated to win.

Which means Ecuador fights hard. Which means a lot more bodies and blood, a lot more money expended. Which means the Peruvians get serious as well. Which means that this is one of those wars where its not nice and arms length, but aim for the nasty. Peru will want Bonifaz head on a stick, and they'll want their troops in Ecuador's capital... because they'll have a point to make.

Which means that there is a genuine chance that the war could spread to Colombia. Colombia's probably a friendly neutral. Perhaps a non-participating ally. But also, quite possibly at some later point, a combatant.

The Canal is never in any real danger; the US simply has too many forces stationed there.

Of course not. But hysteria and paranoia often overrules judgement. In the first months after the Japanese war began, people were rounding up Japanese immigrants and terrified of invasions of California.

Japan's new "ally" however needs to be dealt with in some fashion. The other side in the sputtering border spat gets put on the Lend Lease list, maybe a few squadrons of obsolescent aircraft dispatched southward instead of to the boneyard, and the USN makes a series of rather forceful visits along certain coastlines.

Plausible.

The "Andean Ally" exists in a limbo of some sort for a year or two. It's no longer a threat to the other side, but the other side hasn't the operational acumen to actually launch a war winning offensive either. Like Bangkok in Thailand, a few Allied bombing raids visit the Andean Ally's capital, a USN blockade of sorts stops most of the limited trade the nation had before the war, and again like Thailand, the political elites watch Japan begin to stumble, watch the Allied bombs fall on their villas, and start planning a coup.

By '43 or early '44 it's all over. Japan's Andean Ally never declared war on the US or, if it did, the US took care not to notice just as occurred with Thailand. When the government who allied with Japan is forced out, by any of a number of methods, the new government immediately and unilaterally declares peace. The South American portion of WW2 is now over.

My thinking is that the US could and would sort things out with a relatively trivial exercise of power. The truth is that I'd bet that all the combatants together in the Andean conflict wouldn't be mustering more than tens of thousands of troops, poorly armed, technologically backwards. Even with minimal force, the US would swat.

The US won't be vindictive, again there are many more important things to deal with, but there will be some minor border adjustments in favor of the other side.

The US won't be vindictive. But the local combatants are definitely going to be. Spilling blood leaves grudges. The last few wars in Latin America have been mostly about sparsely occupied hinterlands. But this war has the potential to spill into the cities and towns. That won't be overlooked.

I should point out that either Peru or Ecuador can fill the role of Japan's Andean Ally. It just depends on which one you feel is ruled by the stupider junta.

Human folly. Without it, I'd be out of a job.