Paraguay-Brazil War

The War of the Triple Alliance occurred because of Paraguayan foolishness. By this, I mean after Paraguay and Brazil were at war, the Paraguayan President, Solano Lopez, wanted to move troops through Argentina. When Argentina refused, he declared war. So what if he didn't do this enormously foolish move, and the war remains between Paraguay and Brazil? This will drastically increase Paraguay's chances of winning the war, which is a likely scenario if it remains between the two of them. While Brazil is far larger, Paraguay had a larger and more professional fighting force, and tried to be "The Prussia of South America", whereas Brazil had a poor, unorganized army. What would the effects of this war be?
 
The War of the Triple Alliance occurred because of Paraguayan foolishness. By this, I mean after Paraguay and Brazil were at war, the Paraguayan President, Solano Lopez, wanted to move troops through Argentina. When Argentina refused, he declared war. So what if he didn't do this enormously foolish move, and the war remains between Paraguay and Brazil? This will drastically increase Paraguay's chances of winning the war, which is a likely scenario if it remains between the two of them. While Brazil is far larger, Paraguay had a larger and more professional fighting force, and tried to be "The Prussia of South America", whereas Brazil had a poor, unorganized army. What would the effects of this war be?

The problem with this is that the war was caused due to the Brazilian intervention in Uruguay, that was supported by the Argentine president Mitre. Solano Lopez opposed the overthrown of the Blanco government, and so acted against Brazil. He could have invaded only Mato Grosso, but in order to achieve his goals in Uruguay he needed to move his troops to there too, and he couldn't do it without crossing Argentine territory. In fact, if you want a "Paraguay-Brazil only" war you have two options: a) have different spark for the conflict that doesn't involve Uruguay and/or Argentina; b) have Argentina be neutral in the conflict, or at least have the provinces of Corrientes and Entre-Rios supporting the Paraguayans.
 
No. The War started because Paraguay wanted to meddle in Uruguay, so they need to pass through Argentina.
Also, the Mato Grosso isn't a place for a war. At most there can be some skirmishes there, no more.

EDIT: Gonzaga explained it better.
 
The problem with this is that the war was caused due to the Brazilian intervention in Uruguay, that was supported by the Argentine president Mitre. Solano Lopez opposed the overthrown of the Blanco government, and so acted against Brazil. He could have invaded only Mato Grosso, but in order to achieve his goals in Uruguay he needed to move his troops to there too, and he couldn't do it without crossing Argentine territory. In fact, if you want a "Paraguay-Brazil only" war you have two options: a) have different spark for the conflict that doesn't involve Uruguay and/or Argentina; b) have Argentina be neutral in the conflict, or at least have the provinces of Corrientes and Entre-Rios supporting the Paraguayans.


Ok, so now with this newfound information, lets change the POD to Gonzaga's B option---Argentina is neutral.
 

maverick

Banned
But if the Corrientes and Entre Rios back Paraguay, Civil War will return to the Argentina. And Buenos Aires will enter the war on Brazil's side, just to teach Corrientes and Entre Rios a lesson

We could have Rosas win the Battle of Caseros in 1852 and have Brazil create a puppet Republic of Mesopotamia with Entre Rios and Corrientes, but that means way too many butterflies.

Otherwise, yes, Civil war in 1865, which is not that unlikely.
 
But if the Corrientes and Entre Rios back Paraguay, Civil War will return to the Argentina. And Buenos Aires will enter the war on Brazil's side, just to teach Corrientes and Entre Rios a lesson


You're getting in over my head in terms of knowledge of mid 19th century South American politics. Is it ASB for Argentina to remain neutral in the conflict without Corrientes and Entre Rios backing Paraguay, and Argentina entering a civil war?
 

maverick

Banned
You're getting in over my head in terms of knowledge of mid 19th century South American politics. Is it ASB for Argentina to remain neutral in the conflict without Corrientes and Entre Rios backing Paraguay, and Argentina entering a civil war?

Not anymore than a Canadian-Mexican war in which Texas and Montana are allied with Mexico but the US is neutral.

Anyhow, this could theoretically happen, it just would not be the IOTL war.

Here's a thought:

Rosas is toppled in one of the Civil Wars of 1840: Paraguay, Uruguay and the Unitarians topple Juan Manuel de Rosas, General Lavalle takes over in Buenos Aires with Uruguayan-Paraguayan help and Paraguay gets the Province of Misiones and thus a(nother) border with Brazil.

POD is that Gaspar Rodriguez de Francia dies early and his successor helps the Unitarians in their war against Rosas in 1840.
 
Not anymore than a Canadian-Mexican war in which Texas and Montana are allied with Mexico but the US is neutral.

Anyhow, this could theoretically happen, it just would not be the IOTL war.

Here's a thought:

Rosas is toppled in one of the Civil Wars of 1840: Paraguay, Uruguay and the Unitarians topple Juan Manuel de Rosas, General Lavalle takes over in Buenos Aires with Uruguayan-Paraguayan help and Paraguay gets the Province of Misiones and thus a(nother) border with Brazil.

POD is that Gaspar Rodriguez de Francia dies early and his successor helps the Unitarians in their war against Rosas in 1840.

But we have a problem here. Western Santa Catarina, NorthWestern Rio Grande do Sul and Misiones weren't really developed in this time. Paraguay wanted to go through Corrientes to attack Rio Grande do Sul(which they tried in OTL after they invaded Corrientes) because Misiones was a horrible place from where to launch an invasion as just Guaranies lived there and there was no infraestructure. IIRC, they were in control of Misiones since 1834, so Misiones isn't a solution in my opinion.
 
Top