WI: Chile loses the war of the pacific
- Thread starter Ostost
- Start date
Without the victory both Peru and Bolivia would retain their territories, which enabled Chile to double its size at the end of the war OTL.
There is also all those nitrates that the British were keen on exploiting.
In the medium term, without a victory in the north, the prospects of Chile are dim at the time to confront Argentina for ownership of Patagonia, which both countries wanted for themselves.
Having lost both gambles in the north and south Chile will end as a much smaller country, with little economic development and far smaller importance in South America, sort of Paraguay 2.0
OTOH Bolivia....won't change much from today. That's because Bolivia's problem is not its lack of access to the sea, both Chile and Peru have granted them almost free access through Arica or Ilo; or lack of resources, since they sit on huge mineral and gas reservoirs.
The problem with Bolivia is that their political (and military) leadership has always been one of the worst in South America
There is also all those nitrates that the British were keen on exploiting.
In the medium term, without a victory in the north, the prospects of Chile are dim at the time to confront Argentina for ownership of Patagonia, which both countries wanted for themselves.
Having lost both gambles in the north and south Chile will end as a much smaller country, with little economic development and far smaller importance in South America, sort of Paraguay 2.0
OTOH Bolivia....won't change much from today. That's because Bolivia's problem is not its lack of access to the sea, both Chile and Peru have granted them almost free access through Arica or Ilo; or lack of resources, since they sit on huge mineral and gas reservoirs.
The problem with Bolivia is that their political (and military) leadership has always been one of the worst in South America
Emperor-of-New-Zealand
Kicked
Hardly. It gained about a 5th of its size today, which is like a 3rd of its size back then.
Britain had economic assets in both Chile and Peru. If I remember correctly from when I started this very topic a while back, Britain probably wouldn't get involved. Patagonia is a problem for another day though. True enough Chile's position might be weaker, but I think it can go either way. There might be more national resolve to take Patagonia.
Having lost both gambles in the north and south Chile will end as a much smaller country, with little economic development and far smaller importance in South America, sort of Paraguay 2.0
Except that Paraguay isn't unimportant to South American history. It exists as a buffer state between Argentina and Brazil, and later won control over the resource-rich Gran Chaco region against Bolivia. Granted the Chaco War may be avoided if Bolivia is in a stronger position.
I don't buy this bit at all. Bolivia may have a much more stable government now that they've succeeded in winning a military conflict against a power that's in a much better position.
Last edited:
Fuego rules...
...If Chile concentrates on Patagonia, then it might control Tierra del Fuego in its entirety and much of current Argentine Patagonia.
Bear in mind that the Royal Navy coaled the Pacific Station/Squadron in Chile and had its base there before Esquimault.
Chile will succeed with or without the Atacama (no, I'm not Chilean, but I do have Argentino friends). Maybe 'Huascar' won't be captured by Chile and Peru will keep it as its famous 'Victory' equivalent.
...If Chile concentrates on Patagonia, then it might control Tierra del Fuego in its entirety and much of current Argentine Patagonia.
Bear in mind that the Royal Navy coaled the Pacific Station/Squadron in Chile and had its base there before Esquimault.
Chile will succeed with or without the Atacama (no, I'm not Chilean, but I do have Argentino friends). Maybe 'Huascar' won't be captured by Chile and Peru will keep it as its famous 'Victory' equivalent.
As long as Argentina attracts immigrants, they will gain the upper hand in population. And as Chile won't have any resource to make the British support them, it's quite likely that the OTL solution will happen.
In case of war, the British are likely to support Argentina, which could end in an Argentinean Tierra del Fuego, although Punta Arenas will remain Chilean.
In case of war, the British are likely to support Argentina, which could end in an Argentinean Tierra del Fuego, although Punta Arenas will remain Chilean.
Hi, Pete...
...But is an Argentino TdF absolutely certain? Settlement was quite late - and wasn't Punto Arenas established first?
Looking forward to your next tranche of your 'Algo habran hecho...' TL...
...Please?
...But is an Argentino TdF absolutely certain? Settlement was quite late - and wasn't Punto Arenas established first?
Looking forward to your next tranche of your 'Algo habran hecho...' TL...
...Please?
If Chile doesn't fight Bolivia and Perú and focuses on Patagonia, she has a chance of getting Tierra del Fuego.
But if it does goes to war and looses, I don't think she might be able to beat Argentina shortly afterwards.
Timing is key: The war of the Pacific happened between 1879 and 1884. Argentina occupied the Pampas and the territories North of Rio Negro in 1879, and consolidated its control of neuquén and Patagonia in the folowing years. If Chile loses in 1883/4, it would be to late. If she looses in 1879, she has a slight chance, but would a defeated army be able to beat a well-armed argentinian army, which is already mobilized, has control of the Pampas and is close to the Chilenean border?
This said, it's hard to see how would Chile loose the war "hard and fast". The Bolivian army was extremely weak, and the Peruvian army wasn't ready for a war in 1879. One would need an earlier Pod that gaets the Peruvian army in a better shape.
It's certainly being done. Maybe this weekend it will be posted.
But here is not the place for this
Returning to the thread, I said a war COULD end in an Argentinean TdF, and that Punta Arenas will remain Chilean.
Personally, I believe Argentina would have won a war against Chile in 1879/1885. But if Chile doesn't go to war over Atacama, and settles Tierra del Fuego in the 1870s, Argentina might chose not to go to war over the island. It's not certain, but it's a possibility.
this is a tough one, as my understanding is that Bolivia and Peru demonstrated an impressive level of incompetence on nearly a record scale. You have to look long and hard for a worse level military competence (ironically, the other war Bolivia fought..the War of the Triple Alliance)
maverick
Banned
I don't know. Is the army that competent?
I of course can't be too sure about the Navy. I don't even know if we had a navy in the 1870s.
We should remember that the Chilean desition between Atacama and Patagonia was one between immediate wealth and long-term wealth.
Settlement by Chileans won't be really important if we take Punta Arenas as a model. After the war with Peru and Bolivia, there wasn't that much of settlement by the Chileans. Their efforts were already set in Araucania.
Bolivia didn't fight that war. It was Paraguay against the Triple Alliance(Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay).
The other wars Bolivia fought were the one of the Bolivian-Peruvian Confederation(30's or 40's IIRC) and the War of Chaco(in the 30's of XX Century)
But all of these are still in Bolivian territory. The lands that Paraguay got in the 30's don't have any of these. All the energy they get comes from the dams of Itaipu and Yaciretá.
Last edited:
my mistake, of course your right.. Paraguay is the second place winner of the most incompetent military nation in South America (and has world ranking in that regard), with Bolivia having the distinction of having embarrassed itself in the art of war twice (once to Paraguay in the Chaco War)
Super Parker Brothers
Banned
Didnt Argentina help Chile break up Peru and Bolivia from unfiying? And didnt Chile give up millions of square miles of Patagonia which was under their exclusive influence due to the locals and there relations?