A lot of timelines here seem to wank the United States and screw over Latin America even more than OTL. what POD could bring about the opposite?
Latin America wank
- Thread starter VictorVanBakker
- Start date
Have Mexico win the Mexican-American War and force the US to cough back up Texas. Later have Mexico, instead of the US, split Oregon with Great Britain. Presto, superpower Mexico and weak US confined to the east of the Rockies.
iddt3
Donor
The US still isn't going to be weak, and Mexico never had a claim on the Oregon Country, you need a PO'd back further to get this result.
Early in XX century, Argentina showed a lot of promise. Later, Chile and Venezuela raised to economic preeminence. Mexico is the eternal candidate. And Brazil is the new rising star.
If someone can manage to stabilize these countries throughout the XX century, that could be the start of a latin-america wank.
Maybe, and quite counterintuitively... Latin America involvement in the WWII?
Which country could be closer to become an axis alligned power?
OOOPS! this is pre-1900, my bad, sorry!
If someone can manage to stabilize these countries throughout the XX century, that could be the start of a latin-america wank.
Maybe, and quite counterintuitively... Latin America involvement in the WWII?
Which country could be closer to become an axis alligned power?
OOOPS! this is pre-1900, my bad, sorry!
Last edited:
The Brazilian Empire surviving could serve as a decent POD for a general improvement in the fortunes of Latin America (with a bit of luck), Brazil's position on the continent suites it rather well to be the counterweight to the US's influence. A few specific things I can think of are stuff like one of the abortive attempts at restoring the UFCA actually goes through this time, creating a much larger more capable nation to play the US and Brazilian interests against each other for their own benefit. Further in this scenario Argentina is well set up to be better off than before since the factors that led to its economy going down the tubes and its political situation going really crazy isn't necessarily going to happen.
Oh also, my pet thing for any Latin America Wank is Bolivia ending up having some kind of native revolution that puts the Quechuas and Aymara ending up in charge of the country. If there's any place capable of becoming the only Amerindian state its either Bolivia or the Yucatan, and I kind of want one to happen just for the sake of a native majority state existing.
Oh also, my pet thing for any Latin America Wank is Bolivia ending up having some kind of native revolution that puts the Quechuas and Aymara ending up in charge of the country. If there's any place capable of becoming the only Amerindian state its either Bolivia or the Yucatan, and I kind of want one to happen just for the sake of a native majority state existing.
Spanish nobles flee to Mexico City following Napoleons Victory, and rule their colonial possessions directly as a unified empire. Later, personal union with Brazil, then Spanish-American War (replacing OTL Mexican War) ends with a treaty that sets the Spanish America- US border at the Mississippi.
How do you propose holding that monstrosity together? IOTL Brazil nearly broke apart early on in its history and that was in an area with far fewer obvious territorial divides between the two countries. The best you'll see in terms of a united Spanish America is something like four countries in South America, La Plata (Uruguay, Paraguay, Chile, and Argentina), The Peru-Bolivian Confederation (guess), Gran Colombia (Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, and Panama), and Brazil. Those are in the very least based on fairly stable geographically and with time could grow culturally closer too. Of course none of this is very likely anyway since at that point Latin America was a complete mess.
They had no problems holding it together through three centuries and ruling from across the sea, with the government actually on the landmass it will hardly be much more different. Not to mention that nationalism and national identity in Latin America developed during the independence wars, which means that the exiled Spanish elites could succeed on creating a pan-hispanoamerican national identity if they worked on it.
Three centuries of rule from across the sea as the nation with one of the most powerful militaries and navies in the world with a vast and respectable treasury is far easier than the initial years where the king comes limping to the Americas humiliated and primarily looking to reclaim his kingdom. Exiled Spanish elites may also not be the best for a volatile situation where much of the population already hated the Spanish Elites (among them the Colonial Elites).
Maybe a POD during the rule/campaigns of Simon Bolivar? I'm not sure if there's any way that Gran Columbia could have stayed together, although maybe a loose federalism could have been achieved, which maybe could grow closer over time.... Maybe I just wish that Bolivar had been able to succeed at his dream of creating a United States of South America....
The independence movements IOTL originally started with Napoleon putting his brother on the spanish throne because they did didn't want a frenchman on the throne, with the spanish monarchy on the continent ITT this is initially averted. This buys them more time, at least a couple of decades IMO.
After Napoleon is defeated, most of the monarchy and the spanish elites return to Spain, but there is the possibility that some of them stay like what happened with the Empire of Brazil.
OTL the conservatives wanted independence from an increasingly liberal Spain, but still wanted an european monarch to be the head of state while they formed their own government. This is in Mexico.
With the developments ITTL, a younger son or a brother of the spanish monarch could fill that role, effectively securing independence peacefully. This by itself is a huge boost to Mexico, whose 10-year-long independence war OTL destroyed the economy and crippled the population.
The support of the conservatives is thus secured, and the liberal criollos would eventually rise to prominent positions in the new government and bureocracy, which is all they ever wanted.
Then there is Peru, always very conservative and pro-monarchy/anti-independence, which might naturally to confederate itself with the government in Mexico City. Then the two remaining Viceroyalties, La Plata and New Granada, would follow, maybe they wouldn't have much choice in the matter.
Simon Bolivar could be appointed Prime Minister of this 'American Imperial Confederation', and the capital would eventually be moved to Panama City, with the Isthmus of Panama being a sort of Imperial District.
I feel the U.S. wouldn't be so eager to challenge such an enemy for California.
For the most part, all of the suggestions above seem pretty good to me.
IMO Brazil and Mexico are the usual candidates, for a few good reasons: territory, population. And right now (save for Mexico's drug war) they are both rising stars (Brazil more so than Mexico).
Had Brazil kept the monarchy, and its civil war never happened, it would likely have one of the world's largets navies (top 5) - making it an Atlantic power to deal with. Couple this with good economic decisions and relations with other powers and neighbors and you could also have a Brazil in the top 5 economies In OTL, Brazil is the 6th place in GDP and about 8th when adjusted to PPP. However, if you count it per capita it falls behind quite a bit. A "semi-wanked" Brazil could have:
A nominal GDP greater than 3 trillion (placing it between OTLs France and Germany) an that stays around there when adjusted to PPP.
When placed per capital it should have somewhere between 25,000 and 28,000 (a little under the EU average roughly equivalent to that of the Czech Rep).
This figures in a country in a country the size of Brazil, in terms resources and population. That in addition has a world class navy. Would make it a big power to be reckoned with. Raise, Angola and Mozambique (de-facto Brazilian colonies for a good chunk of their history) and you can even raise Brazil a bit more if it drains those two the right way.
In terms of Mexico; despite the fact that it is everyone's favorite punching bag in this forum (although there are a good Mexi-wank TLs out there two). Mexico isn't doing that bad in OTL, even when it hasn't lived up to its potential. It is still one of the largest countries in terms of population, 14th in terms of GDP and while it drops quite a bit when adjusted per capita it doesn't drop as much as Brazil's. Mexico also has a huge advantage over Brazil, which is the diversity of its economy. Despite being a relatively resource rich country, Mexico's economy is mostly centered around manufacturing not extraction (though it is still a huge part of it). With the right decisions, Mexico would have a larger territory. Say it still lost the Mex-American war, but survived the consequences much better off. Avoid the 2nd Empire, and keep Mexico semi democratic from the 1880s onwards, while avoiding the quasi-communist shenanigans of the PRI in the 60s and 70s.
Say it keeps everything south of the 35th parallel, and the Rio Bravo (let Texas keep the Pecos and nueces strip). This should allow it to grow, about 15% more in population, and much less centralized. You are also giving it another good port to the Pacific (San Diego later Los Angeles/Long Beach), some good farm land and oil in SoCal, more mining in New Mexico. Besides resource extraction and hard manufacturing, Mexico should also be capable of diversifying into a services economy as well without much trouble.
With the right economic decisions Mexico could easily bump up from being 14th on the list to about 8th (roughly the equivalent of Italy or Russia in nominal GDP), and maintain it as an equivalent to that of Italy or Israel when adjusted per capita.
It might not have the military equivalent of the "wanked" Brazil, but it would still be an economic power to be reckoned with, especially because of location. Unlike Brazil Mexico has two coasts.
OK, I wasn't planing for this response to be this detailed. The rest will be quicker. The rest of LA also has quite good potential.
Argentina was doing pretty good at the start of the XX century. Avoid some bad decisions and diversify its economy (it was terribly so, hence why it fell) and it could be pretty well off in the present. And Chile is doing relatively well for a country its size in OTL, and it certainly had potential to be even better off.
However I think here you get into a matter of balancing, I don't think you can have a strong Chile, Argentina, and Brazil at the same time (let alone adding Paraguay to the mix). A strong Argentina is an automatic rival to Brazil and Chile - you can still keep Argentina from falling, but i think in a full LA wank Brazil and Chile will keep its growth in check.
Similarly a strong Mexico might try to keep the UFCA from forming again in the late IXX century (it did so in OTL).
Colombia could be a good addition to the mix, especially in the form of Gran Colombia. Its population would be near 100 million, but probably not quite there. It would certainly benefit from Venezuelas oil reserves, and if keeps Panama, the canal. However, unlike Brazil and Mexico, I think you run into the issue of Colombia staying as an extraction economy (both Colombia and Venezuela are in OTL) much more than OTL. It could be a natural resource powerhouse, like Russia and Canada are in OTL and still be "wanked" but it is harder to make good economic decisions then.
As for Peru/Bolivia, as much as I like the idea of a semi-native Quechua state that dominates South America. You do run into quite a bit of geographic and demographic problems that are difficult to get rid off. At its best it would still be the smallest of these countries with the exception of Chile, (roughly 50 million pop), and like in OTL with distinct geographic identities beween lower and upper regions. And once again you have the matter of balance, a strong Colombia and Chile will try to keep it in check. Chile did so in OTL. And it would even be competing against Brazil in the Amazonian regions, and Paraguay or Argentina in the Chaco depending how they are doing.
However bare in mind that rich neighbors and friendly relations between them, usually also help bring up the neighbors. If Colombia, Brazil, and Chile are all doing much better than OTL. Their trade should result in Peru doing better as well. If Mexico and Colombia are doing good Central America (divided or not) will also benefit in the long term.
So yeah in summary Latin America has quite a good potential, some of the countries were doing pretty good before screwing up (Argentina, Brazil, even Paraguay), some have been doing relatively well for what is available to them (Chile, Costa Rica, Uruguay), some haven't quite met their obvious potential (Mexico, Colombia), and some are slowly but surely picking themselves up and catching up (Brazil, Mexico). No reason why the whole region can't be wanked.
IMO Brazil and Mexico are the usual candidates, for a few good reasons: territory, population. And right now (save for Mexico's drug war) they are both rising stars (Brazil more so than Mexico).
Had Brazil kept the monarchy, and its civil war never happened, it would likely have one of the world's largets navies (top 5) - making it an Atlantic power to deal with. Couple this with good economic decisions and relations with other powers and neighbors and you could also have a Brazil in the top 5 economies In OTL, Brazil is the 6th place in GDP and about 8th when adjusted to PPP. However, if you count it per capita it falls behind quite a bit. A "semi-wanked" Brazil could have:
A nominal GDP greater than 3 trillion (placing it between OTLs France and Germany) an that stays around there when adjusted to PPP.
When placed per capital it should have somewhere between 25,000 and 28,000 (a little under the EU average roughly equivalent to that of the Czech Rep).
This figures in a country in a country the size of Brazil, in terms resources and population. That in addition has a world class navy. Would make it a big power to be reckoned with. Raise, Angola and Mozambique (de-facto Brazilian colonies for a good chunk of their history) and you can even raise Brazil a bit more if it drains those two the right way.
In terms of Mexico; despite the fact that it is everyone's favorite punching bag in this forum (although there are a good Mexi-wank TLs out there two). Mexico isn't doing that bad in OTL, even when it hasn't lived up to its potential. It is still one of the largest countries in terms of population, 14th in terms of GDP and while it drops quite a bit when adjusted per capita it doesn't drop as much as Brazil's. Mexico also has a huge advantage over Brazil, which is the diversity of its economy. Despite being a relatively resource rich country, Mexico's economy is mostly centered around manufacturing not extraction (though it is still a huge part of it). With the right decisions, Mexico would have a larger territory. Say it still lost the Mex-American war, but survived the consequences much better off. Avoid the 2nd Empire, and keep Mexico semi democratic from the 1880s onwards, while avoiding the quasi-communist shenanigans of the PRI in the 60s and 70s.
Say it keeps everything south of the 35th parallel, and the Rio Bravo (let Texas keep the Pecos and nueces strip). This should allow it to grow, about 15% more in population, and much less centralized. You are also giving it another good port to the Pacific (San Diego later Los Angeles/Long Beach), some good farm land and oil in SoCal, more mining in New Mexico. Besides resource extraction and hard manufacturing, Mexico should also be capable of diversifying into a services economy as well without much trouble.
With the right economic decisions Mexico could easily bump up from being 14th on the list to about 8th (roughly the equivalent of Italy or Russia in nominal GDP), and maintain it as an equivalent to that of Italy or Israel when adjusted per capita.
It might not have the military equivalent of the "wanked" Brazil, but it would still be an economic power to be reckoned with, especially because of location. Unlike Brazil Mexico has two coasts.
OK, I wasn't planing for this response to be this detailed. The rest will be quicker. The rest of LA also has quite good potential.
Argentina was doing pretty good at the start of the XX century. Avoid some bad decisions and diversify its economy (it was terribly so, hence why it fell) and it could be pretty well off in the present. And Chile is doing relatively well for a country its size in OTL, and it certainly had potential to be even better off.
However I think here you get into a matter of balancing, I don't think you can have a strong Chile, Argentina, and Brazil at the same time (let alone adding Paraguay to the mix). A strong Argentina is an automatic rival to Brazil and Chile - you can still keep Argentina from falling, but i think in a full LA wank Brazil and Chile will keep its growth in check.
Similarly a strong Mexico might try to keep the UFCA from forming again in the late IXX century (it did so in OTL).
Colombia could be a good addition to the mix, especially in the form of Gran Colombia. Its population would be near 100 million, but probably not quite there. It would certainly benefit from Venezuelas oil reserves, and if keeps Panama, the canal. However, unlike Brazil and Mexico, I think you run into the issue of Colombia staying as an extraction economy (both Colombia and Venezuela are in OTL) much more than OTL. It could be a natural resource powerhouse, like Russia and Canada are in OTL and still be "wanked" but it is harder to make good economic decisions then.
As for Peru/Bolivia, as much as I like the idea of a semi-native Quechua state that dominates South America. You do run into quite a bit of geographic and demographic problems that are difficult to get rid off. At its best it would still be the smallest of these countries with the exception of Chile, (roughly 50 million pop), and like in OTL with distinct geographic identities beween lower and upper regions. And once again you have the matter of balance, a strong Colombia and Chile will try to keep it in check. Chile did so in OTL. And it would even be competing against Brazil in the Amazonian regions, and Paraguay or Argentina in the Chaco depending how they are doing.
However bare in mind that rich neighbors and friendly relations between them, usually also help bring up the neighbors. If Colombia, Brazil, and Chile are all doing much better than OTL. Their trade should result in Peru doing better as well. If Mexico and Colombia are doing good Central America (divided or not) will also benefit in the long term.
So yeah in summary Latin America has quite a good potential, some of the countries were doing pretty good before screwing up (Argentina, Brazil, even Paraguay), some have been doing relatively well for what is available to them (Chile, Costa Rica, Uruguay), some haven't quite met their obvious potential (Mexico, Colombia), and some are slowly but surely picking themselves up and catching up (Brazil, Mexico). No reason why the whole region can't be wanked.
What if the Inca Empire never fell, They didn't have that bloody civil war right before their discovery and ended up prospering from European trade.
I wasn't saying it would be a dominant state, I just meant it being the South American equivalent to Belgium, well off but not nearly on the same level as some of its more important neighbors.
lordapocalipsis
Banned
probably, some militars decide to form an alliance to stop USA interference in Southamerica, so they make coups in all te southamerican countries
Well yeah as I said
So you would have a country much larger than Belgium, enjoying the benefits of its neighbors. This Greater Bolivia/Peru would have to swallow any notions of greatness, to avoid the wrath of its neighbors but it could enjoy a good chuck of the economic pie. Under a good administration, that fosters trade and education, this could also result in a much richer Quechua and Aymara literature culture etc. Which would be cool. And cultural wanks are another whole set of wanks rarely explored in TLs.