With a series of PODs as far back as 1890-1910.
Have a continental war in World War I or World War II (or both) where most countries on the American continent face each other with wars in Afro-Eurasia and Oceania.
An example would be:

- Allies
* United States
* Canada
* Mexico
* Chile
* Brazil
* Peru
* Colombia
* Panama

- Neutral
* Uruguay?
* Paraguay?

"-American "Axis
* Venezuela
* Bolivia
* Ecuador
* Argentina?
How can it become a reality?
 
With a series of PODs as far back as 1890-1910.
Have a continental war in World War I or World War II (or both) where most countries on the American continent face each other with wars in Afro-Eurasia and Oceania.
An example would be:

- Allies
* United States
* Canada
* Mexico
* Chile
* Brazil
* Peru
* Colombia
* Panama

- Neutral
* Uruguay?
* Paraguay?

"-American "Axis
* Venezuela
* Bolivia
* Ecuador
* Argentina?
How can it become a reality?

The Allied side is way too powerful and coherent.

- Allies
* United States
* Brazil

"-American "Axis
* Mexico
* Panama
* Cuba
* Chile
* Columbia
* Panama
* Peru
* Colombia
* Bolivia
* Ecuador
* Argentina
* Uruguay?
* Paraguay?

- Neutral
* Canada

I think what you need to get an American-centric World War is an extremely anti-American Hispanophone world with major Anglo-German assistance. To get to that place, I think you'd need a United States that's badly weakened by internal strife due to union fights and a succession of financial panics throughout the 1880s and 90s.
 
What is this war gonna be fought over? There's a Simon Bolivar quote about how unifying Latin America is like trying to plough the sea, the same goes for any attempt at a pan-Americas alliance. If Columbia was dumb enough to fall for a Zimmerman telegram esque move, there might be a brief conflict where they try and fail to retake Panama or threaten the Canal. There's lots of territorial disputes based on varying degrees of natural resource wealth, nationalist chest-thumping, and economic reasons, but it's hard to turn that into a continental war.

At most I could see Bolivia declaring war on Peru and Chile to get muh sea coast back, but I'm not sure if that would be a territorial war threatening Lima and Santiago. The map below shows 20th century border disputes in South America.

A larger alliance lineup could be Bolivia, Colombia, and Ecuador vs. a coalition of Chile, Peru and Paraguay (assuming the Chaco dispute is still in play). The Colombia-Peru, Peru-Ecuador, and Bolivia-Paraguay disputes are the ones that've escalated to an interstate conflict. Brazil has little gain from grabbing its neighbors' empty jungle clay, and Argentine irredentism is focused on Las Malvinas, so these two large countries are likely to sit out any border war between their neighbors.
s-am-1-2.gif
 
Can't really see Argentina being on the opposite side to the UK/British Empire (ie, Canada). Wasn't almost their entire economy geared around trade with the UK at the time?
 
This is the same problem as so many threads here. In order for it to happen you have to change so much that it becomes unrecognizable.
You need to balance the level of power by building up the anti US side or you have to Diminish the The US. Then you have to change the politics to get the sides dislike each other enough to go to war (probably the smallest change) and you need a reason for the war.

Probably the only way this happens is if you have France England and Germany All have colonies in South/Central America and WW1 breaks out. Then you get an America version of Africa in WW1. And perhaps the US gets involved because it doesn’t like the fighting?
 
I think the best way you can have this happen is for the US to get tied down in Canada - that would be the front that would take more resources, and only then would the other South American nations consider making a play against a the US. The British navy would be able to contest the US - potentially - from reinforcing its Caribbean possessions, and make it difficult for the US to reinforce the Southern continent. This might be enough to This also have to happen in WWI - by WWII, the US as we know it is much stronger in its local waters, and

I imagine this would be a scenario with a Central Powers US (or roughly similar). it's difficult to do, but there are plenty of threads detailing how that comes about. Now, I imagine that this would also involve the UK strengthening some various nations that it has influence in through investment, at least somewhat, in order to promote healthier economic growth. So, essentially, writ large you'd have other nations included in the informal British sphere, similar to Argentina.

This is not going into the details of the minutia of accomplishing all of this (I don't know the South American nations in particular off the top of my head in this time period; the ABC powers are relatively easy to figure out, and Colombia would be the one making a play for Panama (with British assistance). I'm also assuming the US loses the Venezuela Crisis ITTL, so Venezuela is also part of the UK sphere here. So, in this case...

I'd see the Anti US side being:
Canada+Empire - primary target in a US Central power (assuming it doesn't remain neutral
Colombia - for Panama
Venezuela - UK success in alt-Venezuela crisis spirals into bringing them into sphere
Argentina - perhaps desiring expansion at expense of neighbors and taking advantage of situation created by British

The pro-US side being:
United States - diplomatically defeated by the British enough that reconciliation is reversed
Panama - In US sphere here.
Cuba (?) - depending on Spanish-American War
(Eventually) Brazil - does not desire Argentinian expansion, and desires to cut them down some

Initial Neutrals:
Mexico - as it might still be unstable, and the US would dramatically oppose any attempt for the UK to build influence here.
Bolivia
Peru
Ecuador - could end up being attacked by Peru while everone else is busy. Unsure about this
Chile - pro UK, but don't see them joining at the start. Though if Bolivia/Peru make a play...
Paraguay - could end up being attacked by Argentina or Bolivia for Chacos
Uruguay - no reason for it to join

This all ignores the butterflies that would be created by a US opposed to the UK enough to seek to align with Germany et al... Assuming alliances are the same. This is just a very basic look into things.
 
The biggest enemies of most of these countries are themselves, civil war or insurgency is way more commonplace than interstate territorial conquest in Latin America. If I was a Latin American government and I wanted to throw sand in another country's eyes I'd be more likely to provide weapons or a safe haven for an insurgency in a neighboring state, sending my tanks down the street of the other country's capital just isn't as cost effective.

Cubas's capability to provide a haven for communists was limited by its position as an island, but a communist government on the continent's mainland could spill over into neighboring countries Into-China style if the geography is right.
 
Any grand late 19th century war in Latin America (and the Americas as a whole) will be a US-UK proxy war, and one which the pro-UK side gets weaker and weaker as the years pass. It would essentially be a struggle between the existing British domination of Latin America and the rising American domination of Latin America.

But if we need this to happen, then we have:
Entente:
British Empire - Rulers of the Caribbean, global reach of the Royal Navy
France - Caribbean colonies, French Guiana
Argentina - Economically linked to Britain, anti-Brazil
Canada - British dominion, enough said
Newfoundland - See above
Colombia - Wants Panama back, stands to gain a lot from Entente victory

Central Powers:
United States - Economically the strongest world power, strong navy, TTL decent sized army (due to threat from the British)
Brazil - US economic interests, anti-Argentina
Central American states - US puppets essentially thanks to United Fruit, the Canal Zone, etc.
Mexico - Central government backed by the United States, opposed by many rebel factions, a complete mess really
Cuba - US puppet
Dominican Republic - US puppet
Haiti - US puppet

Neutrals:
Chile - Could be persuaded either way thanks to links to both Britain and the UK
Peru - Rival of Chile and Ecuador, but once again could be persuaded either way
Bolivia - Rival of Chile and Paraguay, could be persuaded either way
Uruguay - Influenced by both the UK and the US, no real way to profit from the war
Paraguay - Rival of Bolivia, but no real way to profit from the war
Venezuela - Claims on British colonies, but many economic links--Venezuelan oil is an important commodity--could go either way
Ecuador - Rival of Peru, could go either way

If I wanted a hellish war in Latin America, I'd assign Chile, Ecuador, and Paraguay to the US side and add Venezuela, Uruguay, Peru, and Bolivia to the British side. This makes it somewhat evenly matched but sooner or later the United States will end up dominating and its supplies and finance to its allies will help grind down the opposition.

Even if we throw in a Japan firmly dedicated to the Entente instead of just opportunistically seizing colonies, things would pretty much be the United States gets a free hand in reshaping Latin America in the postwar. Also, Canada gets smashed but that's just your typical 20th century Anglo-American War.

End result is likely Paraguay, Chile, and Ecuador getting maximum claims on their rivals, friendly rulers being installed in pro-British countries (likely long before the war ends, thanks to opportunistic caudillos), and Canada losing at least British Columbia, if not everything west of Ontario. The British and French Caribbean gets annexed to the US, except for bits of Guyana (partitioned between the US and the pro-US caudillo in Venezuela) and French Guiana (which goes to Brazil). The naval war will be key, since that's how supplies will pass to Latin America and Canada, but there won't be a lot of British or American forces deployed there (some Americans may fight some Mexican rebels, while the French and British will defend their colonies). American participation in Europe will be strictly sending supplies to Germany, likely escorted, or helping blockade Britain. The main fight of this Latin American war will be in the Rio de la Plata basin, but will likely in Central Powers (Brazilian) victory.

Thank you very much. But do you think it can be done with a POD between 1770 and 1830? :cool:
The easiest way for this to happen is American-British rivalry, or at the very least one which exists after the American Civil War due to British support for the CSA (successful or not). Otherwise the United States and United Kingdom are hard enough to draw apart to really have a massive proxy war in Latin America.
 
The easiest way to bring about what you want is for the South to have successfully seceded from the Union. Additional conflicts between North and South would have been inevitable and each side would be looking for allies both in the New and Old Worlds.
 
The easiest way to bring about what you want is for the South to have successfully seceded from the Union. Additional conflicts between North and South would have been inevitable and each side would be looking for allies both in the New and Old Worlds.

Except the South isn't much of an ally for anyone and is unlikely to get allies for a variety of reasons including continued slavery, promised hositity from the biggest power in the region which is going to be the US no matter what and the fact that the various filibusters were pushed hardest from the ante-bellum South.
 
Still too unbalanced, try this:

Allies:

United States
Cuban insurgents

Neutral:

Canada
Haiti
Paraguay

Hispanic Axis:

Everyone else in LATAM
Spain, after they are caught supplying the Axis

Casus belli: US invervention in Mexico after some dubious false flag + yellow press incident like the one that caused the Spanis American War.

Butterfly away the War of the Pacific and La Violencia in Colombia. Brasil and Chile would lead naval operations, while everyone else would be sending troops through the Pacific. The US conquers several Mexican cities but guerrila warfare and unfavourable terrain generate heavy casualties. Spain helps the Axis, is caught by the US and declared war, with an invasion on Cuba supported by insurgents repulsed by combined Hispanic troops.

Veracruz is sieged for several months and in the end falls, but not without taking out a large number of ships using rushed cannon ground batteries and a daring Axis raid led by the cruiser Esmeralda. Then Mexico City survives a direct assault and the American beachhead is pushed back to Veracruz and defeated, with thousands of US soldiers with the sea on their backs.

In the end the US public gets tired of war and a peace treaty, giving back Mexico the lands gained by the Gadsen purchase, recognition of Spanish hold on Cuba, and reparations for everyone.
 
Last edited:
Except the South isn't much of an ally for anyone and is unlikely to get allies for a variety of reasons including continued slavery, promised hositity from the biggest power in the region which is going to be the US no matter what and the fact that the various filibusters were pushed hardest from the ante-bellum South.

Nah, they'd be as good of an ally as Canada (or the ABC powers) against the US, unless you consider in that the CSA existing means the US military is going to be far better come the 20th century than OTL. They'd be a solid Latin America-style country.

Still too unbalanced, try this:

Allies:

United States
Cuban insurgents

Neutral:

Canada
Haiti
Paraguay

Hispanic Axis:

Everyone else in LATAM
Spain, after they are caught supplying the Axis

Casus belli: US invervention in Mexico after some dubious false flag + yellow press incident like the one that caused the Spanis American War.

Butterfly away the War of the Pacific and La Violencia in Colombia. Brasil and Chile would lead naval operations, while everyone else would be sending troops through the Pacific. The US conquers several Mexican cities but guerrila warfare and unfavourable terrain generate heavy casualties. Spain helps the Axis, is caught by the US and declared war, with an invasion on Cuba supported by insurgents repulsed by combined Hispanic troops.

Veracruz is sieged for several months and in the end falls, but not without taking out a large number of ships using rushed cannon ground batteries and a daring Axis raid led by the battleship Almirante Latorre. Then Mexico City survives a direct assault and the American beachhead is pushed back to Veracruz and defeated, with thousands of US soldiers with the sea on their backs.

In the end the US public gets tired of war and a peace treaty, giving back Mexico the lands gained by the Gadsen purchase, recognition of Spanish hold on Cuba, and reparations for everyone.

And then El Presidente woke up.
 
Nah, they'd be as good of an ally as Canada (or the ABC powers) against the US, unless you consider in that the CSA existing means the US military is going to be far better come the 20th century than OTL. They'd be a solid Latin America-style country.

It would be, to keep an eye on the CSA if nothing else. The Us military was so weak for a Great Power largely because it didn't have any rivals within 3,000 miles . With the CSA just accross the border....
 
Still too unbalanced, try this:

Allies:

United States
Cuban insurgents

Neutral:

Canada
Haiti
Paraguay

Hispanic Axis:

Everyone else in LATAM
Spain, after they are caught supplying the Axis

Casus belli: US invervention in Mexico after some dubious false flag + yellow press incident like the one that caused the Spanis American War.

Butterfly away the War of the Pacific and La Violencia in Colombia. Brasil and Chile would lead naval operations, while everyone else would be sending troops through the Pacific. The US conquers several Mexican cities but guerrila warfare and unfavourable terrain generate heavy casualties. Spain helps the Axis, is caught by the US and declared war, with an invasion on Cuba supported by insurgents repulsed by combined Hispanic troops.

Veracruz is sieged for several months and in the end falls, but not without taking out a large number of ships using rushed cannon ground batteries and a daring Axis raid led by the battleship Almirante Latorre. Then Mexico City survives a direct assault and the American beachhead is pushed back to Veracruz and defeated, with thousands of US soldiers with the sea on their backs.

In the end the US public gets tired of war and a peace treaty, giving back Mexico the lands gained by the Gadsen purchase, recognition of Spanish hold on Cuba, and reparations for everyone.
If things develop as OTL militarily unlikely

Almirante Latorre implies 1915 or later war, with OTL navies, and Spain not holding Cuba. That gives the US 10 modern battleships, with 7 building, against 2 Brazil (plus Riacheulo building, plus maybe Rio de Janeiro), 2 Argentina, 1 Chile (1 building), for 5 or 6 with 2 building. For older Battleships, up to 4 Brazil, 4 Argentina (2 never built OTL) , 3 Chile (1 OTL, others sold to UK) , to 23 for the US, with the US ships bigger and newer. Armored cruisers 11 or 12 US, up to 6 Argentina (2 sold to Japan OTL), 2 Chile, 0 Brazil. Small fry its similar, no one else in South America has ships worth mentioning. Spain in 1915 has no modern battleships (3-6 building), 1 old battleship and 1 Armored cruiser (2 if Pedro de Aragon exists ITTL). Odds 5:3 in modern BB, 23:12 in old BB, 11:10 in ACR, using best case numbers, using realistic 5:3 Modern BB, 23:8 Old BB, 12:7 Armored Cruisers

Functionally the Darien Gap cuts South America from Central save by sea, and this sort of odds are hard to overcome, especially given the US is fighting relatively close in the Caribbean while Argentina and Chile are not. Since all forces have to come by sea, US has control of, ergo is just fighting Mexico
 
Yeah my bad, I meant the Esmeralda, the ship that solved the Panama Crisis.
Sold to Japan in 1894 and merely a protected cruiser. Much more powerful than anything the US had in 1885, by 1895 that changed as the US got proper battleships, the New Navy Monitors and armored cruisers into service

1898 ish war is actually close, though realistically such a coalition forming is unlikely. After all Europe wouldn't tolerate such a thing as said coalition could do the same to them. Besides what exactly does most of the coalition have to gain by fighting against the US? Maybe some reparations if they are able to force the US into a beggars peace, rather than a Status Quo Ante or heaven forbid a US victory. Joining the US now, that gives them a chance at their neighbors territory

1898 ish war probably means the US sucks it up if Spain intervenes short of joining war, 1898 Spain has those 4 ACR the US didn't sink yet. Likewise a difference between the US getting tired of the war and packing up and going home, and being forced to give up territory and pay reparations. Britain burned Washington, a bunch small coastal towns and held half of Maine and still didn't get that
 
WI internal problems weaken Brazil and all her Spanish-speaking neighbours nibble away at territory inside the Brazilian border?
Since most of the fighting would be inland, that negates naval influence from major powers.
Meanwhile, factories in neutral Canada sell to both sides.
 
Top