You mean than the OTL where the British controlled most of South America's economies through half of the 19th century?
British Rio de la Plata?
- Thread starter Dangimill
- Start date
You mean than the OTL where the British controlled most of South America's economies through half of the 19th century?
yofie
Banned
I mean even more than OTL, where there would be still more British economic influence and there would also be British political influence (in terms of foreign policy and things like that) to a degree not present in OTL.
Australia doesn't give Britain political leverage over Indonesia, Canada doesn't give Britain political leverage over the US, South Africa is not why the UK has political leverage over the african commonwealth countries. Argentina won't magically give more political leverage over south America than they had, which was already enormous when the empire was at its zenith, and will still fall apart to not much as the empire breaks up and various cuts are done in the 20th century. It might lead to Argentine Falklands, however.
Additionally, it's unlikely that the internal political system of british Argentina would be more than the old legal and social customs with a slight British veneer (as it is in French Canada and South Africa), probably with some legal protection of English (as with South Africa) or French (as with Canada).
And the British Empire would be stuck developing the region on its own money directly. An empire can only chew on so much.
Last edited:
yofie
Banned
You mean that the degree of British economic influence and so forth in the rest of South America would have been roughly the same with or without British colonization of OTL Argentina/Uruguay?
Short of the kind of complete monopoly that led to the American revolution, yes.
I think we need to talk about the difference between back in the 19th Century and post-Statute of Westminster times.
The Australian colonies were a very long way away from Indonesia. Although British control of Singapore did give them a lot of influence over wider South East Asia.
British North America did give them influence in the United States, and was a key reason cited by the Federalists as a preferable US ally over the French, despite previous history. This influence was limited by the time the US became a major industrial power however.
South Africa was a VERY big reason Britain ended up dominating much of southern Africa (private missions into Rhodesia, protectorate over Malawi etc). This would be more than the TTL South America though, because African states would have been weaker than the other South American colonies.
It will give more political leverage and would likely be accepted as Britain's sphere of influence in the way it was accepted as the US's sphere of influence in OTL. However, as the US grows in power, it is likely that Northwest South America falls out of Britain's influence and into America's.
Almost certainly.
It would all depend on how much British immigration there is. Remember that Ontario was part of French Canada. Even today we have a very pro-British PM in Canada from our influence there.
Yes, it would probably ending up costing Britain more than in OTL. However, it's hardly going to bring the British Empire to its knees, as it will be small net costs in the overal scheme of things.
Ontario didn't end up like Cape Province mostly because of the loyalists, though - if you get the loyalists out of the picture, you get large provinces of Canada and Nova Scotia and the demographic switch where Lower Canada was overtaken by Upper Canada will take quite a bit longer, though.
It's not like they have a huge slew of loyalists to populate Argentina then. If Quebec is an indication, irish immigration will tend to assimilate into the dominant catholic group - i.e. Spanish speaking Irish immigrants with some adopting english, sort of. I could see Uruguay or the Entre Rios becoming sort of Anglo if Britain doesn't pawn off Uruguay to Brazil though.
yofie
Banned
What I'm really trying to get at is, would such a more important British sphere of influence in South America have made a difference in wars like the War of the Triple (or Double) Alliance, the War of the Pacific, or the Chaco War?
The Chaco war didn't involve Argentina, the war of the triple alliance only involved Argentina because of a complex system of alliances involving Brazil, the war of the Pacific didn't involve Argentina and Victorian Britain had terrible relations with Bolivia.
The only major south American war in Bolivia involving Argentina was the one that led to the breakup of the Bolivian confederation.
That said I can see how it might affect, but I'm not sure it necessarily would. One thing where it will affect things is how claims on Patagonia will work, as the region was basically not part of the Spanish empire at all except as a claim on some maps.
Britain was powerful, but it still didn't get involve in the Balkan Wars (except through the congress system in 1878), it still didn't get involved in the X-Prussian wars of the 1860s-70s, etc.
yofie
Banned
I don't necessarily mean direct involvement - I basically mean in terms of Britain as an outside or semi-outside party somehow making the wars shorter or even preventing outright war, given that Britain in this TTL is on these wars' doorsteps whereas another outside broker like the US is far away. My guess is probably not so much, given how much of these wars' latter periods were more guerrilla warfare than conventional warfare, and how the sides in many cases were so far apart that talks to prevent, say, the Chaco War would break down; in the case of the Triple Alliance War, the Brazilian army was poorly equipped at the time.
If Urugyay and Argentina were British, Paraguay won't invade Corrientes in order to get to Uruguay (the event that trigggered the war). In fact, it's whole policy of mantaining itself isolated from its neighbours politically and economicaly from 1811 to 1860 might not have been possible, as Britain would pressure it to open its markets to British good. I don't think there'd be a Triple Alliance War. There might be a war between Brazil and Paraguay at some point, though.
I think it might exert some influence in order to prevent or at least stop the Chaco War. After all, Argentina mediated between both countries IOTL. A British mediation would mean a shorter war... (unless it supports one country against another, as it did IOTL).
I don't think UK would be interested or able to prevent the war of the Pacific, if it happens.
How serious were they about the whole settler colony idea? As I understood it the main reason that Britain seems to of been interested in the region seems to have been their perennial favourite - trade. They wanted to find some way of opening up the Spanish territories for their goods, if you read up on the British informal empire in South America they were just insanely successful at dominating the region trade and economy-wise in the 19th and early 20th century. Whilst all of Argentina seems like a little much to me is there any way of their taking just Banda Oriental instead? Perhaps Whitelocke doesn't pull British forces out of the entire region, which seems to of been the main reason he got the boot, but instead decides to fall back to Montevideo and the Banda Oriental which is a much more defensible and clearly delineated position behind the Uruguay and Jaquarao rivers.
Weren't the British fairly pro-Chile anyway? Since the British stationed their Pacific Station at Valparaiso I would of guessed that they'd be pretty much behind the Chileans.
Yes, but this might change if Argentina were British, as they'd share a long border with them, and conflicts may arrise (the rather good relations between Canada and the US aren't the usual way most neighbours relate to)
I'd like to answer, but the answer would be too long for this time of the night. I'll post a long answer soon.
Short answer: I think the British could have taken both Beunos aires and Montevideo in 1806/7, if they were luckier than IOTL(and had more troops in 1806); but they'd face a lot of resistance in the surrounding countriside and beyond, and also within both cities. And an expedition to recover them would soon be prepared in Cordoba. So wether the british can keep them in the long run is hard to say, but it's not very likely.
yofie
Banned
I think that Paraguay would have been a British protectorate from around 1818 to around 1824 (having independence for a little bit before that) due to some lingering Spanish-British skirmishes in the area over landlocked access to the sea via the Parana River, and then it would have regained independence in 1824. So, Paraguay would have isolated itself after that until Francia's death in 1840, then it would have opened itself up (to the British for trade, among other things). As for an 1860s war, the way I see it, it would have been more purely a war of Paraguayan expansion - at first maybe initially a Paraguay-Brazil war, then the British in Argentina intervene on the side of the Brazilians. Or perhaps it is indeed Paraguay against both Brazil and British Argentina simultaneously, as Paraguay would want to expand into both Brazil and Argentina. Either way, though, it would probably be a shorter and less destructive war than OTL due to relative British efficiency.
I'm not sure, yofie. I mean, Paraguay didn't planned to fight both Argentina and Brazil. Remember that Argentina's civil war had only ended in 1861. Lopez fought he could count on with the help of the losing side (namely Urquiza, governor of Entre Ríos). His assumptions were wrong, of course, and Urquiza stayed loyal to the government, but Lopez couldn't have known so.
If Argentina had appeared as a solid entity (as one presumes would be the case under your premises) Paraguay won't risk a war against both of its neighbours ...unless its own survival was at stake, that is, if Brazil and British Argentina had threaten to part Paraguay between themselves, as others did with Poland.
yofie
Banned
So if Paraguay's own survival is not at stake like that, then either Argentina could join the war in order to help the Brazilian troops (traditional allies), or Argentina could simply stay neutral and the war remains a strictly Paraguay-Brazil war.
Maybe but, you see, concepts like the one highlithed are those that I think should be revised in one were to go through with the idea of a British Argentina. A major British presence in the South cone would trigger a lot of consequences, and the history of XIX century South America might change considerably.
Yes, Britain and Portugal were allies in OTL, and Brazil remained a British ally in after its independence (though they had several differences in the 1820s and in the 1860s, for example). But they were allies because they were far, and their economies complemented each other (Britain had manufactured goods and capital, Brazil had tropical products).
If Brazil and Britain were neighbours, the same mistrust that existed in OTL between Brazil and Argentina for most of the XIX and XX centuries migh exist between Brazil and Britain. The same "border issues" that were an issue in OTL might be an issue in this ATL. If Brazil builds a dam on Parana river, (British) Argentina would fear water shortages (or sudden floods) as IOTL. So, i'm not sure they would remain as allies. And the same goes for Chile.
yofie
Banned
Even so, Brazil probably would not have occupied and annexed the Banda Oriental ca. 1820, because there would not have been a United Provinces-Liga Federal rivalry to stoke things up in the first place, and Uruguay would thus be part of Argentina. Right?
Also, I guess that even if Brazil and British Argentina prove not to be allies any more than OTL Brazil and Argentina, Britain and Portugal could still be the allies they have been for a long time.
And I wasn't saying that Britain and Brazil would be allies at all times under these circumstances. But maybe in a war situation like with Paraguay, Brazil and Argentina could cooperate against Paraguay like they did OTL along with Uruguay. And in OTL, there was a rivalry, but not open hostility, for the most part between Brazil and Argentina in the 19th and most of the 20th century. Also in OTL, Britain and Brazil did have their differences as well, e.g. in the mechanics/timing of freeing Brazilian slaves.
Last edited: