Latin American countries with African colonies

Meerkat92

Banned
Just an idea I had. not sure whether the PoDs necessary would fall into pre-1900 or not, so I just put it here for simplicity's sake:

We've discussed before how close places like Argentina, Chile, and Brazil were at the turn of the 20th century from becoming proper First World countries. Is there any chance that, if they had done better historically, they could have participated in the colonization of Africa, as a sort of "vanity project" to show how far they'd come? The obvious example would be Brazil somehow taking Angola from Portugal, but what about others? Perhaps Argentina could set up shop somewhere near Namibia? What do you think?
 

Meerkat92

Banned
Wasn't Spanish Guinea (the future Equatorial Guinea) part of the Viceroyalty of La Plata? That might be another possibility.

Hm, you're right. Now that's interesting.

Another idea: would it be possible for the Morocco Crisis could be resolved by giving control to, say, Argentina, as a neutral third party? I doubt anyone would really like that, but perhaps Great Britain could push them forward as a compromise should negotiations get more heated. GB was Argentina's biggest trading partner until after WWI, after all.
 
Brazil is the easiest one, since it could have kept Portugal's African colonies after the Napoleonic Wars. In fact even in OTL Angola and Mozambique traded and were dependent mostly with Brazil afterwards rather than Portugal.

Otherwise I find it really hard for anyone else. You need something like Mexico remaining stable since independence keeping all of its territory, and then fighting a Spanish-American War analog in the late 1800s, were it gains Cuba, Porto Rico and the Equatorial Guinea. But Mexico is still more likely to look towards the Pacific.

Argentina / La Plata despite being quite rich in the late 19th century was essentially a British Protectorate. While Chile is much more likely to look towards the Pacific, maybe take the French Polynesia for itself.
 

Deleted member 67076

Best you start early and stabilize the regions and have the economy diversify.

My best bets are Mexico (provided you have have it keep Alta California, maybe Central America, for good measure) and Brazil.

Its possible, but unlikely unless you start early.
 
The best I can think of is maybe giving Mexico the Philippines and the other remaining Spanish colonies, while Brazil gets Angola and maybe Mozambique.
 
Maybe if you somehow delayed the Scramble for Africa by twenty or so years? The Brazilians, Argentines, and Chileans had a major naval arms race around the turn of the century, so I could see them trying to grab some marginal bit of Africa for prestige if more of it is open than OTL.
 
In Victoria II, for no apparent reason other than plain novelty I worked my ass off (playing as France) to get "Mexican Sudan". :D And then they worked their way up to the world's third largest power and became one of the leading colonizers of Africa. Of course none of this is possible in real life however...
 
Asside from the mentioned Mexican Guinea and Brazillian Angola (and maby Mozambique) I really can't see this happening for three reasons;

1. Only three Latin American countries with the theoretical ability to do so border the Atlantic.
2. Most of them have vast expanses of their own Metropoles to get under control and colonize.
3. They simply would'nt be allowed to by Europe, annd given both European (specifically British) domination of alot of South America's economy they'd have that card to use and if it did come down to war it'd be a very one-sided war.
 
How about the Portuguese monarchy relocating permanently to Brazil due to republican revolution, and keeping control over Portugal's overseas colonies? Is that at all feasible?
 
Asside from the mentioned Mexican Guinea and Brazillian Angola (and maby Mozambique) I really can't see this happening for three reasons;

1. Only three Latin American countries with the theoretical ability to do so border the Atlantic.
2. Most of them have vast expanses of their own Metropoles to get under control and colonize.
3. They simply would'nt be allowed to by Europe, annd given both European (specifically British) domination of alot of South America's economy they'd have that card to use and if it did come down to war it'd be a very one-sided war.

I think 2 is the more important, since you could theoretically came up with a scenario were Great Britain prefers an Argentinean or Brazilian Namibia than a German Namibia, for instance.

I'd add one more: an ALT Argentina that is richer, more populous and expansionist than OTL Argentina would probably try to expand against its neighbours, "reconquering" territories that were once part of the Vicerroyalty of River Plate, than to go into Africa for no reason. If the idea is to be able to grow tropical cash crops, it would be better to expand into Paraguay than to get a colony in Congo or Angola.
 

katchen

Banned
From 1808 to 1823, we had that OTTL. The Portuguese court was in Rio De Janieiro and controlled coastal Angola, Mozambique and Bissau. And the Portuguese Court was in no hurry to move back to Lisbon after Napoleon was defeated. So there was this bizarre situation of Portugal being ruled from the New World. The only reason that they did was that King Manuel feared that Portugal would be lost to rebellion and wanted to go back to Lisbon to keep control of Portugal. He succeeded for a time, but as a result, Brazil declared independence. And the price Great Britain exacted for recognition of that independence was the stipulation that Angola would be ruled by Portugal, not Brazil (there goes Great Britain trying to phase out the slave trade).
So basically, the way for Brazil to KEEP Angola and Mozambique is to keep King Manuel in Rio. Maybe the French step in to restore Brazilo-Portuguese rule under the concert of Europe. Maybe they don't. But the Empire, all the way to Timor is ruled from Rio.
 
Top