Malê Rising

[Inquisitor Tolkien]

If there's one thing I'm sure of, the NDB will be having a demographic crisis comparable to, if not greater than, the one OTL France faced after World War One. This may be somewhat mitigated by German reunification if the BOG alliance squeaks a win, but regardless, fighting on essentially its entire land border (predominantly defensive) versus a stronger France (with A-L), South German armies, Austria-Hungary, and Russia, my assumption is that the North Germans start collapsing in the third, or fourth, year. Industrially and logistically the BOG better off (they can greatly rely on overseas industries such as the US), but in terms of labor they have no ready source of foreign migrants, unlike France did with Italian and Spanish migrants during World War One (France ITTL will still rely on immigration, however it will mostly be from Spain during the war, while the fervent immigration drive and measures will likely be lessened post-war given comparatively lower demographic losses).

Neither Russia nor Austria-Hungary look to be in great shape either, but still. I expect at least the NDB and Austria-Hungary to collapse, with Russia on the list.

 

[Jonathan Edelstein]

Well, it seems that the British are behaving quite like dicks to both the Indians and the Irish. I doubt it will end well.

Given that eg Churchill was still thinking along those lines 60 years later, iotl, its a little amazing theyre moving that far forward ittl. Yes, necessity is the mother of invention, and the whole colonial scene is slightly, but visibly, less paternalistic, i think the compromise reached is realistic. Yes, parliament could have been a touch more generous, but thereare political constraints in Britain, too.

As for being 'dicks', isnt that, in some ways, the whole root of imperialism?

Britain's dickishness to the Indians and Irish is, in part, a symptom of backbencher syndrome. Those closest to the war effort - the Government of India, the Imperial War Cabinet and the Prime Minister - know damn well how much they need Indian support, and they all supported broad reforms. But the Tory backbenchers, and even more so the Lords, are further away from the problem and many of them don't understand how dire the need is. They're more inclined to follow their gut on the issue, and their guts are telling them "why do a bunch of wogs need provincial councils?"

Colonialism in TTL has developed into a form that is incrementally more respectful of the rights of the colonized, but it's still colonialism, and this is still the late Victorian era. Given the European attitudes of the time, India isn't going to get dominion status all at once. As things are, they're getting more or less what they got in 1919 in OTL, with a few differences each way (more responsible provincial cabinets and a greater list of transferred powers on the one hand, less budgetary power and less representation in the all-India legislative council on the other), and that's probably the maximum realistic first step.

As Badshah says, this will set up a conflict with (and within) the Congress, and the British will have to do better by war's end if they want the Indians to keep volunteering. That will carry its own political complications, though, especially once things go south in the Central India Agency.

The dickishness toward Ireland is also coming from the back benches, but it's more straightforward: the landlords have the Tories' ear, and the peasants can go hang.

And yes, it's the root of imperialism. Usman's conception of an empire as a place in which cultures are brought together for mutual enrichment is the idealized notion of an imperial subject, not the thinking of an imperial overlord.

One question... actually two. Has Gandhi been butterflied, or could we possibly see him as part of a Medical Corps in either in Africa or Europe?

And is the Cape in South Africa becoming more opposed to the idea of union with the rest of the South African colonies based on their adoption of the Cape Qualified Franchise? Having this franchise actually become more popular throughout the region would be a boon to human rights, methinks.

Gandhi was born after the POD but his parents weren't, so it's possible that they would marry and that he would have an ATL sibling. A medical corps in Europe might be an interesting place to put him, although his career will be quite different from the one we know (TTL's satyagraha movement will not have a single leading personality).

Southern Africa is backing into union - at this point the colonies are in a customs union and are sharing certain functions, but still have full internal autonomy - so voting qualifications haven't yet become an issue. The adoption of a Cape-style franchise in Natal, the Orange Free State and Griqualand would certainly be a step forward as compared to OTL, but the Africans will want more, especially once the Sotho, Xhosa and Zulu colonies get responsible government.

If there's one thing I'm sure of, the NDB will be having a demographic crisis comparable to, if not greater than, the one OTL France faced after World War One. This may be somewhat mitigated by German reunification if the BOG alliance squeaks a win, but regardless, fighting on essentially its entire land border (predominantly defensive) versus a stronger France (with A-L), South German armies, Austria-Hungary, and Russia, my assumption is that the North Germans start collapsing in the third, or fourth, year. Industrially and logistically the BOG better off (they can greatly rely on overseas industries such as the US), but in terms of labor they have no ready source of foreign migrants, unlike France did with Italian and Spanish migrants during World War One (France ITTL will still rely on immigration, however it will mostly be from Spain during the war, while the fervent immigration drive and measures will likely be lessened post-war given comparatively lower demographic losses).

I don't want to give too much away right now, but there will be a partial solution to that problem during the fourth year (or possibly late in the third), arising from things that happen on the other side of the lines. Also, given the BOGs' control of the seas, some workers can be brought in by ship, assuming that they're willing to come work in a war zone.

 

[Badshah]

And yes, it's the root of imperialism. Usman's conception of an empire as a place in which cultures are brought together for mutual enrichment is the idealized notion of an imperial subject, not the thinking of an imperial overlord.



Gandhi was born after the POD but his parents weren't, so it's possible that they would marry and that he would have an ATL sibling. A medical corps in Europe might be an interesting place to put him, although his career will be quite different from the one we know (TTL's satyagraha movement will not have a single leading personality).

Southern Africa is backing into union - at this point the colonies are in a customs union and are sharing certain functions, but still have full internal autonomy - so voting qualifications haven't yet become an issue. The adoption of a Cape-style franchise in Natal, the Orange Free State and Griqualand would certainly be a step forward as compared to OTL, but the Africans will want more, especially once the Sotho, Xhosa and Zulu colonies get responsible government.

Methinks that the notion will become that of an imperial overlord as a way to justify his possessions. People like Rudyard Kipling would certainly be present. We haven't really looked at things from the point of view of the paternalistic Victorians, and I think that it would certainly be interesting to take a look into the Princely States, given that they would be more autocratic.

I think that there still should be notable individuals, but I agree that having one figure utterly dominate the satyagraha movement would be a bit much (though I'd argue that it is generally one person who is the face of a movement. I wonder who will be the face here?) Generally speaking, as someone who doesn't necessarily agree with Gandhi, though I believe his heart was in the right place, seeing an ATL sibling would be quite fun. Especially if done in the way of ATL Roosevelt.

South Africans won't necessarily be happy with just the Cape Qualified Franchise, but it would certainly be a first step. I had just recently found out after doing a turn for an NG, playing as the country. This guy, or his *sibling, at least, could be a POV character to look into South African politics: John Tengo Jabavu

 

[Inquisitor Tolkien]

I don't want to give too much away right now, but there will be a partial solution to that problem during the fourth year (or possibly late in the third), arising from things that happen on the other side of the lines. Also, given the BOGs' control of the seas, some workers can be brought in by ship, assuming that they're willing to come work in a war zone.

Immigration for overseas does mitigate the problem, though Germany does not have extensive colonies to draw labor from (unlike France or Britain), nor is occupying much land to, ah, coerce labor (as OTL). Indeed, historically German immigration laws have not been altogether welcoming to non-German migrants in addition to be a source of net emigration, up until the post-WWII era (arguably even today, but that's another discussion entirely). This is all subject to change, of course, and if Germany does adopt a pro-immigration stance with moderate inflows of immigrants (though the sources are rather limited all things considered; religious and linguistic sources are comparatively limited; the Netherlands and Scandinavia, more or less, and those are countries that don't have a real emigration push). Are Japan and China still at war? The situation in the Far East has not been very clear, and if they weren't, I would suspect you would see some emigration from there.

I'm going to refrain from commenting on any future events.

 

[Jonathan Edelstein]

Methinks that the notion will become that of an imperial overlord as a way to justify his possessions. People like Rudyard Kipling would certainly be present. We haven't really looked at things from the point of view of the paternalistic Victorians

The trouble with a vision like Usman's as a justification for imperial overlords is that it assumes that Britain has something to learn from Africa and India. Usman's ideal empire is a two-way civilizing mission. He also favors large empires because they break down artificial borders and eliminate barriers to equal partnership, and the Victorian paternalists didn't see their subjects as equals.

I know I've called Usman an imperialist, in the sense of believing that large multi-ethnic are a good thing, but I'm not sure that's really the right word for him. And his vision will break his heart, although some of his ideas will stay around for the long haul.

Anyway, we'll see more of the Victorian paternalists when... no, that would be telling. And have you read The Brown Man's Burden? It was a contemporary response to Kipling, and it throws "half devil and half child" right back in his face.

I think that it would certainly be interesting to take a look into the Princely States, given that they would be more autocratic.

Most of them are. We've already seen a few of them take early steps toward democratization. But those are the exceptions - the rule is that the princely states are autocratic and becoming more so - and we'll see a couple of the more reactionary ones during year three.

I think that there still should be notable individuals, but I agree that having one figure utterly dominate the satyagraha movement would be a bit much (though I'd argue that it is generally one person who is the face of a movement. I wonder who will be the face here?)

Notable individuals, yes. There might not be one overwhelming figure, though, because TTL's satyagrahis will be more diverse - I've mentioned already that some of them will be Muslim, and there will likely be a Christian branch as well. Also, the satyagrahis may have different opponents in different places - satyagraha could end up being less a movement than a strategy that inspires multiple movements, which would again make it more of a multi-headed beast.

This guy, or his *sibling, at least, could be a POV character to look into South African politics: John Tengo Jabavu

Thanks for that - I hadn't heard of him before, and someone like him will certainly feature in southern African politics. The question is whether his ATL sibling would be in the Cape or in the Transkei Protectorate (his OTL birthplace is in the Cape, but the fortunes of the Xhosa wars could easily have changed where his family lived).

Immigration for overseas does mitigate the problem, though Germany does not have extensive colonies to draw labor from (unlike France or Britain), nor is occupying much land to, ah, coerce labor (as OTL). Indeed, historically German immigration laws have not been altogether welcoming to non-German migrants in addition to be a source of net emigration, up until the post-WWII era (arguably even today, but that's another discussion entirely). This is all subject to change, of course, and if Germany does adopt a pro-immigration stance with moderate inflows of immigrants (though the sources are rather limited all things considered; religious and linguistic sources are comparatively limited; the Netherlands and Scandinavia, more or less, and those are countries that don't have a real emigration push). Are Japan and China still at war? The situation in the Far East has not been very clear, and if they weren't, I would suspect you would see some emigration from there.

The Dutch have colonies, and one of them's a big one. China, which is indeed at war as well as in turmoil, is also a possibility, as is Italy - the Italians certainly won't be looking for work in France during the war. And there's always the possibility of recruiting workers from Kamerun and Ubangi-Shari, via methods that are either more or less civilized.

I doubt that the North Germans would want a permanent Javanese or Chinese, or even Italian, population, so they'd most likely be looking for temporary immigration - contract laborers for a period of years. Of course, that sort of temporary solution often proves less temporary than anyone intended it to be, but that remains to be seen.

And if you won't comment on future events, neither will I.

 

[Falecius]

While I tink that Italy woul be a helpful relieving factor on the BOG manpower shortage, I doubt that very many Italian workers will migrate into either North Germany (though some could have been there before the start of the war; I think that Italian migration to France will be somewhat less intense ITTL, and a small part of the difference could go to the Ruhr... but I suppose nothing substantial). Italy will be struggling to industrialize and desperate fo soldiers.
Still, her frontlines are much shorter than the German ones, while population isn't that different. NDB has more people, but not incredibly more so. Some workers might be imported.

 

[Badshah]

The trouble with a vision like Usman's as a justification for imperial overlords is that it assumes that Britain has something to learn from Africa and India. Usman's ideal empire is a two-way civilizing mission. He also favors large empires because they break down artificial borders and eliminate barriers to equal partnership, and the Victorian paternalists didn't see their subjects as equals.

I know I've called Usman an imperialist, in the sense of believing that large multi-ethnic are a good thing, but I'm not sure that's really the right word for him. And his vision will break his heart, although some of his ideas will stay around for the long haul.

Anyway, we'll see more of the Victorian paternalists when... no, that would be telling. And have you read The Brown Man's Burden? It was a contemporary response to Kipling, and it throws "half devil and half child" right back in his face.

Though they may not see it as a two-way civilizing mission at first (I'm talking long-term), I'm sure that people will choose to use it as a tagline. Perhaps liberal members of Parliament, and indeed imperial subjects. I had not heard of The Brown Man's Burden before. Thank you, as it's awesome to see a different viewpoint to something quite narrowly viewed.

Most of them are. We've already seen a few of them take early steps toward democratization. But those are the exceptions - the rule is that the princely states are autocratic and becoming more so - and we'll see a couple of the more reactionary ones during year three.

Speaking of Princely States, has Awadh been annexed, and has the Indian Mutiny happened according to OTL, or is a descendant of Bahadur Shah II lurking around a small state somewhere? If the latter, having a Mughal as part of the independence movement could give birth to a monarchist faction. (I don't remember if you've covered this already.)

Notable individuals, yes. There might not be one overwhelming figure, though, because TTL's satyagrahis will be more diverse - I've mentioned already that some of them will be Muslim, and there will likely be a Christian branch as well. Also, the satyagrahis may have different opponents in different places - satyagraha could end up being less a movement than a strategy that inspires multiple movements, which would again make it more of a multi-headed beast.

How about the Parsis? I'd say they would become more influential than Christians, especially in the long run.

Thanks for that - I hadn't heard of him before, and someone like him will certainly feature in southern African politics. The question is whether his ATL sibling would be in the Cape or in the Transkei Protectorate (his OTL birthplace is in the Cape, but the fortunes of the Xhosa wars could easily have changed where his family lived).

Frankly, I wouldn't know. I just found out about him yesterday. But alter the circumstances of his life just a teeny bit, and he seems almost revolutionary.

 

[Admiral Matt]

Territorial gains aren't really on the cards for Argentina, except in Patagonia where British aid might help them conquer the French-backed Mapuche.

Wait, what?

The Republic of Piratini - the OTL states of Santa Catarina and Rio Grande do Sul - is indeed independent, so the nearest Brazilian territory that Argentina could seize would be a long way off and difficult to rule.

What Argentina would want out of a war is regional hegemony. Right now, all the small republics can play the Argentines and Brazilians off against each other, especially since at least two of them (Paraguay and Piratini) are minor powers in their own right. If Brazil is defeated - and, in the best case, broken up into several states of more manageable size - then Argentina would have no rival, and the small states on its border would have to knuckle under. Remember, also, that this is an Argentina in which Rosas stayed in power longer and which took more time than OTL to coalesce into a state, so it has a national inferiority complex to work off.

With that said, its participation in the war is far from certain, for the reasons all of you have mentioned - it will be hard to sell the public on a costly war with no prospect of territorial gains. Right now, Britain is offering big financial subsidies and trade concessions, and is also trying to organize Argentina and the smaller republics into a regional alliance by offering Brazilian territory to the latter. The small states aren't yet biting - they realize what an Argentine victory would mean - and whether the subsidies will be enough without them remains to be seen. If it gets to the point where it looks like Brazil will go down regardless, then the decision may become easier, but things haven't reached that point, so there are leaders pulling both ways.

You lost me completely here. What on earth is there about this situation that it would even occur to the Argentines not to annex Entre Rios? Compared with OTL's Chilean aggression toward Peru and Bolivia, say, or Paraguay's Bolivian land grab, it would seem to be an absolutely perfect opportunity with negligible risks.

Has Britain committed to guarantee the independence of Entre Rios when I wasn't looking? Even then, though, that would be the obvious offer to make to encourage Argentine entry - just a couple ships on one brief steam up the La Plata and it's as good as done.

Maybe the Brits don't want to offer because they'd need the intervening states on board to score a land war against Brazil? But I still can't see why the Argentines would feel limited to such an offer in such a once-in-a-century opportunity. And it's Britain we're talking about; compelling microstates with coastal capitals to toe the line would hardly be a new experience.

 

[CaliBoy1990]

Wait, what?



You lost me completely here. What on earth is there about this situation that it would even occur to the Argentines not to annex Entre Rios? Compared with OTL's Chilean aggression toward Peru and Bolivia, say, or Paraguay's Bolivian land grab, it would seem to be an absolutely perfect opportunity with negligible risks.

Has Britain committed to guarantee the independence of Entre Rios when I wasn't looking? Even then, though, that would be the obvious offer to make to encourage Argentine entry - just a couple ships on one brief steam up the La Plata and it's as good as done.

Maybe the Brits don't want to offer because they'd need the intervening states on board to score a land war against Brazil? But I still can't see why the Argentines would feel limited to such an offer in such a once-in-a-century opportunity. And it's Britain we're talking about; compelling microstates with coastal capitals to toe the line would hardly be a new experience.

TBH, Jon, I agree with Matt here; why wouldn't Argentina want to annex that area?

 

[B_Munro]

I third this motion!

BTW, Jonathan, I continue to find it fascinating the way this world seems to be developing looser, more overlapping notions of sovereignty and nation than OTL - noted that bit about the Niger Federation including states both in and out of the British Empire. I imagine historians of this world's 2013 writing with that well-known condescention of posterity about the "crude" and "dogmatic" ideas of national sovereignty developed in early modern times, compared to the more sophisticated and pragmatic notions arising from the imperial, globalizing experience of the 19th century.

Bruce

 

[Julius Vogel]

Gentlemen,

I must report that I have divined JE's intent in writing this time line and that is to clearly end the controversy over who invented the "Technical". It is now clear that it is a Franco-West African collaboration rather than a Somalian invention. It is also a century early or so.

Top marks!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_(vehicle)

 

[Jonathan Edelstein]

You lost me completely here. What on earth is there about this situation that it would even occur to the Argentines not to annex Entre Rios? Compared with OTL's Chilean aggression toward Peru and Bolivia, say, or Paraguay's Bolivian land grab, it would seem to be an absolutely perfect opportunity with negligible risks.

TBH, Jon, I agree with Matt here; why wouldn't Argentina want to annex that area?

I third this motion!

Fair point. Argentina would certainly want to annex Entre Rios, which it would consider its own historic territory; in fact, it may even have grabbed Entre Rios already. The trouble, from the British point of view, is that the next natural target after Entre Rios is Paraguay, which Argentina also considers part of its historic territory. Paraguay is still a strong country at this point in TTL - it was on the losing side of the Third Platine War, but didn't lose too badly - and it would take Argentina a couple of years to beat it. That would mean that neither Argentina nor Paraguay would be available to fight the Brazilians.

Britain doesn't want Argentina and Paraguay fighting each other - it wants both of them to attack Brazil. So maybe that's what's taking so long - the British are trying to find a way to make Argentina satisfied with just Entre Rios, while simultaneously convincing Paraguay to join forces with a country it doesn't trust. They might be offering to guarantee Paraguay's independence on the one hand, promising financial subsidies to Argentina on the other, and holding out to both the promise of a brave new world in which Brazil is cut down to size. Both Argentina and Paraguay are interested, but they're also hesitant, both about the idea of taking on Brazil and that of laying off each other.

Does that sound more reasonable?

Oh, and the Mapuche thing: TTL's Napoleon III went much further with a romantic conception of himself as "protector of the natives" than he did in OTL (where that conception was largely limited to Algeria), and gave support to the Kingdom of Araucania and Patagonia. This was a bit quixotic even for him, so they didn't get much support - lots of surplus rifles and ammunition, a few mountain guns and a company or two of military advisers. The French presence was mainly a deterrent - a warning to Argentina and Chile that if they messed with the Mapuche, they'd be messing with France. That deterrent is now, for all practical purposes, gone, but by now the Mapuche are well armed and they made a good stand even in OTL, so they won't be pushovers.

BTW, Jonathan, I continue to find it fascinating the way this world seems to be developing looser, more overlapping notions of sovereignty and nation than OTL - noted that bit about the Niger Federation including states both in and out of the British Empire. I imagine historians of this world's 2013 writing with that well-known condescention of posterity about the "crude" and "dogmatic" ideas of national sovereignty developed in early modern times, compared to the more sophisticated and pragmatic notions arising from the imperial, globalizing experience of the 19th century.

Some historians will write that way about Westphalian sovereignty, while others will argue that it was preferable to the unwieldy patchwork that replaced it. The concept of unbundled sovereignty will still be controversial in 2013, much as the current international order is in OTL.

That concept will owe as much to the twentieth century as to the nineteenth, though: the first movements in that direction will occur during and immediately after the war, but they'll spread and develop as a result of twentieth-century conflicts. No doubt TTL's historians will find roots in the multi-ethnic empires of the nineteenth-century, but they'll also characterize it as one of the great ideological battles of the twentieth.

I must report that I have divined JE's intent in writing this time line and that is to clearly end the controversy over who invented the "Technical". It is now clear that it is a Franco-West African collaboration rather than a Somalian invention. It is also a century early or so.

Yup. This article may also be useful, although the Malê will use them in a way that the Chadians and Somalis never thought of - remember that the Malê cut their teeth on Peninsular War tactics, and that everything old is someday new again.

 

[Admiral Matt]

Fair point. Argentina would certainly want to annex Entre Rios, which it would consider its own historic territory; in fact, it may even have grabbed Entre Rios already. The trouble, from the British point of view, is that the next natural target after Entre Rios is Paraguay, which Argentina also considers part of its historic territory. Paraguay is still a strong country at this point in TTL - it was on the losing side of the Third Platine War, but didn't lose too badly - and it would take Argentina a couple of years to beat it. That would mean that neither Argentina nor Paraguay would be available to fight the Brazilians.

Britain doesn't want Argentina and Paraguay fighting each other - it wants both of them to attack Brazil. So maybe that's what's taking so long - the British are trying to find a way to make Argentina satisfied with just Entre Rios, while simultaneously convincing Paraguay to join forces with a country it doesn't trust. They might be offering to guarantee Paraguay's independence on the one hand, promising financial subsidies to Argentina on the other, and holding out to both the promise of a brave new world in which Brazil is cut down to size. Both Argentina and Paraguay are interested, but they're also hesitant, both about the idea of taking on Brazil and that of laying off each other.

Does that sound more reasonable?

It does indeed. Two further thoughts on the subject:

[1] The main reason to ensure a friendly Paraguay would be to cover Argentina's flank, not to develop a front. Geographically speaking, the Paraguayan-Brazilian border is one of the most impassible regions on the continent. Marching an army into Brazil isn't impossible per se, but getting it to even a medium-sized town would be a challenge, much less anything strategic. This is doubly true with Piritini and the benighted Entre Rios sitting astride the least useless route.

[2] Argentina will be quite a different beast in this timeline. Historically there was a constant dynamic of conflict well into the 20th century between Buenos Aires on the one hand and absolutely everyone else on the other. It defined Argentine politics for a century largely because neither side could actually win - the relative strengths were too close. With Entre Rios' secession and the Araucanian survival, the capital will be in a much stronger position within the republic. Given its more militarized circumstances there is a fair chance that Buenos Aires has been able to rally the provinces into a somewhat more cohesive whole; unitary being too strong a word.

Oh, and the Mapuche thing: TTL's Napoleon III went much further with a romantic conception of himself as "protector of the natives" than he did in OTL (where that conception was largely limited to Algeria), and gave support to the Kingdom of Araucania and Patagonia. This was a bit quixotic even for him, so they didn't get much support - lots of surplus rifles and ammunition, a few mountain guns and a company or two of military advisers. The French presence was mainly a deterrent - a warning to Argentina and Chile that if they messed with the Mapuche, they'd be messing with France. That deterrent is now, for all practical purposes, gone, but by now the Mapuche are well armed and they made a good stand even in OTL, so they won't be pushovers.

They've already done the most important part anyway - drawn an indelible line between themselves and the "normal" native peoples of the Americas. This is a timeline wherein they're unlikely to be obscure. Indeed, I suspect they'll get much the same treatment as "Nigeria" in popular culture's perception of Amerindian societies, if they haven't already.

 

[Hnau]

Some thoughts on the questions being asked about Argentina and other players in the region.

Having known Gauchos personally and with my twin brother living in the Rio Grande do Sul for two years, I feel like the Piratini culture would not develop in a way that would condone further expansionism into Brazil. The war of independence would be seen as their epic climax of cultural ascendance, not the first step of many. They would be interested in defending their sovereignty if they need to, yes, but they wouldn't be after territories.

As far as loyalty to their neighbors, because of cultural similarities I feel their first ally would be Entre Rios (another "liberated" gaucho republic), followed by Uruguay, followed by Paraguay, followed by Argentina, with Brazil as the clear antagonist. I highly doubt Piratini would be comfortable with any country taking control of Entre Rios, though they might be convinced if they needed help if Brazil were to threaten Piratini. The best situation in foreign affairs that Piratini could hope for is a strong economic and military alliance with all four gaucho countries against Brazil. As such, they have an interest in being the peacemaker. Uruguay has an interest as well but I see them as being more indifferent and content to stay neutral. If Argentina could only give up their territorial ambitions in Entre Rios and Paraguay, I feel like they would find a strong ally in Piratini.

And that's my read of the regional situation given my knowledge of cultural behavior... which could be wrong, because maybe gaucho culture was very different in the late 19th century compared to modern times, but from what I know there doesn't seem much reason attitude would be different.

 

[Shevek23]

Gentlemen,

I must report that I have divined JE's intent in writing this time line and that is to clearly end the controversy over who invented the "Technical". It is now clear that it is a Franco-West African collaboration rather than a Somalian invention. It is also a century early or so.

Top marks!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_(vehicle)

Well, gosh, the things one learns at AH!

Here I was thinking of those things as "trucks with guns." Or just "trucks with a lot of gunmen riding in the back;" though I appreciate that one of the guns being a great big one of some kind or other (or missile launcher, whatever) adds a new quality to it.

There's an even lower tech version that might be relevant here, especially on the fronts involving Russia--or Austria-Hungary, which strikes me as having essentially the same per capita technical capabilities as the Tsar's forces do. That is, Russians and Austrians can and will make proper motor vehicles--those wacky Russians might even produce something like this before the war's over, especially if it moves east onto Russian soil in winter--but they'll always be in relatively short supply; something that requires only a typical cart, some horses--and the gun of course--must surely find a niche; it certainly did in the OTL Russian Civil War and that was in a Russia advanced some two decades beyond the starting point of this war.

I only know that from looking at the cross-references of the Wiki article on "Technicals" offered, so surely many of y'all, including I trust Jonathan, are way ahead of me.

 

[The Sandman]

How likely is it that Britain would be willing to throw Uruguay under the bus in order to get Argentina into the war?

Hawaii is also an excellent flashpoint to drag the US into the war; the only ones that could be better would be a grab for Spanish colonies after Spain joins the war (which I expect it would do if Portugal comes in on the FAR side and thus the Spanish don't have to worry about the Brits dropping an army in Lisbon and replaying the Peninsular War) or somebody trying to use force to keep the US from selling to both sides in Europe.

Has Venezuela been making noises about grabbing their claims in British Guyana? Obviously going to war would be a spectacularly bad idea in the long run, but the threat of coming in at a particularly inconvenient moment might be enough to get the British to hand over marginal territory to make them shut up (or at least so the thinking would go in Caracas).

And of course the Presidential election of 1896 in the US will have the Great War as a backdrop. This should have at least some effect on the proceedings.

 

[Inquisitor Tolkien]

Hawaii is also an excellent flashpoint to drag the US into the war; the only ones that could be better would be a grab for Spanish colonies after Spain joins the war (which I expect it would do if Portugal comes in on the FAR side and thus the Spanish don't have to worry about the Brits dropping an army in Lisbon and replaying the Peninsular War) or somebody trying to use force to keep the US from selling to both sides in Europe.

It would be highly, highly unlikely for Portugal to come in on the side of France (or, specifically, against Great Britain). It's a maritime nation, with a long history of relations with Britain (and an official alliance), with very little to gain indeed from an entry into the war on the side of France.

Portugal entering on the side of Great Britain, maybe. But that would be a hard pill to swallow still, since they have the lucrative opportunity to trade with both sides as neutrals.

 

[imperialaquila]

It would be highly, highly unlikely for Portugal to come in on the side of France (or, specifically, against Great Britain). It's a maritime nation, with a long history of relations with Britain (and an official alliance), with very little to gain indeed from an entry into the war on the side of France.

Portugal entering on the side of Great Britain, maybe. But that would be a hard pill to swallow still, since they have the lucrative opportunity to trade with both sides as neutrals.

Remember, Portugal is currently engaged in fighting against what it believes to be North German-backed Africans in southern Africa. If they get too frustrated, they might declare war.

 

[Admiral Matt]

How likely is it that Britain would be willing to throw Uruguay under the bus in order to get Argentina into the war?

Probably a bridge too far, that. The priority is winning the war, not fulfilling Argentinian fantasies.

 

[Admiral Matt]

Remember, Portugal is currently engaged in fighting against what it believes to be North German-backed Africans in southern Africa. If they get too frustrated, they might declare war.

Their strategy for the war'd be a bit questionable, though. What - they won't destroy our empire with their overwhelming force because....they're too busy destroying the empires of the much stronger powers?

I'd guess cooler heads might take it as far as a shift from pro-British to pro-French neutrality but no farther. But I suppose cooler heads don't always prevail.