@Gonzalo - You seem to have overlooked Brazils expansionist goals which played a role in Brazils politics over the centuries and even in Brazils war with Paraguay. Even today some still comment that Brazil has expansionist goals.
I’m not overlooking it. I only said that by 1864 Brazil had no interest in annexing Uruguay nor declare war against Paraguay. I even said that the Brazilian intervention in Uruguay happened because the blancos threatened Brazilian interests there. At that time Brazil had “imperialist” desires in the Plata region, but not “expansionist”. That phase was over when the Argentines kicked our ass during the Cisplatine War. What I said is that the Brazilian interests and methods changed over time. We didn’t have interest of attack Paraguay in 1850 when there was an attack of Paraguayan forces against Brazilian soldiers, and we simply wouldn’t attack Paraguay in 1864 over the Uruguayan problems.
They say Brazil was like the US. For the US it was manifest destiny. Brazil followed a similar idea. To expand to the Pacific. Brazil was such a huge nation so why keep on expanding West without having properly exploited the territories to the East. Seems they expanded West into neighboring nations claims before those areas became heavily populated with citizens of those nations which would make Brazilian claims harder to recognize.
Please... Brazil never intended to expand to the Pacific. Why would we try to reach the Pacific, the most populated part of South America, with a people with a different language and that didn’t like us at all? After the loss of Uruguay, the Brazilian expansionist aims (and here I say truly “expansionists”) where at first to recognize only the borders of the Treaty of Madrid of 1750. Only that. The problem was to decide where those limits were laid, as shown by the examples of our claims against Argentina, Paraguay and Bolivia. With Argentina, for example, the problem was to decide if the river shown by the maps as the border was the Peperi-Guaçu (as we said) or the Chopim (as the Argentine said). With Paraguay, if the border was on the Apa River or the Branco River. The government didn’t even think about going to the Pacific. The USA went to the Pacific because the basically got a land inhabited only by natives and they had basically one weak enemy. We would need to go through a hell of a tropical forest and then invade the most populated area of South America and finally cross the highest mountains of the New World to get there. This is ASB.
Just look at the Western part of Amazonia. Supposedly Bolivia claimed it then Brazil annexed it in a treaty with Bolivia for Acre. But then look at what happened in Acre.
In Canada with the US gold miners going into the Yukon territory the Canadians decided to make Yukon a province that way the US would not annex it. Which is sort of what happened in Acre.
So sending people of other nations into another territory of another nation has been used plenty of times to annex that territory from the original nation.
The lands we bought from Bolivia were acquired during the war with Paraguay, when they were rule by the stupidest South American dictator ever, Mariano Melgarejo (you know, the man who raised an army to help Napoleon III against the Prussians and started to march from La Paz in direction to France). And he accepted to give them to us in exchange for two white horses and four medals. How could we not accept such deal?? And again, those lands were all within our claims originated from the Treaty of Madrid.
About the case of Acre, if you look at the history of that territory, you would see that, at first, the Brazilian government was against the separation of Acre from Bolivia. Even the Baron of Rio Branco, the Brazilian Chancellor at the time, said that Acre was rightfully Bolivian, and the Republic proclaimed at Porto Acre was illegal. But the complains of politicians from Amazonas, the existence of Brazilian citizens living there, and finally the rumours that Bolivia would give Acre as a private concession to an Anglo-American conglomerate made the government decide to annex it. It wasn’t something planned, but it was an opportunity that wouldn’t be lost.
And we never “sent” those people to Acre. They went there because they migrants, escaping from the droughts of Northeast to explore rubber in the Amazon. The government simply didn’t care for them, and if they had gone to hell the heads in Rio would think it would be better.
You say the Empire of Brazil did not want trouble with Paraguay which reminds me of what happened in modern times. Brazil having military excercises near the border with Paraguay. With such a huge nation with space to spare why have those excercises near the border of a supposedly friendly nation which is no threat. Its even against there constitution to start a war.
If you don’t know, the Brazilian-Paraguayan border is one of the greatest points from where drugs enter the territory of Brazil, and both sides of the border are almost ruled by “warlords” involved with the traffic. I say this because I’ve friends who made reports about the situation in the area and also I have friends and relatives who live and lived that. Personally I think it’s good to have more military presence in the region, and this has nothing to do with “expansionism”. I understand that the Paraguayan government might not like it, but frankly, I consider this as paranoia.
And then there is Guyana and which involved Cuba. When it was though Cuba was using Guyana has a jumping point to Angola the Brazilian military started concentrating near there border with that nation. Guyana is zero threat to Brazil so why do it.
You might know that, when that happened, Brazil was living under a right wing military dictatorship, and they were completely paranoid about Cuba. If it were reported that a wooden box with Cuban cigars was found on the sea near Fernando de Noronha, the government would likely send the entire Navy there. It had nothing to do with a threat from Guyana, it had do to with the fact that “fucking Cuban commies” where nearby.
And why so interested in taking side between Venezuela and Guyana. Brazil should have taken a middle approach and helped solve the problem instead of jumping on Guyanas bandwagon. At that time Venezuela claimed 1/3 of Guyana. Is it because its best to have a weak Guyana then a stronger Venezuela.
Taking side when? In the last incident between Venezuela and Guyana?
Do you see what I am getting at. Brazil, all big nations do this and many smaller nations would also if they could, have a hidden foreign policy which if it leads to expansion the better.
Sure, but there are limits to what they desire or not, and what they can or not, and Brazil surely never intended to reach the Pacific, and didn’t want to annex Uruguay in 1864 or declare a messy war with Paraguay without provocation. Have economical predominance? Of course, that would be good? But going to war? No one was seriously wanting it at that moment (planning, perhaps, but not desiring it).
I believe the only nation in South America that truly expanded because of true national concerns was Chile. Its such a narrow nation that it can be easily overrunned.
Not so easily, since they are defended by the greatest freaking mountain range they could get.
Today they are considered a regional power. Seems Paraguay is getting closer to Chile economically which could help break there dependence on Brazil and Argentina. Plus its nice to have a regional power has a friend.
URUPABOL any of you heard of it. It seems its being re-activated.
And I applaud any movement that leads to more integration between South American countries. Nowadays the things go in such direction that when one grows economically all the others also have greater developments.
And again, all this discussion is completely out of the OP. Anyone has more ideas of ITTL consequences for a non-existing War of the Triple Alliance?