War between Pinochet's Chile and a British Argentina in the 80s.

Bear in mind this Argentina (and Uruguay also included) was basically taken over by Britain during Napoleonic War and it ended up becoming part of the British Empire afterwards. I am not looking for answers on how it be realistic for it to happen.

Basically instead of a Falklands War in 1982, instead in this case a war between a British Argentina vs Chile (which was under Pinochet's regime at the time) being mainly fought over control of Patagonia.

How would this hypothetical war turn out? Surely this alternate Argentina will be helped out by the Commonwealth of Nations especially Britain. But it will take a while for assistance to arrive for Argentina so I would see this war being only fought by Argentina within the first week.

Also could this result in a bigger war in South America? In this hypothetical war we would see Brazil still under the military junta in 1982, and surely plenty of other Latin American countries were still dictatorships. So would it result in some Latin American countries sending aid to Chile and if so which specific South American country? And then the question is what South American dictatorships be willing to support a British Argentina (which is a parliamentary democracy in this war so I will have there being no Peron coming to power in this alternate Argentina) in this war against Chile?

And lastly could a war between Pinochet's Chile and a British Argentina over Patagonia spark World War III as well?

(Remember we are not talking about how possible Britain would be able to take over Argentina or colonize it. We are talking about a 1982 war between Chile and British Argentina)
 
Bear in mind this Argentina (and Uruguay also included) was basically taken over by Britain during Napoleonic War and it ended up becoming part of the British Empire afterwards. I am not looking for answers on how it be realistic for it to happen.

Basically instead of a Falklands War in 1982, instead in this case a war between a British Argentina vs Chile (which was under Pinochet's regime at the time) being mainly fought over control of Patagonia.

How would this hypothetical war turn out? Surely this alternate Argentina will be helped out by the Commonwealth of Nations especially Britain. But it will take a while for assistance to arrive for Argentina so I would see this war being only fought by Argentina within the first week.

Also could this result in a bigger war in South America? In this hypothetical war we would see Brazil still under the military junta in 1982, and surely plenty of other Latin American countries were still dictatorships. So would it result in some Latin American countries sending aid to Chile and if so which specific South American country? And then the question is what South American dictatorships be willing to support a British Argentina (which is a parliamentary democracy in this war so I will have there being no Peron coming to power in this alternate Argentina) in this war against Chile?

And lastly could a war between Pinochet's Chile and a British Argentina over Patagonia spark World War III as well?

(Remember we are not talking about how possible Britain would be able to take over Argentina or colonize it. We are talking about a 1982 war between Chile and British Argentina)
wrong board as this uses a pre-1900 POD, also that PoD would surely butterfly Pinochet.
 
First of all, this should be in Before 1900, as your PoD in Napoleonic Wars happened in the early 19th century.

Second of all, Pinochet was born a century after Waterloo. He would not exist in this timeline.
 
wrong board as this uses a pre-1900 POD, also that PoD would surely butterfly Pinochet.
You once again failed to answer the question on who would win the war. Once again I stated specifically I am not looking for how Britain would colonize Argentina.

This is a war between Chile and a British Argentina in the 1980s.
 
First of all, this should be in Before 1900, as your PoD in Napoleonic Wars happened in the early 19th century.

Second of all, Pinochet was born a century after Waterloo. He would not exist in this timeline.
Does a POD matter? No that not what I am looking for. I once again am stating how the hypothetical war would turn out instead of a Falklands War in the 1980's, instead being between Chile and Argentina.

I should of perhaps been more clear, I should've stated that Chile doesn't get taken over by the British in the beginning. But once again that be going off topic on my thread.
 
For the sake of categorization, yes the PoD does matter. This belongs in before 1900.

What else has changed in the world since the Napoleonic Wars? Are you aware of the butterfly effect? It is kind of important, because the world would not look exactly the same after a century with a major change like a British Argentina.
 
For the sake of categorization, yes the PoD does matter. This belongs in before 1900.

What else has changed in the world since the Napoleonic Wars? Are you aware of the butterfly effect? It is kind of important, because the world would not look exactly the same after a century with a major change like a British Argentina.
I am very aware of the butterfly effect yes. But I feel this would simply just put my question out of the picture for my scenario once again. Do not get me wrong I do absolutely know it would affect a lot of South America believe me.

But I feel it be very much pointless to put Pinochet out of the picture in this hypothetical war.
 
You once again failed to answer the question on who would win the war.
This is the first time I've answered this question. If you've been told that this question doesn't belong here before, then that's your problem not mine.

edit:
Once again I stated specifically I am not looking for how Britain would colonize Argentina.
I also didn't say anything on this matter. I just made the obvious point that a British Argentina probably means Pinochet isn't even born.
 
Last edited:
Alright, here we go:

Some dictator vaguely resembling Pinochet invades Patagonia with his underfunded army in the hope of boosting the popularity of his dying regime. The British respond by launching a full on invasion of Chile, renaming Santiago to Saint James. They annex Chile and it becomes an extension of the glorious British Empire.

Also Brazil backs the British in return for helping them in their civil war over slavery.

The United States sends token aid to the Chileans for the sake of enforcing the Monroe Doctrine.
 
Argentina, being powered by the unstoppable'ness of being British master race™ now posses a perfectly functionating anglo-saxon nation state. Their economy is super duper good and they easily stomp Chile (also, Britain comes to aid them, because of course the british would).

This is obviosuly a joke answer (if sadly something that many members of AH actually believe).

Now, ralistically? It's impossible to know. Why? Because we don't know how Argentina would develop. Would it be Canada 2.0? A slightly less successful US? Kenya? We simply don't know.

First you need to properly develop this ATL Argentina and then we will talk (at least their population, economy, treaties and military).
 
Last edited:
Now, ralistically? It's impossible to know. Why? Because we don't know how Argentina would develop. Would it be Canada 2.0? A slightly less successful US? Kenya? We simply don't know.
Argentina was economically tied to the UK up to 1945, so no differences there IMHO. I think the only difference is whether the civil war is adverted (surely adverted if the UK sends troops, but would they commit them for decades if some local strongman promises to keep the wool flowing?) so mandatory primary education starts 50 years ahead of schedule.

Other than that and with a POD so far in the past, it's up to whatever the author wants to write. For all we know, WWI never happened, tensions erupted between the European powers in the 1960s, leading to nuclear warfare in Europe and, in the aftermath, a revengeful terrorist group who managed to sneak off with a tactical nuke decided to blow it in Buenos Aires as revenge for crimes committed by Argentine troops against his family during this ATL WW1.
Argentina is weakened by the attack but has (partially) recovered, and remains firmly in the Rump-UK camp. The USA, wanting to end British influence in the Americas, supports the anticommunist Chilean dictatorship. The UK, devastated due the nuclear war, is unable to commit anything to the defense of Argentina, Canada tries to play diplomatic interference but won't anger their southern neighbor so the only aid Argentina gets is very limited, and coming from Australia, New Zealand and the Space Filling Anglo-Empire of Central Africa.

After a cruel and long five years war, Chile seems to be winning the war, but desperate Argentine forces detonate an Australian-made nuclear land mine and, wishing to avoid the fate of Europe, the Chilean dictatorship and the surviving Argentine government sign a peace of compromise. Both Chile and the remains of Argentina reinforce their nuclear and rocket programs in the aftermath, in preparation for round 2.
 
The problem with your POD is that the tensions which would serve as cause belli would not have existed. Havinng Argentina as a british possession would have radically altered the political landscape of the southern cone. You would also need to determine the knock on effects of having a British Argentina, would they have supported Chile in the 1850's and earlier as a check against the United states in the pacific? On top of that having the british intimately involved in the southern cone is going to change the trajectory of government's there. Allande would trend more towards being a labour style socialist and less of a radical third wayer if there had been a functional british example working in the southern cone, he was much more traditional then most give him credit for in his views about the way power flowed through structures and its proper course.

All of that said it very much depends on just who is in control of the Argentines and what their military command actually looked like. No Chilean general would be stupid enough to pull the trigger on Argentina without massive provocation as they had a very good idea of just what such a war would cost. If you look at the estimates from a 78 beagle war then the Argentine military was thinking at most a hundred thousand and it would be over by Christmas, the Chileans... a couple of million casualties and lasting until the argentine government cracked. Still if you assume that the Argentines have not turned into a basket case then they take the war in walk, in OTL they were a fist world nation before WWI and with the brits giving them a better starting position and being able to support them better they are going to be making their own tanks and fast jets. That kind of industrial advantage is not really possible for a 'Pinochet' style Chile to overcome if they were crazy enough to start something.
 
I'm sorry, but the mere premise of Argentina being a British colony and everything remaining exactly the same is just bizarre. I know Nothing Ever Happens In South America, but this is a bit extreme.

We are talking about the age of birth of South American nations, they wouldn't even be the same. I can't even compare military equipment, because it would be totally different (who's to say if a British Argentine invented some gizmo or other). Hell, would there even be a Commonwealth? For all we know Britain expends more energy in South America and does not conquer all of India. Why would there be a World War III? Maybe there was just one, or none, or four.

Even for quick TLs where there's a lot of parallelism, this is just too much.

The closest thing you could have is an Argentina who remained in the British sphere until the 80s (unlikely, since by then it was an almost dead empire) and got British support in a war with Chile. But I don't see why the rest of the Commowealth would send more than a token force.
 
Bear in mind this Argentina (and Uruguay also included) was basically taken over by Britain during Napoleonic War and it ended up becoming part of the British Empire afterwards. I am not looking for answers on how it be realistic for it to happen.

Basically instead of a Falklands War in 1982, instead in this case a war between a British Argentina vs Chile (which was under Pinochet's regime at the time) being mainly fought over control of Patagonia.

How would this hypothetical war turn out? Surely this alternate Argentina will be helped out by the Commonwealth of Nations especially Britain. But it will take a while for assistance to arrive for Argentina so I would see this war being only fought by Argentina within the first week.
Alright, I'll attempt this, taking it on its face.

Did WWII go about the same for Britain, or was she somehow more successful?

Now, for the actual question:

First off, is Argentina a Dominion, a Crown Colony, or an fully independent nation with British roots? That will help to determine whether or not Fairwind (the Argentine capital) is capable of making its own decisions independently or has to wait on guidance from London..

Secondly, what reasonable claim would Chile have on Patagonia anyway, and why is it worth going to the mattresses over?

Who is backing Chile? Dictatorships don't necessarily like each other anyway- would it somehow be an anti-colonialists vs. Imperialists type of thing?


Also, regardless of the above, I can't see it rising to the level of nuclear war.
 
If I'm doing some basic world-building, let's say Britain got just a bit luckier in WWII. Hood didn't get magazine'd, Force Z had a proper carrier complement, and Ark Royal got towed back to Gibraltar, minor stuff like that. Britain's naval prestige is untarnished, and they are less indebted to the USA.


Britain's biggest ally in South America is the Dominion of Argentina and the Falkland Islands, commonly referred to as Argentina.

Its capital and largest city is Fairwinds (flows better pluralized IMO), which is also the cultural capital of Anglophone South America. Most of the populace is bilingual in English and Spanish, and there is a small Lusophone community as well, largely Brazilian expatriates.

The Argentinian Pound is a stable currency, with an exchange rate of approximately 3 Argentinian Pounds for every 2 Pounds Sterling.

Her primary exports are agricultural products; traditionally beef and wool, but oilseeds are gradually becoming a greater proportion of the harvest. The largest manufacturing firm, Leyland of Argentina (Argentine Leyland; AL) manufactures cars, trucks, buses and agricultural machinery.


The country maintains a relatively small armed forces, in the Argentine Army and Royal Argentinian Air Force. The Royal Argentinian Navy is considered large for a minor power, and it is one of few nations to maintain a cruiser; the Minotaur-class light cruiser HMArS Emmanuel Belgrano, named after the father of Argentina, who brokered the peaceful transfer of Argentina from Spain to Britain as compensation for British assistance in the Peninsular War. The country has also maintained two small aircraft carriers, HMArS Independence and HMArS Stanley

In contrast to the stereotype of South American nations, the government of Argentina has been remarkably stable, except for a brief postwar populist uprising led by the charismatic John Peters and his equally controversial wife, Eva Edwards (popularly known as "Little Eva" due to her short stature and the significant age gap between the two). Eventually, frustration at their gross abuse of power led to their ouster, and a return to the back-and-forth rule between the Labour, and Conservative parties, with the Liberals often forming a coalition with one of the two.


Chile, however, has enjoyed a far less fortunate fate. The nation has bounced from dictatorship to dictatorship, rife with personality cults and coups d'etat.

The latest face is the fascist Augusto Pinochet. Bellicose and aggressive, part of his agenda is to reclaim what the "English have plundered from Latin America"...
 
Last edited:
I feel a great disturbance in the boards, as if millions of butterflies suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced :p

First and foremost, Belgrano stated, during the 1806 British invasions "The old master or none"

Second, due butterflies, Gavrilo Princip's grandfather ate a different sandwich a few days after conceiving Gavrilo's father, so his body created a different set of spermatozoids, resulting in a different child, or no child at all. As a result, even if the heir of the Astro-Hungarian Empire (whoever he is, because butterflies also affect his grandfather sandwiches) happens to visit Sarajevo in 1914 (assuming Saravejo is a part of the Empire ITTL), he's not killed and there is no WW1 as we know it. Heck, butterflies affect Wilhmen II's grandfathers so for all we know, there is no Anglo-German naval race either. Without WW1, there is no World War 2.

Needless to say, there is also no "John Peters" nor "Eva Edwards", although if fascism and corporativism rise IOTL, there will be Argentine military officers interested in it. However, that doesn't mean they happen to be single and meet an actress, it doesn't mean they become interested in politics and it doesn't mean social issues evolve in a similar way to begin with.
And no, no "Augusto Pinochet" either.
 
I feel a great disturbance in the boards, as if millions of butterflies suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced :p

First and foremost, Belgrano stated, during the 1806 British invasions "The old master or none"
Ah, but such a scenario forgets that when the British arrived in 1806, they brought with them tea, tea which grew in soil rich in handwavium deposits, a beverage greatly enjoyed by one Manuel, later Emmanuel Belgrano ;)

Well, I tried to satisfy most of the requirements of this AHC and it required a flit gun full of handwavium to be sprayed at quite a few butterflies!
 
Top