WI: Chile loses the War of the Pacific

Well, starting with the obvious, Bolivia has a coastline. The Andean bloc is more powerful, prestigious, and prosperous. Peru and Bolivia grow closer, maybe even merging (and perhaps taking Ecuador with them). Chile is basically the same, but enjoys better relations with indigenous South America. Later there is more U.S. interference in Bolivia, and somewhat less in Chile. Ultimately there is less of a Bolivian diaspora.
 
An important point to consider would be if Chile makes territorial concessions because of its defeat; OTL, the border had moved north slowly at the expense of Bolivia, perhaps the trend can be reversed.

In Chile, the war can be seen as a failed adventure by a power-hungry oligarchy, which could hasten an intestine war such as the 1891 one. That in and of itself would break Chile’s economy, after the extended foreign conflict, and lacking the revenues from the saltpeter mines, could cause Chile to stagnate until the mid-1910’s.

In Bolivia, not much might change. The coastline had always been neglected by the central government, and it might fare little better in the outcome of an Allied victory. Perhaps, some attention might be paid to the existing mines, but since Bolivia lacked the infrastructure, and the manpower to successfully exploit them (IIRC, something close to 80% of Bolivia’s coast was already populated by Chileans by 1879,) they might end up selling the rights to British entrepreneurs, as Chile did OTL.

It’s with Peru that I see the biggest change taking place. The province of Tarapaca, was almost unique in the fact that it counted on a successful capitalist provincial elite, whose income derived from the already operative mines. Their mere existence could prove to be a strong counterbalance to the centralizing forces from Lima, allowing much more of foreign investments, and national projects to be disseminated across the interior. Furthermore, with unchallenged control of the South American saltpeter industry (should things go as OTL) the Peruvians would grow rich until the mid-1910s, allowing them to grow economically, perhaps more than Chile did OTL, based on their larger population.
 
so, Perù, would have what is Chile now?
obvioulsy all depend, if they avoid Chile getting into bolivia, all is Ok, if they are able to controll Bolivia, ?
 
Interesting POD.

Chile might find itself more interested in making up losses through Auracania. Or had it given that away yet. In any event, Chile's pretty screwed. Most of its state spending and a large part of its economy during the period 1880 - 1920 was tied up in the saltpeter mines. Take that out taxes go way up, government spending goes down, a lot of the political stability of the era is impaired. Following 1920, the Panama Canal is going to kill a lot of ocean trade around that area. I think Chile's pretty screwed.

I don't think you'd find a Bolivia/Peru Axis, or a new Confederation. The War of the Confederation put paid to that notion. At best, you'd have some sort of friendly(?) relations. Chile/Peruvian relations would be much better, what with not sharing a border and not having border irritations.

I agree, I don't think that Bolivia had the resources or the inclination to exploit its coast effectively. But you'd probably see a somewhat wealthier and stronger Bolivia, one which had a clear route to exports and imports through a coastal port on the Pacific. It might be strong enough to resist Brazilian encroachment in the rubber province. And this might entirely butterfly the Chaco War, if its interests and focus were eastwards.

Peru was the most conservative and among the most effectively decentralized of the Latin American states. It's hard to see that inertia being affected all that much. I don't see Ecuador in danger. But a more successful Peru might be more inclined to press its territorial issues with Brazil, Ecuador and Colombia earlier.
 
Shortly after independence, Peru and Bolivia were unified into a Confederation. That in itself was a strange outcome.

Bolivia had been freed by Simon Bolivar's second campaign. My recollection is that after the Gran Colombia thing, the Bolivian's called Bolivar down to help them out, and he actually came. They were so greatful they named the country after him.

Peru in contrast was the most conservative of the Spanish colonies and actually fought to remain with Spain for a while.

Anyway, somehow, Bolivia and Peru got stapled on up together. The resulting conglomerate scared the piss out of Chile and Argentina, who fought simultaneous separate campaigns called 'The War of the Confederation', until the Confederation just said 'fuck it' and everyone took their toys and went home.

I'm just going on memory here, so I'm happy enough to be contradicted if anyone wants to throw in something more accurate and nuanced.
 
The question is how and when does Chile loses. If it's in 1883 or 1884, and Argentina isn't involved, the war outcome won't change the border in Patagonia, already established in the 1881 traeaty. Of course, when the treaty was signed much of the area was unexplored, so chile might push for more diplomatically, and maybe get a bit more. Buth she won't get an Atlantic port, or a significant area.

If chile loses in 1879, without much casualties, he might try to counteract argentina's expansion towards the Pampas and Patagonia, that started precisely in 1879. A war between both countries is possible. If an actual war happens, the odds are against Chile, at least on the land. But if a war is avoided, a Chilenean movilization might make Argentina give up her claims of parts of Patagonia. It's hard to say.

If Argentina joins the war of the Pacific and that's why Chile loses, Chile won't gain anything in the North nor in Patagonia. But Chilean resentment against argentina would be huge, similar to the one France had against Germany after 1870. This would have significant consequences in the long run. One of the worlds largest border would be much more armed than IOTL
 
Shortly after independence, Peru and Bolivia were unified into a Confederation. That in itself was a strange outcome.

Bolivia had been freed by Simon Bolivar's second campaign. My recollection is that after the Gran Colombia thing, the Bolivian's called Bolivar down to help them out, and he actually came. They were so greatful they named the country after him.

Peru in contrast was the most conservative of the Spanish colonies and actually fought to remain with Spain for a while.

Anyway, somehow, Bolivia and Peru got stapled on up together. The resulting conglomerate scared the piss out of Chile and Argentina, who fought simultaneous separate campaigns called 'The War of the Confederation', until the Confederation just said 'fuck it' and everyone took their toys and went home.

I'm just going on memory here, so I'm happy enough to be contradicted if anyone wants to throw in something more accurate and nuanced.

Not a contradiction, only an elaboration. Peru and Bolivia had until 1776, when the Province of Charcas was transferred to the new Viceroyalty of La Plata, been united politically. Cultural and economic links transcended the separation and have remained, debatably, existent until the present day. The beginning of this “union” is lost in the darkness of American prehistory, but we can find safe footing to argue for it from at least the XVth century on.

When it came to the wars of Liberation, in 1810, before the proclamations of uti possidetis were adopted by the American republics, the royal armies from Peru had reconquered the territory of Charcas from La Plata, and re-annexed it to Peru. After the Spaniards had been vanquished everywhere else, the Viceroy and the remaining troops still ruled the highlands of southern Peru and Bolivia, maintaining the unified political control of the area.

Now, after the final extinction of Spanish power with the death of the last Viceroy Pedro Antonio Olañeta following the battle of Tumusla on April 1st 1825, all of Peru (OTL Peru and Bolivia) had been liberated. In July of that same year an Assembly of representatives of all the provinces of “Upper Peru” (Bolivia) met in Chuquisaca, in order discuss their “independence.”
Here’s where things get iffy. The assembly was originally called by Antonio Jose de Sucre, one of Bolivar’s most trusted lieutenants, in February, before the Spaniards were defeated. Yet it met anyway, and in Chuquisaca, which was a pauper town, not an urban center like La Paz or Cochabamba. Furthermore, out of the 48 delegates, 30 were “landowners” of the surrounding regions. The issues discussed were: complete independence, to remain with Peru, or reunion with La Plata. Only the outnumbered delegates from La Paz voted against independence. Also, no sooner had the decision been made that the Presidency was offered to Bolivar, who in turn gave it to Sucre, who had conveniently remained in Chuquisaca, after just a few months.

Opposing all of these developments were men like Agustin Gamarra in Peru, and Andres de Santa Cruz in Bolivia, who sought to reunite the two states. Ultimately Santa Cruz would succeed, and defeat the Argentinians, as well as the first Chilean attempt, in the war against the Confederation.

As a side note, it’s worth noting that all generous estimates give the “Peruvian expeditionary force” fighting alongside the Chileans the number of 600 men. Hardly, a force to reckon with.
 
Top