WI: No Paraguayan War
- Thread starter Will Kürlich Kerl
- Start date
Well the fact that UK was pumping money through loans to both sides before and after the war, with the protectionist Solano Lopez goverment, closing markets to foreigners and the rivers to trade, it makes Paraguay a bad example in SA that must be punished.
Add as a fact the end of cotton trade between UK and USA (Civil War), that made UK to seek more cotton and more markets, first India, later the markets in SA - except Paraguay. And for that, they needed the rivers open.
The paraguayan protectionism is not the main cause of the war, its true, but it helped a lot to trigger it.
I'm curious, was the Brazilian economy effected that much by the war? By all accounts it seemed to boom afterwards and had the energy to keep going steadily (with the right management) for quite some time. I had always been under the impression that the economy really suffered after there was an over reliance on rubber and coffee exports. Didn't Brazil retire it's war debts in ten years?
The real tragedy of the war I had thought was the rise of the republican sentiments in the military, and the fact that the military became strong and prestigious, then was ignored more post-war as Pedro II had very little interest in it at that point, leading to resentment amongst the officer corps.
The real tragedy of the war I had thought was the rise of the republican sentiments in the military, and the fact that the military became strong and prestigious, then was ignored more post-war as Pedro II had very little interest in it at that point, leading to resentment amongst the officer corps.
unprincipled peter
Donor
there is a theory that England encouraged the war, but I'm under the impression that this theory doesn't hold much water. IMO, they played all sides. Prior to the war, they were quite active in Lopez' quest for modernization/military buildup. They ended up favoring the triple alliance. Overall, I agree with the side that says war is bad for business. Don't see how anyone could say Britain wanted Paraguay punished and thus instigated the war. Argentina, and particularly Brazil, ignored Lopez in the Uruguay flap that was the spark for the war, but they didn't actively try to get Paraguay to engage in hostilities. There's no evidence that anyone influenced Lopez to become aggressive. Thus, I continue to maintain that it was a local squabble that got out of control. Argentina and Brazil cooperated in meddling in Uruguayan affairs, and Paraguay took exception to that and got involved.
The notion that Paraguay and Brazil would align with Chile needs some explanation. Why?
The notion that Paraguay and Brazil would align with Chile needs some explanation. Why?
unprincipled peter
Donor
English Canuck,
Agree with you regarding the rise of republicanism and a more powerful military.
Agree with you regarding the rise of republicanism and a more powerful military.
They would get a common enemy in Argentina, but I'm not sure Chile would want a war with Argentina by the 1860s or 70s. The territorial dispute was regarding Patagonia, which was unsettled then. If Argentina was to involve in a long and costly war against Paraguay and Brazil, Chile could snatch the regions of Patagonia east of the Andes (or the entire Tierra del Fuego island) while Argentina was otherwise occupied, and thus Chile would avoid a direct confrontation.
Argentina can join the Peru-Bolivian aliance against Chile: Bolivia and Peru can keep their territories in the north, and Argentina can get all Patagonia. Brazil will support Chile for avoid a powerful Argentina. Paraguay will ally to Brazil for be against Bolivia in the issue of Chaco. Result: the Sudamerican War.
unprincipled peter
Donor
I think I recall reading that Argentina did have an alliance (or a friendship) with Bolivia/Peru at some point and then decided it wasn't worth the risk for the benefits gained. Wise move, as they would have joined Bolivia and Peru in getting their asses kicked in the '70's.
Not sure anyone cared, or even today would care, if Argentina had all of patagonia. The riches are mostly in OTL Argentine patagonia, although in the mid 18th century no one knew it. The region was basically unsettled by Europeans until late 1800's for a reason: it was seen as a vast wasteland teeming with hostile natives. Territorial expansion in that direction is not going to make Argentina a powerful nation, so Brazil really wouldn't care. They might be happy to see Argentina focus south and west rather than looking north.
Not sure anyone cared, or even today would care, if Argentina had all of patagonia. The riches are mostly in OTL Argentine patagonia, although in the mid 18th century no one knew it. The region was basically unsettled by Europeans until late 1800's for a reason: it was seen as a vast wasteland teeming with hostile natives. Territorial expansion in that direction is not going to make Argentina a powerful nation, so Brazil really wouldn't care. They might be happy to see Argentina focus south and west rather than looking north.
The catch during the Pacific War is, the Argentine leadership didn't want nor needed a war with Chile. Of course, with a POD in which the proper idiots end up in charge, it might happen. I think you'll need to butterfly Julio Roca for that: the man didn't like to start wars if the enemy was white.Argentina can join the Peru-Bolivian aliance against Chile: Bolivia and Peru can keep their territories in the north, and Argentina can get all Patagonia. Brazil will support Chile for avoid a powerful Argentina. Paraguay will ally to Brazil for be against Bolivia in the issue of Chaco. Result: the Sudamerican War.