WI - The United Kingdom establishes a protectorate in Argentina?

Let's say in this timeline, France is able to establish itself into Mexico, prompting the United Kingdom to increase its influence in Argentina, making it into a British protectorate along the lines of the Ionian Islands Protectorate? If this isn't a realistic POD, what point of divergence after the independence of Argentina in 1818 would allow for the British to establish the country as a protectorate?
 
The only way the British establish any authority over Argentina is through an extended military conquest and occupation. Argentina, during the British invasion of La Plata had already fought one war against the British, I don't see any way that they peacefully submit decades later.
 
The only way the British establish any authority over Argentina is through an extended military conquest and occupation. Argentina, during the British invasion of La Plata had already fought one war against the British, I don't see any way that they peacefully submit decades later.

Wasn't Argentina heavily influenced by the British in the 1800's though? (Sorry if that's not true, my knowledge on Argentina in the 1800's isn't great)
 
If France establishes itself in Mexico successfully it isn't Britain intervening in Latin America, it's France. France likely backs de Tounens in Araucania and Patagonia.

Maximilian also seemed to think that he could get his younger brother on the throne of Brazil too.

I could maybe see Britain setting up shop on Tierra del Fuego in order to "protect" the Anglican missionaries there.
 
If there's a French client state in the southern cone that goes out the window.
My point is even if the Kingdom of the Araucania take off, Highly unlikely, Chile still control everything south of the Chiloe Island up until the Magellan Strait Before Orélie-Antoine de Tounens declared the Kingdom, so if anything we will see a more direct support to Chile by the British as in this epoch they still see the French as their principal European Rivals

Map of the Claimed territory of the Araucania and Patagonia

800px-LocationKingdomAraucania.svg.png
 
My point is even if the Kingdom of the Araucania take off, Highly unlikely, Chile still control everything south of the Chiloe Island up until the Magellan Strait Before Orélie-Antoine de Tounens declared the Kingdom, so if anything we will see a more direct support to Chile by the British as in this epoch they still see the French as their principal European Rivals

Map of the Claimed territory of the Araucania and Patagonia

800px-LocationKingdomAraucania.svg.png

I think a lot depends on how the War of the Pacific goes and more importantly how successful France is. I don't think either event I put forward is incredbly likely but I think they're both more plausible than the OP scenario.

Britain very rarely butted heads with Napoleon III so I doubt they do anything in the area.
 
The British were heavily invested in Argentina in the 19th century, and made out quite well. The first half was a little shaky, but once things stabilized, the Brits reaped the benefits without having to run the gov't, protect the lands/investment.

If you want a protectorate, you need someone to protect them from. I don't think a French Mexico qualifies as a threat. That's a long, long way to project power, and if Mexico were ever that powerful, the USA is going to be a bit antsy, and there's going to be tension there long before there's tension in Argentina.

You need a direct threat from next door, and that means Paraguay or Uruguay in league with Brazil, or Brazil on its own. Sans some major POD out of left field, Brazil is not going to be expansionist in this time frame. Chile/Bolivia don't have power enough to overcome the geographical protections Argentina enjoys.

Bottom line is that French Mexico doesn't create the situation necessary, and anything else completely changes the world situation so there is no comprehensible starting point for conversation.
 
There's also the more basic problem of what Britain would get out of a protectorate that they couldn't get without one. They didn't need basing rights or a formal alliance with Argentina. If what they need is a dominant presence in the Southern Cone economy... well, they've already got that.

What's the point of an expensive and divisive intervention that ties down extensive resources and potentially gets them the enmity of Brazil and possibly the United States? Argentina is already the unofficial dominion.
 
If they do establish a protectorate or dominion or whatever they decide to call it despite the fact that they don't have much to gain (Imperialism for Imperialism's sake wasn't exactly an unheard-of mentality at the time) I could easily imagine the US becoming a Central Power in WWI as Britain can gain a fair amount of food from Latin America ITTL but on the flip side has a half-century of enmity built up between them and the USA, which coupled with the latter's high Irish and German populations could result in a push towards the Germans and their allies in the First World War.
 
If they do establish a protectorate or dominion or whatever they decide to call it despite the fact that they don't have much to gain (Imperialism for Imperialism's sake wasn't exactly an unheard-of mentality at the time) I could easily imagine the US becoming a Central Power in WWI as Britain can gain a fair amount of food from Latin America ITTL but on the flip side has a half-century of enmity built up between them and the USA, which coupled with the latter's high Irish and German populations could result in a push towards the Germans and their allies in the First World War.
OTL, Argentina was known as Britain's bread basket. in WW1, virtually all trade was conducted on the part of Britain/Allies due to the blockade. The situation doesn't change because Britain takes more of a hands on role in Argentinian Gov't.

Don't see the Irish/German situation changing in the US. Argentina did attract a sizable Irish immigration, OTL, so maybe more head to US and away from British protectorate?

OTL, South America was recognized as a primarily British Sphere of Interest (US didn't make much inroads til after WW1), so I don't really see where the enmity between Britain/US is radically changing. Butterfly wings flapping might alter the world situation, though. I have a hard time seeing US being driven away from a very nice partnership with Britain, at least not enough to actively opposing them.

IF they did, though, and we see a French influenced Mexico and a British influenced Argentina, and everything else stays the same (logically things are changing simply to allow those two things to change, but such changes enter so many variables we won't recognize the equation) , and the US sides with Germany... interesting. US militarily isn't going to make a huge difference - Britain/France still rule the seas, but US might make enough difference to interrupt shipping enough to starve Britain into submission. And US manufacturing, while probably still mostly blocked from reaching Germany, won't be going to France/Britain (Russia, OTL was walled off by Turkey). IF mexico sides with France, USA has a hot border to protect, so US troops are likely to stay in North America, or lost to the bottom of the sea trying to get to Europe.
 
Maximilian also seemed to think that he could get his younger brother on the throne of Brazil too.
Do you have a source? As far as I can tell Maximilian and Dom Pedro II enjoyed an excellent relationship. Indeed, Max was even supposed to have married his half-sister the Princess D. Maria Amélia, but she died prematurely.
 
Do you have a source? As far as I can tell Maximilian and Dom Pedro II enjoyed an excellent relationship. Indeed, Max was even supposed to have married his half-sister the Princess D. Maria Amélia, but she died prematurely.

I don't think he was going to depose him, I think he was going to try and get Karl to marry one of Dom Pedro's daughters and get the Hapsburg name on there through that. Imperial Adventurer talks about it very briefly.
 
Top