Sequel de Mayo (Cinco de Mayo, Vol. II)
- Thread starter KingSweden24
- Start date
Run a line EW though Puerto Deseado, Argentina has everything south of that now.
With the name "Between Two Chiles", I think the assumption is the Between is chronological, one Chile before, one after. However, with all of this discussion of North vs. South *and* with the fact that there are only a few places on *Earth* where outflanking an opponent in large scale is uglier. (Norway and the Sahara spring to mind), I think that the possibility of a North and South Chile existing by 1925 is worth considering, the question being whether *either* will consider itself a successor state to the former Chile (and thus responsible for the costs of the war)
The closest equivalent that I can come up with is if the United States in World War 1 had ended up with either Bavaria, Croatia or Iraq in the final peace treaties.
Recabarren’s call to consolidate while his enemies destroy each other is the correct one, though not all socialists necessarily feel that way
More or less
It’s intended to be chronological (covering the time between the Old Republic and the Socialist Republic), though the geographic distinctions between the Suristas and the New Republic in Santiago will be tangible for some time to come
A state of affairs that will totally engender good feelings towards Arg from the direction of Peru and Bolivia, particularly the latter once the dispute over the Chaco gets more heated between La Paz and Asunción
I swear this isn't my usual anti-Liberal bias showing when I ask this question. I come in peace, I promise:
How different is this treaty if Hearst wins in 1912 and Garrison is the primary point man from the USA as opposed to Root? I know Garrison was involved, I'm asking if he was SoS as opposed to Root.
Assuming the war goes the same, I can't imagine Peru/Bolivia/Argentina's claims will be substantially different no matter who's running State in the US. Does Chile get off easier if you don't have an entire generation of Liberals out looking for a pound of flesh from Chile for beating them up in 1885? We know Hearst wasn't much of a policy guy himself so this is basically a question of how much less (if at all) putative Garrison and the Dems are than Root and the Liberals.
How different is this treaty if Hearst wins in 1912 and Garrison is the primary point man from the USA as opposed to Root? I know Garrison was involved, I'm asking if he was SoS as opposed to Root.
Assuming the war goes the same, I can't imagine Peru/Bolivia/Argentina's claims will be substantially different no matter who's running State in the US. Does Chile get off easier if you don't have an entire generation of Liberals out looking for a pound of flesh from Chile for beating them up in 1885? We know Hearst wasn't much of a policy guy himself so this is basically a question of how much less (if at all) putative Garrison and the Dems are than Root and the Liberals.
Well, that leads to the question of whether the Socialists or the Southerners end up in control of Santiago & Valparaiso. (and there is still time to change to TL, right???
)On the one hand the Bolivians have more combat experience. OTOH, the OTL problems with Bolivian soldiers fighting much closer to Sea Level still apply.
In terms of the map, the comment in the text about the South Americans having already drawn the new map ahead of time would still apply. The question is whether in the war the Chileans would have been the priority in a different administration.
I think @naraht hits the nail on the head that in a situation where Hearst is in charge, you probably don't see "Chile First" become an explicit strategic policy (Hughes had to be persuaded, and consider who it is doing the persuading. That being said, the Navy has the same maps everybody else does regardless of who's President and the strategic benefits of going after Chile are obvious in terms of defending Nicaragua). Hearst probably shoots for a coup de main against the CSA earlier rather than trying to knock out the "weak link" of Chile, since he gives much less of a damn what London thinks/says than the Anglophile Hughes administration.
Chile probably still launches its surprise attack on Chimbote provided that other butterflies leading up to September 1913 aren't too major, so they're an active belligerent and its not just the civilian Liberal brass that despises Santiago but the Navy's officer corps too, many of the admirals having been junior officers such as midshipmen in '85. And, consider, that Hearst got his start in business at Patco thanks to Senator George Hearst (D-CA) - his father - so he's very familiar with the matter of Chile. (My caveat about butterflies pre-September 1913 are in there because the Summer Crisis could have unfolded entirely differently under Hearst, starting with whether his administration accepts the invitation from Crewe to attend the Niagara Conference and how Hearst reacts to Hoke Smith's intransigence. There's also the question of whether Hoke Smith is as big of a dick to a President he's seen react firmly to previous provocations, versus a new President he's testing).
I guess this is a long-winded way of saying that I don't think it looks too different. Chile probably isn't the same kind of strategic priority as early as late '13 under Hearst, certainly, and Del Hay, a State careerist, may have had a different posting had Garrison still been around (as he almost certainly would have been considering how tight he and WRH were towards the end of their term), but if the war unfolds under similar circumstances at a similar time, the Lima Treaty probably looks quite similar.
I haven't said when a Socialist Chile happens, just that it does happen lolWell, that leads to the question of whether the Socialists or the Southerners end up in control of Santiago & Valparaiso. (and there is still time to change to TL, right???
On the one hand the Bolivians have more combat experience. OTOH, the OTL problems with Bolivian soldiers fighting much closer to Sea Level still apply.
Socialist Chile happens in 1995 after an election where they are the largest of 8 parties and put together a coalition government...
It's a bit roughly approximate, but should get the idea across
Pre-Lima - Post Lima
The sheer scale of these territorial losses is also something most people tend to miss:
Personally I've found this a useful geographic tool for other uses as well: https://www.thetruesize.com
Personally I've found this a useful geographic tool for other uses as well: https://www.thetruesize.com
I didn't think Argentina had any of Tierra Del Fuego before the war.
Also, something postwar to look at. *If* the United States gets Baja in the peace deal with the Mexicans, then the continuous (excl Alaska) pacific coastline of the United States will stretch farther north to south than Chile! (Measuring Coastline is tricky. In this case, its measuring the Latitude extreme points)
Also, something postwar to look at. *If* the United States gets Baja in the peace deal with the Mexicans, then the continuous (excl Alaska) pacific coastline of the United States will stretch farther north to south than Chile! (Measuring Coastline is tricky. In this case, its measuring the Latitude extreme points)
Lol that would technically be within the parameters!
Argentina with that small amount of Pacific coastline is very aesthetically pleasing…
Inwill say though Peru’s post-Lima borders look silly when you actually see them but that’s how it goes haha
It’s a big improvement for that country, that’s for sure. Resource rich area and direct sea access
Jesus ChristThe sheer scale of these territorial losses is also something most people tend to miss:
Personally I've found this a useful geographic tool for other uses as well: https://www.thetruesize.com
Chile got stripped of an area larger than Minnesota and Wisconsin put together!
That would granted be kind of hilarious. Im a little embarrassed TBH that I’m still undecided on Baja’s fate
Thank you. Chile gets the Trianon treatment in the peace and the Russia treatment afterwards. It is going to take a *long* time before they stick their head out of their shell again. Chile actually reminds me of the ads for "Hero Wars" you see all over youtube. Starting with 999, gets kicked down the stairs and by the time the player gets to "choose", they are at 3.
Antofagasta even reclaimed will *continue* to have a significantly different culture than the capital. It will be interesting to see whether their elected officials from Antofagasta can manage to travel as much as people might otherwise expect between Antofagasta and the Bolivian capital *simply due to altitude sickness*!
Just have the US Mexican peace treaty negotiations last for a few (dozen) years.
You could make it like the Saar Protectorate in the post-WW1 era - the US probably isn't enthusiastic about occupying such a large area when they already have a whole Confederacy to handle. Mexico gets full control of the territory again after 20 years or so, and the whole ceremony becomes part of the slow reconciliation between the countries.
wikipedia.en - Treaty of Lima (1915)
The Treaty of Lima (1915) was a treaty signed on June 17, 1915 between Chile and the Axis Powers of the United States, Argentina, Peru and Bolivia that formally ended Chile's participation in the Great American War. Chile, one of the four Bloc Sud powers, had entered the war in September of 1913 with a surprise attack against the Chimbote naval base where parts of the US Pacific Fleet and most of the Peruvian Navy were docked, destroying them together; seven months later, two American fleets sank the majority of the Chilean Navy at the Desventuradas in the Eastern Pacific. From then on, Chile had been on its back heels and suffered defeats on land starting in November of 1914 at Iquique (November), Antofagasta (December), and La Serena (early February). The advance of the Amero-Peruvian army inland from La Serena and the Argentines from the Andean passes, in addition to the collapse of the Chilean government of Juan Luis Sanfuentes and a three-way standoff over the fate of the capital between a conservative, liberal and military faction, effectively ended Chile's ability to defend itself.
The Treaty itself was designed to humiliate Chile, broadcast to other Bloc Sud members what would happen if they fought to the bitter end, and in the case of the South American members of the Axis correct what they viewed as territorial gains made by Chilean aggression during the Saltpeter War (1879-80) and a near-war in the Andes thereafter (1881). All of Chile north of the 25th parallel was ceded to Bolivia and Peru, with the latter regaining its territories up to the Loa River. Argentina, meanwhile, made small adjustments in the Andes to enjoy better control over critical mountain passes but then absorbed the entirety of southern Patagonia and the Tierra del Fuego by setting a new border at the Deseado and Baker Rivers, both of which flow from the same source at Leandro Alem Lake (at the time, Lake Buenos Aires). The United States set strict limits on allowable Chilean naval tonnage and the size of the Chilean Army, and then extracted ruinous financial penalties from Santiago.
The Treaty is viewed as the direct precursor to the Chilean Civil War that erupted soon after its completion, and the economic dislocation from the Great American War, civil war and punitive financial conditions imposed upon Chile took the country from one of the wealthiest per capita in the Americas (albeit grossly unequal) to one of the poorest, with it becoming one of the few South American states with net outmigration in the 1910s and 1920s. This crippling poverty and political instability was a direct cause of the final rise and consolidation of the Socialist Republic in 1924, which would last for the ensuing sixty-six years.
The Treaty itself was designed to humiliate Chile, broadcast to other Bloc Sud members what would happen if they fought to the bitter end, and in the case of the South American members of the Axis correct what they viewed as territorial gains made by Chilean aggression during the Saltpeter War (1879-80) and a near-war in the Andes thereafter (1881). All of Chile north of the 25th parallel was ceded to Bolivia and Peru, with the latter regaining its territories up to the Loa River. Argentina, meanwhile, made small adjustments in the Andes to enjoy better control over critical mountain passes but then absorbed the entirety of southern Patagonia and the Tierra del Fuego by setting a new border at the Deseado and Baker Rivers, both of which flow from the same source at Leandro Alem Lake (at the time, Lake Buenos Aires). The United States set strict limits on allowable Chilean naval tonnage and the size of the Chilean Army, and then extracted ruinous financial penalties from Santiago.
The Treaty is viewed as the direct precursor to the Chilean Civil War that erupted soon after its completion, and the economic dislocation from the Great American War, civil war and punitive financial conditions imposed upon Chile took the country from one of the wealthiest per capita in the Americas (albeit grossly unequal) to one of the poorest, with it becoming one of the few South American states with net outmigration in the 1910s and 1920s. This crippling poverty and political instability was a direct cause of the final rise and consolidation of the Socialist Republic in 1924, which would last for the ensuing sixty-six years.
Which ends when Mexico breaks the treaty under the Prime Ministership of either Plutarco Elías Calles or Nicolás Rodríguez Carrasco and remilitarizes it.
The only question is whether the US would care if Guatemala became part of Mexico after the "conexión".