South America seems really under exploited in AH scenarios. I frankly don't know much about S Am history, but does anyone have good "almost" historical events in the 20th century that would make interesting PODs? E.g., someone almost died but didn't or vice versa, some war almost started, some revolution almost happened, two countries almost united, an important election was really close...etc.?
South America Alt Hist: Plausible PODs/Interesting Outcomes
- Thread starter LoftonHenderson
- Start date
Following this out of interest. South America tends not to receive a lot of attention in althistory, and when it does, it's the same set of 19th century clichés: the Empire of Brazil, the Peruvian-Bolivian Confederation, Gran Colombia, and British Patagonia. Two ideas I have for post-1900 both involve replacing models of governance. Virtually every post-Iberian country on the continent currently uses a fully presidential system, much like in the US. However, this was not always the case.
Uruguay used to be a directorial republic, much like Switzerland, from 1918 to 1933 and again from 1952 to 1967; during this time, a nine-member body jointly served as head of state and government. Six members were selected from the winning party in the prior election, while the other three were taken from the second-largest party. In the first directorial system, the Directory co-existed with a President. This seems to have worked well, but a power struggle between the President and the Directory led to the former couping the latter in 1933. The second directorial system was structured differently. There was no longer a separate president; rather, the office was a primus inter pares presidency and rotated between the six members from the majority party. It was apparently ineffective, with the majorities often bickering with one another and the president lacking control over the ministries, so it was abolished in a 1966 referendum.
Meanwhile, Chile was a parliamentary republic until 1925, though it deviated from the Westminster system (and from most parliamentary republics in general) by giving the ceremonial president a bit more power (though not enough to turn the country into a parliamentary republic with an executive presidency, like South Africa, or an assembly-independent republic, like Suriname). Specifically, the President was able to dissolve the legislature if they had a parliamentary majority in support of such a motion. In most parliamentary republics, the president cannot do this, and instead the PM must dissolve the government and call a snap election. In the so-called "quasi-parliamentary" or "pseudo-parliamentary" system used in Chile, the president could completely bypass this process. In theory, this means that if the President and Parliament work together to do so, they can sack and replace the PM without holding elections. Or at least, that's how I personally interpreted Chile's deviant version of the parliamentary system. It's not very clearly explained how it works, so I could be wrong; corrections are appreciated and encouraged.
Either way, those are my two PoD suggestions for you: you could tweak politics and structure so that the directorial system in Uruguay and parliamentary system in Chile aren't ineffective (and thus replaced by presidential systems), and subsequently are retained by these countries to the present.
Uruguay used to be a directorial republic, much like Switzerland, from 1918 to 1933 and again from 1952 to 1967; during this time, a nine-member body jointly served as head of state and government. Six members were selected from the winning party in the prior election, while the other three were taken from the second-largest party. In the first directorial system, the Directory co-existed with a President. This seems to have worked well, but a power struggle between the President and the Directory led to the former couping the latter in 1933. The second directorial system was structured differently. There was no longer a separate president; rather, the office was a primus inter pares presidency and rotated between the six members from the majority party. It was apparently ineffective, with the majorities often bickering with one another and the president lacking control over the ministries, so it was abolished in a 1966 referendum.
Meanwhile, Chile was a parliamentary republic until 1925, though it deviated from the Westminster system (and from most parliamentary republics in general) by giving the ceremonial president a bit more power (though not enough to turn the country into a parliamentary republic with an executive presidency, like South Africa, or an assembly-independent republic, like Suriname). Specifically, the President was able to dissolve the legislature if they had a parliamentary majority in support of such a motion. In most parliamentary republics, the president cannot do this, and instead the PM must dissolve the government and call a snap election. In the so-called "quasi-parliamentary" or "pseudo-parliamentary" system used in Chile, the president could completely bypass this process. In theory, this means that if the President and Parliament work together to do so, they can sack and replace the PM without holding elections. Or at least, that's how I personally interpreted Chile's deviant version of the parliamentary system. It's not very clearly explained how it works, so I could be wrong; corrections are appreciated and encouraged.
Either way, those are my two PoD suggestions for you: you could tweak politics and structure so that the directorial system in Uruguay and parliamentary system in Chile aren't ineffective (and thus replaced by presidential systems), and subsequently are retained by these countries to the present.
IOTL Chile became a socialist republic in 1932, had a nazi putsch in 1939, never say they are not up with the latest trends!
In 1978 Argentina declared the British Crown award null and void since it backed Chile's position and ownership of three islands at the southern end of the continent... so the argies geared for war, Chile called their bluff and they backed down, so they went after an easier target and invaded some other islands in 1982.
Oh, and they were counting on the Peruvians and Bolivians to come in too...
If it came to blows in 1978, there might have been the last CL vs CL battles in history, former USN, Dutch and Swedish CLs available.
In 1978 Argentina declared the British Crown award null and void since it backed Chile's position and ownership of three islands at the southern end of the continent... so the argies geared for war, Chile called their bluff and they backed down, so they went after an easier target and invaded some other islands in 1982.
Oh, and they were counting on the Peruvians and Bolivians to come in too...
If it came to blows in 1978, there might have been the last CL vs CL battles in history, former USN, Dutch and Swedish CLs available.
These are great, thank you for sharing!Following this out of interest. South America tends not to receive a lot of attention in althistory, and when it does, it's the same set of 19th century clichés: the Empire of Brazil, the Peruvian-Bolivian Confederation, Gran Colombia, and British Patagonia. Two ideas I have for post-1900 both involve replacing models of governance. Virtually every post-Iberian country on the continent currently uses a fully presidential system, much like in the US. However, this was not always the case.
Uruguay used to be a directorial republic, much like Switzerland, from 1918 to 1933 and again from 1952 to 1967; during this time, a nine-member body jointly served as head of state and government. Six members were selected from the winning party in the prior election, while the other three were taken from the second-largest party. In the first directorial system, the Directory co-existed with a President. This seems to have worked well, but a power struggle between the President and the Directory led to the former couping the latter in 1933. The second directorial system was structured differently. There was no longer a separate president; rather, the office was a primus inter pares presidency and rotated between the six members from the majority party. It was apparently ineffective, with the majorities often bickering with one another and the president lacking control over the ministries, so it was abolished in a 1966 referendum.
Meanwhile, Chile was a parliamentary republic until 1925, though it deviated from the Westminster system (and from most parliamentary republics in general) by giving the ceremonial president a bit more power (though not enough to turn the country into a parliamentary republic with an executive presidency, like South Africa, or an assembly-independent republic, like Suriname). Specifically, the President was able to dissolve the legislature if they had a parliamentary majority in support of such a motion. In most parliamentary republics, the president cannot do this, and instead the PM must dissolve the government and call a snap election. In the so-called "quasi-parliamentary" or "pseudo-parliamentary" system used in Chile, the president could completely bypass this process. In theory, this means that if the President and Parliament work together to do so, they can sack and replace the PM without holding elections. Or at least, that's how I personally interpreted Chile's deviant version of the parliamentary system. It's not very clearly explained how it works, so I could be wrong; corrections are appreciated and encouraged.
Either way, those are my two PoD suggestions for you: you could tweak politics and structure so that the directorial system in Uruguay and parliamentary system in Chile aren't ineffective (and thus replaced by presidential systems), and subsequently are retained by these countries to the present.
Interesting, sounds like it would have almost been a 2nd War of the Pacific but with Argentine intervention and modern weapons
The Machurucuto Raid causes a Cuban -Venezuelan War
en.wikipedia.org
Machurucuto raid - Wikipedia
Great one! How would they have actually fought each other though? Did either have a navy at the time?The Machurucuto Raid causes a Cuban -Venezuelan War
Machurucuto raid - Wikipedia
Yeah, it came to a point that both fleets were deployed and heading for a battle that would take place SE of Cape Horn, in the middle of a gale.
Lots of Exocets and 155mm shells.
Last edited:
Incredible. Sounds almost apocalyptic with the storm, that would make a terrific mini-timeline narrative
The argies supposedly hanged old anti-torpedo nets from their aircraft carrier flight deck, as a makeshift anti-missile barrier. The Chileans put their cruisers on the van to soak up the missile hits and preserve their own missile-equipped ships.
The argies were escorting an amphibious force intended to take the islands defended by entrenched Chilean marines.
The argie fleet was detected by a cargo plane used as a makeshift sea recce aircraft, its mediocre radar was the best the Chileans had in the air to detect the incoming threat, it was intercepted by an argie A4, but it managed to lose it in the clouds and report the contact.
And that was just the naval side.
Last edited:
Sounds like it was set to be a bloodbathThe argies supposedly hanged old anti-torpedo nets from their aircraft carrier flight deck, as a makeshift anti-missile barrier. The Chileans put their cruisers on the van to soak up the missile hits and preserve their own missile-equipped ships.
The argies were escorting an amphibious force intended to take the islands defended by entrenched Chilean marines.
The argie fleet was detected by a cargo plane used as a makeshift sea recce aircraft, its mediocre radar was the best the Chileans had in the air to detect the incoming threat, it was intercepted by an argie A4, but it managed to lose it in the clouds and report the contact.
And that was just the naval side.
Please be my guest, all of you, to read my TL of Beagle war of 1978
Bumping this because I know someone somewhere on this forum will have thoughts if they see it