Subject: AH Challenge: The Chilean Empire Date: 6 Jul 2001 21:24:22 -0700 From: Jonathan I. Edelstein Organization: Newsguy News Service [http://newsguy.com] Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if Chile during the 1880s was an expansionist nation. By the end of the War of the Pacific in 1883, it had acquired the provinces of Antofagasta from Bolivia and Tarapaca from Peru; five years later, it followed up by seizing Easter Island. This, however, was as far as OTL Chile would extend. Your challenge is to expand the Chilean empire and make it at least a second-rank colonial power, with a POD any time after independence. One possible POD is the earlier development of a Chilean merchant marine, leading to increased interest in the Pacific islands as naval and refitting stations. The Pacific islands hadn't been entirely divided up by the European powers, and Chile had quite a respectable navy; it might have been able to grab a few if it had wanted. Bonus points for any POD that results in African or Indian Ocean holdings. As an additional challenge, predict the effects of Chilean colonialism on the countries under its control. Chile's record on Easter Island in OTL was atrocious, ranking somewhere between Portuguese Africa and the Congo Free State; however, much of this resulted from the leasing of the island to a private ranching company. Would other Chilean colonies have followed a similar pattern, or would it have instituted a more traditional system in less remote and primitive areas? Would the transition to independence be peaceful, and what would the colonies look like afterward? Jonathan I. Edelstein in Kew Gardens, NY "Who is wise? He who learns from all." - Ben Zoma, Pirkei Avot 4:1 Subject: Re: AH Challenge: The Chilean Empire Date: 7 Jul 2001 04:17:34 -0700 From: bgarid@my-deja.com (bgarid) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 Jonathan I. Edelstein wrote in message news:<9i62tm01uvu@drn.newsguy.com>... > Chile during the 1880s was an expansionist nation. By the end of > the War of the Pacific in 1883, it had acquired the provinces of > Antofagasta from Bolivia and Tarapaca from Peru; five years later, > it followed up by seizing Easter Island. This, however, was as > far as OTL Chile would extend. Your challenge is to expand the > Chilean empire and make it at least a second-rank colonial power, > with a POD any time after independence. Chile and Peru were at war with Spain in 1865-66. If Chilean-Peruvian fleets manage to destroy Spanish Pacific squadron then all Spanish possessions in the Pacific - Guam, Marianas, Palaos, Carolinas Islands and even Philippines could be taken. Obviously, the victors will diasgree over exact partition of these conquests. Suppose Chile wins, in the process also acquiring the above-mentioned provinces from Peru and Bolivia. To keep its enormous conquests in the Pacific, Chile needs to build a very large navy. This will also lead to naval arms race with Argentina. By, say, 1880s, Chilean navy will be strong enough to allow more adventures in the Pacific. The next logical step from the Philippines is Taiwan which belongs to decaying Qing empire... Subject: Re: AH Challenge: The Chilean Empire Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 14:24:25 -0500 From: "Doug Hoff" Organization: SBC Internet Services Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 "bgarid" wrote in message news:4f2dc1d.0107070317.d38c8a5@posting.google.com... > Jonathan I. Edelstein wrote in message news:<9i62tm01uvu@drn.newsguy.com>... > > Chile during the 1880s was an expansionist nation. By the end of > > the War of the Pacific in 1883, it had acquired the provinces of > > Antofagasta from Bolivia and Tarapaca from Peru; five years later, > > it followed up by seizing Easter Island. This, however, was as > > far as OTL Chile would extend. Your challenge is to expand the > > Chilean empire and make it at least a second-rank colonial power, > > with a POD any time after independence. > > Chile and Peru were at war with Spain in 1865-66. I have not heard of this. Your basic fight against Spanish attempts to assert quasi-colonial influence in its former colonies (e.g. the interventions in Mexico & Santo Domingo in the same period)? -- __________ Doug www.althist.com Subject: Re: AH Challenge: The Chilean Empire Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 20:14:25 -0300 From: Randy McDonald Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 Jonathan I. Edelstein wrote: > > [deletia] > > One possible POD is the earlier development of a Chilean merchant > marine, leading to increased interest in the Pacific islands as > naval and refitting stations. The Pacific islands hadn't been > entirely divided up by the European powers, and Chile had quite a > respectable navy; it might have been able to grab a few if it had > wanted. Bonus points for any POD that results in African or > Indian Ocean holdings. Tahiti is probably the most attractive holding in the South Pacific, but it had been occupied by France from the early 1840's, while New Caledonia and its outlying islands had been French from the late 1850's and New Zealand had been British since Waitangi. By the 1880's Fiji had also been placed under a protectorate, while France was moving in on the outlying islands in modern French Polynesia even as Germany, the UK, and the US moved in on Samoa and Tonga, as were the smaller islands (Niue, Wallis and Futuna, Tokulau, Tuvalu). Chile's best chance might be to take some of the outlying island chains of French Polynesia -- the Australs and Gambiers, perhaps? -- along with the smaller island groups, like Nieu and perhaps Kiribati. > As an additional challenge, predict the effects of Chilean > colonialism on the countries under its control. Chile's record > on Easter Island in OTL was atrocious, ranking somewhere between > Portuguese Africa and the Congo Free State; however, much of this > resulted from the leasing of the island to a private ranching > company. Would other Chilean colonies have followed a similar > pattern, or would it have instituted a more traditional system in > less remote and primitive areas? It depends, I suppose, on whether Chile sees its empire as a chance to prove France-style its _mission civilisatrice,_ or whether it sees its empire as only convenient places to base the Chilean navy and to make overnight fortunes. > Would the transition to > independence be peaceful, and what would the colonies look like > afterward? Leaving aside Garid's suggestion of a Chilean Philippines, most of Chile's likely colonial holdings in the Pacific would be small insular possession with relatively small populations easily decimated by disease. I don't think it likely that any will become independent from Chile, any more than did Rapanui. > Jonathan I. Edelstein in Kew Gardens, NY > > "Who is wise? He who learns from all." > - Ben Zoma, Pirkei Avot 4:1 -- Randy McDonald Charlottetown PEI Canada Subject: Re: AH Challenge: The Chilean Empire Date: 8 Jul 2001 20:40:18 -0700 From: Jonathan I. Edelstein Organization: Newsguy News Service [http://newsguy.com] Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 On 7 July 2001, Randy McDonald wrote: [deletia] >> One possible POD is the earlier development of a Chilean merchant >> marine, leading to increased interest in the Pacific islands as >> naval and refitting stations. The Pacific islands hadn't been >> entirely divided up by the European powers, and Chile had quite a >> respectable navy; it might have been able to grab a few if it had >> wanted. Bonus points for any POD that results in African or >> Indian Ocean holdings. > Tahiti is probably the most attractive holding in the South Pacific, > but it had been occupied by France from the early 1840's, while New > Caledonia and its outlying islands had been French from the late > 1850's and New Zealand had been British since Waitangi. By the 1880's > Fiji had also been placed under a protectorate, while France was moving > in on the outlying islands in modern French Polynesia even as Germany, > the UK, and the US moved in on Samoa and Tonga, as were the smaller > islands (Niue, Wallis and Futuna, Tokulau, Tuvalu). IMO Chile would have a better chance if it started acquiring Pacific territories in the 1860s or 1870s. This isn't beyond the bounds of possibility - before the war with Spain, Chile had a respectable merchant marine, and might have developed a significant trans-Pacific trade if the Spanish navy didn't sink all its ships. If the Chileans had started then, they might have beaten the British to the smaller islands or the Germans to Samoa or Nauru. The last of these would have been a significant economic asset, and might have spurred interest in obtaining other Pacific holdings. [deletia] >> Chile's record on Easter Island in OTL was atrocious, ranking >> somewhere between Portuguese Africa and the Congo Free State; >> however, much of this resulted from the leasing of the island >> to a private ranching company. Would other Chilean colonies >> have followed a similar pattern, or would it have instituted a >> more traditional system in less remote and primitive areas? > It depends, I suppose, on whether Chile sees its empire as a > chance to prove France-style its _mission civilisatrice,_ or > whether it sees its empire as only convenient places to base > the Chilean navy and to make overnight fortunes. Probably the latter, unfortunately. IIRC there wasn't much population pressure in 19th-century Chile, so there probably wouldn't have been any major Chilean settlement in the Pacific. Without settlement, a _mission civilisatrice_ is less likely. On the other hand, if Chile acquired _several_ Pacific islands rather than just Rapa Nui/Easter Island, then it might have developed a more formal administrative structure for them. This could at least have resulted in closer supervision and prevention of the worst excesses. >> Would the transition to independence be peaceful, and what >> would the colonies look like afterward? > Leaving aside Garid's suggestion of a Chilean Philippines, I doubt this could happen even if Chile won its war with Spain. In OTL, the _United States_ took almost a decade to subdue the Philippines; I doubt Chile could have projected enough force there during the late 1860s to do the job. IMO Chile's best bet would be to avoid the war with Spain rather than win it. > most of Chile's likely colonial holdings in the Pacific would be > small insular possession with relatively small populations easily > decimated by disease. I don't think it likely that any will become > independent from Chile, any more than did Rapanui. Rapa Nui, though, is small even by Pacific standards. Several of the Pacific nations in OTL have populations of under 50,000, with Nauru having less than 10,000 at independence. The Chilean possessions would probably rebound at least to this level - I don't see why a Chilean Kiribati wouldn't have a population similar to British Kiribati - and I doubt they would be immune from the independence movements of the late twentieth century. Hopefully they'd become independent before 1973; if not, then Pinochet (assuming that he hasn't been butterflied away) probably wouldn't handle the nationalist movements any differently from Salazar. Jonathan I. Edelstein in Kew Gardens, NY "Who is wise? He who learns from all." - Ben Zoma, Pirkei Avot 4:1 Subject: Re: AH Challenge: The Chilean Empire Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 12:13:52 -0300 From: Randy McDonald Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 Jonathan I. Edelstein wrote: > > On 7 July 2001, Randy McDonald wrote: > > [deletia] > > IMO Chile would have a better chance if it started acquiring Pacific > territories in the 1860s or 1870s. This isn't beyond the bounds of > possibility - before the war with Spain, Chile had a respectable > merchant marine, and might have developed a significant trans-Pacific > trade if the Spanish navy didn't sink all its ships. If the Chileans > had started then, they might have beaten the British to the smaller > islands or the Germans to Samoa or Nauru. The last of these would > have been a significant economic asset, and might have spurred > interest in obtaining other Pacific holdings. This sounds like a very plausible game plan. > [deletia] > > >> Chile's record on Easter Island in OTL was atrocious, ranking > >> somewhere between Portuguese Africa and the Congo Free State; > >> however, much of this resulted from the leasing of the island > >> to a private ranching company. Would other Chilean colonies > >> have followed a similar pattern, or would it have instituted a > >> more traditional system in less remote and primitive areas? > > > It depends, I suppose, on whether Chile sees its empire as a > > chance to prove France-style its _mission civilisatrice,_ or > > whether it sees its empire as only convenient places to base > > the Chilean navy and to make overnight fortunes. > > Probably the latter, unfortunately. IIRC there wasn't much > population pressure in 19th-century Chile, so there probably > wouldn't have been any major Chilean settlement in the Pacific. > Without settlement, a _mission civilisatrice_ is less likely. > On the other hand, if Chile acquired _several_ Pacific islands > rather than just Rapa Nui/Easter Island, then it might have > developed a more formal administrative structure for them. > This could at least have resulted in closer supervision and > prevention of the worst excesses. This sounds moderately plausible, although from what I know about Chile's contemporary policies towards the Mapuche of Chilean Patagonia (basically, they were conquered and colonized) I wouldn't be too hopeful. > >> Would the transition to independence be peaceful, and what > >> would the colonies look like afterward? > > > Leaving aside Garid's suggestion of a Chilean Philippines, > > I doubt this could happen even if Chile won its war with Spain. In > OTL, the _United States_ took almost a decade to subdue the > Philippines; I doubt Chile could have projected enough force there > during the late 1860s to do the job. IMO Chile's best bet would be > to avoid the war with Spain rather than win it. Yeah. A Chilean Micronesia, now, would be interesting. > > most of Chile's likely colonial holdings in the Pacific would be > > small insular possession with relatively small populations easily > > decimated by disease. I don't think it likely that any will become > > independent from Chile, any more than did Rapanui. > > Rapa Nui, though, is small even by Pacific standards. Well, Tokelau, Tuvalu, and Niue are in the same range, but I agree. > Several of the > Pacific nations in OTL have populations of under 50,000, with Nauru > having less than 10,000 at independence. The Chilean possessions > would probably rebound at least to this level - I don't see why a > Chilean Kiribati wouldn't have a population similar to British > Kiribati - and I doubt they would be immune from the independence > movements of the late twentieth century. Conversely, there's the example of the French colonies in the South Pacific. > Hopefully they'd become > independent before 1973; if not, then Pinochet (assuming that he > hasn't been butterflied away) probably wouldn't handle the nationalist > movements any differently from Salazar. How did he handle the Rapanui OTL? > Jonathan I. Edelstein in Kew Gardens, NY > > "Who is wise? He who learns from all." > - Ben Zoma, Pirkei Avot 4:1 -- Randy McDonald Charlottetown PEI Canada Subject: Re: AH Challenge: The Chilean Empire Date: 9 Jul 2001 15:04:27 -0700 From: Jonathan I. Edelstein Organization: Newsguy News Service [http://newsguy.com] Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 On 9 July 2001, Randy McDonald wrote: [deletia] >> Without settlement, a _mission civilisatrice_ is less likely. >> On the other hand, if Chile acquired _several_ Pacific islands >> rather than just Rapa Nui/Easter Island, then it might have >> developed a more formal administrative structure for them. >> This could at least have resulted in closer supervision and >> prevention of the worst excesses. > This sounds moderately plausible, although from what I know > about Chile's contemporary policies towards the Mapuche of > Chilean Patagonia (basically, they were conquered and colonized) > I wouldn't be too hopeful. They didn't, AFAIK, require the Mapuche to obtain permission to get drinking water. The 1914 rebellion on Rapa Nui was basically a food riot; I don't recall that conditions were quite that bad in Patagonia. [deletia] >> Several of the Pacific nations in OTL have populations of under >> 50,000, with Nauru having less than 10,000 at independence. The >> Chilean possessions would probably rebound at least to this level - >> I don't see why a Chilean Kiribati wouldn't have a population >> similar to British Kiribati - and I doubt they would be immune from >> the independence movements of the late twentieth century. > Conversely, there's the example of the French colonies in the South > Pacific. French Polynesia is still French, but there are nationalist movements which France has had to co-opt by granting increased territorial autonomy. I don't think there are too many other _departements_ that have as much self-government as Polynesia. And there's certainly an independence movement on New Caledonia. >> Hopefully they'd become independent before 1973; if not, then >> Pinochet (assuming that he hasn't been butterflied away) probably >> wouldn't handle the nationalist movements any differently from >> Salazar. > How did he handle the Rapanui OTL? Mixed signals. On the one hand, he built subsidized housing and infrastructure on the island and appointed the first Rapa Nui governor. On the other, he practiced assimilationist policies with respect to language and culture, and enacted legislation which removed Rapa Nui title to communal land. In addition, he wasn't faced with an organized independence movement; IMO he wouldn't have been nearly as benign if there had been one. Jonathan I. Edelstein in Kew Gardens, NY "Who is wise? He who learns from all." - Ben Zoma, Pirkei Avot 4:1 Subject: Re: AH Challenge: The Chilean Empire Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 00:14:07 -0300 From: Randy McDonald Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 Jonathan I. Edelstein wrote: > > On 9 July 2001, Randy McDonald wrote: > > [deletia] > > >> Without settlement, a _mission civilisatrice_ is less likely. > >> On the other hand, if Chile acquired _several_ Pacific islands > >> rather than just Rapa Nui/Easter Island, then it might have > >> developed a more formal administrative structure for them. > >> This could at least have resulted in closer supervision and > >> prevention of the worst excesses. > > > This sounds moderately plausible, although from what I know > > about Chile's contemporary policies towards the Mapuche of > > Chilean Patagonia (basically, they were conquered and colonized) > > I wouldn't be too hopeful. > > They didn't, AFAIK, require the Mapuche to obtain permission to > get drinking water. The 1914 rebellion on Rapa Nui was basically > a food riot; I don't recall that conditions were quite that bad > in Patagonia. Point. An unwanted point, but a point nonetheless. :-( > [deletia] > > >> Several of the Pacific nations in OTL have populations of under > >> 50,000, with Nauru having less than 10,000 at independence. The > >> Chilean possessions would probably rebound at least to this level - > >> I don't see why a Chilean Kiribati wouldn't have a population > >> similar to British Kiribati - and I doubt they would be immune from > >> the independence movements of the late twentieth century. > > > Conversely, there's the example of the French colonies in the South > > Pacific. > > French Polynesia is still French, but there are nationalist movements > which France has had to co-opt by granting increased territorial > autonomy. I don't think there are too many other _departements_ that > have as much self-government as Polynesia. And there's certainly an > independence movement on New Caledonia. There are, but both Polynesian autonomism and New Caledonian separatism ultimately depend on France for their success. If France really wanted, it could ignore both movements and just rule things directly (if inefficiently). > >> Hopefully they'd become independent before 1973; if not, then > >> Pinochet (assuming that he hasn't been butterflied away) probably > >> wouldn't handle the nationalist movements any differently from > >> Salazar. > > > How did he handle the Rapanui OTL? > > Mixed signals. On the one hand, he built subsidized housing and > infrastructure on the island and appointed the first Rapa Nui > governor. On the other, he practiced assimilationist policies with > respect to language and culture, and enacted legislation which > removed Rapa Nui title to communal land. In addition, he wasn't > faced with an organized independence movement; IMO he wouldn't have > been nearly as benign if there had been one. Sounds about right. His policies in Chilean Patagonia towards the Mapuche seem to be roughly analogous. Anyway, my point is that if Chile wanted, it could ignore separatist movements in its new Pacific island territories for as long as it wanted. Granted, given the small size of most of Chile's possessions, it isn't impossible that, like New Caledonian Kanaks and Polynesian natives, the colonized Pacific Islanders might voluntarily accept Chilean indirect rule with internal autonomy as the only thing keeping them from Third World levels of poverty. But still, it would depend on what Chile wanted. > Jonathan I. Edelstein in Kew Gardens, NY > > "Who is wise? He who learns from all." > - Ben Zoma, Pirkei Avot 4:1 -- Randy McDonald Charlottetown PEI Canada Subject: Re: AH Challenge: The Chilean Empire Date: 9 Jul 2001 07:46:26 GMT From: Douglas Hayden Organization: Akademia Pana Kleksa, Public Access Uni* Site Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 PODs: Move the start of the First World War ahead a couple of years. Long enough for the British to complete and hand over the dreadnoughts ALMIRANTE COCHRANE and ALMIRANTE LATORRE (a.k.a. the temporarily British CANADA and the permanently British EAGLE). War breaks out, the Chileans jump on the side of the Entente faster than Japan can. The Chilean fleet finds and decisively defeats whatever comprises the German Pacific squadron (SCARNHORST 'n GNEISENAU or another pair of CAs, maybe VON DER TANN or MOLTKE/GOEBEN as well) and Chilean marines help take a sizeable chunk of Germany's Pacific holdings. ---------- Doug Hayden haydendj@apk.net St. Dogbert's School of Worshipper Fleecing ---------- Dilbert: Do you think you might be abusing your power? Wally: What would be the other reasons to have power? -- Scott Adams