Re:Chile RA

Long time no see. Hope you've been doing well.

I felt it was high time I added the history and changes to the article. You also reminded me of an event I forgot to add in, so thank you for that (^^;).

In regards to Allende, it's already been canon that he'd still be elected in 1970 and that he'd complete his term in office. The POD of which is that he'd have support and inspiration from [former] Alaskan president Vasily Kardash[ev], whom was politically similar to Allende. For all intense and purposes, Allende would try to compromise with the National Congress and follow an Alaskan example (instead of simply winging it).

The coup and rise of Pinochet would not happen. Instead, the fascist government of Tahuantinsuyo (perhaps with some the backing from Argentina and the USA) invades in an attempt to remove the "communist threat" and bolster their weakening power. Chile wins this war, later resulting in the collapse of fascism in Tahuantinsuyo. Other than leading the nation to victory, the socialists won't win the next election.

As for a potential civil war earlier than that, interesting.

In regards to the Cold War of TTL, the big difference would come from the Alaskan Missile Crisis (which is still being worked out). In short, Alaska agrees to allow American missiles to be placed in their territory as a deterrent against a potential Soviet invasion. Once the Soviets get wind of this, Khrushchev makes these secrets public and demands their withdraw (going as far as to move the Soviet navy closer to Alaskan waters). The Empire of Japan soon sides with the Soviets, believing these missiles could threaten their interests. The crisis only escalates when the 1961 Goldsboro B-52 crash actually results in a nuclear bomb detonating in a North Carolina town (this actually almost happened, scary). The missiles are removed from Alaska (as well as elsewhere) and the crisis ends.

Because of this event, the US is weakened internationally (to a degree). As a consequence of the crisis, Alaskans vote for Kardash[ev] in 1961, who moves for Alaska to leave the American sphere and become a neutral nation during the Cold War. Despite having a Marxist president on their border, the US doesn't interfere, and future American presidents would [mostly] remain out of regime change. This would be a big reason why Pinochet isn't installed, and more so why the US [if anything] opts to support Tahuantinsuyo in a proxy war.

Hope that explains a little. Complicated, yes.

I also wanted to bring this up a whole ago, but might as well now. In your presidential lineup for Chile, you have Néstor Kirchner being part of a Patagonian regionalist party (instead of one of the mainstream ones). I was originally going to ask why, but I believe I stumbled upon an answer. Would it have to do with the economic differences between Patagonia and northern Argentina IOTL (i.e., Pategonia is much richer). If this is the case, than a regionalist party taking power makes some sense, as a similar situation could emerge here. Let me know if this was, indeed, your thinking.

I also have intentions of redoing the regions of Chile in the near future (not completely satisfied with the map as it stands). Nothing major, just minor changes. I also wanted to add that Raúl Alfonsín and Cristina Fernández de Kirchner could be Chileans ITTL (due to their ancestry). If you want to add them into your future lists, be my guess. The latter may be interesting if you want the Kirchner family to be the faces of Pategonian regionalism.

That's all I have for now. Hope to talk soon. -- NuclearVacuum Russian America 17:02, March 27, 2019 (UTC)

Glad I can help with the Cold War. It's rather complicated, so I may need to work out a detailed list of differences. But I feel confident that an American-backed coup in Chile would be butterflied away (at least an directly backed one).
Yep, this is why you don't screw around with nukes. Ironically (or sadly), this wasn't the ONLY time the US almost nuked something due to an accident. A similar situation happened in Spain some time after. So... yeah... ^^;
To expand upon Allende a bit, my speculation is that [Kardashev's] success in Alaska (i.e., compromising to get positive changes through) could inspire Allende. I also could see the two being on friendly terms (especially if both nations are very close with one another). As for specific policies, I believe compromises could be reached on education, welfare, wages, etc. Compromises on the more radical positions (such as nationalizing key industries) may be more difficult, so perhaps a more watered-down version could happen. This would (without a doubt) piss off the more radical factions of the party, so they could leave.
It just occurred to me, but perhaps it's possible that the more radical left (feeling gypped by some of Allende's compromises) may become more violent. Perhaps some kind of attack (or fear of one) may occur. This could be justification for Tahuantinsuyo to invade Chile, under the guise of defeating a "communist insurgency."
Glad I was spot-on with Patagonian regionalism. I also wanted to get some clarification on what this movement would look like today. After Nestor's presidency, the regionalists don't appear to regain control (at least for the presidency). Would this mean that following their success (and likely reforms), would we see the regionalists migrate into the mainstream parties?
The "northernmost" point of Chile would be the 29th parallel. For all intense and purposes, the Atacama Region (and everything north of it) would not be part of Chile. However, Chile's borders would extend further north than this parallel, but this would be part of their expansion into Argentina.
As for the alternate War of the Confederation, here's is the backstory I have. Because the Russian Empire gained influence in the Northern Pacific (as well as forming an alliance with the Mexican Empire), the British and French decide to fully back Peru-Bolivia in their war. Prior to the war IOTL, both powers had friendly relations with the Confederation, but did nothing to assist them in the war (aside from France blockading the Rio de la Plata). ITTL, the British choose to fully aid the Confederacy, as doing so would assure a counterbalance to Russo-Mexican interests. The Anglo-French would supply aid to the Confederacy (more weapons, etc.) and would effectively limit the Chilean Navy to operate in the area. In short, Chile is handicapped due to British interference, allowing the Confederacy to squeeze out a victory. Similar to Argentina (IOTL), there's very little for Chile to do but leave.
I'm fully open to suggestions on this if you have any.
Glad I could help with adding Alfonsín and Cristina. Also, I had a feeling I was going to get that reaction as soon as I mentioned Cristina. LOL XP. No worries, just a potential addition, but I'd have no problem seeing her as simply a candidate. Another person to consider (which I forgot to mention) is Alicia Kirchner (Nestor's sister). She's currently a governor in Argentina.
Hope this helps. -- NuclearVacuum Russian America 17:23, March 30, 2019 (UTC)
LOL, I can just see both Alaskans and Chileans being very friendly with each other. Both reside in very similar geographic territories and have similar cultural values because of which. They'd be brothers from other mothers.
All sounds good to me. ^_^ -- NuclearVacuum Russian America 15:33, April 4, 2019 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.