I'm trying to figure out what the *second* choice for the site of Negotiations would be after Paraguay, Ecuador? Venezuela? Colombia? London?
For the Mesopotamian front I'd have to assume Ecuador would be the second choice because it seems like the least biased option considering how Venezuela and Colombia have tangled relationships with Europe. For the final treaty of the war between the Axis and the CSA I could imagine London being used but a return to Havana or possibly Madrid would also be interesting.

I find it really striking how each Bloc Sud member's separate peace is really, truly separate as compared to the much more tightly conjoined treaties in the Paris Peace Conference. Lima, Asuncion, Kansas City, Coronado, the collapse of order in Central America with no treaty so far, and the forthcoming treaties between the USA and CSA as well as the USA and Texas are all vastly different situations compared to the more uniform Versailles, Trianon, Sevres, Neuilly, and Saint-Germain.
 
For the Mesopotamian front I'd have to assume Ecuador would be the second choice because it seems like the least biased option considering how Venezuela and Colombia have tangled relationships with Europe. For the final treaty of the war between the Axis and the CSA I could imagine London being used but a return to Havana or possibly Madrid would also be interesting.

I find it really striking how each Bloc Sud member's separate peace is really, truly separate as compared to the much more tightly conjoined treaties in the Paris Peace Conference. Lima, Asuncion, Kansas City, Coronado, the collapse of order in Central America with no treaty so far, and the forthcoming treaties between the USA and CSA as well as the USA and Texas are all vastly different situations compared to the more uniform Versailles, Trianon, Sevres, Neuilly, and Saint-Germain.
This is in part a byproduct of both the Bloc Sud and the Axis being a way less organized alliance system that was thrown together ad hoc than the WW1 factions; the Axis especially is “Yanquis y amigos” compared to, say, the Entente which really was three equals who went to war together
 
Treating Greenland, Iceland and Hawaii as *not* being part of the Americas, I'm wondering which of the three alignments, BS, Axis or Neutral is largest in Land area? (Neutral is mostly Canada, I guess)
 
Treating Greenland, Iceland and Hawaii as *not* being part of the Americas, I'm wondering which of the three alignments, BS, Axis or Neutral is largest in Land area? (Neutral is mostly Canada, I guess)
Probably neutral right?

Canada, Colombia (plus Panama), Venezuela, Paraguay, Guyana, French Guyana, Suriname, most of the Caribbean.
 
alternatehistory.en
"...you can basically rewrite the entire first half of Argentina's 20th century if this happens; that election was that crucial. Why? Two reasons. One, it wound up being the election that determined how Alemism the ideology would outlive Alem, the man. The second reason was that it occurred basically two months after Argentina exited the Great American War and while its not like the Sun of May was getting hoisted over the palaces of Petropolis, there was definitely some excitement in the air over the war ending and people coming back to normalcy, and the difficult postwar transition hadn't hit yet. So there were a ton of factors compacted into one election, and whoever won was going to have a lot of drive in shaping what was to come. One doubts it would have been much good. [1]

It should be noted that Alem was a personalist party leader, but necessarily a personalist President, and he believed very deeply in the separation of powers between the Presidency and the Congress (and to a way lesser extent, the judiciary). From what we know of Yrigoyen's writings, he felt otherwise, regarding radicalism as an "expression of the masses" whose moral superiority outweighed constitutional niceties and formalities. While Yrigoyen was very much a small-d democrat and would have certainly honored term limits and other such restrictions on Presidential powers, he had just watched his uncle "manage" the Civic Union for a quarter century both in power and from behind the throne, and one would guess that he would draw similar conclusions about how to run his Radical Party. I think you'd see a much more hostile relationship between the Casa Rosada and Congress develop with an Yrigoyen who would likely not react well to being told things he didn't want to hear.

What's more interesting to me though is the political developments that would follow. A successful Radical Party in the 1916-22 term probably becomes the preferred vehicle of the working class rather than one of two along with the Socialists, which sets up a potential successor for Yrigoyen in 1922 very well during the economic boomtimes of the early 1920s. He was decently pragmatic so he may bury the hatchet with some Civistas after Alem's death and pick somebody in the vein of Enrique Perez Colman (though he is likely too young then) could have been tapped to lead the party into another election, which they likely win as the Socialists collapse their vote share. This, IMO, butterflies the emergence of the PDP entirely; without de la Torre winning with the support of what was left of the Civic Union after Barroetavena was forced to retire, the party never gets to entrench itself as the party of the bourgeois middle class, and that means that the Turno Pacifico of 1940-82 is gone entirely. You may thus see a much more polarized Argentine society between the Radicals and whatever equivalent of the right-wing National Democrats emerge; alternatively, the Radicals may shift to the center, and be something approximating PDP earlier on. Either way, there's no need for the Radicals and Socialists to cooperate, and hence no Popular Front, and hence you can basically wave goodbye to every Argentine President who in OTL was elected from either FP or PDP as well as the economic and political stability that the Turno and its collusionist politics produced. What you think of that turn of events depends on your worldview and how much better you think a more unstable Argentine politics might have been; the Turno had plenty of downsides and upsides, more tradeoffs than anything else.

So, yes, that's what I think, from my own Argentine perspective. Alem was a great, epochal figure and 1916 was Argentina bursting free of his shadow as his career entered twilight and he then died. An Yrigoyen who wins having exited the Civic Union and seizing his mantle is an Yrigoyen who basically gets to dictate the next twelve or so years of Argentina at his whim. It would be a very different Argentina than today's, that's for sure..."

- WI: Hipolito Yrigoyen wins the Presidency of Argentina in 1916?

[1] Keep in mind that in OTL, thanks to the Revolution of the Park being successful in 1890, much of what Yrigoyen set out to achieve in 1916 has already been accomplished by the Civic Union.
 
"...you can basically rewrite the entire first half of Argentina's 20th century if this happens; that election was that crucial. Why? Two reasons. One, it wound up being the election that determined how Alemism the ideology would outlive Alem, the man. The second reason was that it occurred basically two months after Argentina exited the Great American War and while its not like the Sun of May was getting hoisted over the palaces of Petropolis, there was definitely some excitement in the air over the war ending and people coming back to normalcy, and the difficult postwar transition hadn't hit yet. So there were a ton of factors compacted into one election, and whoever won was going to have a lot of drive in shaping what was to come. One doubts it would have been much good. [1]

It should be noted that Alem was a personalist party leader, but necessarily a personalist President, and he believed very deeply in the separation of powers between the Presidency and the Congress (and to a way lesser extent, the judiciary). From what we know of Yrigoyen's writings, he felt otherwise, regarding radicalism as an "expression of the masses" whose moral superiority outweighed constitutional niceties and formalities. While Yrigoyen was very much a small-d democrat and would have certainly honored term limits and other such restrictions on Presidential powers, he had just watched his uncle "manage" the Civic Union for a quarter century both in power and from behind the throne, and one would guess that he would draw similar conclusions about how to run his Radical Party. I think you'd see a much more hostile relationship between the Casa Rosada and Congress develop with an Yrigoyen who would likely not react well to being told things he didn't want to hear.

What's more interesting to me though is the political developments that would follow. A successful Radical Party in the 1916-22 term probably becomes the preferred vehicle of the working class rather than one of two along with the Socialists, which sets up a potential successor for Yrigoyen in 1922 very well during the economic boomtimes of the early 1920s. He was decently pragmatic so he may bury the hatchet with some Civistas after Alem's death and pick somebody in the vein of Enrique Perez Colman (though he is likely too young then) could have been tapped to lead the party into another election, which they likely win as the Socialists collapse their vote share. This, IMO, butterflies the emergence of the PDP entirely; without de la Torre winning with the support of what was left of the Civic Union after Barroetavena was forced to retire, the party never gets to entrench itself as the party of the bourgeois middle class, and that means that the Turno Pacifico of 1940-82 is gone entirely. You may thus see a much more polarized Argentine society between the Radicals and whatever equivalent of the right-wing National Democrats emerge; alternatively, the Radicals may shift to the center, and be something approximating PDP earlier on. Either way, there's no need for the Radicals and Socialists to cooperate, and hence no Popular Front, and hence you can basically wave goodbye to every Argentine President who in OTL was elected from either FP or PDP as well as the economic and political stability that the Turno and its collusionist politics produced. What you think of that turn of events depends on your worldview and how much better you think a more unstable Argentine politics might have been; the Turno had plenty of downsides and upsides, more tradeoffs than anything else.

So, yes, that's what I think, from my own Argentine perspective. Alem was a great, epochal figure and 1916 was Argentina bursting free of his shadow as his career entered twilight and he then died. An Yrigoyen who wins having exited the Civic Union and seizing his mantle is an Yrigoyen who basically gets to dictate the next twelve or so years of Argentina at his whim. It would be a very different Argentina than today's, that's for sure..."

- WI: Hipolito Yrigoyen wins the Presidency of Argentina in 1916?

[1] Keep in mind that in OTL, thanks to the Revolution of the Park being successful in 1890, much of what Yrigoyen set out to achieve in 1916 has already been accomplished by the Civic Union.
So Argentina basically gets what Chile had, an expectation that the two major parties would alternate who was the president?
 
So Argentina basically gets what Chile had, an expectation that the two major parties would alternate who was the president?
Exactly, only the two parties are basically two halves of Alemism and immediately adjacent ideologies, rather than just different brands of oligarchy

This is not necessarily a good thing for Argentina, mind, but nowhere near as bad as OTL’s Peronist shitshow or what Chile just shed
 
Republic Reborn
"...expected the Texas Militia to have cut south via San Antonio. Instead, Ferguson's loyalists rode the train to Corpus Christi and attacked directly west, hoping to perhaps catch the dissidents off guard; if that was their intent, it did not work, and what is today regarded as the first proper battle of the Texan Civil War occurred on February 8, 1916 at Freer, about halfway between the coast and Laredo.

The group of men who had gathered at Freer to fight the Texas Militia - who, it should be noted, were sent south with little to no support from Confederate Army regulars stationed in Austin and among whom the weight of their forces were already engaged in keeping the US Army from marching further south than Texarkana or Dallas - were an eclectic lot, largely yeoman farmers, day laborers, Tejanos who had lived in the "Tex-Mex" for centuries, and even Mexican volunteers having streamed across the border, including some of Pancho Villa's men who were now bored (and not being paid) after the conclusion of the war between the United States and Mexico three months earlier. While amongst their number were a large amount of Militiamen, Texas Rangers and veterans of the Confederate Army, they were not a formal armed force, though the "Freer Boys" would within months form the nucleus of the Texas Republican Army.

If there is a theme to the events of 1915-16, it was Pa Ferguson's grievous mistakes that only served to accelerate Texan alienation from his administration and the Confederacy as a whole in the end. He had wasted crucial weeks in pursuing the Laredo Legislature to the border when he'd had the chance, choosing instead to wait for more reinforcements than the outgoing administration in Richmond was able to send. When he did finally realize how unseriously the Confederate Congress took the Laredo revolt and he did send a force, not wanting to leave the paths to Austin wide open, he instead pulled raw recruits who were keeping oilfield workers in the Port Arthur area in check, thus leaving his most talented cadres and veterans out of the battle. This delay allowed the Laredo Legislature to regroup and properly arm itself with the thousands of weapons flowing across the Rio Bravo from chaotic and lawless northern Mexico (indeed, the Texan Revolution can be viewed in some ways as an extension of the social conflict in postwar Mexico) and for its forces to not be badly outmatched when the Loyalists finally did arrive.

Contrary to much of contemporary and modern Texan historiography (especially in primary and secondary schools), the Battle of Freer was not some triumphant echo of Lexington and Concord or First Manassas; it was a largely inconclusive result playing out over the course of the day between two disorganized, inexperienced groups of men numbering about ten thousand apiece. Roughly five hundred casualties were recorded on each side and, after a successfully cavalry charge into the left flank of the Loyalists by Mexican volunteers scattered their defensive line, a retreat back to Corpus Christi and Laredo was ordered. Strategically, of course, it was a smashing success - the rebels had not been defeated and crushed, and that was all that was aimed to be accomplished at Freer.

Despite the tactically muddled fighting in cool, damp conditions, the news as it was reported across Texas, Mexico and the United States was that Laredo had held out and sent Ferguson's Loyalists packing, meaning that not only were there now two competing governments claiming legitimacy over Texas, but also that the dissident government had credibly defended itself with force, the first step in revolutionary legitimacy. Texas, a place whose history was deeply influenced not only by the American Revolution of 1776 but the Mexican, Texian and Confederate wars of independence, was exactly where such implications held a special meaning and struck a reflexive chord with many who over the past two months had been mostly perplexed by the breakdown of legal government in the state as the Yankees encroached from west and north.

Riots broke out not only in occupied Dallas and Wichita Falls, where the Lone Star Flag was waved without the Confederate Southern Cross [1], but also in the oilfields around Port Arthur, on the docks of Galveston, and in the railyards of San Antonio, Tyler, and College Station. Thousands more men, often with their families in tow, marched across the South Texas scrublands towards the camps around Laredo to volunteer, singing "The Yellow Rose of Texas" as their fathers and grandfathers perhaps once had decades ago. Legislators and makeshift soldiers alike had shown what was possible, each in turn - the spirit of rebellion was strong in the air.

In Laredo, this meant complications. Garner and Sheppard were still adamantly against any action aimed at Richmond, drafting a statement which laid out what came to be known as the Freer Demands: the immediate resignation of Pa Ferguson, the return of all Texans to their "native soil" to push out the Yankees, amnesty for all members of the Laredo Legislature, and full control by Texan politicians over political patronage. It was meant to provide both Richmond and Ferguson with a clear off-ramp from further violence, but the Yankee breakthroughs of the spring and summer in the East and Midlands had not yet occurred, and the new incoming Vardaman administration had been elected on a delusional platform of zero negotiation, with Philadelphia or anyone else, and the Freer Demands were issued a mere ten days before his inauguration on February 22, 1916. They would be dismissed out of hand, in full, and Vardaman's intermediaries further made clear that any "seditionist" would be shot, and his family if captured hanged, in retaliation for their revolt.

Gore, more so even than Garner and Sheppard who knew Vardaman and Martin personally (indeed, Sheppard had at one point considered Vardaman a good friend), understood that the new regime in Richmond would not be plagued by President Cotton Ed Smith's laziness and penchant for allowing political subterfuge to swirl around him and cut him off at the knees, especially not with the enemy at the gates of central Virginia and even Georgia. Much as the visit of the Yankee spies had caused him to ponder new opportunities, the depth of support for the Laredo Legislature in the wake of Freer led him to start thinking of what, exactly, the endgame was, especially with the Confederate Army having finally sent sufficient men to Austin to defend the capital but also potentially march south. Quoting John Adams, he told his colleagues that the time was upon them to make "a most fateful decision," and that if "we do not stand together, we will all hang separately." It was widely understood what he meant - it was no longer enough to hold out in Laredo. The fight had to be taken to Ferguson, and it was quite possible that it was no longer a dispute of Loyalists vs. Legitimists, but rather soon a battle of the Confederacy against Texan secessionists, whether they wanted it to be or not..."

- Republic Reborn

[1] Our in-universe term for OTL's Confederate flag, which I prefer using ITTL for the sake of familiarity to the "stars and bars" or whatever the lesser-known alternatives are called
 
Speaking of flags - I wonder what the flag of the Texan Republicans would be. The knee jerk response would be that they'd keep the Lone Star Flag - it, after all, has a lot of romantic attachment. But I'm not sure that is feasible here - there is going to be a very real need to have a flag and symbol that helps differentiate themselves from Fergusson's loyalists (and I highly doubt that THEY will abandon the Lone Star Flag, since it brings them legitimacy). So the Texas Republicans are going to be forced by neccesity to adopt a different flag and symbol for themselves that is immediately recognizable by eye.
 
Speaking of flags - I wonder what the flag of the Texan Republicans would be. The knee jerk response would be that they'd keep the Lone Star Flag - it, after all, has a lot of romantic attachment. But I'm not sure that is feasible here - there is going to be a very real need to have a flag and symbol that helps differentiate themselves from Fergusson's loyalists (and I highly doubt that THEY will abandon the Lone Star Flag, since it brings them legitimacy). So the Texas Republicans are going to be forced by neccesity to adopt a different flag and symbol for themselves that is immediately recognizable by eye.
At the same time there’s something deeply hilarious about competing sides using the same flag because they believe it gives them true legitimacy, lol
 
At the same time there’s something deeply hilarious about competing sides using the same flag because they believe it gives them true legitimacy, lol

There is, no doubt :)

But perhaps the Republicans can readopt either the Burnett Flag (which was the first flag of the Republic) or, my personal favorite because it's so crazy, the James Long Flag!

Long_Expedition
Colonel_James_Long%27s_Flag.svg
 
Top