I binged this in a week... and just wow. Great timeline by all standards. The level of detail, dedication and originality is honestly extremely rare to see, and I dare say it beats anything I've read before in those regards. I must admit that with my rather sub-par knowledge of American internal history I found myself glossing over the American and CSA politics updates, but I still immensely enjoyed the story.
What I would praise the most is how organic the CdM world feels. The fact that you took the time to write about often forgotten in AH corners of the world like Latin America or Korea, beyond "they are in X country's sphere of influence and have no agency whatsoever", made it feel so much more dynamic than other timelines. And as a Latin American myself, I quite appreciated the focus.
As a constructive critic, and let me prelude this by saying that it doesn't take away from the fact that I consider this among the best I've read on this site, I would say that the ending to the War in the Cone didn't feel very coherent.
Firstly, I think that the importance of Uruguay to Argentina, in particular the access to the Plata basin, is understated. It is an existential threat to the capital, and in a state as centralized as Argentina that translates to an existential threat for itself. Brazilian warships in Colonia del Sacramento is totally unacceptable to Argentina, and most of the population, an overwhelming part of which lives in the area, would support further efforts to fight that. Even with the gains in Patagonia, this treaty is a strategic disaster for Argentina. Patagonia is resource rich and control over the Horn is valuable, but it's also an empty desert for the most part, far away from population centers. Holding Tierra del Fuego means nothing if Brazil is able to put a fleet in Montevideo and threaten the very heart of the nation.
Going with Argentina's internal situation, the fact that Brazil still occupies territory and that they were clearly attacked would keep the population supportive of the war effort, especially with a figure as influential as Alem ITTL supporting it. The sea lanes remaining open and Argentina having a large agricultural sector also means that the situation in unoccupied territories would not be catastrophically bad. Military losses could be a sticking issue, but staying behind the Parana and not seeking peace should be a safe choice politically.
Then the situation abroad: you got Brazil plagued by mutinies and domestic strife, Mexico and Chile capitulated, and a CSA that it looks like it could collapse any moment. The latter would mean that all American attention would be focused in Brazil, either bringing overwhelming military force or pressuring Brazil to back down just with the threat of it. All they have to do is wait behind the Paraná, either for America to finish off the CSA or for Brazil to collapse by itself.
It's under these conditions that Argentina agrees to a lopsided peace with Brazil, which in my opinion makes no sense at all under the conditions presented. With them clearly being the more orderly party in the home front and with the ever-looming threat for Brazil of having to win before the US finishes off the CSA, they had all the advantages.
And lastly, the matter of the alliance with the US: Argentina and the USA are allied, and and the USA is fighting Brazil as well. I'm not sure if Argentina is at war with the CSA as well, but it doesn't really matter. Then the treaty is portrayed as a British-sponsored event, with little input from the USA, looking dangerously like Argentina threw the USA under the bus to get their own peace, which would no doubt be awfully received back in North America. For two countries who are said to enjoy a "special relationship", this doesn't make a lot of sense, especially when it would've been more advantageous for both of them to negotiate in lockstep.
Anyways, my rant grew a bit longer than I wanted to, but don't let that take away from the fact that this timeline is fucking great, and props to @KingSweden24.
What I would praise the most is how organic the CdM world feels. The fact that you took the time to write about often forgotten in AH corners of the world like Latin America or Korea, beyond "they are in X country's sphere of influence and have no agency whatsoever", made it feel so much more dynamic than other timelines. And as a Latin American myself, I quite appreciated the focus.
As a constructive critic, and let me prelude this by saying that it doesn't take away from the fact that I consider this among the best I've read on this site, I would say that the ending to the War in the Cone didn't feel very coherent.
Firstly, I think that the importance of Uruguay to Argentina, in particular the access to the Plata basin, is understated. It is an existential threat to the capital, and in a state as centralized as Argentina that translates to an existential threat for itself. Brazilian warships in Colonia del Sacramento is totally unacceptable to Argentina, and most of the population, an overwhelming part of which lives in the area, would support further efforts to fight that. Even with the gains in Patagonia, this treaty is a strategic disaster for Argentina. Patagonia is resource rich and control over the Horn is valuable, but it's also an empty desert for the most part, far away from population centers. Holding Tierra del Fuego means nothing if Brazil is able to put a fleet in Montevideo and threaten the very heart of the nation.
Going with Argentina's internal situation, the fact that Brazil still occupies territory and that they were clearly attacked would keep the population supportive of the war effort, especially with a figure as influential as Alem ITTL supporting it. The sea lanes remaining open and Argentina having a large agricultural sector also means that the situation in unoccupied territories would not be catastrophically bad. Military losses could be a sticking issue, but staying behind the Parana and not seeking peace should be a safe choice politically.
Then the situation abroad: you got Brazil plagued by mutinies and domestic strife, Mexico and Chile capitulated, and a CSA that it looks like it could collapse any moment. The latter would mean that all American attention would be focused in Brazil, either bringing overwhelming military force or pressuring Brazil to back down just with the threat of it. All they have to do is wait behind the Paraná, either for America to finish off the CSA or for Brazil to collapse by itself.
It's under these conditions that Argentina agrees to a lopsided peace with Brazil, which in my opinion makes no sense at all under the conditions presented. With them clearly being the more orderly party in the home front and with the ever-looming threat for Brazil of having to win before the US finishes off the CSA, they had all the advantages.
And lastly, the matter of the alliance with the US: Argentina and the USA are allied, and and the USA is fighting Brazil as well. I'm not sure if Argentina is at war with the CSA as well, but it doesn't really matter. Then the treaty is portrayed as a British-sponsored event, with little input from the USA, looking dangerously like Argentina threw the USA under the bus to get their own peace, which would no doubt be awfully received back in North America. For two countries who are said to enjoy a "special relationship", this doesn't make a lot of sense, especially when it would've been more advantageous for both of them to negotiate in lockstep.
Anyways, my rant grew a bit longer than I wanted to, but don't let that take away from the fact that this timeline is fucking great, and props to @KingSweden24.