What if Brazil Wasn't Poor?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 жов 2022
- Watch next: "Every Significant Mongol Successor State; How The Mongols Fell in 1857"
• Every Significant Mong... -~-
#possiblehistory #alternatehistory #brazil #pedroII #pedroinfante
What if in an alternate timeline Brazil wasn't the poor and corrupt nation it became in our timeline. The nation is huge, with boundless resources and people to turn the nation into a wealthy nation, a world leader in industry and agriculture. But Brazil failed to become this in our own timeline. Why?
Well mainly because the Emperor, Pedro II, gave up on ruler ship in the final years of his reign. His male heir had died in 1850, and while his daughters were allowed to succeed him, Pedro II considered a women on the throne a death sentence for the institution. A republican clique grew in the nation, and despite the mass popularity the emperorship enjoyed, Pedro was sent into exile and the monarchy was replaced with a corrupt presidential system, spiralling Brazil down a dark path.
So what if this didn't happen? Watch the video to find out.
If you like the content please like, comment and subscribe, it helps smaller channels like mine to get noticed!
If you want to support the channel you can go to my Patreon or become a member! You will get early access to video's and will be allowed to suggest priority video subjects!
/ possiblehistory
/ @possiblehistory
Possible Extra's a channel where we do not necessarily history related stuff, like podcasts and more!
/ @theobserverph
Gaming Channel:
/ @deletedchannel1010
Feel free to follow or join our social media platforms:
/ possiblehistory
/ possiblehistor1
/ discord
/ possible_history0
Most of our music By: Beta Records. He's great, check him out!
Link: goo.gl/peHHCX
Kevin McLoad
/ kevinmacleodarchive
Thanks for watching! To support the content consider leaving a like and a comment! Even something simple like "Hi" helps the video out massively!
I found out you have a yt channel on AH
Keep up the good work
I think still Brazil would send troops to fight in WWII. As in our timeline.
What if Argentina remain rich?
I liked this one. but I think you undercut the "southern European migration" as you called it. The largest migration to the USA at the start of 20th century were southern Europeans, especially from Sicily and southern Italy. They migrated to the United States not because it was a developed nation but because it was a developing nation. Brazil could have had a bigger opening as Brazil had a more similar culture compared to the racism of the WASP cultures of the USA and Australia. Brazil population could have matched quickly.
Hi.
The Empire of Brazil is proof that the success of the nation doesn’t result from race or geography. It is the competence of that nation’s institutions.
And that competence or lack of comes from it's people's race and also probably geography
@@constantinethecataphract5949 what? Lol
@@TheWazzoGames Ignore the troll.
Literally the entirety of Latin America can be applied to that statement.
@@accountthatillusetocomment3041 Argentina is rich in so much, but it has poor governance.
It's kind of ironic how Brazil benefited more from Monarchism than Republicanism.
True
A constitutional monarchy that respects the rule of law and is open to reform is better than a reactionary republican dictatorship.
America celebrates the departure of its king, while Brazil laments the exile of its king. Quite a reverse uno.
If we’re talking in terms of relative power and not absolute power this is true for most nations. Most nations had their relative high water mark during the times of monarchy. Although obviously technological development is so high now that most of them are still more powerful today under democratic systems.
@@sidneyadnopoz3427 True it mostly depends on how strong institutions are and who is running it. Despite being progressive I'd take a benevolent people's monarch over a corrupt republic dominated by the rich class who exploits their own country any day. Honestly it would be interesting to see if Elective Monarchies like Poland were more prominent in history than absolute monarchies or parliamentary monarchies.
As a non-Brazilian, I weep for the missed potential of Brazil.
As a brazilian i weep as well.
@@fernandostaejak3705 😔
We can be sad together.
y’all have well over 200 million people and a land area almost as big and materially wealthy as the United States, there is still tons and tons of potential still waiting to be used as long as y’all get your economy together and focus on development
@@bunniifangz we always tried to tell this, but the populos politicians here buys the votes there is majority poor people, with "free" stuff, and get their share on the tax money, republican democracy does not work on brazil
If you a non Brazilian have such feeling about Brazil's failure as a country... Imagine us, Brazilians who lives here and see such potential being wasted in corruption and violence... It's sad but that's life.
I'm a Brazilian Economics student, when you see the difference in economic responsibility between The Empire and The Republic its ridiculous, the monarchy did everything right, and the republic UNTIL THIS DAY never had a fiscal surplus like the monarchy, they always ruin their self with big loans that cant be paid and huge unnecessary government costs.
"Mas aí o líder seria um rei e reis são do mal e arbitrários 🥺"
Poderia me explicar mais como funcionava a monarquia no Império? Eu sei que era um país bem mais funcional que hoje mas quero entender essa parte.
Hoppe was right
@@XZ1. When the people actually enslaved by a monarchy prefer to fight for it to the death than to belong to a republican government, you know the republicans seriously messed up.
nop, monarchy forgets to really develop and explore the potential of the north and northeast region, and in the republic and even in the military dictactorship remained in oblivion. Cangaço era started in 1800 and ended in the beggining years of 1900, we are talking about regions that passed pretty easily 400 years by their own luck.
One weird side effect is that there's a chance that Cuba becomes a Brazilian ally instead of a Soviet ally. Cuba only became a soviet aligned nation because there wasn't any other strong and independent nations to support their economy because of the USA embargo. So no Cuban missile crisis and Cuba would probably be better off today.
Yeah communist Cuba very likely doesn't happen, since they either lean on Brazil and have a more moderate revolution win or the US and Brazil team up to crush Castro.
Cuba é ditadura, só sei disso
The US embargo happened after theft of US property through nationalization, and Castro proclaiming himself a Marxist-Leninist.
as if brazil wont be evil and develope its own nuke.
As if it'd be evil to develope nukes?
I'm Brazilian, and I say that while many Brazilians mock the monarchy, the republic continues to mock the Brazilian people. a sad reality of our country. we lack patriotism, not that patriotism of love for a politician, but that for love of the nation
O nome disso e síndrome do viralata
The more you learn about history, especially Brazil's, the more you get disappointed. This is a nice video talking about a possible future if things went differently from our timeline.
Polish people feel the same
I wish a Time-traveler Industrialized Dark Age Pagan Poland
Latin America in general
this is true for so, so many nations. iran, india, mexico, the entirity of southeast asia... so much squandered potential
@@brtuh5865 And then you have countries where nearly everything went right in their trajectories… except for flagrant domestic human rights violations.
@@christiandauz3742that would change world history in ways that is difficult to imagine
Amazing alternate history scenarios that didn’t end up happening:
- Frederick the 3rd governs the German empire after the death of Wilhelm the 2nd, thereby liberalizing the German Empire.
- Archduke France Ferdinand survives and replaces Franz Joseph after his death in 1916.
- Brazil keeps it’s monarchy.
Perhaps I’m missing something. How could Frederick III govern the German Empire after Wilhelm II if Wilhelm II only acceded to the throne upon the death of Frederick III (his father)? Or perhaps you mean to suggest a scenario in which Frederick III succeeds _his_ father, Wilhelm *II* as king of the German empire, which still wouldn’t make sense as an alternate history scenario because that’s exactly what _did_ happen.
@@Rum-Runner yeah you're right haahaahaa. Honest mistake, man. I meant Frederick 3rd rules and survives after the death of Wilhelm 1st
@@emilianohermosilla3996 Ah, okay that makes a lot more sense haha. No worries, I was just a bit confused is all.
Brazil keeping monarchy would fucking suck.
@@vinhetasdatv8611 itd be better than the huge amount of corruption literally everywhere that exists today
really the proclamation of the Republic here in Brazil was something ironic, they promised to end the monarchical "dictatorship", but ended up starting the Republic being a Military Dictatorship
In the cold war i feel like brazil would be to the US what china was to the USSR, a power that is aligned ideologically(compared to the other side), it is strong but not enough to 1 vs 1 the superpowers, but is independent and does not like having its affairs meddled in by the superpower
Bro, USA literally sent it's navy to help the brazillian military coup during the cold war just to ensure it would keep aligned to their geopolitical interest, there is nothing "independent" about this.
So britain 2.0 electric boogolo
Reading Brazil's economic history I actually thought a lot about that. Pedro II also did a mistake when he supported reducing the Alves Branco Tariffs which were gradually industrializing Brazil in the 1850s and 1860s and made an even bigger mistake when he did not support the Viscount of Maua in his ambitions of industrialization. If by 1888 the modernizing industrial bourgeoisie was stronger economically and politically than the rural oligarchies, neither Pedro or his daughter would ever have been overthrown since they were a very important base of support of the monarchy
O maior problema é que o exército era diretamente conectado com a agricultura, se o Brasil industrializasse não ia mudar muita coisas pq o exército continuaria conectado com os grandes latifúndios e ainda ia ficar puto, no final acho que ia ter o mesmo resultado
If he allied with the Baron the monarchy would fall 20 years sooner.
Exactly.
@@oGoldero Sim e não, como industrialização é um processo, cada geração que passasse a quantidade de militares ligados diretamente aos latifundiários iria naturalmente diminuir.
O que eu imagino que aconteceria é que a gente ia ter uns problema geopolitico fudido se começasse a competir industrialmente com os EUA, porque os americanos sabotam MESMO
Mas de qualquer forma prefiro isso que ficar com um país socialmente miserável dependente de commodities.
@@oGoldero mas a marinha era monarquista.
As a Brazilian, this would be the best alternative scenario. It's really unfortunate that it happened the way it did.
what if Brazil and Portugal remained as an United Kingdom?
Dude, one question. Is there black legend about the Portuguese empire?
@Thiago no shit read, he said remained
@Thiago "Brazil was never a portuguese colony"
Oh no. There were just several settlements along the east coast of the South American continent that were strongly settled by people from Portugal, with sponsorship of the Portuguese throne. Not a colony at all🙄
@@MrColuber Being a colony and being colonized are 2 different things. Up to the declaration of independence by the king of Portugal and Brazil, both territories where part of the same kingdom.
@@Mostspecialusername I suppose so. To be 'colonized' is the process in which a 'colony' is settled by the people of a nation/realm/whatever that claims possession of said colony and which sponsors and encourages said settlement.
Two totally different and unrelated things.
In this universe going to brasil is a very good thing and it doesn't mean going to a godless void
Instead the term you are going to Argentina catches on.
@@TheAustralianMapper5378 Going to the United States lmao 😜
Godless void = current usa
@@TheAustralianMapper5378 sounds about right
Brazil's History after Monarchy is probably one of the few Nations where Monarchism was actually beneficial instead of Republicanism.
I think it depends on the amount of time you are talking about.
Most of the time republicanism is terrible for at least for the first few years. Then it eventually gets to a nice equilibrium.
It was awful for the French to get rid of the monarch in 1789. Maximilian made the lives of France worse than the rightful ruler did.
After the Russian revolution, the Russian republic collapsed only just months later which lead to major territorial loses.
The Spanish republic didn't live long either because the Republicans were outright commiting a genocide against church members. Burning down churches too. They also assassinated right wing political leaders which also led to their downfall because it started a civil war.
If we're being truthful, the structure of government isn't the issue. Republics aren't better than monarchies. People are the problem.
Not really cracks were already beginning to shjow and Brazil happened to have the best monarch for most of the monarchist stint so they didn't really get trash leaders and that would happen eventually maybe even straight after Pedro II. The problem is what happened afterwards with coups and corruption screwed the country beyond belief to this day, now being subject to US influence when they had potential to be another united states.
*laughs in spanish and portuguese*
@@whatischeese4179 unfortunately some cultures are more prone to corruption, and for those cultures a Monarchy can be more beneficial, if the monarch is a good leader. Brazil had a great monarch in Pedro II and in some ways in Pedro I as well. And im sure Isabel I would have been great as well. Republicanism here has failed in so many levels it’s unbelievable. Since the leaders of the emperor house of brazil are great educated, honest people i wish we could go back to the monarchy, a constitutional monarchy, ofc
@@warribe
May i ask why you would not want a absolute monarchy?
A stronger Brazil, had they performed outstandingly well in WW2 (and also WW1 for better record) and had ambitions for world's political matters might even push for a seat of a permanent member in the UN security council and if some taboo happened might end up having France out of the permanent seat for some time. Futher more Portuguese woul become another language used in the UN (even if Brazil would not be a permanent member) and Portuguese colonial war might end up differently, as the Portugese colonies would turn to Brazil as mediator. Hell, maybe Portugual might be a monarchy today, since the monarch of Portugual and Brazil shared the same royal family, meaning the deposed king Manuel 2 could went to Brazil in exile, having an heir and waiting for the fall of Estado Novo then returning to Portugual. (Or Brazil just used the same royal families as reasons to bring someone they like in to the Portuguese throne). If Brazil in this timeline had done right the relation between Brazil and Portugual would be similar to that of the US and the UK, thus making Brazil more involed to western side if they wanted to. Also, if Brazil saw the communist as a dangerous threat to the mornachy (all former kingdom in Europe under communist rule today no longer have kings any more) and wanted to closer to the western world, they could be co-founder of NATO (might be named somewhat differently to make sense).
The question of whether Brazil could get on the security council depends on how much Brazil would want to have a global reach. Right now, Brazil is a country that prefers to be a "friend to every nation" rather than a seafaring power. Outside of wars in South America, the monarchy never had any kind of global ambition.
@@nathanseper8738 yeah, that's why I used a lot of "if" since as PH said in the video, we have no idea what the new king would be had he not died young. However even Brazil today tries to become a permanent member, it's most likely that with a stronger nation they would push for it early
Even if Brazil didn't want to be a global player, having strong influence to counter outside powers and gain good position in the Latin American still a goo thing to do (RoC as far as I know didn't had power beyond their border nor they really want a global reach, at best they wanted regional influnece). There was a term "ABC powers" in 1920s-1930s refering Brazil, Argentina and Chile as leading nations in South America, maybe Brazil could push more in this way to secure their interests and formed a strong alliance.
1 thing for sure was that Brazil would have more things to do with Portugual and its colonies (and their neighborhoods as well), thus trying to have a better position inside the UN would be Brazil's target. Also, if they end up a permanent member of the UN, today Brazil might also have nukes as well (an unwritten rule of becoming a permanent member is that you have nukes sooner or later)
@@vaninhhuu3215 Nice to see a fellow comrades who study in morden history. Best of a history of Latin America and the Brazil.
Like you said my friend. I don't know what the Portuguese court was thinking. But Brazil was a better geography and much for the Portuguese to expand a new rather than stucking back in Europe being a minor power of the Concert of Europe. They could be like the US with the trade route to both Asia and Europe. Of course there was still problem of Spanish colony. But hey it a better alternative than staying back in Europe and be a junior power. Even abandon it Africa colony to focus in Brazil seem to be a better choice.
Invading French colony for revenge against Napoleon. Taking part Bolivia and part of Peru. Make sure Uruguay is Definitely Brazil. Try to sort out some agreement with Argentina or maybe help them get Chile back. A huge potential to make Brazil a big player.
But unfortunately it didn't go that way.
@@thanhhoangnguyen4754
The future king of Portugal John VI actually liked Rio de Janeiro (at that time Brazil was an equal kingdom to Portugal "thanks" to Napoleon's invasion that resulting in the Portuguese royal family ended up in Brazil and "leveled up" Brazil from a colony to a kingdom) but ended up returning to Portugal due to a lot of reasons: 1, The Brazilian elites didn't like having an European king that weakening their power in Brazil. 2, The Portuguese elites saw Brazil was just a colony with slaves (which was pretty much non existent in Portugal at this point) that got glorified called a kingdom so control Brazil from Lisbon make more legal and more sense that living in Brazil (and maybe some of them saw that eventually Brazil would grow bigger than Portugal, thus the power shift to the new world and they would lose power). 3, After the Revolution of 1820 in Portugal was a final straw that resulted in John VI had to go home. 4, Nostalgia, I mean a lot of Portugal wanted to return rather than living aboard, when Napoleon was gone, it was time to return. 5, The power of the king of Portugal, while John VI enjoyed more support in Brazil than in Portugal, still legally come from Portugal, and the last time Portugal lacked a king in the moment later they became a subordinate of a foreign power, so this time they didn't want the same happen. 6, At that time, most European consider Europe to be the center of their world, and the new world was their backyard.
(Also, I don't think Portuguese want to speak Brazilian Portugese as an insult to themself)
While Brazil have a better geography that Portugal, at that time the center of the world for European was still in Europe, also Europe was and still much richer than most of the new world, so returned home wasn't a weird ideal to say. Abandoning Africa colonies was not the wise decision, a friendly remind that Brazil relied on slaves than any other states in the new world (which put the Confederate States of America to shame), the Triangular trade and there was still a lot of trade which other parts of the world (And wouldn't it cooler to have actual colonies, right?).
"Invading French colony for revenge against Napoleon" well they did, and after Napoleon was gone they "returned" it to France. Brazil did take lands from Bolivia (not sure about Peru). Brazil faced a lot of civil unrest and a lot of wars, so no thank at annexing the whole Uruguay. The same could be said about Argentina "get Chile back". Also most of what happen in this alternative only happen AFTER the fall of Brazilian monarch, which at that time Chile and Uruguay would already developed their own identities, so good like taking them. And seeing how Argentina screw themself despite having some of the best position in the world and Chile having a much better condition, I would rather Chile to be independent than a part of Argentina (and frankly they would be the most likely to actual leave due to the geographic advantage)
Well, like you said, Brazil could be a much bigger player in the world, but they screw themself too much to be a big player, at least for a few decade. People say that the USA got blessed, which is true, but forget that a lot of the new world nations could have been that great, yet ended up a mess (Argentina, Brazil, Central America, Gran Colombia, Mexico, ...)
@@vaninhhuu3215Brazil was to makes nukes during dictactorship, there is even a testing camp, but later gave up on that, nowadays Brazil is pushing for a UN permanent seat and thats why It is developing the SN-BR Álvaro Alberto, a nuclear powered submarine.
It is noteworthy that the republican coup was completely military in nature and did not have popular support, the emperor was highly appreciated by the people.
15:24
Actually, Brazil is way closer to a centralized state than an actual federation like the United States. We have many states with their own governments but the federal government is way stronger.
Unfortunately
This happened under the "Estado Novo" of Getulio Vargas, because before him the states had great administrative autonomy, they even had their own customs and exchange rates...
Brazil is one of the reasons why I think Constitutional Monarchy is the best system of government.
Ofc it is the best if the monarch is highly competent
@@thenamesianna The Power isn't concentrated on the monarchy, there's a parliment.
Classical republicanism is better, it have the perfect blend of Aristocracy, Monarchy and Democracy, the Republic of Venice is a proof of that.
@@lucasmendes3219 Depends, in Brazil there was a fourth power "Poder Moderador" that was above all other 3 powers. And German Empire also gave a significant power to the monarch.
@@lowrhyan567 I meant for Brazil, I think monarchy would have been better than republicanism.
A monarchy can be a pillar from which an elected parliament and a constitution can be built, unlike authoritarian republican regimes which are 'all or nothing' by nature.
With authoritarian republics, any liberalization tends to throw the legitimacy of the system into further question and lead to the reforming regime's overthrow. In contrast, a constitutional monarchy can survive as an 'in-between' system between democracy and authoritarianism far easier than a republican system can, and to be brutally honest, some countries are just not ready for full democracy.
Compare Morocco and Jordan to Egypt and Syria and I think you'll see what I'm getting at.
As a Brazilian i feel sad every time i'm remembered of Brazil's history, of what could have been instead of the monstrosity that it is. OTL's Brazil is, sadly, in my honest opinion amongst the worst possible TL's, not _THE_ worst though.
Still, nice vid, Come to -South Detroit- Brazil approved.
On a side note, i believe one of the reasons as to why Pedro II's daughter, Elizabeth wasn't interested in, nor qualified to rule was because Pedro didn't bother to raise her to be Empress, he didn't teach her anything ruling related after his son's death, still i would have taken the somewhat unqualified Elizabeth over the Republic any day, especially because Pedro could have just matrilineally married her to a European Prince (most likely German).
South Detroit? More like -portuguese Ohio- 🗿
@@Soviet_Comerqde420 nah, Ohio is a danger to the Universe, Brazil is a danger to itself.
Não é Elizabeth é Isabel
The oligarchy sure was terrible especially at the start but the republic eventually gave us great rulers. Getúlio Vargas, Jucelino Kubitschek e Figueredo
yea bro Pedro II was the true example of what any good leader should be. sad to see how brazil turned out, especially when it had so much potential. I think the only other person that could have completely turned it around in our timeline was Getúlio Vargas. Yea, he was a dictator, but he was truly the only one trying to make brazil progress
It would be interesting to see a scenario in which Brazil rivals the US, with equal forces. Like, would there be wars (commercial, diplomatic or military) between them for influence on the American continent?
Yes
Watching from Mexico and thinking about Pedro II, more and more I imagine what if Agustín de Iturbide (with similar moderate stances, as well as a willingness to accept other voices than the emperor's) had been able to resist the coup and rule over the 1st Mexican Empire.
Would that be an interesting enough scenario?
Mexico's divisions at the time were bigger than Brazil's at independence. The better scenario would have been if Iturbide and the Mexican Congress had been able to persuade some European prince (preferably a Habsburg) to occupy the Mexican throne. That level of legitimacy with the European powers and Mexican conservatives would have allowed more stability.
The coup happened because Itrubide dissolved the Congress and thus became against the single foundation of the Mexican Empire being a constitutional monarchy instead of the absolutist regime they already had.
Congress was garbage. It had defects from the very beginning, defects that Iturbide ignored because he thought that they would be fixed by the next Congress, but surprise 8 months in and the Congress didn't made even made one line of the Constitution they were suppose to be making. It needed to be dissolved ASAP, fix all the defects and recall another one.
@@gustavoritter7321 Yes, if only the Spanish Royal Family would had accepted the Emperor would only had to deal with one group the Republicans. Agustin de Iturbide had to deal with two groups the Bourbonist and Republicans, the Bourbonist wanted to kill him, because he was a obstacle to becoming part of Spain again and the Republican wanted to kill him, because they saw him has a obstacle for the establishement of a kind of USA Republic.
Mind you the defects of Congress weren't the fault of Iturbide, his fault in my eyes was trying to Constitute the Nation has fast has possible, he ignored lots of problem that would generate conflict with the believe that he was evading a greater evil(Anarchy) then they accumulated and he tackled them down they bursted open. Still he still had possibility of winning, but according to his manifesto decided to give up instead than plunging the country into anarchy, since according to his manifiesto that was the reason he even decided to declare indepedence to being with.
As brazilian i must say: There was another option: Isabella's Son, Pedro (and yes, he was Pedro III). She was married to Count D'Eu, heir of french trone, and THIS was the motive for the coup. She only have to abdicate as her grandfather. AND Pedro I HAD plans to conquer all Latin America.
Ent pera ai o brasil podia dominar TODO mundo ?
I foresee the 20th Century being for this alternate Brazil what the 19th century was for the United States, i.e. a period of internal development and population growth. Then in the 21st century, with the collapse of the American centric global order (which is happening as we speak), I foresee Brazil coming out and acting increasingly as a global power. In the end I still see the US being the stronger power, but with Brazil acting as a serious secondary center of power.
The real problem in this scenario is population growth for Brazil. In the last years of the monarchy, Brazilian fertility rates were already slowing due to improving economy and education and only picked up again during the 1930s as the country went backwards socially and economically. An even wealthier Brazil by the 1910s and 1920s would have meant full swing urbanization and reduced population growth. So Brazil would have just one alternative which is folowing Princess Isabel's scheme of distributing a s*it ton of land for free to Italian, Spanish and Russian immigrants in the country's interior. In that case, Brazil's population by the 1940s could have been larger than it was in our timeline and with a much higher (twice or thrice) the GDP per capita in which case, Brazil's economy could have been larger than France's at the time.
That would be awesome
some notes
Pedro second was really against slavery, his toutor was black and he tried his whole live to make it fall out but he couldnt because the elites did exactely what they did after his daugher abolished slavery on the last days of the empire when he was sick in france tring to solve the problem
it was a military coup that overtrow the governament just after with the help of angered elites and some parts of the church(because he defended masons they started going against him), the man who overtaken the governament in the coup was literaly a marechal(highest ranking general) and being exilated only made he die sooner in france
the military was also growing due to the paraguai war
Just a correction... The princess' name was Isabel, not Isabela.
João John Juan same shit
The problem of Brazil is similar to the problem of many other Latin-American countries, or the problem of many tropical countries. Given its low productivity, the minimum legal wage is very low. However it is common for workers in any specialised professions to earn a lot more, so much so that Brazilians used to count their salaries using the minimum wage as unit (I get paid four minimum wages). There are many jobs in industry and services where people get paid more.
I'm Brazilian.
Princess Isabel (not Isabella as mentioned in video), daughter of Pedro II, who signed the slavery abolishment.
In some south american nations, they didn't freed the slaves. Just killed'em all.
Brazil was late to abolish the slavery, but the slaves were freed, not killed.
Based nation 🇧🇷
To reinforce the theory that a Monarchist Brazil would side with the British in both World Wars is that two sons of Princes Isabel indeed died in the context of WWI fighting or British. Prince Luis died from deseases aquired on the trenches, and Prince Philip was a fighter pilot and died in a crash.
One thing you forgot: As a Brazilian, Bolivia asked to be incorporated into Brazil. I know you said Brazil doesn't have much space to expand, but I personally think Brazil should annex Bolivia to house more big cities and to have more space for industry.
As a Brazilian, I cry every time I am reminded I'm not an Empire-of-Brazilian.
What you mean by that?
@@Nooneishereonlyme He means that as a Brazilian, he cries every time he is reminded that he is not an Empire-of-Brazilian.
@@WhenAllTheWarmthLeavesUs oh ok
May I suggest scenarios like:
What if the First Mexican Empire survived?
What if Morocco was a colonial power?
What if Al-Andalus still existed?
I think this is unironically the good ending… I would also imagine Brazil would be quiet hostile towards South Africa apartheid, maybe that system would end quicker.
No it would not. Apartheid only ended in our timeline because the Apartheid State was going near bankrupt financially and in terms of morale due to the cost of suppressing all the internal uprisings in the country whilst fighting a costly war in Angola. Not to mention the collapse of the Soviet Union which in the eyes of the people at the time lowered the chance of a Communist takeover in the country.
@@frederickvonabel6349 my understanding is that the war in Angola, went poorly due to the Cuban intervention which made the domestic situation untenable for the ruling elite. I would imagine Brazil, a country that is 50% of African dissent would likely, as a superpower, intervene sooner which would have been a far more decisive and critical blow to the apartheid regime. Not to mention in the situation, Brazil would likely have a sphere of influence over most of West Africa, just given their proximity to the continent, which means they likely would play a greater role in South African affairs, compared to our timeline.
@@amk4956 The war in Angola didn't go poorly for Apartheid South Africa, the politics did. Militarily the Cubans and Angolans could not keep up with the SAn Military and were beaten in almost every single engagement, and were outclassed in all but numbers, but with the USSR busy collapsing and internal sympathy for the end of Apartheid from the white minority growing, the politicians on both sides with the Stalemate at the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale saw the perfect political pretext for both sides to pull out of the war. If Brazil did decide to get involved in the Angolan war tho in this alternate timeline, they would more than likely side with the South Africans in the war tho, because the SAns were fighting a communist faction in Angola, and backing the anti-communist faction, and if not for the Cuban intervention flooding the war with tens of thousands of extra bodies to throw at the South African forces, the Communists would have been completely routed, but, with Brazil more than Likely intervening on the Side of Apartheid South Africa and the anti-Communist Angolan faction of Joseph Savimbi, chances are that in the Alternate Timeline, The Angolan war would see the Communists routed with an Anti-Communist Government being set up in Angola, with South Africa still transitioning out of Apartheid at around the same time because the last Whites only referendum that decided to end Apartheid would, more than likely, also still be held at the same time, and still succeed because with Angola being anti-communist, the pretext of Apartheid being necessary to protect against communism would still also be gone. The only major difference I see happening, is that the Corrupt ANC don't end up taking power in South Africa, but instead a completely alternative and different Political party founded by Nelson Mandela would most likely take power
@@thenomad47 I think you are greatly over simplifying the contributions of Cuba in the war but that aside, if Brazil is a super power, which the point of this video was making, apartheid South Africa would have likely end it sooner.
Brazil is a massive nation with a large African population. Being a superpower means that the gravitational pull of the political powers of Brazil would radiate out across the Atlantic. This power projection would slam across Africa. This would make South Africa and Brazil fairly significant rivals. Brazil being a much larger And frankly morally justified actor in this scenario would easily be able to out politics apartheid South Africa in terms of establishing trade agreements and alliances.
Politically speaking, South Africa would be in a much weaker position, because it was tolerated by the United States and the rest of Western Europe Soley, because they wanted it as a Bollwerk against communism. If they have a more morally justifiable player in Brazil to lean on, then they’re not going to back the Blatantly authoritarian regime that still practicing quasi-slavery
Cuba supplied tens of thousands of troops which kept the war in Angola going for almost a decade, and that limited contribution was enough to break the apartheid government. If Brazil, with a coalition of its African allies contributed hundreds of thousands of troops as well as an economic blockade, South Africa would have to give up apartheid immediately. It would likely break in the 70s when the United States was still focused on Southeast Asia.
In my mind, a superpower Brazil is going to be more along the lines of a post World War II France. Not able to have the same type of military and economic impacts is say the United States for the Soviet union, but would still be able to wield considerable force on the international stage. Plus in this scenario Brazil would be financially better off having tapped into its oil resources sooner and supplying the western bloc and in their hour of need giving it even more leverage to do what it wants in the southern hemisphere… There’s just literally a whole host of things that would make Brazil, Justin untouchable Jugrnaut in that region of the world
@@thenomad47 LOL That's not true at all, its just your ideological wishfull thinking, South Africa suffered several defeats, mostly notably at Cuito Cuanavale. The wars in Namibia and Angola went BADLY for South Africa
The republic in Brasil was constructed to favour the bourgeoisie, and we still havent quite worked to change that.
Burguesia não, foi feita pra favorecer a aristocracia e latifundiários.
Based. This scenario is so based it is incredible. Hell, I would even want my country to be in their sphere of influence !
What country are you from?
At the XX century, the Empire of Brazil could be the greatest enemy of apartheid, becoming very vocal against it in USA and very interventionist in Africa confronting South Africa, Rhodesia, Belgium, France and even Portugal about it. Perhaps it could turn the Brazilian Crown into a third part on the cold war in Africa...
Ave Império
Ave GLÓRIA ✊️
Re-install Brazilian monarchy anyone?👑
The monarchist movement in Brazil is not dead yet there are many people who share the idea but almost any political act is politically suffocated however the number of monarchists always It's growing up
Yeah, let's re-install
Never
@@Capivara_Gamer__ growing from 27 to 31
There are movements to do so, there is also a member of the royal family in the parliament who is proposing a new constitution as well so… rest assure that this is the dream of many, many brazilians.
As a Brazilian, this is the best timeline!
I would only remark that Princess Isabel actually wanted to rule and the main reason for the oposition to her was actually due to her staunch catholicism vs the large influence of liberal and masonic ideals in the elite. The abolition of slavery was one of the last nails on the coffin of her possible reign. And despite all his qualities, Pedro II was largely responsible for the circumstances that led to the downfall of the monarchy, precisely because of his leniency towards the free masonry and him being quite liberal himself. The military coup of the republic was a huge anomaly, if there ever was one. Even the supposed leader, Deodoro, was a monarchist. It’s just crazy
This makes me wanna create a time machine to fix our problems
Great job on this, very grounded and as realistic as you can get. Keep it up!
As a brazilian I watch this video with sadness as I think how great our nation could be if the empire was yet in power instead of this shitty republic that we live in🤢
Fantastic Video! Keep up the great work!
Brazil would become a technological power, Brazilians extremely good at what they do would go abroad and reach prominent positions in major research and scientific advances, if Brazil were to Power, these brilliant minds would stay in the country, another very different point would be sports Brazilians have a very high technical capacity, if we were a superpower, the entire infrastructure behind the training of athletes would be cutting-edge and we would probably compete for many medals Against the US haha
I'm Brazilian and even to this day I'm sad we turn into a republic... I'm 24yo... But idc, Brazilian monarchy was actually a good one
Wow, very nice video, thank you!
As a brazilian, I beg for help to reinstall the Empire...
The republic NEVER worked
I loved this video, great work.
You deserve to be more popular.
I liked this one. but I think you undercut the "southern European migration" as you called it. The largest migration to the USA at the start of 20th century were southern Europeans, especially from Sicily and southern Italy. They migrated to the United States not because it was a developed nation but because it was a developing nation. Brazil could have had a bigger opening as Brazil had a more similar culture compared to the racism of the WASP cultures of the USA and Australia. Brazil population could have matched quickly.
The Brazilian Empire's prosperity proves how colonization isn't the central reason for Brazil's downfall. The beginning of independence was a period where Brazil could compete with the US and European countries as an equal. But after a few years (and the Republic...) everything fell. In no time, Brazilians where paying more taxes then they ever had to pay during Portugal's rule.
Portugal banned slavery to mainland Europe in 1761 and the Atlantic slave trade was definitively outlawed altogether by Portugal in 1836, at the same time as other European powers, as a result of British diplomatic pressure. Slavery within the Portuguese colonies in Africa would only be definitively abolished in 1869, following a treaty between the United States and Britain for the joint suppression of the slave trade. All this, however, was before Brazil abolished slavery in its territory...
I hope one they Brazil can assume its rightful place as a world power.
Just a correction, the name of the heir to the Brazilian throne was “Isabel” not “Isabella” as said. And she was a very smart, well taught, respected lady. The main reason to the end of the monarchy wasnt apathy or sexism, was bc the elites have lost their slaves and were pissed with her for it.
If that was the case why dont the elites reinstated slavary after the coup? (they certainly had the power to do so)
It's dificult to say why the republican move happened the way it did (even though many books goes on that direction). But some sources do point to sexism and emphaty of Pedro (and it really makes a lot more sense if you think about it), as well as personal and political reasons of Deodoro (leader of the movement and somewhat a close friend of Pedro itself).
The whole thing is a mess worthy of a telenovela, the fact remains that we will never know for sure what could have been, and it was trully a premature end for a regime that was sucessful at the time.
@@lucasnathan80 bc england was pressuring all the world to end slavery… cutting business contracts.. there’s a reason why most countries in the world ended slavery about the same time it definitely wasn’t a TikTok trend… about deodoro, ofc he had a plan to end the monarchy and used the fact that the heir was a woman to do so but it wasn’t the main reason. The return of the slavery wasn’t that simple since there was no possibility of just go back to buy new slaves - england was the seller and wasn’t doing it for years - and after freeing the people there was no way to simply re-enslave them.
@@warribe Plus Brazil market of slavery plantation are not in the market in long run later on. When they could find other places that was cheaper to make their sugar and coffe.
The confederate plantation cotton on the other hand was cheaper than other in the world.
So the British was put in the difficult situation. They don’t agree with slavery of the Confederate. But they wouldn’t want to loose their cheap cotton compare to Egypt cotton.
So Brazil elites thinking return to slavery was pretty much done in the long run. It not profitable any longer especially to the British.
Awesome video!
been binging your videos lately. Great to see a high quality small channel
Not sure the argument of sexism against princess Isabel makes sense. There are indeed many records of him teaching her how to perform her royal duties. And he seemed to be a loving father of his two daughters. Another strong perspective is that Isabel's husband Gason d' Orl'eans, the Count of Eau from France, was the major issue.
What if ALL the United Kingdoms survived?
United Kingdom of Great Britain and *Ireland* , United Kingdom of Sweden and Norway, The United Netherlands, Austria-Hungary, United Kingdom of Portugal and Brazil or even The Iberian Union.
It's sad to know that the place i was born at could have been the most successful nation in the world but ended up a corruption filled country
Hello! I love your videos, they always teach me something new about history!
You made me miss a time I never lived! Now I want a Monarchy😢
I would rather have a king than see my country as divided as it is nowadays. I think we'll have even harder times in the next years (and I'm being optimistic)
Do you prefer 18th to 21th century scenarios or are they easier to make?
Haven't seen you go medieval in a while
Its a bit of a mix. I know more about later time periods, so that makes it easier/makes me gravitate towards those. But perhaps even more significantly, the earlier you go the less you have a clear and consistent storyline, and the more you have to do guesswork. There is a lot more random chance involved during the age of absolute monarchs and their aristocracy, causing a mess of butterfly effects. One random death can change borders in Europe beyond recognition, or result in one of the more powerful states suddenly being led by a complete idiot.
Ok but another way to go with this scenario is by making Pedro II tax the British and thus avoiding falling in debts themselves. This would make Britain Brazil's rival however by this point forward Brazil could just nationalize its resources and trades with the money gained by the tarifs and taxes and create an Imperial Industrial company of some sort. Then they'd just have to sell goods to the Americans and Britain rivals.
This would make a very strong Brazil early on and would guarantee an even greater victory in the Triple Alliance war.
This would however possibly cause a divide due early industrialization creating slave and industrial states on the coast which would follow a revolution much like the American one in the 1870s.
I'm somewhat conflicted: on the one hand, I'm an American, and one who reflexively recoils from the presuppositions that come with monarchy, peerage, and so-called "aristocracy". On the other, I can't help but notice how so often, the collapse of empires and their replacement with nation-states and republics often yields some pretty bad results. The Habsburgs were incompetent and abusive, but were the Balkans better off after gaining their freedom from Vienna? It's hard to immediately say yes. And for another thing, would Mexico and Brazil have become stable regimes if they had strong monarchical institutions rather than attempting to build a new wholesale national identity with republican characteristics? It's hard to immediately say no. Granted, I think those monarchies have to be genuinely rooted in the territory they govern - its not like importing a German prince to be your emperor has exactly been a winning strategy throughout history.
I respect your point of view but constitutional monarchies are the most stable and least corrupt form of government.
@@demarcomixon certainly every country that has adopted American style republicanism has collapsed apart from America - for the moment. But again, it comes down to the traditional institutions of a place. Constitutional monarchy works in Japan, Scandinavia, and (increasingly less and less) Britain; I do not believe it would work in Nigeria, the United States, or South Korea.
@@aidanking4197 I agree with your 1st point but not your 2nd. A constitutional monarchy could and would work in the USA bc we would finally detach the head of government from the head of state. That generates a lot of Americas internal division. Additionally, we seen from 1st hand that Brazil was doing better under a constitutional monarchy and their not the only country like that.
As a Brazilian I think I can speak a little here about the reign of D.Pedro ll there was a certain freedom even newspapers mocked the emperor and criticized him they say that the dictator of Venezuela said that After the fall of Brazil's monarchy "there goes the last democracy in Latin America" our royal family is as much as differentiated I don't know if you know but in the 60s-70s with the military coup that He installed a dictatorship here after some governments, the military no longer wanting to stay ahead, they offered the "power" back to the imperial house and to her prince at the time and he refused
Funny that you would recoil at aristocracy, since your founding fathers were aristocrats, and liberalism was born from enlightened aristocrats.
Hi! Great Vid!
I have a doubt, if anyone can answer I would appreciate it, the doubt is why other comments say that the geography of Brazil is bad, I know that Brazil has "mountains in the coata that can have making performance between cities difficult, but that's all, the rest from what I know are good, as the lands are very good and prosperous especially the center-west, something I agree with is the rivers but I think that the rivers have potential for navigation, if you look at the river map of Brazil you will see that there are a lot of rivers (I'm sorry for this part I can only assume because I don't have a high knowledge Forgive me about this), and in addition Brazil has several natural riches (resources) outside the Amazon, because for us Brazilians the Amazon is 4 million km that we cannot use,I see that it is possible to explore the Amazon legally, you know, to populate it and etc... But everything legally and without causing damage, taking advantage of it without killing it
Você é brasileiro não é? Vou responder o que sei
As terras no Brasil não são tão boas assim, as melhores terras do Brasil são as do Sul que é a menor região do Brasil, as terras do centro oeste só se tornaram úteis depois que foram criadas tecnologias para melhorar o solo do Cerrado
A maior parte dos rios navegáveis do Brasil são da região norte, mas ninguém mora lá
A Amazônia seria mais explorada se fosse mais povoada, mas lá é uma região difícil de se povoar, pois se fosse fácil já teria sido povoada a muito tempo
Thank You
BRASIL DO CAMPEÃO 🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷
Brasil: One of the 10 richest countries on the planet.
Gringos: Why you so poor and dangerous?
Brasil, watching school shootings in the US and daily stabbing in Europe: What?
talking about missed potential within South America, could you make a video about Gran Colombia or The Peruvian Bolivian Confederation? I think both of those countries had ton of potential in the long run
Sad to say, but in the end of Pedro the second life, Princess Isabel, knew how to governate, and she was a good substitute in the times that Pedro was out of the throne due to health problems, and a lot of people here agree that she would be the best ruler of Brazil, even better than Pedro, because she was even more benevolent to the people than Pedro and she was more direct than him to solve problems
Brazil is one of the richest countries. The people, yes, is very empoverished.
No, not all, Mr. PH. This is an excellent alternate-history scenario. Brazil becoming a global superpower would thrive under the monarchy instead of the republic, and I'm sorry to say this, but the Brazilian Republic is a poor excuse for democracy. At least France, Germany, Austria, and the United States did better jobs than Brazil. What Brazil is going through now is becoming uncertain. Would the country collapse into anarchy or enter a civil war with a new government taking place from the current one. I may not be a Brazilian, but I do know some little aspects of Brazil's history; I really think Brazil would be right direction with actual leaders who have the interests of the people instead of their personal gains or greed. If not, I think there would be a referendum on Brazil transitioning back into a monarchy or having a new democratic government if something goes really bad for the Brazilian president. What I really like about this alternate history scenario is the Brazilian Empire was significant diplomatic power and treated the Africans as equals and leaders of the South Americas; without the Americans being too reckless and thinking about their next moves, it would make this Brazil a respected significant or soft power from rest of the great powers.
I have an alternate history scenario idea you would find interesting: What if Austria won the Austro-Prussian War by not defeating the Prussians but unifying all of the german states into the German Empire? What is your opinion if Austria won the Austro-Prussian War but unified all of Germany? How would the other European powers see this, and what would happen to Prussia if they lost the war instead of the Austrians? What made Prussians so well in the fight against the Austrians, and how would Austrians do better in this alternate timeline than the original? Finally, what would Germany be like under the Hapsburgs and Franz Joesph of Austria as the German Emperor of Germany does better than Kaiser Wilhelm I or his grandson Wilhelm II? What would be the consequences of it, and how does the modern era change with Austria as the victor?
What do you think of that idea, Mr. Possible Histroy? Anyways this is a great alternate history scenario, my friend, and please keep up the fantastic work!!
The Austrians could not have done better somehow vis-a-vis Prussia. The Hapsburgs enjoy sliding/losing too much. As did Adolf --- who didn't like painting all that much either. I'm being flippant, but not by much.
@@raymondpaller6475, What do you mean the Hapsburgs enjoy sliding/ losing too much? Are you saying the Hapsburgs would appreciate not being part of the German idea and would focus on their multi-ethnic empire? Please explain that to me further; thank you for the knowledgeable notes and the feedback, my friend. I appreciate it!
@@benjaminobienu5297 I penned a (probably too lengthy) comment below; the principal might be easier illustrated in another field of endeavor (sports) rather than directly (geopolitics); as an aside, if you ever get a chance to read baseball player/ manager Leo Durocher's book "Nice Guys Finish Last", I bet you'd like it and get something out reading its entirety, but I want to point to the material where he describes being hired as the Chicago Cubs coach and managing them in 1969 ---- near the tail end of the season after having a huge 15 or 20 game lead on the Mets (the Cubs are a shoe in to win the pennant, yes??) slip through their hands, and playing the Mets in a critical series in NY, the night before a game Leo spot checked his players hotel rooms and like half the team was out in the city partying ---- with a pennant, their reputations, potential World Series on the line, the large dollars involved in winning, as Mr. Durocher found out, they just didn't want to win; they say they did, but they were fooling everyone including themselves, and in typical Loserness fashion, they found ways to lose; another classic example is the Steve Bartman foul ball ---- Google it for the story as once again I've probably wrote too much; directly pertaining to the Hapsburgs junking the Pan/Gross-German state idea to focus on their multi-ethic empire, I don't believe so; for prestige reasons I think they would have L-O-V-E-D to keep the multiethnic part AND be the leader of a Gross-Germany; my guess is that they were wondering why doesn't EVERYONE just come to their senses about them being the long-time German leading nation, acknowledge them as the uber dynasty & kiss their ass, shut-up & fall into line, and just do whatever the Hapsburgs say. Fascinating stuff all -n all.
Brazilian republic is stable, and very democratic (A LOT more than the 2 party system the USA has)
Our problem is CULTURAL. Our country is founded on Catholic morality, which ode to the poor and oppressed, execrates wealth and preaches the forgiveness of faults for all situations. Added to this is the slave-owning past, where work was synonymous with inferiority and people always sought the maximum gain with the minimum of their own effort, even at the expense of other people's work... Just look at the rest of Latin America and also at the Non-Protestant Europe... This does not explain ALL of our backwardness, but it justifies a good part of it...
you should totally try to do a video like this for peru! maybe about the Peru Bolivian confederation? or maybe just Peru at its start under san martin! would love to see that but eitherway great video! keep up the great work🎉
I just discovered your channel. It's amazing! Could you make a video of what if Mexico had never lost Texas and the other territories (CA, AZ, NM, etc) to the US? Perhaps if Santa Ana (or another general) had been successful against the initial Texan rebellions? Curious to know what US policy would have been in the decades immediately after the Texan rebellions (since I understand they wanted those territories from the beginning) and what Mexico's and the US's long term development would have been!
Idk since the population of Mexico was still low from 3 centuries of decimation by the Spanish I'm not sure the Mexican state would have the people and the resources to develop infrastructure beyond the current borders, it would be more realistic if the Texians or even some Indians successfully revolt and then the US annexes such polities.
There wouldn't be Pedro III, the next monarch was supposed to be empress Isabel
I suffer from dementia
No way me too
That’s crazy I do aswell
what's dementia
what's dementia
what's dementia
very good
The Cisplatine War was surprisingly not mentioned.
Que satisfação aspira
Nem vi o vídeo nem quero ver. N quero nem pensar no q poderíamos ter sido! Dói demais
As a Brazilian I'd consider myself a bit of a monarchist... I see the monarch as symbol of the unity of the country, well beyond the 4 or 5 years of the presidential terms today... Unity not only geographically, but with our people... and Dom Pedro II was very good in that regard.
Dom Pedro II was a great monarch, but with a bit of a flaw... He was too "good" and needed to be more ruthless. A flaw that many Russians see in Nicholas II as well... that didn't stop the bolcheviques in 1917 in Russia.
If Dom Pedro ll and Nicholas ll had hanged or beheaded a few bastard plotters, the history of Brazil and Russia could have been very different for good reasons today. I know some people reading this today may find it rough, but in those days such things were not uncommon.
See the mess that the republican coup did in Brazil to this day. See the mess the bolcheviques did in Russia putting Russia to the ground and killing so many.
The republican coup of the fake republicans in 1889 threw the pride of a nation to the ground. With a fake national flag and a fake made up national anthem that copied the melody of the anthem for the coronation of Dom Pedro ll (because he was popular) , but changing its lyrics ... It went down to this level
It pains me to see how Dom Pedro ll was forced to exile in Europe and later when died in France to be treated with great respect there and be treated with big indifference and disrespect by the newly installed republican bastards in Brazil ...
In the days of November 1889 when the republican coup was boiling up and being plotted in Brazil, the Chilean Navy was in a friendly visit in Rio de Janeiro (the capital then) .... and being receptioned in the Royal Court.
When the republic coup came out to depose Dom Pedro II, the Chilean Navy, out of respect, offered to take him away to safety for later return...
As Dom Pedro II had popular support, he could maybe have returned to the country as the Monarch, still...
Another "what if" in the Brazilian history.
As a Brazilian... god... I wish I was living in this Brazil!
Is this a similar alt hist to "what if Brazil was a super power"?, which is one of my favourite alt hists
Every republic is a tragedy, is only a question of time until tyrany or total ruin
Monarchy is millenar, Republic is instable
I think Brazil would try to expand by trying to annex the Guianas, since it had a history of conflicts against the French and Dutch over territories, in addition to having disputed diplomatically with the United Kingdom
you should make a video on argentina as well. They were also a south american country that was on the road to becoming very wealthy but majorly fell off
I wish I lived in the timeline where a slave revolt in Louisiana successfully broke away from the USA and Brazil remained a monarchy. 😂😢. Another great video sir, this is definitely one of my top 5 videos from you along with the what if Queen Elizabeth had a child and an independent BlackAmerica.
Haha Spanish Black legend goes brrr.
😢 I didn't know he had a son who died... how a dead child changes the history of an entire nation... it's amazing to think we came so close to success
Cool man
Wholesome 100
Brazilian Empire = good
Would Brazil and Portugal grow together in this timeline?
This is really interesting this alternative timeline is only a net gain for the world and humanity. The only things that really change is a higher quality of life in Brazil, South America, and Africa.
Wowowow the reason to the downfall of Brazilian empire wasn't misogyny. It was the horrors of American Civil War. Pedro could resist republic but would probably send Brazil into a Civil War. So the empire ended instead
Brazil is no longer the hardest difficulty
it never was, you see, we got everything here, it's just... not distributed properly i'd say
While watching the video I was thinking that Pedro could have hand picked a husband for his daughter to serve as a successor, at least informally. He kinda did, but not really. Let's suppose he is more successful and dedicated to this avenue.
A more stable Brazil is probably more attractive for catholic migrants, particularly I'm thinking of the millions of Italians that left their home for the Americas.
If the turmoil that happened in Portugal at the turn of the century IOTL still happen in this timeline I would imagine there could be some more migration from Portugal as well. What about Portuguese colonies? What would their relation be with this alternate Brazil?
Can we consider this the unofficial first episode of the “everything perfect for a country” series now?
i appreciate you saying US OFFICIALLY ending slavery. The prison system for much of history, and even today to a degree, was built as a scheme for free labor. The Coal Creek War in 1890s, the Civil Rights movement, and the recent reforms in Colorado show that the spectre remains.
just as an FYI, love your vids! especially liked this one
OTL is really one of the worse timelines for Brazil, fr