Second Mexican American War in 1919

[nuyt]

Interesting. Anyway, I've got a question--just how well do you think that Mexicans were capable of waging insurgent warfare during this time in comparison to 1960s and 1970s Vietnamese and 21st century Afghans and Iraqis?

Significantly less; all of the above had foreign patrons they could funnel money, arms, and training into them while Mexico couldn't. North Vietnam, due to both its land border with China and restrictive ROE on the part of the U.S. with regards to Haiphong harbor, had most of its war effort bank rolled by the Chinese and Soviets. Mexico, on the other hand, has a border to the north with the United States, to the South with U.S. clients and its two ocean borders are secured via the U.S. Navy. Add in American control of the cities, and any insurgency is going to quickly starve out of logistics.

In case of a US annexation of Mexico's northern states (from coast to coast), the US borders shifts south and becomes a lot shorter and easier to defend.

For instance if the line Puerto Vallarta to Tampico becomes the new southern border of the US. That leaves the major cities and majority of the population outside, which saves a lot of trouble. Still there would be a huge territory to police and pacify - continuously. Though rebel action would soon be quickly subdued, isolated pockets of resistance may linger on while other groups might go underground or temporarily disband. It would be impossible to cut of all ties to the south: free Mexico. And this time it wont be like the 19th century: there is telephone, telegraph and radio. the voice of a Radio Mexico Libre will keep feeding hope to the oppressed Mexicans in the north. There will be tensions there with new arrivals from the old US, Yankees to run businesses, mines and local govt. Indian territories might have to be pacified again or relocated when US companies start exploring the land. I would still say: a hell of a job and not really worthwhile.

Even an occupation zone ending at a line farther north, for instance the southern borders of the states of Sonora, Chichuahua, Nuevo Leon, Tamaulipas, etc, would be a challenge to police, though with much less new citizens to control, a bit more feasible.

[maltesefalcon]

There might actually be less resistance to US occupation of the North than seems logically possible. IF...and that is a big if; the US offered the benefits of full citizenship to all residents, they may have thought themselves better off. That would need to include the right to vote, proper representation and retention of property/landowning by grandfathering all of it in.

However, the newly occupied zones could result in a Commonwealth or Protectorate, with residents being left in a half US/half not situation. Think more like Puerto Rico than Texas.

If under those conditions the residents are even worse off than before, you could expect backlash and resistance.

[Carl Schwamberger]

There might actually be less resistance to US occupation of the North than seems logically possible. IF...and that is a big if; the US offered the benefits of full citizenship to all residents, they may have thought themselves better off. That would need to include the right to vote, proper representation and retention of property/landowning by grandfathering all of it in. ...

This is a complete non starter. To repeat my post #5 at the start of the thread:

The US leaders passed on it, as they did incorporating the Philippines, Nicaragua, Puerto Rico, Cuba & others. At the core the white Protestants at the top of the heap in US society were unenthusiastic about including several millions people who were brown skinned and Catholic into the US population. 'Concern' over too many non Protestants who were also of inferior races, was running deep in the early 20th Century. The declared ideology of the revived KKK of 1915 reflected this in its official stance towards Catholics and its nativist WASP views on immigrants. This was a strong cultural and political obstacle to annexation of more Mexican territory, or any of the other nations suffering the Banana Wars.

I don't think the racial attitudes of the US leaders in this era can be overemphasized. Those with liberal attitudes towards ethnic or cultural differences were out voted and out muscled. In the previous two decades the US political leadership rejected the possible annexation of Cuba, Philippines, and other nonwhite territories during the previous two decades. They are not going to reverse this & hand citizenship to a large population of brown skinned, Spanish speaking, Catholics. These people were heirs to the people who organized the breaking of the treaties with the native nations, the Removal from the eastern US, and the near extermination of the native nations west of the Mississippi, and the suppression of citizenship rights by Black Americans. Compromise on this is unlikely.

[maltesefalcon]

There might actually be less resistance to US occupation of the North than seems logically possible. IF...and that is a big if; the US offered the benefits of full citizenship to all residents, they may have thought themselves better off. That would need to include the right to vote, proper representation and retention of property/landowning by grandfathering all of it in. ...

This is a complete non starter. To repeat my post #5 at the start of the thread:

The US leaders passed on it, as they did incorporating the Philippines, Nicaragua, Puerto Rico, Cuba & others. At the core the white Protestants at the top of the heap in US society were unenthusiastic about including several millions people who were brown skinned and Catholic into the US population. 'Concern' over too many non Protestants who were also of inferior races, was running deep in the early 20th Century. The declared ideology of the revived KKK of 1915 reflected this in its official stance towards Catholics and its nativist WASP views on immigrants. This was a strong cultural and political obstacle to annexation of more Mexican territory, or any of the other nations suffering the Banana Wars.

I don't think the racial attitudes of the US leaders in this era can be overemphasized. Those with liberal attitudes towards ethnic or cultural differences were out voted and out muscled. In the previous two decades the US political leadership rejected the possible annexation of Cuba, Philippines, and other nonwhite territories during the previous two decades. They are not going to reverse this & hand citizenship to a large population of brown skinned, Spanish speaking, Catholics. These people were heirs to the people who organized the breaking of the treaties with the native nations, the Removal from the eastern US, and the near extermination of the native nations west of the Mississippi, and the suppression of citizenship rights by Black Americans. Compromise on this is unlikely.

To be sure the US had not welcomed its acquisitions with open arms. But historically the annexed portions of Mexico from the Mexican War eventually became states. Unlike some of the examples above the new zone would connect with the continental US, so there would be a precedent.

Don't get me wrong. Per some of my earlier posts in this thread I also not convinced the campaign was a good idea, nor would it take place. Just offering alternative suggestions to mitigate the after effects if they threw caution to the wind and proceeded.

[Carl Schwamberger]

...

To be sure the US had not welcomed its acquisitions with open arms. But historically the annexed portions of Mexico from the Mexican War eventually became states. Unlike some of the examples above the new zone would connect with the continental US, so there would be a precedent. ...

In those cases the Spanish speaking & Catholic population was small in density, and relative to the mass of Anglo & Protestant immigrants arriving. Also under US law a large portion of the former Mexican citizens were recognized as native nations & therefore would have no citizenship rights in a US territory or state.

[Futurist]

...

To be sure the US had not welcomed its acquisitions with open arms. But historically the annexed portions of Mexico from the Mexican War eventually became states. Unlike some of the examples above the new zone would connect with the continental US, so there would be a precedent. ...

In those cases the Spanish speaking & Catholic population was small in density, and relative to the mass of Anglo & Protestant immigrants arriving. Also under US law a large portion of the former Mexican citizens were recognized as native nations & therefore would have no citizenship rights in a US territory or state.

Native Americans acquired US citizenship en masse in 1924, no?

[History Learner]

Personally I think Commonwealth status ala the Philippines or Puerto Rico is more likely than direct annexation now; Carl and others raised some good points.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Guys,

Given that the USA hasn't integrated tiny Puerto Rico after 120 years, I don't think wholesale annexation of densely populated parts of Mexico was ever likely. However, as late as 1939 some in the US Senate were still talking of acquiring underpopulated Baja California. Indeed, in December 1941 US troops lined up at the border to occupy it.

Mexico expropriated US and British oil concessions in 1938 without counter action by either. Both got over this quickly enough when war broke out and they needed to keep Mexico on side.

The US Navy did actually attack Mexico in WWII. An incompetent sub-chaser commander, by the name of Lt. L. Ron Hubbard, accidentally used a Mexican island on the Baja/California border for target practice and provoked a quickly glossed-over diplomatic incident.

In case anybody is wondering, yes, it was that L. Ron Hubbard!

If anyone wants some light relief, try: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_ ... on_Hubbard

Cheers,

Sid.

[Carl Schwamberger]

...
Native Americans acquired US citizenship en masse in 1924, no?

Yes. After they had been subject to several centuries plus of conquest & genocide. By 1924 the 'Indians' had been reduced to political irrelevancy. A small population, fragmented & impoverished. Repressing former slaves, the Yellow Peril, even the Jews were a greater threat in the view of the WASP racist.

[Futurist]

...
Native Americans acquired US citizenship en masse in 1924, no?

Yes. After they had been subject to several centuries plus of conquest & genocide. By 1924 the 'Indians' had been reduced to political irrelevancy. A small population, fragmented & impoverished. Repressing former slaves, the Yellow Peril, even the Jews were a greater threat in the view of the WASP racist.

Just how much more of a threat would "Injuns" have been had the US conquered Mexico around 1920 and thus acquired several million more of them?

[Carl Schwamberger]

... The US Navy did actually attack Mexico in WWII. An incompetent sub-chaser commander, by the name of Lt. L. Ron Hubbard, accidentally used a Mexican island on the Baja/California border for target practice and provoked a quickly glossed-over diplomatic incident.

In case anybody is wondering, yes, it was that L. Ron Hubbard!

If anyone wants some light relief, try: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_ ... on_Hubbard

Cheers,

Sid.

That was a fun read. Says something about Hollywood & people in general LRH could go so far on BS.

[Futurist]

Hi Guys,

Given that the USA hasn't integrated tiny Puerto Rico after 120 years, I don't think wholesale annexation of densely populated parts of Mexico was ever likely. However, as late as 1939 some in the US Senate were still talking of acquiring underpopulated Baja California. Indeed, in December 1941 US troops lined up at the border to occupy it.

Mexico expropriated US and British oil concessions in 1938 without counter action by either. Both got over this quickly enough when war broke out and they needed to keep Mexico on side.

The US Navy did actually attack Mexico in WWII. An incompetent sub-chaser commander, by the name of Lt. L. Ron Hubbard, accidentally used a Mexican island on the Baja/California border for target practice and provoked a quickly glossed-over diplomatic incident.

In case anybody is wondering, yes, it was that L. Ron Hubbard!

If anyone wants some light relief, try: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_ ... on_Hubbard

Cheers,

Sid.

Xenu must have told him to attack Mexico during World War II!

[History Learner]

I wanted to come back to this with some recent thoughts I've had. Overall, I opened this thread with the argument of Mexico as a whole to be annexed directly and then as it progressed I came to the view that a "Cuba/Philippines-style" protectorate or a Commonwealth like Puerto Rico would be more likely. Looking at it from that perspective, with the U.S. being able to more directly utilize Mexico's resources and the effects of this war overall on developments within the U.S. I began to consider the impacts on World War II.

1. The larger standing Army and reserves, compared to OTL, would constitute a cadre that could translate into a faster American military buildup. A larger pool of experienced manpower in particular would provide quick an institutional basis from which fresh divisions could be constituted upon. Instead of trying to build a multi-million man Army within two years from a base of ~140,000 they would have several hundred thousand more from which to work with.

2. The experiences of the Mexican War and occupation will obviously have an impact on weapons development. One in particular that comes to mind is the issue of the .30-06 caliber weapons, which IOTL was retained as the basis of U.S. small arms and the like because of the large stockpiles remaining after World War I. Presumably, the U.S. would tap into said stockpile instead of issuing contracts for more during the Mexican conflict and this, combined with the larger training requirements of the bigger Interwar military, will help to reduce this large stash. What would be the ramifications of this? Well, for one, it's likely the M1 Garand enters service in the early 1930s and is chambered in .276 Pedersen, which would enable a 10 round magazine. By the time WWII rolls around or during it, an underside magazine of 15-20 rounds is likely and from there all it takes is a select fire system for an American assault rifle. IOTL, the U.S. was experimenting with a select fire Garand by 1945/1946 so this would move it forward; likely an impetus for it is the ability and need to replace the BAR based on Mexican War experiences and training from the 1920s on.

3. Perhaps most importantly, is access to Mexican manpower. By the time WWII rolls around, there is 20 years of economic integration and familiarity which would enable the U.S. to utilize Mexico's human capital in a way it didn't IOTL. That will have very serious impacts, because in 1940-1942 the U.S. had to make the decision to abandon the 200 Division "Victory Plan" in favor of the 90 Division Gamble, because the U.S. could not sustain both industry and a large Air Force/Navy with a large Army. With Mexican industrial laborers, that frees up more American men to achieve both the 200 Division model and the large USAAF and U.S. Navy. Alternatively, the U.S. could choose to retain more domestic manpower and raise Mexican divisions; afterall, it did effectively raise and sustain many Free French and Brazilian ones, for example.

[History Learner]

Mexico's population in 1940 was around ~20 Million, so at 12.7% mobilization (the level of the U.S. for its armed forces), that would net about 2.5 million that could be used in the industrial labor force (and thus freeing up more American manpower or complimenting in favor of increased output) or it could be a mixture, in terms of most/some going into industry and the rest going into the U.S. Armed Forces directly, ala the Philippines Divisions model historically used in 1941-1942.

@TheMarcksPlan can I ask a favor? Could you run some analysis on this lol?

[T. A. Gardner]

Hi Guys,

Given that the USA hasn't integrated tiny Puerto Rico after 120 years, I don't think wholesale annexation of densely populated parts of Mexico was ever likely. However, as late as 1939 some in the US Senate were still talking of acquiring underpopulated Baja California. Indeed, in December 1941 US troops lined up at the border to occupy it.

Mexico expropriated US and British oil concessions in 1938 without counter action by either. Both got over this quickly enough when war broke out and they needed to keep Mexico on side.

The US Navy did actually attack Mexico in WWII. An incompetent sub-chaser commander, by the name of Lt. L. Ron Hubbard, accidentally used a Mexican island on the Baja/California border for target practice and provoked a quickly glossed-over diplomatic incident.

In case anybody is wondering, yes, it was that L. Ron Hubbard!

If anyone wants some light relief, try: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_ ... on_Hubbard

Cheers,

Sid.

The US also made a ballistic missile "attack" on Mexico in 1947. This occurred on 30 May 1947 when the US launched a refurbished V-2 missile from Ft. Bliss TX that went astray and hit near a graveyard in Juarez Mexico.

https://elpasotimes.typepad.com/morgue/ ... %20bondock.

Testing was subsequently moved to White Sands NM to avoid another mishap.