Alternate History Thread IV: The Sequel

[Cannae]

After being inspired by the WWI thread about the central powers winning I ask you this. Is there any conceivable way, for Mexico, had they gone against the US, to actually have won and gained territory? What would the results later on be for this event? Would they stop at just getting what they had lost in the Mexican American war, or would they have gone further?

 

[Thlayli]

Not really, since Mexico is a pushover without significant Central Powers assistance, and Germany couldn't really provide anything in that regard. In terms of mobilization resources, tactics and technology, the US outclasses Mexico in all areas.

The reverse is really more likely, Mexico getting beaten up by Pershing and losing Baja California and some other concessions.

 

[Flavius Aetius]

I can't find the first part of the Gothic Roman Empire Timeline by Dachspmg...can anyone post it?

 

[das]

Consult p. 43 of your local forum's present version of the Alternate History Thread.

 

[Flavius Aetius]

Thank you very much.

 

[silver 2039]

There are only 28 pages in the entire thread....

 

[Flavius Aetius]

I see...55 pages, not 28.

 

[Abaddon]

The forum standard see's 55 also

 

[das]

Different number of posts per page.

 

[North King]

The reverse is really more likely, Mexico getting beaten up by Pershing and losing Baja California and some other concessions.

I could see a lot more than just Baja. Mexico would be flattened; the only thing they'd do would be buying time for Germany. Which is exactly why Germany wanted them to, and exactly why Mexico would never do it.

 

[Cannae]

I could see a lot more than just Baja. Mexico would be flattened; the only thing they'd do would be buying time for Germany. Which is exactly why Germany wanted them to, and exactly why Mexico would never do it.

I was kind of asking what would of been the most probable reason for them to win, if they had done so.

 

[North King]

Well, I honestly don't see any way that Mexico could have won that fight, unless the United States was also fighting, say, Great Britain.

 

[Cannae]

Well, I honestly don't see any way that Mexico could have won that fight, unless the United States was also fighting, say, Great Britain.

Now that would be interesting... Some event in which the British were fed up with the war, and threatened to leave the war. However, during this event, an invasion into British held Africa, would cause the British to revoke their alliance, and then join the central powers.

 

[Symphony D.]

I was kind of asking what would of been the most probable reason for them to win, if they had done so.

There really isn't one. Mexico beating America in 1917/1918 (or, anytime after that really...) is pretty much a laughable idea before you factor in that Mexico was undergoing a revolution at the time. When you add that in, there's really not a chance in hell short of the entire American government spontaneously combusting. I suppose that is theoretically possible, but you know.

 

[das]

However, during this event, an invasion into British held Africa, would cause the British to revoke their alliance, and then join the central powers.

Wash your keyboard out with soap. Now.

What you really need is a whole different world war, and a whole different system of alliances. Indeed, you need to make America much more prosperous early on in some way, so that by the end of the 19th century the spread of its economical influence would seriously threaten both British and German commercial interests (mainly in Asia, I would imagine) to such a degree that will make the two powers forget about their own rivalry and form some sort of a coalition to counter it. Joined by Italy (judging by OTL Carribean events), this coalition would probably be strongly inclined to assist Spain in the local version of the Spanish-American War, or, if that will be averted or done before a coalition is pieced together, will try and intervene in various Latin American power struggles, leading to a great war between USA and the leading European sea powers. In this case, it would indeed make sense for the Europeans to draw in (a much more stable and coherent Porfirio Diaz-era) Mexico.

In OTL WWI, none of this would make any sense whatsoever.

short of the entire American government spontaneously combusting.

That really won't be enough, unless this "government official spontaneous combustion syndrome" were to spread to state-level administration. And even then, the odds will be stacked in America's favour.

 

[Symphony D.]

What you really need is a whole different world war, and a whole different system of alliances. Indeed, you need to make America much more prosperous early on in some way, so that by the end of the 19th century the spread of its economical influence would seriously threaten both British and German commercial interests.
[...]
In this case, it would indeed make sense for the Europeans to draw in (a much more stable and coherent Porfirio Diaz-era) Mexico.

A much more prosperous America probably involves it eating Canada and Mexico at the requisite junctures you know (most probably Battle of Quebec in 1775, and sometime around the actual Mexican-American War because I really don't buy into the theory of Canadian land diverting American settlers from Texas all too severely, because immigrants could've gone there to begin with and didn't much).

War of 1812 probably never happens as a result of no Canada to want to annex, presumably America either stays neutral and gets the Louisiana Purchase or for some reason sides with Britain and just up and takes it (because it's useful and France is distracted). All that Manifest Destiny jazz. Settlers wind up going to Texas anyway because frankly only so much land in Canada is arrable, America says "Hey, great, Mexico, lets take their stuff too," as in OTL. Civil War either happens and the South is more quickly crushed as a result of even grander Northern industrial capacity or is smoothed over somehow. Maybe that talk of buying Cuba goes through. Regardless, slavery kicks it at some point. Sometime in the later 1800s Mexico winds up being gradually absorbed in a series of expansionist adventures and partitions, maybe along with bits of Central America, and other American imperialist adventures of the period go through too. At some point Alaska gets purchased. End result being the US owning most if not virtually all of the North American continent.

Now, if that happened, I could see a coalition against America by the sea powers. It would be a rather interesting war, if only because America would be stupidly powerful, and could probably win the support of the enemies of those sea powers: France and Russia. So, you'd have a lineup of America, France, Russia vs. Britain, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Austria-Hungary. Japan would probably side with the latter if anybody, though maybe the former depending on the precise circumstances of colonization at the time. A much more proper World War I than its real-life analog, frankly.

America would of course be lead by Teddy Roosevelt whenever a showdown happened, because could you tolerate anything else? The actual war shakes things up dramatically somehow or another, with a game set after that probably (not before, or you'd get some silliness like DaNES degraded into). In my opinion that kind of lineup yields a mostly inconclusive bloodbath with a big land war in Europe and a lot of naval action and some sneakier incursion and raid stuff around North America.

I rather like this idea after having outlined it thusly and think somebody should develop something along these lines. That's a late Industrial setting I'd actually be willing to play.

 

[Disenfrancised]

A much more prosperous America probably involves it eating Canada and Mexico at the requisite junctures you know (most probably Battle of Quebec in 1775, and sometime around the actual Mexican-American War because I really don't buy into the theory of Canadian land diverting American settlers from Texas all too severely, because immigrants could've gone there to begin with and didn't much).

War of 1812 probably never happens as a result of no Canada to want to annex, presumably America either stays neutral and gets the Louisiana Purchase or for some reason sides with Britain and just up and takes it (because it's useful and France is distracted). All that Manifest Destiny jazz. Settlers wind up going to Texas anyway because frankly only so much land in Canada is arrable, America says "Hey, great, Mexico, lets take their stuff too," as in OTL.

Yeah Canada would have to be taken right at the start considering how important British money was to American development. But taking over the whole of mexico? Nah, no one wants to manage a huge pot of backwards catholics, the northern states (now even more of them) wouldn't want the possibility of more slave states.

Civil War either happens and the South is more quickly crushed as a result of even grander Northern industrial capacity or is smoothed over somehow. Maybe that talk of buying Cuba goes through. Regardless, slavery kicks it at some point. Sometime in the later 1800s Mexico winds up being gradually absorbed in a series of expansionist adventures and partitions, maybe along with bits of Central America, and other American imperialist adventures of the period go through too. At some point Alaska gets purchased. End result being the US owning most if not virtually all of the North American continent.

One of the main unspoken parts of the monroe doctrine was that America wouldn't annex the territories themselves; America seizing everything would have the europeans saying "screw that, we're having a piece too", especially the British who after all underwrote the Monroe doctrine for the 19th century.

Now, if that happened, I could see a coalition against America by the sea powers. It would be a rather interesting war, if only because America would be stupidly powerful, and could probably win the support of the enemies of those sea powers: France and Russia. So, you'd have a lineup of America, France, Russia vs. Britain, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Austria-Hungary. Japan would probably side with the latter if anybody, though maybe the former depending on the precise circumstances of colonization at the time. A much more proper World War I than its real-life analog, frankly.

An expansionst US would have quite a few knock on effects - and remember France is a colonial sea power too, and was certainly an investor and interested in latin america.

What you really need is a whole different world war, and a whole different system of alliances. Indeed, you need to make America much more prosperous early on in some way, so that by the end of the 19th century the spread of its economical influence would seriously threaten both British and German commercial interests.

Frankly overall I can't think of many changes which would make america more wealthy, as the OTL pretty much lucked out in that regard. Any increase in size (excpet canada, and then only if taken early) would require more miltitarism, occupation costs and decrease foreign investment drastically, giving less wealth, at least by the early 20th.

As an alternative timeline, if we have the French revolution somehow averted we could see the US against the spanish empire (my money is on the US ) and the Americans march across the continent (with enough earlier miltiarism perhaps taking over a lot more of mexico, and the whole of Oregan territory), and then the (some how reformed without revolution giving access to the superpower population and tax base) French step in and effectively underwrite the Spanish empire in latin america (or the British do). The US thwarted in its economic colonialist drive becomes a global power mainly focused on east asia, eventually leading to a massive show down with the French-Spanish or the British-Germans where all the other powers will be involved, though which side they come down on is anyones guess .

 

[Symphony D.]

But taking over the whole of mexico? Nah, no one wants to manage a huge pot of backwards catholics, the northern states (now even more of them) wouldn't want the possibility of more slave states.

They're outnumbered and can be overrun through settlement, and converted for their own sake so they don't burn in the fiery Hell forever, amen. Plus you can break it up in chunks over time instead, like Prussia and Russia did with Poland. Regardless, I don't think there'd be much left. America might just take what it did OTL (along with Gadsden and probably Baja) but if nothing else it'd probably fracture the rest and puppet the Northern bits into Protectorates or something.

Plus a more powerful North can muscle in more compromises than it did OTL, and if Mexican territory is captured, they're probably going to side with the North rather than the South (Mexico abolished slavery in 1829 OTL, butterflies shouldn't trouble that too much) or be neutral/breakaway/hostile, the latter two of which are more likely to divert Southern rather than Northern resources (initially), so it's just as well.

One of the main unspoken parts of the monroe doctrine was that America wouldn't annex the territories themselves; America seizing everything would have the europeans saying "screw that, we're having a piece too", especially the British who after all underwrote the Monroe doctrine for the 19th century.

Then again the underpinning scenario behind the OTL Monroe Doctrine will be different here, and it might not even show up to begin with. That's just as well really, because it provides the sort of spark necessary for this sort of scenario to eventuate out.

Frankly overall I can't think of many changes which would make america more wealthy, as the OTL pretty much lucked out in that regard. Any increase in size (excpet canada, and then only if taken early) would require more miltitarism, occupation costs and decrease foreign investment drastically, giving less wealth, at least by the early 20th.

I'm not so sure Mexico really falls under that banner, as even 19 Century American government is pretty much more honest and has greater integrity than anything Mexico has ever had, and that's saying a lot; there wouldn't be very good reasons to rebel. Generally America can stop with Mexico and just conduct the sort of Banana Republic wars and some island-grabbing later around the turn of the century as in OTL, for the purposes of this scenario. More heavy colonialism provokes the confrontation, whomever it may be with.

As an alternative timeline, if we have the French revolution somehow averted [...]

Easier said than done!

[...] eventually leading to a massive show down with the French-Spanish or the British-Germans where all the other powers will be involved, though which side they come down on is anyones guess .

Again, starting a game pre-war is just asking for the most egregious trouble...

 

[Disenfrancised]

They're outnumbered and can be overrun through settlement,

Eh? Start of the 19th has mexico with 5 million ~ 50% of the US. If the US does run things better, expect more mexicans , plus the US has the rest of the west to fill, they are not going to be overrun, especially if there is anti-catholic measures as that'll just push up their cohesiveness and cost the Americans a lot with the Irish, German, and Italian immigration and immigrants...

(If there is one part of that Decades of Darkness TL that I disagree with, its the demographics.)

Easier said than done!
Again, starting a game pre-war is just asking for the most egregious trouble...

I wasn't proposing starting a NES then, just that which side those powers came down on in the TL is up in the air .

 

[The Strategos]

If you are trying to get Britain and Germany to unite against US, would it be better, instead of making the US a super NA state, to make the US more imperial (that is, make them less interested in NA and more interested in say Asia or Africa). So, for example (and this is comming of the top of my head, so I don't know how practical this would be), have the Kanagawa Treaty between US and Japan not be replicated by other Western powers, giving the US a monopoly in Japan, making their businesses more interested in the East. After Japan, I would think focusing on Korea and China would be a natural enough step. If successful enough, Britain and Germany might find such moves significantly threatening enough to start to cooperate against the US.