Mexico declares war, 1917

[zoomar]

As much as I'd like to, I can't see any alternate outcome to a war between the US and Mexico on the basis of the Zimmerman telegram than a quick US conquest of Mexico (or at least occupation of the major population centers and end to organized Mexican resistance). Regarding any possible Japanese move toward the Phillipines, I agree with those who argue that the US Navy was more than up to the task to maintain naval control in Phillipine waters. The US lack of BC's is more than made up for by an overwhelming superiority in Dreadnought battleships. Actually any possible effects of a Japanses flip floip in the Pacific would be felt more by Britain, China (neutral at that time), or Russia than by the US.

Assuming the Central powers still lost the war - which is by far the most likely outcome, here are some predictions for a alternate tmeline:

(1) Europe. US stance at Versailles would be much less conciliatory than in OTL as regards Germany. Reparations and loss of territory for Germany might be even worse than in OTL. US might support more stongly calls to put Kaiser and other German leaders on trial for war crimes. USA would sign treaty and join League of Nations.

(2) The Americas. USA might take additional territory from Mexico (Baja California and the Yucatan Penninsula come to mind for a variety of strategic reasons). Some consideration might even be given to annexing/occupying the whole country (as was considered in 1848). At minimum, border Mexican states might be demilitarized (of Mexican forces) and indefinitely placed under some type of US jurisdiction to "restore order" and eliminate threat of bandito crossings and Mexican forces reentering the areas. USA would maintain larger standing army along border and relationships between the two countries would remain hostile and untrusting for years.

(3) USA politics/policies. Isolationism would seem a less likely option for future to both Democrats and Republicans. USA would maintain some type of military understanding with Britain and France and remain hostile to Germany and other Central Powers far longer. US would retain a somewhat larger and more competent standing military. US would join League of Nations.

(4) Asia. It is reasonable to imagine Japanese military action on behalf of Central powers would be about as self-serving and limited as it was with Allies - probably even more. The Allies might not push for draconian peace terms with Japan since enforcing them would be very costly - nobody would want to extend the war another 2-3 years to isolate and invade Japan. However, as a price for peace, Japan would have to give up any colonial conquests made against both Germany and the Allies - and China - since 1914. Formosa and Chosen might also be on the table, but unlikely. Presumably, the USA might demand its fair share of former German/Japanese colonies in Pacific. Japan would remain a military and naval power of the first-rate.

(5) General. Its possible the war against Japan would not formally end at the same time the other Central Powers collapsed. It might continue for several months to a year as the allies seek to occupy the Japanese overseas conquests made since 1914. The war with Japan might end with a separate Armistice without being included in a broader global Versailles-like treaty. There probably would be no Washington Treaty limiting Naval rearmament and other such treaties.

Just a sketch.

 

[David S Poepoe]

Not a bad sketch. Tho I think the time for the annexation of Mexico is long gone by 1918. I doubt any American politician would advocate the inclusion of such a mass of non-white and hostile people into the United States. The territorial concessions seem reasonable.

 

[zoomar]

Everytime I hear "democracies don't go to war with democracies" I remember the War of 1812.

Of course by the standards of today neither the US or Britain were democracies.

 

[Tetsu]

Aside from Hong Kong and various island strewn across the Pacific what could the Japanese hope to grab from Britain? At the most the Federated States of Malaysia, but probably not Singapore. India, Australia and New Zealand won't be negotiable and certainly won't be takeable by the Japanese.

I think the obstacle to Japan joining the Central Powers is that its much more interested in subdueing China in the long run.

The British had a bit more than the Germans, but not much, I'll admit. But the possessions of the other Allied powers was much greater, the US owned the Phillipines, France had Indochina, the Dutch possessed islands there... The list goes on, and it's a list much longer than that of Germany's possessions.

 

[zoomar]

The British had a bit more than the Germans, but not much, I'll admit. But the possessions of the other Allied powers was much greater, the US owned the Phillipines, France had Indochina, the Dutch possessed islands there... The list goes on, and it's a list much longer than that of Germany's possessions.

Remember, however, the Netherlands was neutral in WW1 so Japan is unlikely to attack indonesia at this point in time. Indochina is another matter, though, but it probably had a fairly substantial French or Legion garrison. I would think the Japanese would focus on things which could be snapped up fairly easily - as they did with the German possessions. The most useful thing the Japanese could to would be to use their regionally dominant fleet to interdict Allied troop and supply shipping in the Pacific and Indian oceans. Those Kongo class BC's would be a lot better used in this capacity than being pounded to pieces in a fleet action against the USN off Luzon.

 

[corourke]

Let's see where we can take this Mexican occupation scenario.

So, the US invades and occupies Mexico after they delare war. I think that the only territory we would annex directly would be Baja California for its strategic value. We could probably demand a protectorate over the Yucatan penninsula (there were various independence movements there in the 1800s). Probably the US would also demand economic control over most of Mexico, especially the oil wells.

Now, how can we get a Nazi-like regeme in Mexico in the thirties, preaching for an end of American economic hegemony and a return to pre-1918 borders (maybe even pre-1848)?

This is very interesting.

 

[DuQuense]

Now, how can we get a Nazi-like regeme in Mexico in the thirties,

I think a 'Peron of Argentina" would be more likely

 

[Street_Disciple]

Industrial might plus ultimate Manpower superiority of the US would have given the edge over Mexico. But in the short term the Mexican army could have given a whipping to Pershing on any given day if they had chosen to fight from trenches relying on massed fire power while preventing Pershing from out flanking them. Contrary to the views at the time the Mexican Federal Army was a highly professional well trained and battle tested army having been at war for 6 years. They used the German model and German trench warfare tactics of the 1914-16 era. The US by contrast had little modern warfare experience and much of that was limited to anti-guerilla warfare in the Philippines and on the Mexican border. The US Army had no air force in the southwest, and what we did have were unarmed observation planes which Pershing distrusted. Our artillery was too light and designed for mountain warfare or mobile warfare not trench busting, we had no LMG's or MMG's in the infantry support role, no mortars, few grenades and above all no supply system that could support a major operation in Mexico! Our army was only about 25,000 strong far too few and too scattered and while we had plenty of manpower potential we had nothing to arm them with or supplies to keep them in the field. Had we become entangled in such a war we would have faced early defeats and probably Mexican counter attacks deep into the southwest and Texas. This would have effectively prevent an AEF in Europe until after Mexico was defeated. Such a war would have taken at least 3 years and perhaps many more as the various Mexican warlords and revolutionaries fought on as guerrillas.

And I feel it would have delayed out entry into the war against Germany for a couple of years at least. Events might have been a lot different in Europe. The German Spring Offensive might still have been turned back by the French. It was the French who were the main force in defeating this offensive. The AEF was active but not in full strength. Most American Doughboys were still on route to Europe. Is it possible that even with a USA tied up in its own front on Mexico that the war might have ground to an Armistice as the European participants got bogged down by internal revolt and popular mass feeling against the war?

Morale in the UK and French camps would have been seriously weakened by non entry of mass US army. These armies may have become more open to internal dissent and mutiny on the same scale as Germans and Russians. Could this have gone two ways.

1) Allowed general collapse on all fronts as all Govts signed a hasty peace/truce to deal with their internal matters.

2) An actual quick victory by one side over the other. Either the Allies or the Central Powers. Perhaps the Germans would have taken Paris in 1917 due to Allied Demoralisation. Perhaps the Allies in the Summer of 1917.could have continued into Germany.

It was a very uncertain world and military considerations were not the only factors. The end of the War plunged Europe and its Empires into revolution. The three great monarchies/Empires were overthrown and communist revolts occurred throughout Germany, Austria and other central European states and territories. Nationalist revolts were also powerful. The Arabs Revolts, Turkey and Ataturk, Easter Rising in Ireland, etc.

 

[Street_Disciple]

War Plan Green

The General Plan for War or Armed Intervention in Mexico was formulated by the War College Division in 1912 (in those days, the Army War College was charged with planning as a part of the General Staff and was not, strictly speaking, solely or even primarily, a school). The "General Plan" (as it came to be known) went through various modifications up to the US entrance into the First World War, the most important one centering around the question of the possible effects a Mexican incursion into the southwest United States would have on the implementation of the planned invasion of Mexico.

In outline, the "General Plan" proposed the following:

1. the Navy would seize Vera Cruz and Tampico in order to prevent the destruction of the ports and railroads; a reinforced brigade (of the First US Field Army) was supposed to land with the naval forces at Vera Cruz and, along with the Marines, push as far inland as possible in order to secure tunnels, bridges, etc.

2. the Navy to blockade the remaining Mexican ports on the Gulf and Pacific.

3. the remainder of the First US Field Army was to quickly follow on and advance quickly to the more healthy regions proximate to Jalapa or Orizaba. A base and LOCs were to be organized and a continued advance on Mexico City by First Field Army if conditions favored such a move and its advance would not be overwhelmingly opposed (seven possible routes of invasion had been considered by the Army, but Vera Cruz-Jalapa-Mexico City was chosen as the most suitable for several reasons).

4. the Coast Artillery Militia of the Pacific states were to be called out to man the seacoast fortifications (the Army planned to use regulars of the Heavy and Coast Artillery drawn from the Atlantic seaboard to form an infantry division as part of the First Field Army).

5. the mobile Militia to be called out and militia divisions formed at their state camps.

6. if necessary, a 2nd Field Army was to be raised from Volunteers to support the operations of 1st Field Army in the move upon Mexico City; the initial plan called for a 3rd Field Army also arriving at Vera Cruz to be employed as needed between Vera Cruz and Mexico City or elsewhere in southern Mexico )if not so needed, 3rd Filed Army was to enter Mexico via Tampico and occupy territory in north-central Mexico).

7. state militias would relieve the regulars along the US-Mexican border as soon as possible after the declaration of war.

8. for a number of reasons, it was considered imperative that some US forces engage in offensive operations along the Mexican-US border. A 4th Field Army was to cross into Mexico and occupy the seven states of northern Mexico along the lines of the railroads found there (the US forces to have lines of operations from Nuveo Laredo or Camargo, from El Paso and from Nogales along the lines of the railways). It was understood the American advance into north mexico might not initially move very far, but one of the reasons for the expedition was to provide a rallying point for the many US citizens who worked in the region. It was assumed, however, that the bulk of Mexican forces would be contesting the US advance from Vera Cruz on Mexico City.

 

[zoomar]

Very interesting posts, Street Disciple!

If the US Mexican invasion did proceed more slowly than the US might anticipate, delaying serious US participation in Europe for a year or two, I suspect the effect on Allied morale would be severe. Options might include: (1) success of the 1918 German offensive and a sudden ending of war with Central Powers victorious in Europe, (2) continued stalemate in west leading to a true armistice of equals, (3) European war ends as in OTL with sudden German collapse anyway, or (4) war continues in stalemate until internal economic/social pressures lead to nearly simultaneous collapse of German and French govts and widsepread revolution throughout Europe. In any case, it's hard to imagine the Great War continuing for another two years as both sides had nearly reached their exhaustion points. With the USA and Mexico as combatants affiliated with the opposing alliances, this could also get interesting. If the USA lacked a significant military component in Europe when war ends, it is unlikely the US would be as important a diplomatic player in establishing groundwork for subsequent peace as in OTL. Europeans would tend to see the US-Mexican war as but a sidelight to the real thing. If Germany won, they would certainly let their Mexican dupes hang out to dry if that secured a peace with the USA. If the Allies won, Mexico would also get screwed. Only if the war somehow dragged on in both Europe and Mexico for a couple more years could events in the americas become really important to the European powers. This could radicaly change relationships between the US and Mexico for the rest of the century.

Here's a speculative 1918-1930 TL based on option (1), above:

1918-19 - German offensive succeeds, French army cracks and revolution breaks out throughout France. There are essentially no US forces (other than the aerial expeditionary force). French radical-socialist govt seeks armistice with Germany, followed shortly by Great Britain. USA states willingness to sign separate armistice with Germany in exchange for some concessions in Pacific and agreement from Germany to end any and all support to Mexico in US-Mexican War.

1919 - International Peace conference meets in Potsdam to essentially codify a peace dictated to Britain, Italy, and France by Germany and other European Central Powers. USA, Mexico and Russia are no shows. Japan attends, but more as independent player. Main terms include French demilitarization and German occupation of Belgium and portions of eastern and channel coast France for 10 years or until harsh reparations paid, cession of all French African and Asian colonies to Germany, Ottoman Empire, or Japan (who switched to Central Powers in this TL), division of key major French and Italian naval units among Germany, Austro-Hungary, Turkey, and Japan. Minor Italian cessions to Austria-Hungary and modest reparations, restructuring of Balkan map to recognize Austo-Hungarian dominance, Restoration of prewar Ottoman borders in middle east and payment of reparations to Turks by Britain and France. Britain gets off fairly lightly. No reparations other than to Turkey (see previous). No loss of existing colonies. Must abrogate any and all alliances with continental European states, scrap all naval units currently under construction and agree to undertake no new naval construction for 10 years. Situation in eastern Europe and Russia left unresolved. No discussion of USA/Mexico.

1919. Bilateral non-agression treaty between USA/Germany ending US alliances with former allied states, pledging US non-interference in Europe in exchange for German adherence to Monroe Doctrine and ending of any support to Mexico (which was minimal anyway). Mexico left out to dry.

1918-1920 US war and occupation of Mexico drags on until most irregular resistance ends. Reactionary-conservative govt installed in Mexico City by USA. Baja California ceded to USA and Yucatan granted independence under 30-year US protectorate.

1922 - US occupation of Mexico formally ends. Mexico agrees to maintain no federal military forces in states bordering USA and cedes right to USA to enter these states as needed to control cross-border raids.

1918-1925 - Continued civil warfare in eastern Europe as Germany consolidates hold on areas ceded to it by Brest-Litvosk and attempts to crush Marxist Russia. Nominally independent German-dominated duchies established in Poland, Ukraine, and on Baltic coast. Finland secures independence with German help, occupying OTL Finland and all of Karelia. Existence of Russian Workers and Peoples Republic under Iosef Stalin eventually recognized by Germany, with western border established by original 1917 treaty line. Baltic Peace and Non-agression Pact signed between Germany, Denmark,Sweden, Finland, and RWPR - later expanded in 1927 to include Norway.

1921-1929 - France plunged into chaos by economic collapse. Inability to pay reparations results in additional heavy-handed German responses and threats to pemanently annex the demilitarized zones. Rise of rabid nationalist-socialist political movements.

THis could go on, but I'll end here as it could get awfully Turledovian.

 

[Guilherme Loureiro]

Would there even be a German Spring Offensive, with the US Army entangled in Mexico?

 

[Street_Disciple]

Would there even be a German Spring Offensive, with the US Army entangled in Mexico?

The German Spring Offensive might still have been turned back by the French, they were, afterall, the ones who were the main force in defeating this offensive at the time. The AEF participated a active role, but by no means was it crucial. And most American Doughboys (as they were called by both the brits and french) were still enroute to Europe. If you re-read my post, I concluded that it was possible that even with a USA tied up in its own front on Mexico that the war might have ground to an Armistice. The European participants got bogged down by internal revolt and popular mass feeling against the war, so who knows?

 

[Guilherme Loureiro]

No, what I meant is, the timing of the Spring offensive was determined by the arrival of American troops to France, and the need to strike before they reached the front. If the Americans are still being sent to France in the same numbers, and at the same time, then the Spring Offensive goes as in OTL. If, not I think the Germans would try to push Italy out of the war before attacking France.

 

[Street_Disciple]

If, not I think the Germans would try to push Italy out of the war before attacking France.

Well, Well i think they left and declared neutrality because the US joined the war and they didn't want to risk losing everything like the germans were going to. But in this scenerio, I doubt the doughboys will make their appearance on the front, so wheater or not the Italians switch sifes is questionable. Their role might have altered the outcome, the allies did afterall, needed desperate massive amounts of manpower, artillery and the need to hopefully divert German forces elsewhere.

 

[JLCook]

What evidence suggests the USA would agree to a separate peace?

If: The US enters WWI via a war with Mexico, one instigated by Germany,

And: The US is forced to expend most of it's military effort in subdueing Mexico rather than provide aid in Europe as OTL,

And: A German offensive succedes in breaking the Western front, causing the collapse of France!

What evidence is there to support the theory that either the US OR the UK would simply give up and let the Germans "Win"? What terms could the Germans force upon the UK, for example, without first forcing the distruction of the Grand Fleet? Even a successful German Victory in a Jutland II battle might not give the Germans anything like control of the North Sea! The USN had ample Battleship forces which could redeploy to Scapa Flow. This scenario sounds too much like "France '40", and Great Britain didn't give up then either.

If France falls, and Italy surrenders, sooner or later a reconning with the USA will occur for Germany! Perhaps IF the Germans make the terms as lenient (and attractive to the US and UK as possible) towards France, some thought might have been given, but look at the Pacific theater of WWII! Japan thought that the USA would accept Japanese gains under very similar circumstances to those presented in this case---BUT, the US didn't buy and the Japanese played out their whole sorry game to the end!

The US would NOT have accepted any separate terms with Germany! If the US were drawn into WWI by being forced to whack MEXICO in the first place, the outrage would have been enormous. The US response would have been, no matter how long it takes, no matter how much it costs, we will fight until victory! Our enemies had better plan on dictating terms to the Whitehouse, because otherwise, the Whitehouse will be dictating terms to them!

 

[Norman]

If: The US enters WWI via a war with Mexico, one instigated by Germany,

And: The US is forced to expend most of it's military effort in subdueing Mexico rather than provide aid in Europe as OTL,

And: A German offensive succedes in breaking the Western front, causing the collapse of France!

What evidence is there to support the theory that either the US OR the UK would simply give up and let the Germans "Win"? What terms could the Germans force upon the UK, for example, without first forcing the distruction of the Grand Fleet? Even a successful German Victory in a Jutland II battle might not give the Germans anything like control of the North Sea! The USN had ample Battleship forces which could redeploy to Scapa Flow. This scenario sounds too much like "France '40", and Great Britain didn't give up then either.

If France falls, and Italy surrenders, sooner or later a reconning with the USA will occur for Germany! Perhaps IF the Germans make the terms as lenient (and attractive to the US and UK as possible) towards France, some thought might have been given, but look at the Pacific theater of WWII! Japan thought that the USA would accept Japanese gains under very similar circumstances to those presented in this case---BUT, the US didn't buy and the Japanese played out their whole sorry game to the end!

The US would NOT have accepted any separate terms with Germany! If the US were drawn into WWI by being forced to whack MEXICO in the first place, the outrage would have been enormous. The US response would have been, no matter how long it takes, no matter how much it costs, we will fight until victory! Our enemies had better plan on dictating terms to the Whitehouse, because otherwise, the Whitehouse will be dictating terms to them!

I don't believe that the outrage would have been as great as you point out, plus the economy of the US wasn't really that large and it wasn't really that easy to move troops around. I think that if France sued for peace with Germany, both the US and GB would have followed suit.

 

[David S Poepoe]

I find it unlikely that the US would accept seperate terms of surrender also. I also think it more than likely that the US in 1917 could fight a two front war in Europe and in Mexico. There would thousands of doughboys still in training when the war ended.

 

[JLCook]

Maybe you don't think so, but I do!

I don't believe that the outrage would have been as great as you point out, plus the economy of the US wasn't really that large and it wasn't really that easy to move troops around. I think that if France sued for peace with Germany, both the US and GB would have followed suit.

The United States, dragged into a war it didn't want, with MEXICO, by Germany, would be more POed than you give them credit for. There wouldn't be any sort of arranged peace with Mexico not involving parades down the main avenues of Mexico City by US Troops, and so long as there were still standing allies (UK for example) in Europe, the war in Europe wouldn't be over either!

The ONLY possibility is a BRIEF,and temporary "peace", between the time France fell, and the time the US finished thrashing Mexico! At that point, the "WAR" in Europe would reignite and if it took the US 20 years to finish the job, then it would take 20 years!

 

[Street_Disciple]

In the long run the Japanese will however face the same problems as in WWII, so why risk anything, when you at very low cost and risk could get the German possesions in the region. Even if Germany had won WWI, it would not for many years be able to be any factor in the Pacific region, and if, Japan could always go for the option of feasting on the Anglo-French prey.

You bet. I think you will find them of great interest. There are a few more dealing with the US involvement in the Philippines right after the Spanish American War (a favorite area of mine) and are all quite good books. If the Germans had distracted the US and formed some sort of alliance with Japan, things might have gotten hot out in the Pacific but the US fleet could have held its own (even though we didn't have much experience dealing with major naval enemies) if ordered to defend our newly obtained colonies.

 

[Street_Disciple]

For those interested, read Barbara Tuchman's "The Zimmermann Telegram", which has been extremely fascinating and in depth on the infamous offer that is often only briefly mentioned in many WWI books. Tuchman writes a great deal about the extent to which German agents and aide tried to bolster the "anti-U.S." Mexican presidents, notably Huerta and Villa. And while Pershing's expedition into Mexico in pursuit of Villa almost brought the U.S. to the brink of an all-out conflict with the sitting Carranza governement, the German hopes of war fell short and American war resources continued to flow across the Atlantic to the Allies. While Tuchman makes it clear that everyone, including the Germans and most Mexicans, expected the United States to emerge triumphant in second Mexican-American War, she falls short of defining what implications such a conflict would have on the war in Europe.

I would suggest Eisenhower's excellent book 'Intervention' for some more details on this matter. And the superb 'Blood on the Border: The United States Army and the Mexican Irregulars' by Clarence Clemens Clendenen - which is available used on Amazon and I would strongly suggest this to anyone interested in this area (Denali turned me onto this book). I just recieved another excellent book but haven't read it yet (I have done a lot of research on the 1914 Verz Cruz landings, however): 'The Landing at Veracruz: 1914 : The First Complete Chronicle of a Strange Encounter in April, 1914, When the United States Navy Captured and Occupied' by Jack Sweetman - (an astonishing 55 Medals of Honor were awarded during this affair). This excellent book is available on Amazon for less than $10.00 used - grab it pronto. I have this one on order but haven't gotten it yet: 'Bloody Border: Riots, Battles, and Adventures Along the Turbulent U.S.-Mexican Borderlands' by Douglas V. Meed.