Surviving UPCA's role in WWI?

How would the United/Federal Provinces of Central America, if it suvived its 1898 coup(attempt, in the TL), react in WWI?

Would be part of a Zimmerman Telegram of some sort?

Possibly the state below it could pressure Mexico to go for the attack on the U.S., drawing the U/FPCA in...

I'm not sure I get what you mean: in this scenario, is the UPCA on the American or the Mexican side of things?

I mean, would it join the CP, Allies, would it try to invade Mexico(Zimmerman switch?) or even join it to try and invade America(Zimmerman sent to them as well?)

Shackel said:

I mean, would it join the CP, Allies, would it try to invade Mexico(Zimmerman switch?) or even join it to try and invade America(Zimmerman sent to them as well?)

Click to expand...

They definitely wouldn't try and invade America. By WWI, there wasn't much of a chance of a Mexican victory in a second Mex-Am War. UPCA wouldn't be too much of a help. In addition, the UPCA and Mexico weren't particularly friendly. What would the UPCA gain by joining Mexico, its old enemy? Now, this requires a POD many decades before WWI, so they could've become friendly by then, but that still doesn't solve the problem of no gain by joining Mexico.

They probably wouldn't declare war on Mexico, either. They could potentially gain a bit of territory, but it'd be way too risky. They won't have a proper casus belli, they won't have any real allies (Zimmerman wouldn't ask the UPCA to invade Mexico... what for?), and they probably wouldn't have the military capacity to fight Mexico. I suppose a lot of that last point depends on what happens in the intervening decades (they were set up to become a nice, Dutch-style merchant republic), but it's unlikely they'd be able to gather the will to declare war on Mexico for (probably) no reason.

Next option is CP. If you look at a map of Entente and CP, you might notice something about the American supercontinent. Every participating nation was Entente. Brazil, a lot of the constituent republics of the UPCA, and of course the US and Canada were all Entente. If they decided to join Germany, they'd be soundly curb stomped by all the enemies in the area.

The most likely answers are that they would join the Entente or stay neutral. I could see it playing a role midway between OTL US and Central America. Sit back for the first few years, making money off the war, but then join in with the US in 1916. I see the UPCA and the US as natural allies, so I think it'd lean much more towards joining the Entente with the US than staying out of it. Granted, it wouldn't send too much more than a token force, but it'd still get in on the action.

Interesting...

Also, what do you think they would pick for their canal? Nic. or Panama?

Shackel said:

Interesting...

Also, what do you think they would pick for their canal? Nic. or Panama?

Click to expand...

I didn't think Panama was ever a part of the UPCA. And who's going to pay for the canal? Probably the USA.

Emperor-of-New-Zealand said:

I didn't think Panama was ever a part of the UPCA. And who's going to pay for the canal? Probably the USA.

Click to expand...

Oh, I read that wrong.

Assuming there isn't any major internal problems after this, I thing the Nic. Canal would be the chosen one, with the U.K. and U.S. providing funding.
--

Now, what I don't know is how their economy worked.

Shackel said:

Oh, I read that wrong.

Assuming there isn't any major internal problems after this, I thing the Nic. Canal would be the chosen one, with the U.K. and U.S. providing funding.
--

Now, what I don't know is how their economy worked.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure either. They were kind of planning on setting up a new small, merchant republic type deal. I don't think they were planning any sort of manifest destiny type thing (probably because the only two ways they could expand had countries much stronger than them...). I think, had the nation worked out, it would've drifted into the US sphere of influence, gotten rich off of trade, gotten even richer off the Nicaragua Canal, and ended up with a decent standard of living. Probably not as high as the modern US/western Europe nations, but definitely higher than OTL central America.

This is, of course, assuming it doesn't fall into corruption and petty regional interests.

Solomaxwell6 said:

I'm not sure either. They were kind of planning on setting up a new small, merchant republic type deal. I don't think they were planning any sort of manifest destiny type thing (probably because the only two ways they could expand had countries much stronger than them...). I think, had the nation worked out, it would've drifted into the US sphere of influence, gotten rich off of trade, gotten even richer off the Nicaragua Canal, and ended up with a decent standard of living. Probably not as high as the modern US/western Europe nations, but definitely higher than OTL central America.

This is, of course, assuming it doesn't fall into corruption and petty regional interests.

Click to expand...

I see... I was planning a TL for it, where the Mexican-American war happens around WWI, and the UPCA/FPCA hops in to take the Yucatan. Is this too ASB?

Shackel said:

I see... I was planning a TL for it, where the Mexican-American war happens around WWI, and the UPCA/FPCA hops in to take the Yucatan. Is this too ASB?

Click to expand...

Chiapas was part of the Captaincy-General of Guatemala so they could try to do that landgrab (on those grounds even), but I'm not sure if the US wouldn't rather have Yucatan as an independent republic instead if they do support Yucatan. The main problem is that the civil war that wrecked the UPCA ended in 1840 and so they might rather lick their wounds unless it's butterflied entirely.

I suppose the question of any UCPA's role in WW1 would hinge on where the trans-ithmus canal gets built. If a UCPA builds a canal along the proposed Nicaragua route, presumably with foreign money/help, then the Entente trade passing through that canal and the Canal itself become potential targets for any Central Powers commerce raiding efforts.

In the OTL, the CP didn't make any real efforts aside from commerce raiders operating for a brief period in the Caribbean to either target or otherwise disrupt Entents shipping using the newly opened Panama canal. However, that didn't keep the Entente from stationing naval assets to cover the approaches to the Canal or the Canal's owner/operator, the US, from making defensive preparations either.

Also in the OTL, while the Panama Canal opened at nearly the same time the OTL war began and many shipping routes hadn't shifted to it, the naval forces of the warring parties either used or considered using the Canal from the beginning. As a neutral, the US announced warships could use the Canal along the same terms as warships could use neutral ports. von Spee briefly considered using the Canal and Britain even dispatched additional warships to the Caribbean to guard against that possibility.

If we mirror these OTL concerns and events onto a canal operated by a UPCA, we might see a UPCA dragged into the edges of a WW1 merely because of the existence of that canal.

It's very doubtful that a UPCA can build even a Nicaraguan canal on it's own and, unlike the US. a UPCA is not going to be able to even partially defend a canal from attack. This means, IMHO, that any UPCA canal is going to be either wholly or partially foreign owned and that ownership will include defense provisions much as with the Suez canal.

When the war kicks off, the UPCA's "canal zone" will see an increased number of troops and warships stationed there by the "protecting" power.

archaeogeek said:

Chiapas was part of the Captaincy-General of Guatemala so they could try to do that landgrab (on those grounds even), but I'm not sure if the US wouldn't rather have Yucatan as an independent republic instead if they do support Yucatan. The main problem is that the civil war that wrecked the UPCA ended in 1840 and so they might rather lick their wounds unless it's butterflied entirely.

Click to expand...

Could the Yucatan become a joint U.S-F(ederal)PCA puppet?

Also, there was a short-lived FPCA in 1895 that was couped and ended in 1898. This is the one I was talking about.

Don Lardo said:

It's very doubtful that a UPCA can build even a Nicaraguan canal on it's own and, unlike the US. a UPCA is not going to be able to even partially defend a canal from attack. This means, IMHO, that any UPCA canal is going to be either wholly or partially foreign owned and that ownership will include defense provisions much as with the Suez canal.

When the war kicks off, the UPCA's "canal zone" will see an increased number of troops and warships stationed there by the "protecting" power.

Click to expand...

Right. Merchant republic or not, the UPCA probably simply isn't going to be a wealthy or important enough nation to be able to do it on its own. I'm guessing the UPCA will drift into America's sphere of influence. In OTL, France tried building the Panama Canal, but sold off its stake to the US. ITTL, with UPCA being an American ally, there's a better chance of the US ultimately deciding on Nicaragua. The UPCA will take the initiative with a large amount of American investment.

Outside of that, your predictions for WWI are pretty solid. A lot of skittishness and defensive preparations by the UPCA and US, probably with an American naval presence in the area, until either nation finally decides to officially join the war.

Shackel said:

Could the Yucatan become a joint U.S-F(ederal)PCA puppet?

Also, there was a short-lived FPCA in 1895 that was couped and ended in 1898. This is the one I was talking about.

Click to expand...

Hmm. Not familiar with it. I looked it up on Wikipedia right now, and apparently the presidents of Guatemala and Honduras announced a plan to reunite Central America, but failed due to conservative nationalist types.

I don't think there's too much of a reason, if you have compelling reasons for the US and FPCA to declare war on Mexico, for a Yucatan puppet to emerge. It had a history of independence, and would be one way to both punish the enemy (Mexico) while rewarding an ally (FPCA). Of course, how well the FPCA would be able to keep it a puppet is another thing entirely. Remember, the FPCA isn't going to be that wealthy or powerful, especially if we're talking 1895 instead of 1840s as the POD. It'd probably just end up either drifting entirely into the US' sphere, or just go its own way.

Now, from what I understand, looking at these Wiki articles, the 1898 coup was basically a way for the US to help out corporate interests. If the FPCA emerges, it won't be particularly pro-US, so how are you planning on ensuring the FPCA joins the US? Just pragmatism, looking purely to jump on Mexico at the first smell of blood?

So doing a quick demographics data check; central america's population at the time of the various hypotheticals would be:
- 1850, around the time of breakup, just about 2 million people to Mexico's 7,5 million.
- 1900, 3 million to Mexico's 14 million
So basically an early opportunistic landgrab around the time of the Mexican American war can work not too bad if the civil war is mostly averted, but by 1898 the balance is getting pretty bad and would require outright US intervention to work. Which in the circumstances might, indeed, have the problem that public opinion in the USCA has the potential to be firmly anti-US (unless it lasted that long).

I sincerely doubt there woyldd be any Canal in the event of a successful UPCA. The major point of the economy of the UPCA was/would have been successful taxing and tariffs on goods that would shipped to the Atlantic side, than unloaded and hauled across the narrow country, and then shipped off the Pacific side (and vice-versa). The UPCA would lack both the funds and the will to do any sort of canal-building mega-project.

Much more likely the Panama Railway is much more successful ITTL, or a comparative network of rails in order to facilitate the transfer of goods and storage for shipments until a ship arrives to pick them up from one ocean to the other.

IOTL, if it hadn't actually happened the Panama Canal would be considered purely ASB, and surely the fantastical delusions of the European and American capitalists of the time.

wolf_brother said:

I sincerely doubt there woyldd be any Canal in the event of a successful UPCA. The major point of the economy of the UPCA was/would have been successful taxing and tariffs on goods that would shipped to the Atlantic side, than unloaded and hauled across the narrow country, and then shipped off the Pacific side (and vice-versa). The UPCA would lack both the funds and the will to do any sort of canal-building mega-project.

Much more likely the Panama Railway is much more successful ITTL, or a comparative network of rails in order to facilitate the transfer of goods and storage for shipments until a ship arrives to pick them up from one ocean to the other.

IOTL, if it hadn't actually happened the Panama Canal would be considered purely ASB, and surely the fantastical delusions of the European and American capitalists of the time.

Click to expand...

Right. But, clearly the Panama Canal is possible, and clearly there are people with the will and ability to think of it and fund it. Now, there are two big options: Nicaragua Canal (in UPCA) or a Panama Canal (outside UPCA). If people start making noises about building the Panama Canal, it's definitely in UPCA's best interests to build their own canal. If they don't, they basically instantly lose their biggest source of income. So, it's very likely they'll do their best to subsidize the cost and try to provide cheap labor.

The thing is, the canal requires a very massive investment, but it'll allow cheaper-than-overland shipping, which will bring in a tidy profit for whomever decides to make it. It only requires one (influential or wealthy enough) person to get the ball rolling. At best, the Nicaragua Canal will just end up appearing a little later than OTL's Panama Canal... Over time, the engineering techniques will become better and cheaper. Even if this isn't done by WWI due to UPCA being almost as efficient as a canal, why wouldn't the UPCA's efficient overland shipping play a similar role to Panama Canal?

Solomaxwell6 said:

Right. But, clearly the Panama Canal is possible

Click to expand...

We can only say that though because it happened IOTL. ITTL however, it has yet to happen by the time of POD. Furthermore, an attempt has been ongoing both IOTL & ITTL by the time of the POD since 1880 by the French, a major world power, and has yet to lead to anything at all asides from lots of dead men and wasted money.

IOTL the Hay–Herran Treaty went forward and the Senate voted in favor of pursuing the Panamaian option because political conditions were ripe for such an event, and because it was obvious to all and most especially to the US that some way was needed to rapidly ship men and material from one ocean to the other. However, if the POD occurs we have a stronger, richer, and more united UPCA already fulfilling this role. The Panama Canal is butterflied away.

Solomaxwell6 said:

and clearly there are people with the will and ability to think of it and fund it.

Click to expand...

People who were, at the time, thought of as delusional. See above on the French attempts at building a canal, and the reasons why it would not be followed up upon ITTL.

In summary; in a world with a successfully united Central American state already providing the shipping across the Atlantic to the Pacific, and vice-versa, there is no impetus for a Canal project. Coupled with the obvious French failure in attempting to construct an ocean-going, continent dividing canal through the mountainous jungle terrain of Panama would make people less likely to attempt such a project.

While everyone would recognize that a direct, ocean-going route would be more cost-efficient than overland shipping, they would also recognize that the initial investment cost to literally move mountains to create such a canal would be too high when there already was a suitable shipping service in the area.

Solomaxwell6 said:

why wouldn't the UPCA's efficient overland shipping play a similar role to Panama Canal?

Click to expand...

...

a) Is there an echo in here? I could have sworn I was the one arguing for that side just a moment ago. The UPCA's overland route, especially fueled by railway construction by foreign investment, would be extremely efficient in carrying goods from one ocean to the other.

b) Well for one, you can't move a US Navy battleship from the Atlantic to the Pacific via an overland route. Economically the UPCA would still fulfill the same as our OTL Panama Canal. However, the butterflies of a successful UPCA operating a mercantile republic in this way would have a significant affect on the United States and the rest of the world.

wolf_brother said:

I sincerely doubt there woyldd be any Canal in the event of a successful UPCA. The major point of the economy of the UPCA was/would have been successful taxing and tariffs on goods that would shipped to the Atlantic side, than unloaded and hauled across the narrow country, and then shipped off the Pacific side.

Click to expand...

Oddly enough, Egypt relied on such trans-shipping fees too and their loss played no part in the decision to build the Suez Canal.

A UCPA which is hosting a trans-ithmus canal is going to see more goods moving through it's territory and thus see more in the way of transit taxes, handling fees, tariffs and the live even if those fees are set lower than the old overland ones.

Much more likely the Panama Railway is much more successful ITTL...

Click to expand...

No. The real powers of the period want a shipping canal and they're going to get one either in the UCPA, Columbia/Panama, or elsewhere. The reason they want a shipping canal is because unloading vessels took weeks and inevitably led to losses through handling accidents and theft.

And before you bring it up, containerized freight is a post-WW2 innovation that really didn't start to take off until the 1960s. The UCPA will not be unloading standardized sea-going boxes, loading them onto trains, and loading them back aboard ships.

The UCPA can either host a canal on it's territory, and share in the benefits derived from the same, or watch a canal be built elsewhere and lose out. The needs of the locals are besides the point. As seen in the OTL, the powers will even create or turn a blind eye towards the creation of a new nation to meet their goal. It's either join the band or be left out.

IOTL, if it hadn't actually happened the Panama Canal would be considered purely ASB, and surely the fantastical delusions of the European and American capitalists of the time.

Click to expand...

You really need to read The Path Between The Seas by David McCullough. Really.

wolf_brother said:

Furthermore, an attempt has been ongoing both IOTL & ITTL by the time of the POD since 1880 by the French, a major world power, and has yet to lead to anything at all asides from lots of dead men and wasted money.

Click to expand...

You really need to read McCullough's book. Seriously.

France had not been trying to build a canal. That is the French government had not been trying to build a canal.

Instead, a private company based in France and capitalized worldwide which was essentially renting an elderly de Lesseps' name tried to build a canal with a plan totally inappropriate to the geology of the situation. This effort was doomed before it began. Furthermore, many of the backers knew it and simply invested in order to profit on the bubble they knew would result.

The result was little more than a series of first financial and then political scandals as various people tried to keep the company afloat for reasons that had little if anything to do with digging a canal.

There is a very great difference between a French company attempting to build the canal and the US government attempting to do the same.

Your argument would be much more persuasive if you could reference a source I could, say, look up online and read

Alternatively, I can go to Wikipedia, or Google, and be told in no uncertain terms that it was the French government, working through de Lesseps, that was behind not only one but two French-canal projects in Central America. And, far from being a well-known investment bubble, the collapse of the first (larger and better known) project was a major scandal in France, an embarrassment to the French government, and somehow actually lead to the exploitation of the matter by various anti-Semites in France, notably one Edouard Drumont, due to the fact that two of the private investors in the project were Jewish

Also, while I am normally not against using bold, italics, or underlines to make one's point in text, selecting random passages from said text does not enhance one's argument; it in fact detracts from it in a very harmful way that is distracting to both a casual reader and those involved in the debate.