It's because I used a map from HOI4 and than edited itI only fixed the Atlantic discrepancy, not any borders.
It's because I used a map from HOI4 and than edited itI only fixed the Atlantic discrepancy, not any borders.
I'm fixing Serbia but as far as I know Kars remained Russian. The Ottoman went back to the 1914 border.
Also, some other clarification if possible:
1)What does "Montenegro is a civilian part of the Austrian portion of the empire" mean? Is it annexed or not?
2)What is the border between A-H and Serbia? The 1914 border or something else?
Well since the United States never enters World War I it might go in Wilson's favor given his popularity.Does anyone have any ideas as to how this might impact the 1916 election? Who would you rather see win and why?
The American non-entry into the Great War won't change much, since the USA didn't enter until 1917 in OTL.Well since the United States never enters World War I it might go in Wilson's favor given his popularity.
Does anyone have any ideas as to how this might impact the 1916 election? Who would you rather see win and why?
Just focus on Wilson vs Hughes then the Second Mexican-American War.Dear readers,
Bad news.
I simply can't decide between Wilson or Hughes, Mexican War or not, etcetera. I've gone through a number of revisions and drafts (check out one in my test thread if you fancy), but can't get the chapter where I want it.
I love this TL and putting out high-quality work for you means something to me; I really don't want to turn out a half-baked product just to "get on with it".
The USA chapter will be posted in a few days, but no promises as to when. I'm sorry.
- Kaiser Wilhelm the Tenth
Someone brought it up earlier, but what's going on with Mexico? Obviously there's no Zimmerman telegram, but Germany doing much better could maybe butterfly away the occupation of Veracruz (since the US was so paranoid they confused a shipment of weapons for President Huerta as coming from Germany). That could potentially help Huerta stay in power longer, since the occupation was one of causes of his fall, and that keeps the Carranza/Villa/Zapata alliance together longer as well, changing how the war plays out
EDIT II: Wilson could also be assassinated, and nothing of value would be lost.
Nevertheless he let Pershings invasion in 1916 happen ... which - IMHO - without too much changes OTL could have evolved into something still bigger.....
Thus with Wilson morally opposed to the idea of a predatory war with Mexico and with having avoided such a war being a key part of his reelection campaign I think the likelihood of such a war is pretty low.
Let's not be too harsh towards Woodrow Wilson. I'm no apologist of Wilson and I know he wasn't perfect his racial attitudes notwithstanding though then again almost everybody who was white shared similar views but he also fought for the rights of workers, enforced antitrust legislation, passed strong protective tariffs, appointed the first Jewish Supreme Court justice, endorsed women's suffrage, tried to bring world peace via self determination and at least spoke out against lynching in spite of his beliefs on race.Wilson's moral opposition holds as much weight as a piece of paper. For someone who supposedly believed that people had the right to do as they pleased with their affairs, he certainly didn't hesitate throwing his weight around in Central America.
*spits*
Here's to hoping he loses the election, followed by a string of catastrophes that leaves him a modern day Job. He deserves nothing less.
No, that's still too dignified an end for him, with a greater place in the history books than he deserves. Something more...ignominous, should be his fate. Falling down the stairs, maybe. Getting run over by a horse. Or a car. Maybe he fell off a ship and drowned in the sea.
I honestly expect Hughes to win. The hawks will be vindicated, and I think there will be angst over “losing Europe.” Progressive isolationists won’t be as motivated to turn out, and it was close anyway. I also think it allows for a more interesting TL, with the Dems likely in control in the 20s until the alt-Great Depression, as the winner of 1916, especially here, is going to lose in 1920 due to war debts coming due and causing severe economic problems in 1918-1920. I also think Hughes could have some very interesting policies, and you might even get an alt-LoN done with him in. I doubt Wilson could get the LoN or similar passed, while Hughes’s strength in the party plus being willing to accommodate the reservationists should get something done. That could also be very interesting in the lead-up to WW2, and it might lead to German-American-British rapprochement.
Nevertheless he let Pershings invasion in 1916 happen ... which - IMHO - without too much changes OTL could have evolved into something still bigger.
Should perhaps not be forgotten that the Carranza-goverment was not realy controlling all (even largest part ??) of Mexico.
Yeah I corrected myself in a follow up post. I mixed that event with Huerta trying to return in 1915.The occupation of Veracruz began on April 21, 1914, so I think it predates the POD.
As for the possibility of a war between the U.S. and Mexico, Wilson was pretty adamant against it for reasons beyond just not wanting to get distracted when faced with the possibility of war in Europe. From Woodrow Wilson A Biography by John Milton Cooper, Jr.:
"On May 11, after the raid in Texas and the ensuing war scare, he talked off the record with the journalist Ray Stannard Baker, who noted, "He said his Mexican policy was based upon two of the most deeply seated convictions of his life: first his shame as an American over the first Mexican war & his resolution that while he was president there should be no such predatory war; Second upon his belief... that a people had the right 'to do as they damned pleased with their own affairs.'"
The same book also says that Wilson told Baker he was ashamed over the rule the US had played in overthrowing President Madero and thought intervention in Mexico was being pushed by American business interests "who wanted the oil & metals of Mexico & were seeking intervention to get them." It also notes that Wilson's campaign material mentioned him avoiding war with Mexico more often than him avoiding the war in Europe.
Thus with Wilson morally opposed to the idea of a predatory war with Mexico and with having avoided such a war being a key part of his reelection campaign I think the likelihood of such a war is pretty low.