The US Acts against Mexico after the Zimmerman Telegram

[colonel]

The POD is that the US officials mistakenly believe that Mexico accepted the alliance proffered by Germany in the Zimmerman telegram. Therefore while the US declares war on Germany they also invade Mexico. This means fewer American troops for Europe, and a delay in getting them there.
Because of the above the French mutinies are worse in May 1917. Russia still withdraws from the war and the German offensive in March 1918 is moderately successful.
The Austria- Hungarian and Ottoman Empires are completely spent, and by the second half of 1918 the Americans have dealt with Mexico, and large numbers of troops begin arriving in Europe. If the Germans now sue for peace and agree to give up overseas colonies in exchange for no loss of territory in Europe, and no reparations does it happen? What other likely changes occur? Do the Brits get the German colonies? What happens in Mexico (do they give up Baja, Sonora, and Chihuahua? Does a breakup of the Austria-Hungarian Empire mean Germany takes Austria? Is WWII averted, or does it just take a different shape?

 

[The Tai-Pan]

Surely Mexico would explain they have no intention of going to war with the USA?

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

If the Germans now sue for peace and agree to give up overseas colonies in exchange for no loss of territory in Europe, and no reparations does it happen?

No.

 

[Garrison]

The POD is that the US officials mistakenly believe that Mexico accepted the alliance proffered by Germany in the Zimmerman telegram.

How exactly would they come to that conclusion when the Mexicans outright rejected the offer? They had just gotten US troops out of the country, why would they do anything that would renew the intervention? Also the USA is going to have to be completely convinced the Mexicans are co-operating with Germany, they are no more enthusiastic about another intervention than the Mexicans.

 

[Driftless]

You'd need to have all the US Jingos on fire to expand US territory under the guise of punishment. The US Army's own estimate for the number of troops to conquer Northern Mexico in that time frame was 200, 000, and that was probably optimistic for 1917. The Mexican Army(s) were no pushover, as they had been functionally at war since 1910, with the Revolution. A couple of the Mexican top generals (Alvaro Obregon specifically) understood 1917 warfare better than his US counterparts, especially Pershing. Obregon is the one who decimated Pancho Villa in 1916 by taking several pages out of the European trench warfare playbook (trenches, massed machine guns with interlocking fields of fire, ranged and plotted artillery covering barbed wire fields set to create killing zones). Even into 1918 Pershing still refused to learn the lessons that the Europeans had learned the hard way in 1914-15.

With US economic horsepower and Mexico suffering from years of Revolutionary chaos, the US probably outlasts Mexico, rather than triumph. To get there, the US also probably gets a serious bloody nose and a housecleaning of old-thinking general officers before the end.

 

[colonel]

How exactly would they come to that conclusion when the Mexicans outright rejected the offer? They had just gotten US troops out of the country, why would they do anything that would renew the intervention? Also the USA is going to have to be completely convinced the Mexicans are co-operating with Germany, they are no more enthusiastic about another intervention than the Mexicans.

I realize it wasn’t likely, but it isn’t ASB. Notice I said US officials “mistakenly” believed Mexico accepted the offer. One possibility is the Germans find out the Brits broke the cipher and were going to tell the Americans, they still get their desired result by falsely leaking that the Mexicans accepted the offer.

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

How exactly would they come to that conclusion when the Mexicans outright rejected the offer? They had just gotten US troops out of the country, why would they do anything that would renew the intervention? Also the USA is going to have to be completely convinced the Mexicans are co-operating with Germany, they are no more enthusiastic about another intervention than the Mexicans.

I realize it wasn’t likely, but it isn’t ASB. Notice I said US officials “mistakenly” believed Mexico accepted the offer. One possibility is the Germans find out the Brits broke the cipher and were going to tell the Americans, they still get their desired result by falsely leaking that the Mexicans accepted the offer.

A 2nd Mexican-American War is plausible, but I would suggest having it break out during the Pancho Villa expedition. If you want to move up the Zimmerman telegram, I guess you could have it issued while that incident is ongoing, but the main thing that sets off the war would be the Pancho Villa expedition.

 

[Big Schwartz]

US: So Mexico, you're planning to invade us, huh?

Mexico:

No.

US: You know I don't speak Spanish.

 

[Pesterfield]

How will the British react?

They were trying to get the U.S. into the European war, instead the Americans are getting ready for a war with Mexico.

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

How will the British react?

They were trying to get the U.S. into the European war, instead the Americans are getting ready for a war with Mexico.

Assuming a 2nd Mexican-American War breaks out (I think the Zimmerman telegram is too late as a POD for this) then the Entente could try to entice American entry by offering the use of naval bases in the British and French West Indies. Also Belize/British Honduras has a land border with southern Mexico for anyone looking to force Mexico into a two-front war. The Brits used the offer of territorial gains to entice Italy and Greece to join the war, including offers of throwing colonies at them. I don't see why they wouldn't be willing to do something similar in the Americas. Canada would be off the list because it's a dominion and would never agree to that. Newfoundland was also a dominion, but they might be more willing to join. Lots of British colonies in the West Indies were not dominions so if they really wanted American entry and the USA wanted those colonies badly enough they might be up for negotiation. Even if they're not directly offered to the USA they can still use them dangle the offer of basing agreements.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

What happens in Mexico (do they give up Baja, Sonora, and Chihuahua?

The WASP establishment had little interest in bringing in a largish population of brown skinned Catholic voters. & those heavily poor and restive with populist leanings. That would run counter to the goal of immigration restrictions that had become popular. Its similar to the lack of interest post 1900 in making Puerto Rico or the Philippines a future candidate for statehood. Too many potential citizens who would not be "Real Americans"

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

The WASP establishment had little interest in bringing in a largish population of brown skinned Catholic voters. & those heavily poor and restive with populist leanings. That would run counter to the goal of immigration restrictions that had become popular. Its similar to the lack of interest post 1900 in making Puerto Rico or the Philippines a future candidate for statehood. Too many potential citizens who would not be "Real Americans"

That depends on who's in charge. Woodrow Wilson certainly didn't like the idea. Teddy was more amenable. His comment about there being no "hyphenated Americans," is often taken out of context, but it was moderate by the standards of the time. He meant that people from a variety of backgrounds could become Americans if they forsook allegiance to any other country. And racism didn't stop the annexation of Puerto Rico or the US Virgin Islands despite the former being mainly Spanish-speaking brown people and the latter being mainly black people. If there was a 2nd Mexican-American war, the Mexican states bordering the USA would be annexed, but I think the Zimmerman telegram is too late as a POD for to set off a 2nd Mexican-American war. Even if Wilson is still POTUS he'd need to get the Senate on board with any peace agreement.

Also there was talk about annexing more of northern Mexico during the Mexican American War, when anti-Catholic sentiment and racism ran stronger than they did at the start of the 20th century.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

The opposition of the WASP establishment ran far & deep. Unlikely Roosevelt could gain any traction there. His efforts to reduce lynching were ineffectual. Laughed off by some of the powerful. & When you get down to it Roosevelt, like my Irish & German ancestors, was not quite a purebred WASP. His Dutch ancestors put him on the periphery of the "Real Americans" club.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

And racism didn't stop the annexation of Puerto Rico or the US Virgin Islands despite the former being mainly Spanish-speaking brown people and the latter being mainly black people.

They were not considered for statehood, that would give them the vote. & there were objectors on the reason of a undesirable population. United Fruit & its investors could get control or small and lucrative Puerto Rico, but relatively impoverished Baja California had a weak lobby in the US.

 

[Slime_blob]

It's likely, that the different Mexican factions in civil war form a coalition, mainly a United front. As there is a bigger threat up there that is probably against them all.

Meanwhile the US thinking it was a cakewalk got its military beaten up nice and thoroughly by the Mexican warlords and armies. Though the US might send more and more and resort probably to Philippine American War style tactics terrorizing civilians. Probably they overwhelm Mexico, but there is a guerilla resistance like that.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

It's likely, that the different Mexican factions in civil war form a coalition, mainly a United front. ... , but there is a guerilla resistance like that.

& really, whats the point US business was making about as much as it could out of Mexico. Sending a battalion of US Marines to Hati, or a regiment to Nicaragua was relatively low cost. Congress was willing to fund that level. A full size Army in Mexico for several years would cost way more than several decades of profit to Standard Oil, United Fruit, ect...

 

[DougM]

A few thoughts.
If we assume TR gets nominated as a republican (say Taft decides for health reasons not to run again) then TR has support of the Republicans. But IIRC the Democrates had control of Congress (at least the Senate?) in 1912 so TR does not have control and can’t get a DOW. very easily.

Also TR was very “pro USA”. And we are likely to see TR giving GB hell at the start of the war. The thing that many overlook is that Wilson let GB get away without any repercussions for things that they did that were questionable at best. Cutting all communication with Europe so they controlled everything. The questionable way they enforced the blockade both in regard to neutral counties and to things that arguably should not have been embargoed. And otherwise tossed there weight around will NOT sit well with TR, whereas Wilson was basicly in love with England so in his eyes England could do no wrong.

I also thin TR will be more of a stickler on what ships can carry what. And who can carry. US passengers. That being said i think that if Germany sinks passenger ships with US citizens on them the TR is going to get very upset.

So we may see the US maintain a LOT more true neutral stance. We probably see a stricter enforcement of rules stopping US buisness having as much interest in GB and France as Wilson ultimately allowed, as well. Let’s face it. Two HUGE factors involved in the US entry into the war was Wilson being on Englands side from Day one and the US businesses have gotten so into bed with England (and a lesser degree France) that letting them lose would have. Been a huge hit. (Not saying this was the only reasons Or necessarily the main reason, but it was a large reason).
So at least at the beginning I think we will see LESS likly hood of the US declaring war on Germany and Co.

As noted elsewhere TR was respected (to one degree or another) around the world and had a history of being a peace maker so we may see TR try to end the war. And while it is unlikely he will succee it is possible he could. Heck he could possibly step in and head it off before it starts (also unlikly to work but he probably would try).

That being said whichever side TR sees as the side that “wouldn’t cooperate “ with his peace plan is much more likely to get viewed badly by TR. thus we COULD yet again see a chance for GB and or France to get on the US’s and TRs bad side. (More likly for Germany to but England was still riding its Empire and great power status pretty hard in the lead up to WW1 So anything is possible).

So i think at the start things will actually go worse for GB and France, but ultimately odds are the US enters the war on there side as in OTL. Oddly enough I suspect that when you add up everything tog I think the US does not change its entry point by much if any. Maybe a few weeks one way or the other but not much.

That being said i cant see the US going to war with Mexico over the telegram. You need some sort of reason to believe that Mexico agreeed to it and the OP has provided NONE. He just states the US stupidity leads them to THINK that Mexico will agree to it. Well sorry that is ASB. You have to have SOMETHING to make the US believe this, A miss understood response on Mexicos part. Mexico using the telegram to threaten the US or SOMETHING. The OP is implying that the entire diplomatic corp of the US is eating lead and high on something.

Now if you want to speculate that TR is harder on Mexico over the PV raids and thus that the US is already in a war with Mexico when the telegram shows up. Then I could see the US declaring war on Germany for sticking its nose into the mess. The problem with that scenario however is that if the US are in a war (declared or not) then Germany has absolutely NO reason to send the Telegram in the first place.

So i cant see any way short of colossal stupidity on the Part of Mexico resulting in the Telegram leading to War between the US and Mexico. Don’t get me wrong. Change who is in charge of Mexico a bit. Maybe make the US raids a bit longer or nastier as well and I could see Mexico agreeing yo the telegram and thus the US getting into an all out war with Mexico. But you are not getting the Uzs yo DOW Mexico without some sort of evidence that Mexico was in agreement with the Telegrams terms.

 

[colonel]

A few thoughts.
If we assume TR gets nominated as a republican (say Taft decides for health reasons not to run again) then TR has support of the Republicans. But IIRC the Democrates had control of Congress (at least the Senate?) in 1912 so TR does not have control and can’t get a DOW. very easily.

Also TR was very “pro USA”. And we are likely to see TR giving GB hell at the start of the war. The thing that many overlook is that Wilson let GB get away without any repercussions for things that they did that were questionable at best. Cutting all communication with Europe so they controlled everything. The questionable way they enforced the blockade both in regard to neutral counties and to things that arguably should not have been embargoed. And otherwise tossed there weight around will NOT sit well with TR, whereas Wilson was basicly in love with England so in his eyes England could do no wrong.

I also thin TR will be more of a stickler on what ships can carry what. And who can carry. US passengers. That being said i think that if Germany sinks passenger ships with US citizens on them the TR is going to get very upset.

So we may see the US maintain a LOT more true neutral stance. We probably see a stricter enforcement of rules stopping US buisness having as much interest in GB and France as Wilson ultimately allowed, as well. Let’s face it. Two HUGE factors involved in the US entry into the war was Wilson being on Englands side from Day one and the US businesses have gotten so into bed with England (and a lesser degree France) that letting them lose would have. Been a huge hit. (Not saying this was the only reasons Or necessarily the main reason, but it was a large reason).
So at least at the beginning I think we will see LESS likly hood of the US declaring war on Germany and Co.

As noted elsewhere TR was respected (to one degree or another) around the world and had a history of being a peace maker so we may see TR try to end the war. And while it is unlikely he will succee it is possible he could. Heck he could possibly step in and head it off before it starts (also unlikly to work but he probably would try).

That being said whichever side TR sees as the side that “wouldn’t cooperate “ with his peace plan is much more likely to get viewed badly by TR. thus we COULD yet again see a chance for GB and or France to get on the US’s and TRs bad side. (More likly for Germany to but England was still riding its Empire and great power status pretty hard in the lead up to WW1 So anything is possible).

So i think at the start things will actually go worse for GB and France, but ultimately odds are the US enters the war on there side as in OTL. Oddly enough I suspect that when you add up everything tog I think the US does not change its entry point by much if any. Maybe a few weeks one way or the other but not much.

That being said i cant see the US going to war with Mexico over the telegram. You need some sort of reason to believe that Mexico agreeed to it and the OP has provided NONE. He just states the US stupidity leads them to THINK that Mexico will agree to it. Well sorry that is ASB. You have to have SOMETHING to make the US believe this, A miss understood response on Mexicos part. Mexico using the telegram to threaten the US or SOMETHING. The OP is implying that the entire diplomatic corp of the US is eating lead and high on something.

Now if you want to speculate that TR is harder on Mexico over the PV raids and thus that the US is already in a war with Mexico when the telegram shows up. Then I could see the US declaring war on Germany for sticking its nose into the mess. The problem with that scenario however is that if the US are in a war (declared or not) then Germany has absolutely NO reason to send the Telegram in the first place.

So i cant see any way short of colossal stupidity on the Part of Mexico resulting in the Telegram leading to War between the US and Mexico. Don’t get me wrong. Change who is in charge of Mexico a bit. Maybe make the US raids a bit longer or nastier as well and I could see Mexico agreeing yo the telegram and thus the US getting into an all out war with Mexico. But you are not getting the Uzs yo DOW Mexico without some sort of evidence that Mexico was in agreement with the Telegrams terms.

Maybe TR as President "believes" Mexico is acting in accord with the terms of the telegram based on German disinformation to get the US to delay being able to send significant forces to Europe. Heck maybe TR doesn't believe Mexican acceptance of the telegram's terms, but uses it as an excuse as he did in helping Panama break from Columbia.

 

[Cryptic]

It's likely, that the different Mexican factions in civil war form a coalition, mainly a United front. As there is a bigger threat up there that is probably against them all.

Unfortuantely for the Mexicans, Mexican geography works against them.

The US does an end run around around the United Front and concentrates on Baja California and Yucatan. Both are territories instead of full Mexican states and both were annexed by Mexico early in their independence.

More importantly from the military point of view, both territories are isolated from Mexico proper and cannot be reinforced by the Mexican 'United Front' coalition. Socially, I don't know how Mexican the locals viewed themselves at the time. Like Louisiana, Yucatan was, well, "different".

The WASP establishment had little interest in bringing in a largish population of brown skinned Catholic voters. & those heavily poor and restive with populist leanings. That would run counter to the goal of immigration restrictions that had become popular.

Good point.

So.... the WASPS begin looking for inspiration and find it in....... Catholic France- well technically not in France, but in Algeria. The WASPs think they have the perfect solution in French Algeria for Baja California and Yucatan:

- Brown people becoming citizens? Like the Algerian Arabs and Berbers, the vast majority of Mexicans in the new territories will be "protected territorial nationals", not citizens. Exceptions, of course, exist for the largely white ruling class- once they prove their long term loyalty.

- Stability? Like the French in Algeria, US troops will deliver copious quantities of that.

- Democracy? Local Mexicans will also benefit from a democratic system in regards to rule of law and constitutional rights (tailored to local conditions and norms). Like in Algeria, extreme gerrymandering, creative election laws, etc etc. will mean that most cant actually participate in the democracy. Yes, of course, rules can be different for the largely white ruling class.

- Like the French and British, the WASPS enact the colonial "divide and conquer". US propaganda starts creating a different, non Mexican identity for both regions on day one. Para military police and later, infantry battalions are raised. Following British and French practice, every effort is made to supply quality officers to these units and to instill a sense of loyalty to the broader empire.

 

[Pete55]

. The US Army's own estimate for the number of troops to conquer Northern Mexico in that time frame was 200, 000, and that was probably optimistic for 1917.

True, though the ongoing infighting in Mexico could play havoc with any coordinated defense.

I suspect that it would seriously curtail earlier US participations in WW1, pushing everything back to 1918+.

The Mexican Army(s) were no pushover, as they had been functionally at war since 1910, with the Revolution.

That cuts both ways though. They are also tired, poorly organized and fractitious. Think of how Japan found quite a bit of success against China despite China theoretically having the numbers to make land war seem impossible for them.

A couple of the Mexican top generals (Alvaro Obregon specifically) understood 1917 warfare better than his US counterparts, especially Pershing. Obregon is the one who decimated Pancho Villa in 1916 by taking several pages out of the European trench warfare playbook (trenches, massed machine guns with interlocking fields of fire, ranged and plotted artillery covering barbed wire fields set to create killing zones). Even into 1918 Pershing still refused to learn the lessons that the Europeans had learned the hard way in 1914-15.

(Assuming Pershing is the guy in charge)

Yeah, Pershing will get a bloody nose. However, the Western front being so absurdly dense with troops was the real reason for how static everything was, and that just doesn't apply to North Mexico. Moreover, the Historical American actions against Mexico had generally been amphibious (as recently as 1914, mind) meaning that a lot of troops have to be left in Southern Mexico.

Pershing will make things bloodier, but this is ultimately a mobile (for the time) war.

What it likely will do though is make Pershing even more boneheaded when he gets to the Western front. After all, it worked in Mexico....

With US economic horsepower and Mexico suffering from years of Revolutionary chaos, the US probably outlasts Mexico, rather than triumph.

I guess it depends on how you define it. If the US rolls in (or walks, lol) and grabs Baja California along with North Mexico it may seem a triumph. It's hard to guess at casualties though, and if say, 40,000 Americans are dead and 150K injured it may well be a bitter victory.

@Cryptic I suspect that the Philippines and Cuba provide a template for US governance in the region, though being connected to the CONUS probably means they eventually become states. Semi local authority and war if rebellion happens.