WI: Mexico Joins the Central Powers

I recall hearing the biggest impediment to a Mexican invasion of the US is arms. Is this right? If this is true, than perhaps if Germany had a naval victory, at least enough to break the blockade, the could deliver arms to Mexico.

Another idea is if the US joins the war, but Germany still defeats France, would Germany (assuming they had the naval ability in this scenario) send tropps/arms to Mexico to knock the US down a peg or two?
 
I don't know if there's much possibility of Mexico joining the Central Powers - as other posters have pointed out, they won't have much chance of winning and won't have much chance of gaining anything; too much risk, not enough reward.

What would be interesting to consider though, is the idea of the Pershing expedition escalating and being drawn out. Perhaps Villa makes his way across the border in another spot and kills more Americans. Or you could have a POD where Villa is more powerful and successful and thus has more of a fighting force to keep the Americans chasing him in Mexico. Then there are more incidents between the US army and the Carranzistas that spill over into full-fledged fighting. As more and more American soldiers die, politicians and citizens demand a strong response. Wilson is drawn in by the idea of fixing the chaos in Mexico. More American forces go into Mexico and maybe the US even flirts with the idea of going to Mexico City and changing the government. (Would then they annex territory or simply take financial compensation and put in a puppet government?)

The real change that this above scenario could then cause would be the US choosing not to enter WWI. Maybe too many forces are tied down in Mexico. Or perhaps the Germans see how distracted the US are and don't go ahead with either unrestricted submarine warfare or the Zimmerman Telegram. Then we see how WWI ends without US intervention.
 
First, America kicks Mexico's butt. There are two options from there.

#1. The U.S. completely territorizes or annexes all of Mexico. Baja California could become part of Claifornia, etc.

OR

#2. The U.S. only takes the Northern parts of Mexico. (Sonora, Chiuhaua, Baja California) The rest is left as bad as Germany in OTL, possibly leading to a Mexican-type Hitler.
 
Here is the big problem for many Americans c.1920 with the idea of Mexican annexation. In 1920, according to the U.S. census there are c.100 million Americans. In 1920, there are c.15 million Mexicans. In 1920, Roman Catholics made up 18.7% of the American population. With the annexation of Mexico, the number of Roman Catholics jumps to 29.3% of the American population. Considering this is a time period wherein the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) is actively marching on Pennsylvania Avenue, and the public is continually warned of how Catholics are "led by a dicatator from Rome", there is no logical way to convince the American public to support annexation. To make matters worse, with annexation you have a country wherein c.23.7% of the population is unable to read or write English.....
 
Wilson might annex parts of Mexico simply for public support or something like that.
I don't see why public support would demand annexation of Mexican territory. They'd more likely demand harsh reparations and a wider open-door for trade, notions that are palatable to them but don't involve adding huge swaths of land filled with Catholic Mexicans in them directly aside Texas and California.

What are the precedents for this? You may not get formal annexation, not for awhile, but the US is going to be controlling large chunks of Mexican territory and you already have precedents for annexing parts of Mexico. And a DMZ just doesn't feel punitive enough.
Precedents? None that I can recall off the top of my head for purely demilitarized zone-related areas (though the Allies and Associated Powers would shortly be providing one in the Rhineland). However, as I said before there are alternatives to annexation that could be more suitable for US social, economic and political purposes, such as heavy back-room influence of Mexican politics and industry by US business interests backed up with the implicit threat of military intervention.

But we did annex the Phllipines and Puerto Rico. Also northen Mexico was very unpopulated back then.
The Philippines and Puerto Rico were colonial possessions trading hands from one outside power to another, not core metropole territories administered directly from the national capital. Not the same thing.
 
If annaxed, people from yhe U.S. would probably start going into Mexico. If other relifions, races, and literacy were in the annexed parts, than perhaps the public would support statehood.
 
First, America kicks Mexico's butt. There are two options from there.

#1. The U.S. completely territorizes or annexes all of Mexico. Baja California could become part of Claifornia, etc.

OR

#2. The U.S. only takes the Northern parts of Mexico. (Sonora, Chiuhaua, Baja California) The rest is left as bad as Germany in OTL, possibly leading to a Mexican-type Hitler.

I don't think the US would allow a Mexican-style Hitler to rearm or do anything serious other then saber rattle.
 
If annaxed, people from yhe U.S. would probably start going into Mexico. If other relifions, races, and literacy were in the annexed parts, than perhaps the public would support statehood.
This still doesn't change the fact that in the regions mentioned, even if massive movements of population were made, with annexation, you have Roman Catholics who made up 18.7% of the American population suddenly with the annexation of Mexico, the number of Roman Catholics jumps to 29.3% of the American population. To make matters worse, with annexation you have a country wherein c.23.7% of the population is unable to read or write English. By any measure, this would become a massive drain on social services of any country. The demographics alone prevent easy assimilation or annexation...
 
Fine, then they become territories. They can't vote, and nobody gives a darn to the religious status of territories. Also, I think that territories aren't elligeble for Social Security.
 
Fine, then they become territories. They can't vote, and nobody gives a darn to the religious status of territories. Also, I think that territories aren't elligeble for Social Security.
Actually, they would be eligible for Social Security. Puerto Rico, Guam, et al. receive services as American territories. Second, as for the issue of representation, you are asking c.1 in 4 Americans to go without representation because of their religious and ethnic status.. This would actually cause ethnic tensions to worsen in the United States.
 
Almost certainly yes. While they won't annex all of Mexico the US probably would annex the northenmost states of Mexico.
The problem is that you have three major cities in the region (e.g. Tijuana, Monterrey and Ciudad Juarez ). Monterey in 1920 has 500,000 people. Tijuana in 1920 has 171,000 people. Ciudad Juarez in 1920 has 333,000 people. For 1920, you are asking the American public to accept a rise in the Mexican American population by 800%. Although Whites would still represent 86.9% of the population, this would be a sudden shock to the population. For Roman Catholics, this creates greater alienation as 7 out of 8(c.87%) Roman Catholics can be identified as immigrants. This seems an invitation for anti-Catholic sentiment....
 
The problem is that you have three major cities in the region (e.g. Tijuana, Monterrey and Ciudad Juarez ). Monterey in 1920 has 500,000 people. Tijuana in 1920 has 171,000 people. Ciudad Juarez in 1920 has 333,000 people. For 1920, you are asking the American public to accept a rise in the Mexican American population by 800%. Although Whites would still represent 86.9% of the population, this would be a sudden shock to the population. For Roman Catholics, this creates greater alienation as 7 out of 8(c.87%) Roman Catholics can be identified as immigrants. This seems an invitation for anti-Catholic sentiment....

Maybe they's keep them as territories until later. BTW where did you get the statistics? According to the Encyclopedia Britannica from the 50s; as late as 1949 there were only 16,486 people in Tijuana and 339,634 in Monterrey.
 
All this argument is purely intellectual (or jingoistic masturbation, if you prefer) without a pre-1910 PoD that ensures that Mexico in 1916 is a place stable enough for its government to even think about considering maybe having the idea of, should the opportunity arise, perhaps giving a thought, purely as an intellectual exercise, to Germany's insinuations, in case they ever existed and the Zimmermann telegram was not made up.
 
Top