WI: US annexed Veracuz?

05%20somers%20old1.jpg


U.S. President Woodrow Wilson considered another military invasion of Veracruz and Tampico in 1917-1918,[23][24] so as to take control of Tehuantepec Isthmus and Tampico oil fields

Say ol' Woodrow pulls the trigger and the US Army successfully storms in;
doing so before the Mexican president sets the oil fields ablaze.
How would a direct annexation of both Veracuz and Tampico play out in the short term and long term?
What kind of military stomping would it take for the Mexican government to give it up?
Would the US engage in post-war ethnic cleansing? (population swap)
 
Last edited:
I would agree that complete annexation is unlikely. I would say your best bet is for a situation similar to what played out all over Latin america during the 20s and 30s. The U.S invades the area and puts a provisional government in place and stays there until they think its in their best interest to leave (Which depending on how things go might not be until sometime in the thirties). Of course, the Mexicans might try to take it back but the Americans could probably handle that.
 
Not gonna happen.

come on. it's not impossible.
This wouldve been the second time Wilson would have had to intervene so I don't see why annexation, especially if came at a later date, wouldn't have been on the table if say they seize the province. establish it as a protectorate and then try to bring it in as a state later a la Hawaii

what with all that oil in 'dem hills'
 
Last edited:
Wilson faced himself a anti imperialist. He bumbled into a number of foreign adventures, Hati, Mexico, the European war, but annexation was on his Bad Things list. This was the guy who pushed self determination for ethinic groups and anti colonialism.
 
Wilson faced himself a anti imperialist. He bumbled into a number of foreign adventures, Hati, Mexico, the European war, but annexation was on his Bad Things list. This was the guy who pushed self determination for ethinic groups and anti colonialism.
What about TR? Or Hughes?
 
Don't know about Hughes. TR had a practical streak masked by his rhetoric. Neither could he be called a imperialist. While he was all for US power & influence he was more circumspect on out right control. He sensed some of the traps in that route & the Phillipines insurrection gave him some practical experience in those. He'd be less inclined to make the same mistakes in Mexico.

But, with anyone but Wilson a Vera Cruz adventure is unlikely. That reflected his lack of practical experience in foreign policy and some of his personal ideas on how to make friends and influence people. Again I can't say for Hughes, but TR is unlikely to make the same mistakes as Wilson and avoid the entire port occupation thing. Actually we would have seen a very different US policy and action in Mexico as the events played out there.
 
Don't know about Hughes. TR had a practical streak masked by his rhetoric. Neither could he be called a imperialist. While he was all for US power & influence he was more circumspect on out right control. He sensed some of the traps in that route & the Phillipines insurrection gave him some practical experience in those. He'd be less inclined to make the same mistakes in Mexico.

But, with anyone but Wilson a Vera Cruz adventure is unlikely. That reflected his lack of practical experience in foreign policy and some of his personal ideas on how to make friends and influence people. Again I can't say for Hughes, but TR is unlikely to make the same mistakes as Wilson and avoid the entire port occupation thing. Actually we would have seen a very different US policy and action in Mexico as the events played out there.
So getting plausible PODs to any POTUS invade, occupy, and annex Veracruz is pretty tough?
 
Like I wrote, I know to little about Hughes, or other potential presidents. Maybe if the Rockefellers had wanted it badly enough.... but their power had peaked earlier.
 
US annexation of Mexican territory was not in the cards anytime in the 20th Century. Only if we saw a complete and permanent collapse of the Mexican state (as a result of the Mexican Revolution/Civil War) might the US decide annexation of certain territories to be desirable versus the new status quo of feuding warlords.

However, I don't think Veracruz, despite the importance of the port and oilfields, would be one of those areas. It's not contiguous to the US and would result in ongoing security issues. It would be more likely annexation of areas in the north, particularly in the northwest such as Baja and Sonora and even Chihuahua. Those areas are sparsely populated (making it easier to assimilate), have lots of local US investment in mining and ranching, serves as a buffer to the current American border and population, and even has some substantial pro-US groups there (such as the Mormon colonies and the economic ties).

However, we'd need to see a very different revolution that sees a complete collapse of the state (as opposed to some group seizing control of it). It might happen given the many diverse interests who would fight each other for the next 10-20 years that the revolution unleashed, but it is very unlikely.
 
Top