YaATW2KT: The Second Mexican-American War

[sglancy12]

As part of my love of all things Red Dawn-ish, I like the idea of a Mexican-American War as part of the Twilight War.

Why? Obviously because I like a good foreign invasion... Getting impersonally nuked by some guy in a silo thousands of miles away just doesn't have the role-playing game entertainment value of enemy soldiers fighting through your neighborhood house-to-house. But are the Mexicans up for it?

Okay... much like the Soviet invasion of Alaska, there are giant technical and logistical hurtles for a Mexican invasion to get as far as it's supposed to... not to mention political hurtles. Mexico has to have the will to do this, but I think they can find it.

Mexico has always harbored a certain amount of resentment against the United States. After all, in 1848 we stole the 1/2 of their country that has all the cities and highways and industry in it. Then after that we have consistently treated Mexico as a source of cheap labor, cheap vacations and cheap vice. Our prosperity is seen as only possible because we made off with their prosperity. So it wouldn't take much propaganda to whip the Mexican population up. Not to mention, when is Mexico ever going to get a better time for some payback against the "Colossus of the North" than after we've been nuked? We're down, the time to put the boot in is before we get back up.

In the canon, the invasion takes place after an alliance of leftists and communists seize power in Mexico City during the chaos following the November 1997 limited strategic exchange. They invade because US citizen militias have declared open season on any Mexicans crossing the border into America.

Okay... a couple of problems here:

If America is nuked and Mexico isn't, why are there Mexican's trying to get into America?

If both Mexico and America are nuked, how does Mexico muster the logistical strength to mobilize their army and invade the American Southwest? Not to mention how do the Mexicans get the Soviet "Division Cuba" into Mexico if they have suffered a nuclear strike on their oil refining capacity?

I have one simple fix built into my my timeline:

Mexico is not nuked by the USSR in 1997. Their extraction and refining capacity is undamaged. So their access to fuel will give them a huge advantage over the US military which is fuel poor and spread out in 1998 doing disaster relief, food distribution, and attempting to impose order through martial law.

Instead, Mexico gets nuke by the United States. After they invade, we kill their oilfields and refineries which results in a complete logistical breakdown in their army and a political breakdown as the 8 million people living in Mexico City have to go without lights, water and food. Civil order breaks down and the civil war re-ignites. Invasion over, Mexican Army stranded across the southwest.

But what about the casus belli? The massacre of Mexican refugees in America? If Mexico is not nuked in 1997, why are Mexicans into a nuked America from Mexico?

In the canon, Mexico is in a low-grade civil war BEFORE the nukes fall. The PRI/PPS alliance that launches the invasion seizes power in early 1998, AFTER the nukes fall, so maybe the refugees that supposedly get massacred are people who fled the civil war in the mid-1990s and were living in refugee camps along the south west border. After the nukes fall, those camps aren't going to get any more shipments of food. At first they go asking for food. Then they tool up and start demanding the food or else. Then the Southwestern American (well known for their embracing of the 2nd Amendment) start fighting these marauder bands, or even running off refugee groups that haven't turned marauder yet, and now you've got your bloodbath, with the refugee/marauders getting the worst of it.

On the other hand, maybe the PRS/PPS alliance just invented the stories of "massacres" of refugees? Maybe they also whipped up the population with stories (ala Hugo Chavez) that the Americans were about to invade to seize Mexico's oil industries. Maybe they sell the invasion as a "pre-emptive" attack?

There are some other ways Mexico can be assisted in their invasion.

Maybe "Division Cuba" is larger than a division? Maybe they bring some undamaged air assets beside Mi-28 Hind Ds? Some Mig-23s or Su-27s could make things easier for the Mexicans.

Maybe the Cubans and Nicaraguans are providing troops, advisers, or equipment disguised by wearing Mexican uniforms and sporting Mexican livery? In my timeline the Sandinistas regain power in 1996. They could be helping the Mexicans, and then quickly regret sending some of their military out of the country when Hurrican Mitch plows through in October of 1998. By then, after the US has nuked the Mexicans energy reserves, any Sandinistas in Mexico are marooned there.

After Hugo Chavez is elected President of Venezulea in December of 1998, he can throw some fuel and other assistance at the Mexicans. He'll probably be sending aid to his ideological brothers in Nicaragua too.

Any other suggestions on how the invasion can be made more plausible? Certainly the Mexican OOB from Red Star/Lone Star and Challenge Magazine needs to be revamped to include units that were left out. But that only amounts to a few thousand more men. There are some very good OOBs available on this site right now.

There's also the possibility that Mexican Drug cartels might be looking to move into the Warlord business now that their market for cocaine has dried up. These groups might be interested in acting as privateers... seizing American territory while claiming to be acting in the name of Mexico? The Tiajuana Cartel reinventing itself as a modern Division del Norte?

What other events or factors could be knit into the alternative history to make the Second Mexican-American War more plausible... or rather, making the Mexican's temporary successes more plausible.

A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing

[Mohoender]

[QUOTE=sglancy12;12786]
If America is nuked and Mexico isn't, why are there Mexican's trying to get into America?
[QUOTE]

They don't. Mexicans living in US cross back into Mexico and they are soon followed by US citizens fleeing to what they think is a safer area.

[QUOTE=sglancy12;12786]
Mexico is not nuked by the USSR in 1997. Their extraction and refining capacity is undamaged. So their access to fuel will give them a huge advantage over the US military which is fuel poor and spread out in 1998 doing disaster relief, food distribution, and attempting to impose order through martial law.
[QUOTE]

agree

[QUOTE=sglancy12;12786]
Instead, Mexico gets nuke by the United States. After they invade, we kill their oilfields and refineries which results in a complete logistical breakdown in their army and a political breakdown as the 8 million people living in Mexico City have to go without lights, water and food. Civil order breaks down and the civil war re-ignites. Invasion over, Mexican Army stranded across the southwest.
[QUOTE]

Agree again, but that nuking could be limited and part of the Mexican oil facilities might survive.

[QUOTE=sglancy12;12786]
But what about the casus belli? The massacre of Mexican refugees in America? If Mexico is not nuked in 1997, why are Mexicans into a nuked America from Mexico?
[QUOTE]

They are not and the massacred refugees are US citizens living in refugee camps into Mexico. The Casus Belli is provided by small US units crossing the border in an attempt to relief them.

[QUOTE=sglancy12;12786]
On the other hand, maybe the PRS/PPS alliance just invented the stories of "massacres" of refugees? Maybe they also whipped up the population with stories (ala Hugo Chavez) that the Americans were about to invade to seize Mexico's oil industries. Maybe they sell the invasion as a "pre-emptive" attack?
[QUOTE]

That's what some in the US do.

[QUOTE=sglancy12;12786]
Maybe "Division Cuba" is larger than a division? Maybe they bring some undamaged air assets beside Mi-28 Hind Ds? Some Mig-23s or Su-27s could make things easier for the Mexicans.

Maybe the Cubans and Nicaraguans are providing troops, advisers, or equipment disguised by wearing Mexican uniforms and sporting Mexican livery? In my timeline the Sandinistas regain power in 1996. They could be helping the Mexicans, and then quickly regret sending some of their military out of the country when Hurrican Mitch plows through in October of 1998. By then, after the US has nuked the Mexicans energy reserves, any Sandinistas in Mexico are marooned there.
[QUOTE]

Division Cuba is enough but you can count on some air support. Yes cubans could be involved and may be Venezuelian. Cubans can be quite numerous with veteran troops previously located in Angola.

[QUOTE=sglancy12;12786]
After Hugo Chavez is elected President of Venezulea in December of 1998, he can throw some fuel and other assistance at the Mexicans. He'll probably be sending aid to his ideological brothers in Nicaragua too.
[QUOTE]

Why would Chavez be elected in 1998? Isn't it easier to have him elected in 1993 after a successful coup in 1992?

An important point that can explain the Mexican success would be the relative weakness of the US 4th Fleet. IMO the US navy lacks any carrier in the area and if successful it remains unable to fully control the carribeans.

[pmulcahy11b]

Just a little note -- your HTML code for quotes are missing the opening and closing slashes. (That's why I don't dare hand-code my site; I already have enough problems with keeping info current and accurate to have to worry about a missing character in my HTML code. How Antenna manages to hand-code his entire site is beyond my comprehension!)

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by sglancy12

Maybe "Division Cuba" is larger than a division? Maybe they bring some undamaged air assets beside Mi-28 Hind Ds? Some Mig-23s or Su-27s could make things easier for the Mexicans.

In Red Star, Lone Star, Kelly AFB and Ft. Sam Houston are relatively undamaged, as is San Antonio International Airport; that would give plenty of room for aircraft (or at Ft. Sam, helicopters -- there are no runways there). Just south of San Antonio there is a small civil airfield called Stinson Field, which is big enough for helicopters and light aircraft and also serves as an emergency landing field for Randolph AFB's T-37 trainers.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by sglancy12

Mexico is not nuked by the USSR in 1997. Their extraction and refining capacity is undamaged. So their access to fuel will give them a huge advantage over the US military which is fuel poor and spread out in 1998 doing disaster relief, food distribution, and attempting to impose order through martial law.

Here's a thought: Neither side nukes the Mexican oil, because both sides want it. Sounds like a good reason to have Soviet/Mexican-on-US action in the Gulf and the east coast of Mexico -- a nasty little special ops war. Sounds tasty!

[Targan]

Previous threads related to this topic.

Florida/Cuba http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=312

Latin America in the Twilight War http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=379

Red Star, Lone Star http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=658

Mexican Army Sourcebook http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=837

Mexican Army Sourcebook complete http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=894

Lead up to the Mexican Invasion http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=846

[jester]

Mexico:

Division De Cuba is not just the division but all the other Technical Specialists and several Sailors and Airmen whose vessels were grounded there, due to enemy action making it impossible for them to escape and survive. Vessels damaged that could make port but could not go much further, they couldn't cross the Atlantic let alone cross it and deal with a fight should they encounter Nato assets. However, they could make for the mainland! <Think of a Russian Version of Going Home> And thus you have a force of a Division of regular combat troops plus a second Division of technical specialists, civilians and naval and air personel as well.

We toss in other Russian Refugees who were given the word to go to Cuba or Mexico when hostilities began, so they now have a group of say 100k consisting of about 30 or 40K military, another 20k of civilian specialists and government workers and the rest would be their families or families, freinds, supporters and servants.

I would also toss in the whole civil war in mexico as a good thing plotwise.

As for getting involved without Nukes,

Add a Division sized group of specialists and military and their family to help the mexi's develope and protect their oil assets so they can supply the russians with oil, maybe even a naval and air instilation as well so that adds another 10 or 20k people.

The US not wanting to stand for that sends in some light forces to sieze or damage some of their oil assets. After all times are desperate, and that oil would do ALOT to aleivate the problems at home. However, the mexi's are not thrilled with the idea even if they are to be paid, so they respond, Ivan joins in <although their housing russians forces in the region could make them an ally and combatant>

And also, mexican forces begin raiding the US Southwest taking advantage of the chaos, locals defend themselves so the mexi's get bigger and bolder, the US sends forces and before long the two sides are clashing, some of the bandits are actual mexican army forces, and here we are! Then, there could be a series of expeditions on either side going deep across the boarder conducting raids. This culminates in some full scale battles on both sides of the border, however the mexis manage to muster forces spearheaded by russian forces and they make their move into the US SW. This is also coordinated with the russian forces in Alaska, a few long range patrols comming S. to open lines of communication and link up. The actual link is minimal, but the whole idea of being able to contact freindly forces is a huge moral builder. From there, my concept is they manage to link up somewhere and either establish a self sustaining defendable catonment, and/or plan a way to get back home. \

Here is an idea, the Sovs head for the mothball fleet at Sussion Bay S. of Frisco and want to bring a couple of the larger vessels online to sail home in. A little far fetched but it would make for a good campaign, russian colony in the middle of the West or Pacific Northwest would be wild.

[Webstral]

As a preamble to my reply, I want to acknowledge that as a group we’re a still a bit touchy about the incident a while back involving Chico’s work. I want to acknowledge publicly that I very much appreciate the hard work Chico and the DC Group put in, even if I don’t agree with everything they create. I also want to acknowledge that my previous assumption that we were trying to build a more-or-less cohesive vision of a fleshed-out Twilight: 2000 world was off-base and led to some vigorous disagreements in which I had a hand. I’m now operating under the assumption that what we’re doing here is more of a show-and-tell that is not intended to lead to a cohesive vision among the Board’s members, regardless of however much I might like a cohesive vision.

Originally Posted by sglancy12

Mexico has always harbored a certain amount of resentment against the United States. After all, in 1848 we stole the 1/2 of their country that has all the cities and highways and industry in it. Then after that we have consistently treated Mexico as a source of cheap labor, cheap vacations and cheap vice. Our prosperity is seen as only possible because we made off with their prosperity. So it wouldn't take much propaganda to whip the Mexican population up. Not to mention, when is Mexico ever going to get a better time for some payback against the "Colossus of the North" than after we've been nuked? We're down, the time to put the boot in is before we get back up.

I like your answer to this question. I agree that the causes belli can be whatever the powers-that-be believe will work. The ruling party will need a unifying factor that will supersede internecine strife and make the Mexicans forget that some of them really hate each other. Foreign adventures have been attempted since there were groups of humans to compete over things.

Originally Posted by sglancy12

If America is nuked and Mexico isn't, why are there Mexican's trying to get into America?

I believe the Soviets would nuke Mexico’s oil because the Soviets are arch conservatives. Imagine the situation from the Soviet point of view. The US is full of Mexican-Americans. Suppose that those conniving Yankees find a way to use all of those Mexican-Americans to gain access to Mexico’s oil? Suppose an American-supported coup or revolution in Mexico overturns the nationalist government and replaces that government with a regime far more friendly to the US. The Mexicans who emigrate to the US are the people most likely to want regime change; they were so unhappy with the state of things that they left their native land. There are millions of them in the US. The Soviets’ ability to influence this state of affairs is not going to be very great, the presence of Division Cuba notwithstanding. It would be hard for the Kremlin to say how likely a US-led revolution in Mexico would be, or whether such a revolution would succeed. However, to deeply conservative and paranoid people, the possibility of a pro-US revolution or coup in Mexico would be real. This would give the US a significant boost during the recovery stage, if access to oil means anything. Better by far to use the missiles already available to knock out the Mexican oil, then blame the US. Set the neighbors against each other. Succeed where the Germans failed.

Provided one can buy off on a Soviet strike on Mexico’s refineries, things get worse in Mexico very quickly for the dark-skinned Mexicans. We should bear in mind that for all the US is racist, Mexico is much worse. Mayans and other dark-skinned Mexicans who clearly have a good deal of Aztec, Mixtec, or other non-European blood are second-class citizens. The Zapatistas of the Yucatan Peninsula didn’t appear out of nowhere. The ruling elites are going to use the assets of the state for their purposes, whether Mexico’s refineries are nuked by the US or the USSR or not nuked at all. The disruption of foreign trade will have an enormous impact on Mexico’s economy, again regardless of the situation with the refineries.

Once the nukes start flying, I believe Mexico will go to full mobilization. Who knows how far such a thing will go? One never knows what will cause those unwashed mestizos to try to grab a slice of the pie, so better to have the Army mobilized during the nuclear exchange than not. Stockpiling supplies (like fuel) can begin during this period. After all, Mexico must have some sort of contingency planning. Not having nukes doesn’t mean immunity from nukes.

Once Mexico’s refineries are hit, the ruling elites will try to keep everything for themselves. The triage plan in post-Exchange America will look benign by comparison. Better for the dark-skinned types to die off and leave Mexico for the Europeans. Thus the flood of refugees across the US-Mexico border. The ruling party is glad to be rid of the refugees; massacres in the US are of interest only if they can be used to sucker the starving Indians and Indian-heavy mestizos into starving to death with patriotic fervor.

As a consequence of all of the above factors taken together, millions of Mexicans have a high degree of motivation to take their chances across the border. They might be screwed in America, but they’re screwed for sure at home. The Army is already mobilized as of 01/01/98. Supplies (food and fuel) have been stockpiled ahead of time, although they were originally stockpiled to help the Army maintain internal order. The Mexican elites decide to invade the US to kill two birds with one stone: revenge against the US while the window is open and the unification of public opinion behind the state.

Yes, I’m painting a pretty grim picture of the national leadership of Mexico. It’s pretty grim today. It was worse twelve years ago when the same party had enjoyed control virtually since the Mexican Civil War (which killed ten million Mexicans, I might add). One doesn’t need to dig very far to discover the intensity of race consciousness in Mexico. The dark-skinned Mexicans, who presumably have the least European blood, are at the bottom of the heap. To one degree or another, it’s that way across Latin America. Ugly, but true.

People are free to do with my interpretation of events as they see fit.

Webstral

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by sglancy12

Mexico has always harbored a certain amount of resentment against the United States. After all, in 1848 we stole the 1/2 of their country that has all the cities and highways and industry in it. Then after that we have consistently treated Mexico as a source of cheap labor, cheap vacations and cheap vice. Our prosperity is seen as only possible because we made off with their prosperity. So it wouldn't take much propaganda to whip the Mexican population up. Not to mention, when is Mexico ever going to get a better time for some payback against the "Colossus of the North" than after we've been nuked? We're down, the time to put the boot in is before we get back up.

I agree with you that many Mexicans harbor resentment towards the U.S., resentment that can be traced back to the 1848 war and even earlier to the Texas War of Independence. But the 1/2 of Mexico "stolen" by the U.S. did not have "all the cities and highways and industry in it". In fact, most of Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona were very sparsely populated with Mexican citizens and their distance from the Mexican national capitol in Mexico City made administering and controlling said territories extremely difficult for the Mexican government. Furthermore, the territories in question were extremely underdeveloped when the U.S. decided to attempt to take them by force. In fact, the Mexican government originally invited U.S. settlers into Mexican Texas in order to "civilize" it (i.e. suppress hostile Native American tribes and develop the region economically). This was easier for the Mexican government than trying to settle and control the region itself. Of course, this turned out to be a bad idea for the Mexican government as soon the American settlers in Texas far outnumbered the Mexican population there and began agitating for independence.

I'm not justifying the 1848 Mexican War or the annexation of Mexican territory that followed, but I wanted to clear up the misconception that the region annexed by the U.S. was a particularly "rich" prize, at the time.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I'm not justifying the 1848 Mexican War or the annexation of Mexican territory that followed, but I wanted to clear up the misconception that the region annexed by the U.S. was a particularly "rich" prize, at the time.

I do understand that viewpoint, to a point. But let me put it this way:

Down in the Southeast corner of my backyard, there is an area which, despite all attempts to remedy it, will grow no grass. It doesn't matter what mulch, fertilizer, or grass seed I put down there, or how much I water it. I can fence it off from the dogs so they don't trample on it. The grass will not grow down there.

But do I want someone to look and say, "That land sucks; he won't miss it anyway."? No! It's my land, and one day I might find a way to grow grass on it!

[weswood]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I do understand that viewpoint, to a point. But let me put it this way:

Down in the Southeast corner of my backyard, there is an area which, despite all attempts to remedy it, will grow no grass. It doesn't matter what mulch, fertilizer, or grass seed I put down there, or how much I water it. I can fence it off from the dogs so they don't trample on it. The grass will not grow down there.

But do I want someone to look and say, "That land sucks; he won't miss it anyway."? No! It's my land, and one day I might find a way to grow grass on it!

Or the reason grass doesn't grow is there's oil down there! Start diggin!

It's odd to talk about a Mexican invasion. I hear La Raza is saying Texas and the southweatern states were basically stolen from the Mexican government.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

But do I want someone to look and say, "That land sucks; he won't miss it anyway."? No! It's my land, and one day I might find a way to grow grass on it!

I'm not saying that the Mexicans don't have a right to be upset or that the land doesn't have sentimental value, just that, at the time, the land itself was not a particularly rich prize. Even today, I wouldn't necessarily consider Arizona (my home state) or New Mexico industrial or agricultural power houses. Heck, Arizona didn't meet the criteria for statehood until 1912, over half-a-century after most of it was taken from Mexico (not including the portion acquired by the Gadsen purchase).

[sglancy12]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I agree with you that many Mexicans harbor resentment towards the U.S., resentment that can be traced back to the 1848 war and even earlier to the Texas War of Independence. But the 1/2 of Mexico "stolen" by the U.S. did not have "all the cities and highways and industry in it".

How dumb do you think I am that I really believe the southwest of 1848 was filled with cities and highways and industry?

I was being sarcastic. When we "stole" the south-west it was a desolate wasteland, filled with hostile Indian tribes and governed in name only by Mexico City. Which means when we stole it is was STILL a desolate wasteland, filled with hostile Indian tribes, except now governed in name only by Washington D.C..

In my opinion, if Mexico had held onto the North American southwest, then the illegal immigrants would just be crossing the Arkansas River to get to the jobs and health care and education, instead of the Rio Grande.

What I was trying to point out is that some modern Mexican resentment over the 1848 war also stems from the fact that we developed our desolate wasteland and their desolate wasteland is still just... well, desolate wasteland. There is a serious inferiority complex that comes into play during relations between Mexico and the USA. In any TW2K alternative history, that inferiority complex could be manipulated into a popular political push for war (particularly AFTER the US has been nuked) so that Mexico can right all the wrongs it has suffered for the past 150 years! Hell! Maybe they push to start the war on the 150th anniversary of the War of 1848!

Hmmm... just checked.... war starts in 1846 and ENDs in 1848... of course maybe the date that holds the emotional impact is the date the humiliating Treaty of Guatalupe Hidalgo was signed: Feb. 2, 1848... 150 years later it's 02/02/98 and the US is nuked, soviet troops are in Alaska... maybe that's the date the Mexican government picks to release the report of Mexican refugees being killed on the US border? If they start getting people angry in February, that gives the Mexicans plenty of time to get the war rolling by summer.


A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by sglancy12

How dumb do you think I am

Wut?

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by sglancy12

How dumb do you think I am

Cool down guys. I don't think any offense was intended from both side.

By the way Raellus what you say about industries is right but when you report it to history, it is equally false.

You forgot one thing. In 1848, industries were rare all over the union anyway as the economy was still focusing on raw materials and agriculture. When California (along with "1/2 Mexico") was taken over by the future USA it brought along things that were as valuable as industries and technologies today:
- Very fertile areas, rich forests, mineral ressources including gold and many other things (These lands were potentially rich).
- Several spots that would soon become major ports on the Pacific and the first step toward US development in Asia.
- Similarly, a valuable connection to the entire American West Coast (the Panama Canal was not even dreamed of and the Cape Horn was a tricky route). That will prove more than important in 1876 with rail development.
...

However, I don't think it was stolen (of course, I understand that some Mexicans might feel that way).

Texas might indeed have been stolen (Ouch! I should be careful, there are plenty of Texas boys around, probably ready to bite at a small bouncing froggy ) as I have the feeling that anglo-saxon settlers did something similar to what the Albanian just did with Kosovo (with a main difference, nonetheless: Kosovo has been part of Serbia for centuries, not true for Texas with Mexico). Whatever, it was 200 years ago and it worked (What is a shame for Kosovo can be seen as brilliant for Texas IMO and depending on your point of view): nowadays, no doubt that Texas is to the Texans (with close ties to Mexico or we would not be eating Tex-Mex). In fact, these lands were never stolen from Mexicans, they were stolen from several American Indian People (by Mexicans and Anglo-saxons alike).

California (+Arizona, New Mexico...) is an entirely different matter and I retain the feeling that internal tensions within Mexico greatly favored its loss. Of course, Anglo-saxon settlers were again more than deeply involved into it but corrupt Mexican officials greatly helped them (also I'm not a specialist of that period). By the way, funny, I just found out that the Russians established a military outpost in northern California at that time. It didn't bring them far but it could have been interesting if things had turned differently.

Whatever, I have no doubt that without the taking over of the entire northern part of Mexico with no consideration for the Adams-Onis treaty signed in 1819 (but Spain was no more the actor two years later) allowed US to become what it is today. I'm convinced that without this political move, US would never have become a great power.

Best wishes from the Froggy

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

Cool down guys. I don't think any offense was intended from both side.

By the way Raellus what you say about industries is right but when you report it to history, it is equally false.

You forgot one thing. In 1848, industries were rare all over the union anyway as the economy was still focusing on raw materials and agriculture. When California (along with "1/2 Mexico") was taken over by the future USA it brought along things that were as valuable as industries and technologies today:
- Very fertile areas, rich forests, mineral ressources including gold and many other things (These lands were potentially rich).
- Several spots that would soon become major ports on the Pacific and the first step toward US development in Asia.
- Similarly, a valuable connection to the entire American West Coast (the Panama Canal was not even dreamed of and the Cape Horn was a tricky route). That will prove more than important in 1876 with rail development.
...

Good point, Moh. There certainly was/is economic potential in the regions annexed from Mexico. The problem was that the Mexican government was doing very little to exploit and develop that potential. To the Mexican government, AZ, NM, TX, CA, etc. were bothersome frontier areas, difficult and costly to manage and administer. They took the easy way out by allowing/encouraging American settlers to move into the areas and ended up paying the price once the settlers became entrenched and started considering the region to be an American suzereignty.

It's sort of ironic because in a sense, the opposite is happening now. American citizens tend to disdain certain lines of work (agricultural and landscaping, construction, service industries, etc.) and so basically invite Mexican nationals to migrate, legally and illegally, in order to fill those jobs. Then many American citizens complain about the social and economic costs associated with this migration, feeling that the Mexicans are "taking over" parts of the country. I guess that's Karma.

And SGlancy, please, I was not trying to insult your intelligence. I simply did not detect your intended sarcasm.

[sglancy12]

Originally Posted by Raellus

And SGlancy, please, I was not trying to insult your intelligence. I simply did not detect your intended sarcasm.

When you gently corrected the obvious fallacy in my statement, it came off to me like you were talking down to the village idiot. That was just my interpretation, not how you wrote it.

Clearly I have a chip on my shoulder about being a FNG on this site.

A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing

[weswood]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

-
Texas might indeed have been stolen (Ouch! I should be careful, there are plenty of Texas boys around, probably ready to bite at a small bouncing froggy )

Yeah, well, it wasn't nailed down or anything...

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by weswood

Yeah, well, it wasn't nailed down or anything...

And they did just leaving it laying around where pretty much anyone could find it. The US did them a favour by moving in and keeping an eye on the place...

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by weswood

Yeah, well, it wasn't nailed down or anything...

Well, how do you think Rhode Island got it's name? Someone stole it, and it got rowed back!

(You guys didn't watch SuperChicken when you were kids, did you...)

[Targan]

Originally Posted by sglancy12

How dumb do you think I am that I really believe the southwest of 1848 was filled with cities and highways and industry?

Be cool Mr President. No one here thinks you are dumb.

[Mohoender]

Taking distance from Canon and using our various exchange, I wrote this. It might not please everyone but I hope you'll find some ideas interesting. Several elements remain vague but that is on purpose and, in addition, I didn't want to develop the final outcome. Constructive suggestions are more than welcome as this is very foreign to me

Late in the Twilight War, after US was subjected to nuclear strikes, people starts to flee and cross the border into Mexico. Among these people, you find Anglo-saxons but most are US citizens of Mexican descent.

They are expecting a warm welcome but the Mexican government, also still untouched by the war, is experiencing difficulties of its own. A political crisis just brought up a socialist coalition to power and the destruction of world exchange has reduced income. Nevertheless, Mexico is still exporting a lot to the weakened US, generally for outrageous prices (vehicles, oil products and ammunitions). Else, growing unemployment, ethnic tensions (Chiapas…), drug cartels and internal corruption are slowly resulting in internal unrest.
The refugees are not that welcome and they are soon directed toward camps along the border. The Mexican government does its best to treat them well but it is lacking in supply and the situation soon decays. Then, words are brought to the US (by rogue journalists) about mistreatment of the refuges. These accusations have no real ground outside of isolated events but US has no means of verifying them and they are sufficient to trigger the machine. General Chief of Staff, order the army to gather what it has left (a few lightly mechanized national guard units, some newly formed cavalry border regiments, little air support, and a majority of under equipped infantry units, often closer to local militias) and send these troops into Mexico to help US citizens and bring them relief.
Outraged by this sudden violation of its sovereignty the Mexican government orders its own army to move against the US troops. Under normal conditions, the Mexican Army is, of course, no match for US but this is far from a normal situation and the still well organized Mexican armoured cavalry units, benefiting from air support and well supplied in fuel meet with outstanding success. Within a week the US invaders have been repelled and several Mexican units have crossed the Rio Grande and established outpost on US soil. The situation could have gone no further but the US General Chief of Staff (now aware that the first intervention was far from being justified) decide to order a counter attack, this time officially declaring war to Mexico.
For the first time, the war is on the Latin American continent and within days the most anti-US government in the region grants their support to Mexico (Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela). For a fairly long time, the US 4th Fleet (largely under strength because of the war) remains unable to control the Caribbean and the western Mexican coast. As a result, reinforcements are coming from Latin American countries and Mexico is soon capable of pushing its advantage.
- Venezuela (which received Russian T-90 before the war) delivers its stored AMX-30 to Mexico (as a result Mexico is capable of fielding an armored brigade) along with light infantry units and combat squadrons (among them, a number of Su-30). In the meantime, supported by Ecuador attacks are conducted on Columbia.
- Nicaragua doesn’t send any troops but it launches an attack through Costa Rica in an attempt to seize the Panama Canal. This fails when Guatemala and Honduras enters the war on the side of the US.
- Division “Latin America” (“Cuba” if you prefer) is assembled and sent to Mexico.
- Cuba is the country to send the most important number of troops to Mexico (Armored, Infantry, Air support). Cuban troops also attempt to land in Florida but this is countered and meets with a dramatic failure (almost no Cubans escape).
However, while the Mexican population widely supported the counter offensive directed toward the first US invasion, it seems that the people are quickly growing tired of the full scale war now underway. Despite new but more limited military success, unrest is growing in the country and the Mexican Army quickly loose spirit. For the second time, the war could have come to its end.
Again peace fail to come as an ambitious Mexican politician succeeds in giving war a second breath. Refering to past history and stating that the borders of Mexico (designed by the Adams-Onis treaty) should be that of 1819, he gather a wide support from the population and the Latin American coalition soon finds itself on the push again. Now the US 4th Fleet has gathered enough strength to disrupt regular shipping in the Carribean and the US is facing this new push with better organized troops but they are still outmatched. After a few months (several weeks) of regular fighting, the US is still unable to stop the Latin American progression and unrest is growing oll over the USA. Faced with the potential full destruction of the state, the General Chief of Staff orders several nuclear strikes on the Latin American countries involved. Mexican and Venezuelian oil facilities are targeted along with Mexico City, Managua, La Havana and Caracas.
As a result, most operations come to an end, civil chaos appear everywhere and the Mexican Civil War is triggered….

[ToughOmbres]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I agree with you that many Mexicans harbor resentment towards the U.S., resentment that can be traced back to the 1848 war and even earlier to the Texas War of Independence. But the 1/2 of Mexico "stolen" by the U.S. did not have "all the cities and highways and industry in it". In fact, most of Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona were very sparsely populated with Mexican citizens and their distance from the Mexican national capitol in Mexico City made administering and controlling said territories extremely difficult for the Mexican government. Furthermore, the territories in question were extremely underdeveloped when the U.S. decided to attempt to take them by force. In fact, the Mexican government originally invited U.S. settlers into Mexican Texas in order to "civilize" it (i.e. suppress hostile Native American tribes and develop the region economically). This was easier for the Mexican government than trying to settle and control the region itself. Of course, this turned out to be a bad idea for the Mexican government as soon the American settlers in Texas far outnumbered the Mexican population there and began agitating for independence.

I'm not justifying the 1848 Mexican War or the annexation of Mexican territory that followed, but I wanted to clear up the misconception that the region annexed by the U.S. was a particularly "rich" prize, at the time.

For Context, the U.S. and Mexico had an incredibly difficult relationship to try to navigate.
1. As early as Andrew Jackson's presidency, the US offered to buy California. Mexico refused to even discuss the matter.

2. US admittance of Texas into the Union was another friction point.

3. Mexico welcomed US settlers into TX-up to a point. Mexican officials wanted some presence against Native Americans and lawless elements. American migrants such as S.F. Austin were glad to have the land, less then enthusiastic about observing the terms and conditions that came with the land.In particular, the Mexico Constitution at the time banned slavery. Americans came in huge numbers and brought slaves with them in direct violation of Mexican law which infuriated Mexican officials.

4. By the Polk Administration, President Polk was very aware of the potential of the China trade for both missionary and trade ties-San Diego was a potential port, naval base AND and possible end for a southern-route Transcontinental Railroad. One of the leading advocates of a southern route for the Transcontinental Railroad was Secty of War Jefferson Davis btw.

5. Candidly, Polk was willing to settle for dividing Oregon with Britain but more than willing to go to war with Mexico. When asked about this seeming contradiction, Senator Thomas Hart Benton put it best-"Because dear sir, Britain is so strong and Mexico is so weak." (His words, not mine).

6. Last but not least, an increasingly democratic America was a sharp contrast to autocratic Mexico under Santa Anna-there were also border disputes (Rio Grande vs. the Nueces River) and the question Mexican debts owed to the US and US citizens.

Just context from a historian and my .02 for background. "Alas, Mexico, so far from God and so close to the United States." -author unknown.

[castlebravo92]

Originally Posted by ToughOmbres

For Context, the U.S. and Mexico had an incredibly difficult relationship to try to navigate.
1. As early as Andrew Jackson's presidency, the US offered to buy California. Mexico refused to even discuss the matter.

2. US admittance of Texas into the Union was another friction point.

3. Mexico welcomed US settlers into TX-up to a point. Mexican officials wanted some presence against Native Americans and lawless elements. American migrants such as S.F. Austin were glad to have the land, less then enthusiastic about observing the terms and conditions that came with the land.In particular, the Mexico Constitution at the time banned slavery. Americans came in huge numbers and brought slaves with them in direct violation of Mexican law which infuriated Mexican officials.

4. By the Polk Administration, President Polk was very aware of the potential of the China trade for both missionary and trade ties-San Diego was a potential port, naval base AND and possible end for a southern-route Transcontinental Railroad. One of the leading advocates of a southern route for the Transcontinental Railroad was Secty of War Jefferson Davis btw.

5. Candidly, Polk was willing to settle for dividing Oregon with Britain but more than willing to go to war with Mexico. When asked about this seeming contradiction, Senator Thomas Hart Benton put it best-"Because dear sir, Britain is so strong and Mexico is so weak." (His words, not mine).

6. Last but not least, an increasingly democratic America was a sharp contrast to autocratic Mexico under Santa Anna-there were also border disputes (Rio Grande vs. the Nueces River) and the question Mexican debts owed to the US and US citizens.

Just context from a historian and my .02 for background. "Alas, Mexico, so far from God and so close to the United States." -author unknown.

Almost completely off topic, but my wife is Mexican-American and we'll get into these debates on "whose land is it anyway" when the topic of immigration comes up. I make it a point to tell her that first Spain and later Mexico invited white settlers into Texas from America (and also Europe) because they were struggling to find Spanish or Mexican settlers dumb enough to settle Comancheria. The Comanches burned back the Spanish settlement line almost 1,000 miles back into Mexico except for some fortified towns like El Paso and San Antonio.

The short-lived Texas Republic was one of those improbable flukes of history. Fight the Texas revolutionary war 100 times, and the Texans probably lose 98-99 times out of a 100. Mexico was actually a well developed, well populated state in 1835, while Texas was a sparsely settled backwater frontier. Texas had no business beating Mexico.

Even when the US and Mexico went to war in 1845, a lot of Europeans thought the "professional" Mexican army built on the European model would make quick work of the rag-tag militia army of the Americans.

[Raellus]

Y'all probably knew about this already, but in case you didn't, Six Flags is named that because the flags of Spain, Mexico, France, Republic of Texas, the CSA, and USA have flown over the state where the company was founded.

https://investors.sixflags.com/inves...ark%27s%20name.

-

[bash]

One thing to consider if that after TDM the countries outlined on maps no longer functionally exist. Federal power only extends as far as agencies and military units that recognize that authority. So Mexico and Force Cuba invading isn't so much resisted by the US government but a bunch of individual towns in the invaded states.

Additionally I imagine the situation in Mexico likely isn't too different than the US with MilGov, CivGov, and New America. Multiple factions in Mexico have different influence with different military units and relationships with Russia and Cuba. The force invading the US is just one of the power blocs in the country.

I would also posit that post-TDM the US southwest is going to have seen a massive wave of emigration. Deserts have a low carrying capacity. A lot of cities of the Southwest are impractical without a lot of fuel-intensive infrastructure.

So not only is the southern border not have a lot of coordinated defense but what people are left don't have a lot of resources available to defend against a moderately coordinated and cohesive force. That's even ignoring the heavy handed and draconian resource stealing by the USG.