NationStates Jolt Archive

What kind of world would we live in today if Mexico had won the Mexican American War?

Would the South have then beaten the North in the Civil War?
Would the United States be too small and insignificant to help its European allies in World War II?
Would Hitler have been able to keep control of Europe if he had won the Second World War?
Would Mexico be a super power?
Would Australia be the biggest exporter of television and film to satisfy the international english speaking world?
Or would Spanish be the main language of the world?
Would Los Angeles even exist as a major city?

If Mexico had won the Mexican-American War, it would have demanded the return of Texas and, depending on how badly the Americans were defeated, it might have happened. Texas would likely have fought a second war for independence from Mexico and the U.S. likely would have covertly supported it. If Texas were to win enough battles, that covert support would likely have become OVERT and there would have been a second war.

Long-term, it would have taken until approximately 1910 before the United States emerged from its shell as a viable world power, and it would have taken an attack from Hitler on New York to goad the U.S. into World War II.

Would the United States be too small and insignificant to help its European allies in World War II?

I'd call it a toss-up. Here's why.

Assuming no Second Mexican War, Mexico retains control of Texas and California. Therefore, it becomes a major Pacific power with a large oil reserve.

The United States being cut off from the Pacific, Spain retains control of the Philippines, and there's no impetus on the part of the USA for the Pnama Canal. I could see Hawaii ending up as either a British or Spanish, or even Mexican protectorate.

The upshot of all this is that Japan ends up at war with either Spain or Mexico. Or maybe not. It depends on whether they get cut off from Mexican oil the way they did from American oil in "the real world".

True, the United States would be smaller and less significant than it was in "the real world". On the other hand, it wouldn't be faced with having to fight in the Pacific. On the other other hand, absent Pearl Harbor, the USA might stay out of the war longer than they did in "the real world".

Sorry. That was my first post here, and I didn't figure out how to do proper quoting until after I posted it.

What I should've said was:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Would the United States be too small and insignificant to help its European allies in World War II?

I'd call it a toss-up. Here's why:

BLAH BLAH BLAH

BLAH BLAH BLAH

BLAH BLAH BLAH

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remember that you too were once a newbie, and forgive me. :)

Can you imagine American immigrants illegally crossing mexican border?

What kind of world would we live in today if Mexico had won the Mexican American War?



Your gardener would be your boss, and you'd be taking a crash course in arboreal architecture. Frankly, I'd love to see a lot of these "I'm scared of getting my hands in the dirt" lily white types out there in their own yards laying pipe for their new sprinkler system.

Would the United States be too small and insignificant to help its European allies in World War II?

I'd call it a toss-up. Here's why.

I disagree, and here's why.

Assuming no Second Mexican War, Mexico retains control of Texas and California. Therefore, it becomes a major Pacific power with a large oil reserve.

There has to be a Second Mexican War. The Americans were too warhawkish in that period. A second war would be inevitable.

The United States being cut off from the Pacific, Spain retains control of the Philippines, and there's no impetus on the part of the USA for the Pnama Canal. I could see Hawaii ending up as either a British or Spanish, or even Mexican protectorate.

The US would not be cut off from the Pacific, reaching it instead via Oregon and Washington. A transcontinental railroad would still be possible, but the Panama Canal would still be necessary. The Philippines were not the primary reason for building the canal. The ability to move naval assets quickly between the two oceans was.

The upshot of all this is that Japan ends up at war with either Spain or Mexico. Or maybe not. It depends on whether they get cut off from Mexican oil the way they did from American oil in "the real world".

I can see Japan acquiring the Philippines pretty easily, whether they are still a Spanish possession or gain their independence by themselves.

True, the United States would be smaller and less significant than it was in "the real world". On the other hand, it wouldn't be faced with having to fight in the Pacific. On the other other hand, absent Pearl Harbor, the USA might stay out of the war longer than they did in "the real world".

The US was industrializing and populating too fast for Mexico to keep up. Though the two were at nearly the same fighting weight during the real war (with brilliant generalship on the part of Taylor providing the decisive edge), a second war a decade or so later would provide the US with an increasing edge. The acquisition of California was a foregone conclusion.

The only way that Mexico could have been an opponent capable of winning the war would be if it had developed socially and economically at the same pace. Under that assumption Texas would not have gone its independence, in first place because it would have never required it. That would have brought the confrontation much sooner, perhaps before 1840. A second war could have been brought on over the issue of slavery.

Too many assumptions have to be made, especially on the Mexican side, and the situations would have to be, if not completely reversed, at least bad enough to bring an entire century of war in North America, making it look like Europe. Certainly both populations would be much lower.

On the real world the confrontation was unavoidable, and Mexico was bound to lose, badly. The real interesting question would be: what would have happened if the US, instead of taking only half of Mexico, had taken it all, as many (including some Mexicans) proposed?

Remember, this is not a small piece like Puerto Rico, or a far away land, like Philippines.

Though the two were at nearly the same fighting weight during the real war (with brilliant generalship on the part of Taylor providing the decisive edge), a second war a decade or so later would provide the US with an increasing edge. The acquisition of California was a foregone conclusion.
Actually it's not true that they were at the same fighting level. Mexico was far inferior in training and strategy, and the troops were unmotivated peasants forced to join. It was so unbalanced that the Mexican army didn't win one single battle, not even a small one. Not even after the Irish turned coats.

Another interesting question would be: what would have happened if the Spanish king Ferdinand VII had signed the Cadiz Constitution therefore making Spain and its colonies one single, free, democratic country? Now, that's shifting the balance. Would the US had been willing to go to war against the entire Spain?

A similar scenario would be if the Congreso Americano had been successful in joining the former Spanish colonies into one single unit in the 1820s. The US ambassadors had a lot to do in breaking those talks up, according to some. I wonder why.

What kind of world would we live in today if Mexico had won the Mexican American War?

Would the South have then beaten the North in the Civil War?
Would the United States be too small and insignificant to help its European allies in World War II?
Would Hitler have been able to keep control of Europe if he had won the Second World War?
Would Mexico be a super power?
Would Australia be the biggest exporter of television and film to satisfy the international english speaking world?
Or would Spanish be the main language of the world?
Would Los Angeles even exist as a major city?

"Remember the Alamo"
Samuel Houson

If Mexico had won nothing would be as it is today. I dont think there would have been a World War or that Hitler would have even been born.
Not because Mexico would have had some super power to change history as we know it but rather because it would have changed all history, in every nation, for every person. Hell, we wouldnt even be who we are today or be here at all.

I would have learned Spanish instead of English and moved to The United States of Mexico.

Seriously, if Mexico won (very unlikely) then it would have incorporated half the US, just as we did to Mexico, turning the US into a rather midgety "power". Mexico would then have access to the Pacific and to the Texan oil reserves, and with its increased industrial and military power, it would probably threaten the US and use their military as a club over the US to get them to do whatever the hell they wanted. ANd who knows, Mexico might even become the US of our day and dominate the world. But then who knows: Hitler might not even be born, or rise to power, the Mexican president might not have allowed Stalin to take Eastern Europe (assuming Hitler was born and WWII happened), and whole lot of other things could have happened. One thing you can try to do is imagine that instead of hearing "The United States" "The US" "America" and such on the news, you would hear "Mexico"

If Mexico had won nothing would be as it is today. I dont think there would have been a World War or that Hitler would have even been born.
Not because Mexico would have had some super power to change history as we know it but rather because it would have changed all history, in every nation, for every person. Hell, we wouldnt even be who we are today or be here at all.
Care to elaborate? There would have been a World War I, events in America wouldn't have affected that. Without US temperance the Treaty of Versailles would have been even harsher, and without a US economy economic recovery for Germany even slower. So, perhaps there would have been a Hitler and a WWII. The difference would have been that Germany and Japan would have fallen to the Soviet Union, Japan after many many years. France would be France and the UK would be the UK. Cold war would have gone on for much longer, perhaps with China playing a third power role.

I don't see Mexico or the US, with their industrial capacity, going over to the side of the Soviets, or Cuba for that matter, so the rest would have been pretty much the same.

Can you imagine American immigrants illegally crossing mexican border?

Yes and they do. They are called drug dealers.

Care to elaborate? There would have been a World War I, events in America wouldn't have affected that. Without US temperance the Treaty of Versailles would have been even harsher, and without a US economy economic recovery for Germany even slower. So, perhaps there would have been a Hitler and a WWII. The difference would have been that Germany and Japan would have fallen to the Soviet Union, Japan after many many years. France would be France and the UK would be the UK. Cold war would have gone on for much longer, perhaps with China playing a third power role.

I don't see Mexico or the US, with their industrial capacity, going over to the side of the Soviets, or Cuba for that matter, so the rest would have been pretty much the same.

All the things that you hear, see, and do changes your life in some way.
If the great-grandfather of Prince Ferdinand had heard that Mexico won the U.S. instead of the other way around he might have thought about that for a few more seconds then he did when he heard that the U.S. had won Mexico. Thees few more moments could have made the difference of him not meeting Fredinands greatgrandmother and thus their would not be a Prince Ferdinand but another Prince who would be alot different then Fredinand because he would not be the great grandson of Prince Ferdinands greatgrandmother but the greatgrandson of a diffreant woman and that woman would perhaps have had a very different uppbringing then Ferdinands greatgrandmother hence probably the uppbring would be differant on the other Prince (not Ferdinand) and he would not be in Bosnia and that alone could have changed world history as we know it.
Its very hard to understand but think about it.

Its very hard to understand but think about it.
What would I be if I was not me? Would there be another me who would be like me except not me? And, by the way, who am I? What am I?

Yeah, yeah, and if a crazy seal had eaten your great grandfather you wouldn't be here either. So what?

Yes, we at the individual level would be different, that doesn't mean that the course of histoty itself would have changed a whole lot.

Sometimes individuals affect changes, delaying or bringing forward certain events. Like WWI. If Prince Ferdinand's driver had changed his route, or if somebody had stepped on the assassin's foot, Ferdinand wouldn't have been killed. That doesn't mean that there would not have been a Great War, since nations were already at each other's throats over several reasons and it was just a matter of time.

Nah, it's like a said earlier, if Mexico won, just imagine every reference to the US in any news replaced with Mexico. That simple.

This can go on for a very long time.
I do think that if the history of one indevidual in general would change the history of the world as we know it would not change much or change at all but I do think that if the history of a person of significance was to be changed then we would live in, what would be to us, a very alien world. Many of us wouldnt even be here.

This can go on for a very long time.
I do think that if the history of one indevidual in general would change the history of the world as we know it would not change much or change at all but I do think that if the history of a person of significance was to be changed then we would live in, what would be to us, a very alien world. Many of us wouldnt even be here.
Yes, but my point is that that isn't the point of this thread. What if Mexico had won? Well, the world would be different, of course. What if my grandmother hadn't fell off her bike in front of my grandfather? Well, the world would be different, of course.

The point of this threads is how different and why. Now, if you would like to discuss metaphysics another thread would be a good idea.

what is this mexican-american war?
who was the aggressor? was there one?

what is this mexican-american war?
who was the aggressor? was there one?

Mexico under Santa Anna and Texas under Samuel Houston went to war. The Mexicans were the bad guy's in this if you ask me but then again I would be angry too if some group of people took over my land.
The war was in the early 1800's.
Look it up on google - try typing The Alamo, it's like the only thing most people know about the war.

what is this mexican-american war?
who was the aggressor? was there one?
After the Texas got its independence from Mexico and join the US, they wanted more. So, one day, a group of Texans cross into a part of Mexico that they were claiming was part of Texas, get into a shooting contest with a Mexican patrol passing through the site and are killed.

This gives the US the perfect pretext. "American blood shed on American soil" they cried, although Lincoln and a few others protested and called it as they saw it: a land grab. Using the same scare tactics that are still in fashion, the US Congress declares war on Mexico and organize an expedition.

The war goes on from 1846 to 1848, they win it easily and come out of it with California, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico (that explains the name, doesn't it?).

More here: http://www.pbs.org/kera/usmexicanwar/

Mexico under Santa Anna and Texas under Samuel Houston went to war. The Mexicans were the bad guy's in this if you ask me but then again I would be angry too if some group of people took over my land.
The war was in the early 1800's.
Look it up on google - try typing The Alamo, it's like the only thing most people know about the war.
No. That was a different war. And it's much more complicated than just good guys-bad guys. What if the Danish sent a bunch of people to an Icelandic peninsula and then decided that section should be Danish. You would still consider them the good guys?

they are winning. Look around.

What kind of world would we live in today if Mexico had won the Mexican American War?

Would the South have then beaten the North in the Civil War?


It either wouldn't have gone in the first place without more territory westward to expand free states or it would have still lost, assuming Napoleon III tried the puppet state in Mexico again or assuming Mexico or any other place didn't serve as an ally.

As a southern, even I can say the only good thing we really had going for us was the excellent leadership. But even the best leadership can't substitute for a population with more slaves that free people, next to no industry, suffering a blockade when you don't have a navy to begin with, and having no ally at all.

Hmm... I don't think Japan would have arisen as a world power, at least until much later. The US wouldn't have had the capability to knock around some medieval state. The US probably would have tried to win again because the Manifest Destiny mood was still strong. Taylor wouldn't have been elected, much less nominated. The slavery issue would be null because there would be no expansion to unbalance things. I doubt the Republican Party would have risen. Santa Anna would be more than just a footnote in history books.

The British Empire would probably still be around. If the US tried to win again, there would have been less motive for a transcontinental railroad, so the US wouldn't have risen as a large-scale trader with the East. The British would have probably secured their ties with China and even tried making Japan a colony. WWI might have happened then, and Germany would be destroyed by GB's even further extended empire. Who knows, the British may have become interventionalist like the modern US has become and they might have stopped Bismark unstabilizing Europe. Thus, no reason for WWI. Some of the other European countries might have decided to take their chances at the Americas for colonies, unless GB kept up the protection of the Monroe Doctrine. Basically, the would would be a lot more boring with English spoken just about everywhere and no major wars, because GB has a monopoly on the world.