Talk: Mexico

Southern Victory: Empire in name only

I've removed the "though in reality, it was an empire in name only" part from the Southern Victory section. It seams like a meaningless statement, and Alt Mexico is an imperial monarchy, not a republic that just happens to have the word "empire" in it's name. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:59, March 21, 2014 (UTC)

Good move. It's needless editorializing, and even if it is a somewhat grandiose name for a relative backwater, it's always been the prerogative of governments to give themselves misleading long names. Turtle Fan (talk) 01:01, March 22, 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how it's grandiose. Mexico, OTL and I presume Alt, has a huge territory, is a rich country, and most importantly is the heir to the Astac Empire. For that last reason alone, if any country in the Americas has the right to call itself an empire, it's Mexico. Why do you call Mexico a backwater? Mexico might not be as rich as America, but most country aren't. If you use America as the baseline, most countries could be called backwaters, so that's not a fair comparison. By world standards, Mexico is quite wealthy. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:47, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

. . . You did read the series, didn't you? At one point was Mexico portrayed as anything other than a pissant?

Also, if you've ever done any reading on the French Intervention, you've probably come away with the distinct impression that Maximillian's emperorship was always a joke. You'll recognize that he had almost no Mexican supporters. Even had Franco-conservative forces crushed the juaristas once and for all, the conservatives would have turned on him at the first opportunity. To survive such an eventuality he would have been utterly dependent on a permanent French military commitment. There never would have been such a commitment, opposition to the adventure in France steadily mounted throughout the 1860s, and of course the Franco-Prussian War would soon have made such a commitment impossible even were that not so. The Franco-Prussian War did happen in TL-191 the same as it did in OTL so that should have been the end of Imperial Mexico. The only thing that could have saved Max would have been if Confederate soldiers immediately stepped in to fill the void. It's highly unlikely the Rebels would have been ready for such a commitment seven years after the War of Secession ended, and at any rate they were none too happy to have the French playing such games themselves, though they were prepared to tolerate it for the sake of European support. So either we have Max hanging on by himself throughout the 1870s, which strains credibility past the breaking point, or we have him dependent on foreign support. And an empire is a government that has foreign nations dependent on itself, not the other way around!

Since you seem to want to talk about stuff from outside our purview, however: Mexico is fourteenth on the list of countries by area (larger than it is in TL-191, since in that series it's down two states), eleventh on the list by population, and currently fourteenth by GDP. On another continent it would be considered a fairly major power. Here it's overshadowed by the US, but its location does offer a priceless advantage: It has an Atlantic coast, a Pacific coast, and a continuous stretch of easily passable terrain between the two. Unlike Canada (sorry ML4E) it also has population density great enough to support a well-developed, economically sustainable infrastructure that allows for massive commercial activity. George Friedman argues that, if they can get their political house in order (which can happen in a fairly short period of time, see for instance the rapidity with which China escaped the disastrous Cultural Revolution and emerged as a colossus of international trade) they're the only serious threat to American hegemony likely to emerge within a hundred years' time. I find his argument persuasive.

By the way, calling Mexico the heir to the Aztec Empire is ridiculous. You might as well buy a house and then claim to be the next of kin to whomever lived there forty years ago. Turtle Fan (talk) 19:12, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

I started at Return Engagement and I'm partly through Drive to the East, the part of the series I read didn't say much of anything about Mexico. As for empire being "a government that has foreign nations dependent on itself, not the other way around", it can be but is isn't necessarily. "Empire" has allot of different meanings, one of them is "a monarchy where the monarch is of imperial rank" and my that definition Alt Mexico is indisputably an empire. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:28, March 24, 2014 (UTC)

I know there are empires that do not practice imperialism, or that try to practice imperialism but are terrible at it. In such cases, having a head of state who claims imperial rank is generally considered something of an affectation--that is, empires "in name only." It can be taken seriously if there's a strong historical precedent, as there is with the Emperor of Japan (the last one in the world today, though a century the globe was crawling with them) but in the case of Maximilian and Charlotte, the closest they came to having such a precedent was the mayfly "reign" of Agustin de Iturbide, which, aside from never having been taken seriously itself, had no connection to the French Intervention.

A very sad story, Maximilian. He and Charlotte were pathetically naive. I'm hard-pressed to think of how they could possibly have had less support. The juaristas despised them; the Juarez-hating rightists despised them and were ready to turn on them the second French support in the war against the Republic was no longer necessary; the Church was colder toward them than toward any other Hapsburg I can think of offhand; the United States despised them so much that the State Department closed the consulate in Veracruz the day before they landed there and reopened it the day after they left, just to ensure that no one thought their snub was an oversight; the Confederates found them almost as distasteful as the US did, and one of Stevens's proposals to Lincoln at the River Queen meeting was a joint operation against them; the imperial family in Vienna disinherited them for it; and the French took shameless advantage of their naivete and saw them as an expendable tool to be discarded when they'd stopped being convenient. Belgium did what it could for them, for Charlotte's sake, but you can imagine how little that was. So many warning signs and they walked obliviously into a death trap. Very sad.

Anyway, respectfully I would suggest that starting with RE was a mistake. You've missed the best part of the series. The quality of storytelling badly suffered during the SA sub-series. RE wasn't so bad, but DttE and TG were horrible, and IatD only recovered in the final innings. I've often wondered if that book actually did bounce back, or if I unconsciously overvalued it because I'd invested so much time in the series and needed it to end on a high note. Turtle Fan (talk) 19:54, March 24, 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's a matter of taking it seriously: "principality", "kingdom", and "empire" (when not referring to an imperialistic foreign policy) are little more than different terms for "monarchy". Mexico could have picked any of those terms for itself and the meaning would have been the same; the difference between the terms is of style and not of substance. I personally think "empire" is most appropriate because of the Aztec thing, but again it's little more then a style choice. Besides, Japan practiced isolationism not imperialism (aside from the early to mid 20th century), and most of the colonel empires were royal, not imperial monarchies.

Sometimes Japan was isolationist, other times imperialist. The imperial family's history goes back a long, long way.

Of the European colonial empires that were monarchies, most started out as royal monarchies but almost all wound up as imperial monarchies once they'd gotten used to colonialism. In Britain they remained kings and queens of the UK but were emperors and empresses of India. France went imperial (when it wasn't a republic, anyway), Germany went imperial, Russia went imperial, Austria-Hungary went royal-imperial. Spain stayed royal, but their colonialism was very much in retreat by the beginning of the nineteenth century when imperial monarchy came into vogue. The Netherlands remained royal despite having a large colonial empire, as did Italy and Belgium, which had only small empires. Mexico had none--under Max it was, or perhaps we should say would have been, in a semi-colonized state itself, conceptually similar to Manchukuo, which was also an imperial monarchy. And I still don't understand why you think it has any relationship to the Aztecs.

"The difference between the terms is of style and not of substance" is synonymous with "in name only." Turtle Fan (talk) 20:03, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

I stand corrected regarding the colonial empires. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:34, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic (not related to this article)

I think I started with RE because that's what was at my library. RE was dull at some points, but DttE seems OK so far (I'm on chapter 6). The characters could be less dull and more relatable. I do like Hipolito Rodriguez and Jefferson Pinkard tough. I'd probably say I like Jake Featherston, but Featherston's responsible for so much evil, it dampens my enjoyment of him as a character. Still Featherston is one of the more enjoyable characters, and there has to be a bad guy.

Many of my long-standing favorites, like Sylvia Enos and Lucien Galtier, had been written out by RE. I never found Pinkard interesting at all, nor did I find Featherston all that compelling. I'd be hard pressed to choose a favorite from the POV cast of the SA books. I always kind of liked Carsten, and once he becomes a captain he has some interesting adventures, even if he can't always keep them straight in his memory. Turtle Fan (talk)

The nightmare scenario sitting is pretty good. The Union and the Confederacy having fraught so many stupid civil wars that they both lose their way and become Nazi Germany split down the middle: the Union trying conquer the countries around it (Canada and the Confederacy) and the Confederacy having an (auto-)genocidal dictator. Evil vs evil. Scene there's no good guy (except maybe Canada and/or Utah), you can cheer for whatever side you want. Also serves as a warning not to fight stupid wars, especially against your own country, lest your country lose it's way and end of like Alt America. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:30, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

You think the US is as evil as the CS? The Freedomite CS?? That the Mormon and Canadian terrorists are good guys? Geez, there's one you don't hear every day. The US was militaristic, perhaps unpleasantly so, until they won GWI. Once they won they certainly stuck it to their enemies, who had after all posed an existential threat all those years. But they were really quite mild over the course of the AE books. Not so much in Anglophone Canada, but even there they could have been far worse. There was a hard-nosed quality to them, to be sure, which I would find distasteful in the much safer world of today. They may not deserve a whitewashing, but their grayscale was pretty light, especially with the Freedomites as a standard. Turtle Fan (talk) 20:03, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

The Nazis tried to justify conquering the countries around Germany, and some of their points may have been valid (e.g. Russia had posed an existential threat to Germany for centuries), but they were still bastards who tried to conquer the countries around them.

They spontaneously attacked countries with whom they were at peace and who had done nothing provocative toward them (unless you want to say they provoked Germany by their existence; that's a flimsy justification, but on the other hand, Germany did indeed have legitimate grievances against the Treaty of Versailles that had created most of them). Hold that thought. If you've only read RE and DttE, all you've seen the US do is respond to a surprise attack from a government with which it was not at war. Turtle Fan (talk) 03:03, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't meant as a exact comparison, and I said some of their points, not all of them. The In at the Death article states "the United States itself - while dissolving the Confederate government and declaring a firm intention never to let it rise again, in 1944 - refrains from any formal annexation and (re)admitting Southern states to the Union". That's no temporary military occupation pending a final peace treaty and the restoration of the defeated country's sovereignty. It's not quite formal annexation, but it's close enough, worse in some ways. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:09, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

Well, if we're talking about the CS, restoring their sovereignty is, umm, tricky. They never had the right to exist to begin with, not under constitutional law as it stood at the POD. The US was forced to concede the reality of their existence due to armed intervention by foreign powers, but that's not the same as legal sovereignty. In B the State Department makes it clear that the US Government's position is that they only recognized the CS under duress and would remedy the situation as fully and as soon as possible. As for readmitting the original Confederate states, and admitting the ones they acquired during their time out of the fold, the US should be doing that as soon as it's satisfied the Rebs can be trusted, but that's likely a long way off. The fact is, with all that those communities did or at least tolerated, they really have forfeited many of their legal rights. Anyway, the war ends quite late in IatD and the book only goes a few weeks into the post-war period. I'm sure the government's intentions and policies were clarified along the way, as in OTL, both after the ACW and WWII. Turtle Fan (talk) 20:30, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

By that standard the (pre-civil war) US never had the right to exist. I doubt George III's government believed that the British Empire's Constitution allowed colonies to declare independence. The British Empire was forced to concede the reality of the colonies independence due to armed intervention by foreign powers. I'm no fan of the OTL (Civel War) Union. In my opinion, if a state declarers independence, it's a volition of the Constitution, and a grievous betrayal of the revolution, to force it to remain in the Union against it's will. Of course the OTL Confederacy had its own faults (cough*slavery*cough). I'm not trying to convenience you of my point of view in that matter, just saying that so you understand where some of from my perspective is coming from.

It's also my opinion that the federal government has grossly overstepped it's constitutional boundaries, and that it's authority over the states is quite limited (mostly to what's stated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution). Each state is different and that's fine: difference is not devision and unity is not uniformity. Basically, my opinion of the Union is that it is and ought to be a voluntary union of free and sovereign states (to paraphrase the Declaration of Independence). Again, not trying to convenience you, just showing you my perspective.

Like I said, Alt America is Nazi Germany split down the middle, trying to compare the two halfs, the conquests and the genocide, is somewhat of an apples and oranges comparison.

You make it sound as though the Confederates did not practice expansionism at all. It's more Richmond's thing than Philadelphia's. You have not seen the US formally annex one square foot of territory in the books you've read. Turtle Fan (talk) 03:03, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

See below. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:40, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

Both are highly immoral and grievous violations of international law.

International law--which, remember, is really just a series of conventions and customs, with no force of law except perhaps treaties between specific governments--was completely mute on both topics in 1941. Genocide is always immoral (unless it's the Time Lords, they had to go and should not have been saved). "Conquests" is a term that is vague and broad, too much so to apply a categorical moral judgment. Turtle Fan (talk) 03:03, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

I really like self-determination tough, so that's probably a higher priority for me then is is for most people.

Which explains why, rather than condemn the country which went to war because it didn't want to accept the result of the plebiscite in Sequoyah, and favor the country which did accept the Kentucky and Houston plebiscites going against it, you blast them both with Mercutio's Curse. Turtle Fan (talk) 03:03, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

I do like Al Smith's plebiscites . . .

They're incredibly unpopular, even Flora regrets backing them. Turtle Fan (talk) 20:30, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

. . . would have been nice if Northern Virgina had a plebiscite . . .

That would be unconstitutional. Turtle Fan (talk) 20:30, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

If West Virgina consented to giving up Northern Virgina, I don't see how. Did West Virgina even freely consent to absorbing Northern Virgina in the first place? Not saying they necessarily didn't, it just seems odd that they would want to absorb a bunch of people who they presumably conceder the enemy, especially when there might be pressure from Philadelphia so that Philly doesn't need to make N. Virgina it's own territory or state. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:12, March 27, 2014 (UTC)

. . . and if someone more reasonable (and less evil) then Featherston had been the CS President. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:40, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

Ay, there's the rub. You can not treat with his regime the way you would with a civilized leader. Turtle Fan (talk) 20:30, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

Featherston is probably the greatest traitor in (Alt) American history. His "Population Reduction" of millions of his fellow Americans (not just fellow Americans, but fellow Southerners) is plenty sufficient for me to say that, but it's more then just that. He seams to have crushed what was left of American self-determination. With those plebiscites, the Union was starting to recognize the sovereignty and self-determination of the states, but Featherston punished them for making a huge step in the right direction. The Union probably won't make that "mistake" again. As for Featherston himself, the part of the series I read doesn't say much about this, but I seriously doubt the states were free to manage their own internal affairs, if said management differed from Featherston's definition of "freedom", and this (paragraph 3) seems to conform that. Basically the Southern states were screwed: it was be ruled by Featherston or be ruled by Philadelphia. Unlike in the time of the Revolution, there was no be ruled by themselves (as part of a union with the other states) option, not after Featherston's power was secure anyway. In other words, it was submit to George III's rule or submit to George III's rule. If I'm right, and I stress the if since I am half speculating here, Featherston undid the revolution in both the North and the South. On a related note, You said "with all that those [Southern] communities did or at least tolerated, they really have forfeited many of their legal rights", but that wouldn't apply to Black Southerners would it, don't they still have the right to self-determination? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:12, March 27, 2014 (UTC)

Looking at that post again, I don't really like it. It contains too much of my personal opinion as premise, but I'm not really sure how to fix it. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:32, March 27, 2014 (UTC)

I will grant that the Union hasn't fallen as much as the Confederacy, at least in the short term, the Union isn't a dictatorship.

It's more democratic from late AE on than it had been at any point since the POD. The long term prognosis for its growing more democratic still is excellent. If you'd seen what they were like between MWII and GWI, you'd have some ammunition, but as it is you're just being sanctimonious. Turtle Fan (talk) 03:03, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

As for Canada and Utah, I said maybe, and soldiers (including resistance fighters) who target civilians are murders and war criminals.

Which is why the only Canadian character you've seen was executed after a trial in which the authorities made it clear they were prepared to grant leniency if she'd show the slightest remorse for . . . targeting civilians. So maybe not. Turtle Fan (talk) 03:03, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

Long term tough, Featherston's Confederacy was largely the result of one evil person, Featherston. Sooner or latter Featherston would have been overthrown or died, if nothing else of old age, and it's very likely Featherston's "freedom" would have died with him.

Oh if you'd seen how eager they were to buy what he was selling in B&I and CCH! If you'd seen how many smaller-scale politicians who were just like him! Here, take a look: Willy Knight Anthony Dresser Amos Mizell Ferdinand Koenig Strom Thurmond Anne Colleton

Also, they were stomach-churningly racist from the get-go (hell, you must know what their founders were like in real history, why would you expect otherwise?) Large-scale violence didn't come about till the Great War, but those who engaged in it gave every impression of releasing a longstanding pent-up desire. Even if not, it still predated anyone having heard of Featherston. Turtle Fan (talk) 03:03, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

Largely the result of one evil person, not entirely unfortunately. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:47, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

Hardly. At most, they finally found someone willing to lead them where they already wanted to go. He told them exactly what he wanted to do, going all the way back to the very beginning of his political career when he was the fifth-ranking officer in what would have been known as a divan party back when I was a poli sci major. They cheered him and voted for him and made him into a force to be reckoned with. His demagoguery tapped into a widespread desire that was already there. Turtle Fan (talk) 20:30, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

There's plenty of blame to go around. If it weren't for his widespread support he wouldn't have been president/strongman/dictator. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:12, March 27, 2014 (UTC)

The imperialist Union on the other hand was largely the result on an entire country deciding it was their right to rule their neighbors. there's no one person to pin it on, no one person who if taken out might fix this. As I said, an entire country decided it was their right to rule their neighbors, that's how far they have fallen. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:34, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

What are you basing that on? You have no knowledge of how the map in the beginning of the SA books came to be, and you have not seen the US annex one square foot of space to those borders. I'm trying to remain civil, but the fact is, you're talking out your ass. Turtle Fan (talk) 03:03, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

I have read this wiki tough, and I read quite a bit about the Southern Victory series before reading the series itself. It is my understating that there is no one big unaccountable guy throughout those two decades who decides whether Canada should keep being occupied, but I could be wrong.

No, you're right. However, it was not a unilateral US position. The international situation which developed on North America between MWII and GWI was a consensus among all governments concerned, Canada's as much as any other, that the continent's geopolitics should be a win-or-die game. This widespread attitude that you find so offensive in the US but excuse elsewhere was an international phenomenon, it could not have emerged in a vacuum. Turtle Fan (talk) 20:30, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

How do I excuse that attitude elsewhere? If both the Union and the British/Canadian governments were reasonable and trustworthy, they could almost certainty have come to some mutually acceptable agreement to end the occupation. If they both have that attitude, a pox on both their houses. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:12, March 27, 2014 (UTC)

And yes, Featherston was planning on doing some not very just things to the Union.

That's one way of putting it. Turtle Fan (talk) 20:30, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

As for the formally annex thing, try telling the Canadians they're not being ruled by the US because they haven't been formally annexed.

See above. Turtle Fan (talk) 20:30, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

Besides, they did annex Northern Virginia.

Restoring the people there to full political participation, eventually even going so far as to tolerate Freedomites in Congress (though I don't believe there were any West Virginians in that lot). And again, what they were really doing was redeeming US territory that should never have been lost to begin with, though I'll admit that after multiple generations that does ring a bit hollow. Turtle Fan (talk) 20:30, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

We may have different preservatives and interpretations, but that's kind of the point of storytelling. It's perfectly fine that we have different interpretations, I don't see any reason for hostilities between us. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:40, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, but I do wish you'd read the whole series before forming such strong opinions. The articles on this Wiki are not always 100% reliable, especially not when they're on books that were published before 2006. Turtle Fan (talk) 20:30, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

The series is huge, and it took me a long time to get to where I am in it, I read it once to twice a week. My opinions aren't that strong, or more specifiably aren't that strongly set in stone. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:12, March 27, 2014 (UTC)

As I said, Featherston was planning on doing some not very just things to the Union, but I don't think he was planing on threatening it's existence. I could just be missing something or there might just something about this a part of the series I haven't read.

And I fully acknowledge that these are only my opinions, and that they are based on incomplete information and subject to change when I receive new information. As for what I'm basing this on, I suppose the biggest thing would be the lack of any strongman who can force this foreign policy on the Union, and the democratic authority of the Northern people to hold the politicians accountable for not ending the occupation. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:43, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that both the Union and the Confederacy engaged in carpet-bombing.

Umm, I could be wrong but I don't believe so, not as of DttE anyway. Both have bombed cities but I don't recall anything so systematic on either government's behalf. Richmond had been carpet-bombed by the beginning of IatD, but you haven't gotten there yet. Turtle Fan (talk) 03:03, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

You might be right, the books were scant on the details of the bombings. Still their bombing policies were quite liberal, they did engage in some bombing of random locations in cities. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:40, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

Carpet-bombing civilians might not be quite as evil as throwing civilians into death camps (especially when the camps are only for those of the "wrong" ethnic group),

It's not. Turtle Fan (talk) 03:03, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

but either way you're murdering civilians.

It's distasteful, but remember we're talking about total war. Everyone and everything is a potential enemy asset. Cities are centers of political authority and of economic vitality, and are most often industrial centers as well. All three are legitimate and necessary targets in such a conflict. The fact that people in those cities have nothing to do with any of those functions their hometowns serve makes them something like human shields. It's awful that they die, but they are killed without malice, and they're only harmed collaterally. Murder's too strong a word. Turtle Fan (talk) 03:03, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

If you want to bomb factories that's one thing. If you want to bomb apartments and restaurants tough, that's not collateral damage that's targeting civilians. Parts of a city may be legitimate military targets, but a city as a whole is not. Those Europeans were insane for fighting two world wars, but that doesn't mean they had to throw away the desteation between military and civilian. Soldiers are a legitimate target, civilians are not. The line between the two may get bury (e.g. collateral damage, factories producing military equipment) but the line should not be thrown away. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:54, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

Knowingly targeting residential areas is distasteful, but not many civilian casualties are targets. They tend to be caught in indiscriminate bombing, or inaccurate bombing, etc. And of course, once you make a habit of consistently avoiding bombing certain portions of a city, you'll soon find things that need to be destroyed being moved into those neighborhoods.

If you have a legitimate target which just happens to be in a residential area or something, I'm not talking about that; that would fall under collateral damage. I meant the "If you want to bomb apartments and restaurants, that's not collateral damage that's targeting civilians" as just a general statement, not an abclouate rule. As a example, if some unlucky guy's house is being used as a command center, that that command center is a legitimate target. That to target the command center you must also target the house (sense the command center and house are one in the same) is very unfortunate, but it's in the same vain as collateral damage. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:30, May 13, 2014 (UTC)

Also, if you issue a declaration of war before the air raids begin--which the 191 US did and the 191 CS did not--the wiser non-essential civilians have time to evacuate. Turtle Fan (talk) 20:30, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

When you get that evil, it's tough put you in a different mental category from those who are worse then you, if that makes sense. I suppose I'd rather die quickly from a bomb then slowly in a death camp, but I'd really rather just not be murdered in the first place. On a related note, I'm rather disgusted that it took the OTL Holocaust to earn the world's disgust, the carpet-bombings alone should have done that; yes one's worse then the other, but their both extremely evil. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:54, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

The world was repulsed by carpet bombings, but the people of each country in that world were fighting for their survival and had imbibed an us-or-them mentality. The real shame is that people, both leaders and followers, tolerated an international situation which could give rise to total war--especially with the last one so fresh in the public consciousness. Still, the injustice of that war's end created so unstable a situation that it's easy to see why people eventually decided a resumption of hostilities was preferable to the disadvantageous status quo. At least once the edge of the horrors of WWI had worn off and memories were unconsciously sanitized, as the human brain quite naturally will do. Turtle Fan (talk) 03:03, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

Not repulsed enough to stop the carpet bombings, or to condemn them after the war was over, and no one can say they didn't know it was happening. If you (intentionally) carpet-bomb residential areas, I don't see that much difference between you and Mary McGregor except scale. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:12, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

I think the general feeling was "We did what we had to do." When the world's gone mad, people make that choice. Turtle Fan (talk) 20:30, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

On second thought McGregor is a bad example. The soldiers acted under orders, McGregor acted on her own, and most importantly the other side (OTL) was engaged in carpet bombings too. I meant to compare the actions themselves, not to judge the individuals involved; judging individuals is complected. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:44, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

Yucatan

I made an artical about the Mexican state of Yucatan a while back and it got deleted. I don't know why, the state appeared as a province of Nueva Espana in The Two Georges and I remember it being mentioned on another page of another novel on the wiki. I'm not blaming anyone for the articals deletion, I was just wondering why it got deleted. --75.68.122.13 20:08, January 20, 2015 (UTC)Jacob Chesley the Alternate Historian

It appears on the maps included in T2G, but it by no means appears in the novel. None of the lead characters go there, nor do they attach any significance to the place. Further it's borders are substantially different from the OTL Yucatan. Nor is it a setting in another other Turtledove work. TR (talk) 20:25, January 20, 2015 (UTC)

I think this Yucatan, which is unique to the 2G map, merits an article akin to all the NAU Provinces articles. It can't hurt.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 17:08, February 9, 2016 (UTC)

North America cat

It's already in Category:Mexico, which is a subcat of North American Countries.  TR (talk) 00:36, September 27, 2015 (UTC)

Southern Victory: redirect?

I'm thinking that there should be an "Empire of Mexico" redirect to Mexico in Southern Victory, just like Republic of Quebec and Radical Liberal Louisiana.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 06:40, February 2, 2016 (UTC)

Can you list a few examples of places where you'd like to use it? I'm hard pressed to think of anywhere where I would say there's a need. Turtle Fan (talk) 07:30, February 2, 2016 (UTC)

Numerous references to Mexico in various SouVic articles.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 07:32, February 2, 2016 (UTC)

No shit. For how many of them can a compelling case be made that "Empire of Mexico" would read better than "Mexico"? Turtle Fan (talk) 07:43, February 2, 2016 (UTC)

The text itself says Empire of Mexico nearly every time Mexico is mentioned, so copying the phrase would be more authentic in universe.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 07:48, February 2, 2016 (UTC)

Nearly every time? Really? Turtle Fan (talk) 13:36, February 2, 2016 (UTC)

As there were two entities called "Empire of Mexico" in OTL, I don't think the name is specific enough to TL-191 to justify such a redirect. It is possible (if unlikely) that HT could write another story that makes use of one of the Empires of Mexico, which would render the redirect rather worthless. The Republic of Quebec made sense as there has never been a Republic of Quebec, and the other versions of an independent Quebec in HT's writing are fairly minor. TR (talk) 15:51, February 2, 2016 (UTC)

We also have Quebec (Southern Victory) as an alternative. I would have preferred those remain for references to Quebec from during the Great War rather than making the unneeded changes to [[Republic of Quebec]] that Jonathan did. Either still needed the "|" piping to make the text read correctly so I didn't see the point. Mexico (Southern Victory) already exists so unless Jonathan is correct about most references being "Empire of Mexico", I don't see much point in it. Louisiana (Southern Victory) makes more sense than [[Radical Liberal Louisiana]] since most references are to the general SV state rather than the particular Huey Long run dictatorship within a dictatorship. ML4E (talk) 20:48, February 2, 2016 (UTC)

This sums up my own feelings pretty well. Turtle Fan (talk) 01:13, February 3, 2016 (UTC)

A Little 191 Speculation

Something about Mexico's role in 191 has kind of been bugging me for years, guess I'll open it up now to see if anyone can shed some light on it.

In the fairly recent past I researched the Second Mexican Empire for a little project of my own. One day, I may actually bring it to fruition. In the meantime, I do remember a few things, so I can at least look like I know what I'm talking about. TR (talk) 01:53, July 28, 2016 (UTC)

Last fall I also resolved to embark on a side-project on the subject. My new job and move forced me to put this off indefinitely. I did read two books on the subject beforehand. (Well, a book and change; one was on Lincoln's foreign policy, and devoted slightly less than a third of its pages to the intervention from a heavily American perspective.) So maybe I'm overplaying my hand here, but I do think I at least framed a semi-respectable question. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:42, July 28, 2016 (UTC)

I just don't see how we're to believe that Max and his heirs stayed in power so long. When he came in, he was completely dependent on French support. The Mexican Imperial Army was (apart from a cadre of officers on loan from the Foreign Legion and a hodge-podge of soldiers of fortune) an alliance of warlords who wanted Juarez eliminated above all else, but would surely not have considered themselves bound by an oath to Max any longer than necessary to make that happen.

He was dependent upon the French, but remember, the monarchists in Mexico were borderline desperate to get another emperor. They were complete reactionaries on the issue, to the point that the Mexicans actually invited Max as early as 1859 to become the emperor. So they in theory, wanted Max for their guy. TR (talk) 01:53, July 28, 2016 (UTC)

Both my authors took dim views of the local monarchists. They characterized them as little more than ambitious warlords. I'm not at all sure they were wrong with Mejia, but I could believe that there was more than that to Miramon. And this is the first I've heard of the locals courting the Hapsburgs in '59. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:42, July 28, 2016 (UTC)

I think a dim view is warranted, but there was also a craving for stability as I recall. Naturally, I can't remember where I got the fact about contact in '59, but I remember it because it sort of touched on HT's work and previous discussions here. TR (talk) 14:51, July 28, 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, Juarez's radicalism and anti-clericalism (the latter I thought to an almost shocking degree) made him extremely divisive. The read I got from my incomplete research was that the only thing that allowed him to take on the mantle of national hero was his enemies' willingness to invite a colonial power in. Turtle Fan (talk) 22:23, July 28, 2016 (UTC)

Well, brutality of the anti-clericalism aside, Juarez was largely a positive force for reforms in Mexico. From my own slightly educated perspective however, in the cold light of day, when one looks at the long line of dicks that made up Heads of State of Mexico, even Max winds up being a comparatively good one. (Which is damning with faint praise--it ain't hard to be better than Santa Anna or Diaz or most of those other jokers who did round robin in the 1800s.) TR (talk) 02:43, July 29, 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, they've had some awful rulers. I think I have to agree with your assessment. Turtle Fan (talk) 02:54, July 29, 2016 (UTC)

Clearly Juarez was decisively defeated in this timeline somewhere in the 1860s. Maybe he was killed outright, maybe he crossed into the US and set up a government-in-exile that never amounted to anything. The latter may have kept Miramon, Mejia and the rest from taking out their knives a little while longer, but before long they'll realize that they just can't pursue their ambitions in a semi-colonized country. They'll have to move against Max, and the only thing standing in their way is a continued foreign presence.

Yes, that we don't hear about some Mexican Republic in exile suggests an absolute defeat. As for Miramon and Mejia, remember they went against the wall with Max at the end in OTL. So long as he was doing what they wanted/needed. TR (talk) 01:53, July 28, 2016 (UTC)

I like to think Juarez made it into exile, even if he never did anything worthwhile enough for future generations of TL-191 characters to bother mentioning him. It makes the early part of that timeline slightly less dismal. More to the point, the specter of his return should make the locals more willing to negotiate with Max after he's defeated.

Because whatever else Miramon and Mejia may have been, they were certainly anti-juaristas. That's why they died on the Hill of Bells: They and Max weren't able to see the common enemy off with France's help, and when the French left they were obliged to concentrate their power behind the closest thing Mexico had to a credible alternative to Juarez. By the time Max stopped being that, they were in too deep, and a blaze of glory was their only remaining option. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:42, July 28, 2016 (UTC)

But we know that German unification followed a virtually identical course as OTL, including the Franco-Prussian War. No way can the French army maintain an open-ended overseas commitment on the scale necessary to have effect during such a severe military crisis at home.

No, but with the US out of commission, France has a slightly early start (I'm spotting HT the 1862 coronation--there's no real reason why a CS victory should have prompted make Max cross the ocean early, but that this was France's ultimate goal was an open secret by 1862), and most likely an extra 4 years to shore things up (in OTL, Nap III, realizing where ACW was going, decided having good relations with the US was more important than a half-assed puppet in Mexico, pulled out in 1865--not an issue here). So an extra 5-6 years without the pressure from the North, and maybe some extra help from the CS. TR (talk) 01:53, July 28, 2016 (UTC)

So their options were, crush the Mexican leadership ASAP, or ask a friendly power to take over the role of supporting Max. The former is easier said than done; how many times have campaigns like that really worked? And even if they did swing it, they would at best create a power vacuum in which Max couldn't hope to gain any traction.

It's not impossible. At a minimum, if the US isn't looking southwest anymore, France could easily, if not crush Juarez, at least make sure he keeps losing often enough that he looks increasingly illegitimate. TR (talk) 01:53, July 28, 2016 (UTC)

They'd need to get Juarez beaten to the point that he lost all his support, but not to the point where the local anti-juaristas can say "Well, guess we don't need you anymore, so get lost." Because even if the anti-juaristas reach an accommodation with Max, that doesn't mean France has met its objectives; the accommodation may well be along the lines of "We'll support you if you tell Napoleon to fuck off." (Though granted, that scenario would still satisfy my original question.)

The latter presents another choice right away: To whom do we farm out the job? The only two options are Richmond or London; the King of the Belgians might run diplomatic interference for Charlotte's sake, but lacks the hard power necessary to pull this off.

The Confederate leadership had opposed the Mexican Intervention, though there's no doubt in my mind that they'd drop their objections as a condition of French recognition. But just a few short years after the WoS, with so many constitutional crises coming up at home, limited control over some of their territory, and a hostile government that is bigger than them (if temporarily weakened) right on the border, can they really take on that responsibility?

Well, by 1881, they sure seem to have disproportional influence over Mexico. And remember, the US may have been hostile, but was evidentally tripping all over itself and insuring its relative incompetence for a time. TR (talk) 01:53, July 28, 2016 (UTC)

They had influence in Mexico, sure, but that's because they were offering to buy something from a cash-strapped regime. Broke people will always listen to someone who's offering to pay them. The US was a real clusterfuck in the 60s and 70s, yes, but laughing it off completely is still dangerous, especially since victory over the Union on the terms we saw in the HFR and AF prologues would not have resolved all the internal conflicts racking the South at the time, at least not right away. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:42, July 28, 2016 (UTC)

Britain on the other hand had supported the Mexican Intervention in '61 before losing its appetite. Now they've made an enemy of the US, probably still find the Confederacy somewhat distasteful, and are being drawn into events on North America in a big way. If they could set up a client state in Mexico, they'd have both squabbling locals surrounded, and the potential to dominate the continent outright rather than navigate a labyrinth of unpleasant and costly alliances. The temptation to pull a Perfidious Albion would likely be irresistible--including screwing France out of Mexican resources and North American influence, which would cost Paris at least as much as abandoning Mexico to its fate. At any rate, at no point in 191 do we see Britain exert any real influence to speak of in Mexico, so clearly this isn't what happened.

Britain could throw a little money here and there. That was still something they like to do. But, no, I don't see British garrisons in Yucatan or whatever. TR (talk) 01:53, July 28, 2016 (UTC)

What are we to assume, then? That the likes of Miramon really did back their emperor to the hilt? That an imbecile like Max, confronted with enemies on all sides and having no cards in his hand, talked his way out of trouble and into power with the deftness of a Tyrion Lannister? Or that HT just spackled over these issues as a plot convenience? Turtle Fan (talk) 21:22, July 27, 2016 (UTC)

Well, spackling's probably part of it; OTL does it at a whim, why shouldn't AH? But, I think you underestimate Max just a bit. He's really an odd character; he wanted a constitutional monarchy and actually thought highly of Juarez. This position helped alienate the conservatives who initially wanted him in the first place, and he could never really steal Juarez's support by essentially stealing Juarez's ideas, so yes, that's how he wound up with no cards. Now, if France is getting shit done much faster and more firmly than in OTL, Miramon and his ilk could easily set Max down early on and explain how it's going to be, and Max realizing that being a mere figurehead was just what needed to be done. And Max, from what I can tell, was just smart enough to decide that doing that would be in the best interests of his new country (he died shouting "Viva Mexico"! in OTL--odd character).

My random thoughts. I guess if I were tasked with writing the untold tale of Max's ascension, this bit of rambling would be the initial outline. TR (talk) 01:53, July 28, 2016 (UTC)

So the French make the best possible use of their time in Mexico in the late 60s before Bismarck forces them to rush their troops home, and in that window Miramon et al reach an arrangement with Max, pushed into agreement by the specter of a Juarez who's badly beaten but has just enough life left in him that they can't completely ignore the possibility of his reemergence. So Max and possibly his heir have enough domestic support to make it through the 70s, and by the time the 80s roll around the CSA is strong enough to take over the job of propping them up.

It seems to rest on a string of best-case scenarios to me, which means it's not the likeliest outcome. However, it's not impossible, and it does satisfy my question. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:42, July 28, 2016 (UTC)

Nap gets a best case right out the gate with the US out of the picture. Everything else is just making the best of what is now ought to be a better hand. TR (talk) 14:51, July 28, 2016 (UTC)

Right, the first step is already set. From there it kind of sounds to me like the French would need to know they were up against a ticking clock, but still be caught unprepared when Prussia jumps on them after the clock runs down. I suppose I could be mistaken there; it's not like nation-builders want these projects to drag on and on longer than necessary. And in my incomplete research I did come across reference to eroding support for the adventure in French public opinion. How that would be affected if making the US an enemy were no longer dangerous, I couldn't say. Turtle Fan (talk) 22:23, July 28, 2016 (UTC)

This is all really interesting, but kind of rambled and got hard to follow. I guess it all boils down to: The US' early defeat gave France time to solidify Maximilian's regime, then Max and Miramon had time to work out a reasonable coexistence and cooperation strategy, and Juarez kind of faded away. A similar thing seems to have happened in GOTS, but again HT was miserly with precise details.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 08:13, July 28, 2016 (UTC)

I don't recall this coming up in GotS. The US was in better shape in that one, holding its own in BNA and reverse-engineering the Kalashnikov. If Juarez could just hang in there long enough, the US could slip him some AKs, and then Max would be far past fucked, I think. Turtle Fan (talk) 22:23, July 28, 2016 (UTC)