Prelude to a Mexican Invasion of Texas

[K. A. Pital]

At least the Russians were nice enough to compensate the Poles with new German lands that they had just raped and butchered their way through.

The USA just butchered Mexican civilians and took their land. Yeah, perhaps that is in a way similar. Did the USA compensate Mexico with anything? Or perhaps the USA targeted only legitimate military targets, never killing civilians - like, as I heard, the Mexicans did?

But in all seriousness; the Texans won their war of independence fair & square, the United States won fair & square to hammer out the border AND we paid for California and all the useless desert in between. The Mexicans saying they should have those lands back because they were stolen is idiotic escapism from the fact that their own country is falling apart at the seems from corruption and war.

Um... At the time of the Texan Revolution Mexico fell apart not because of corruption... although you could call slavery a particularly evil form of corruption that corrupted the minds of the high and mighty in Texas (no wonder, they were a slavocracy, so it is only natural). Because oi, the Mexican governor of Texas actually started enforcing anti-slavery laws, and Texan slavers didn't like it.

I love history.

[Thanas]

But seriously - and I think Pezook would agree with me - what if the USSR gave Poland nothing after the war with Germany (remind me, did the USA give Mexico some other territories to use after it took Texas)? What if it made Poland into a tiny patch of land and never try to recompensate Poland's loss with German territories as IRL? Would Poland in the 1990s NOT make a claim? Now, it might not - but I think it would be much more of a real and pressing territorial issue than it is now, and there'd be many voices calling for compensation.

Poland got better land anyway, seeing as how the german lands were far more developed than the ones under Russian rule.

[His Divine Shadow]

Leaving aside the fact that Mexico's claim to Texas is not completely without foundation, and the question of whether the rest of the States would actually miss it all that much, isn't this the same Tex-Mex border region where the Mexican authorities are fighting a losing COIN action against the drug gangs and which white Texans are afraid of setting foot in?

Well you did leave it aside, buuuut, yes I would say that yes america would miss texas, thats a huge chunk of their population and a state with lots of imporant industries and military contractors and whatnot last I heard about it.

[Kane Starkiller]

I don't think that giving Poland German lands had anything to do with USSR's desire to be nice or fair to Poland but rather their desire to permanently weaken Germany.
It wasn't realistic for USSR to swallow up the entire Poland both because it would greatly anger the West and because USSR would now have to deal with a large Polish nation inside its borders which wouldn't be very happy about being conquered. By only taking a third of Polish territory USSR got the option of "encouraging" Poles to leave for western parts of the country.
This way USSR gains more territory with no extra minority baggage, Poland remains about the same and Germany is permanently weakened.

[Thanas]

I don't think that giving Poland German lands had anything to do with USSR's desire to be nice or fair to Poland but rather their desire to permanently weaken Germany.

Oh, certainly.

[Samuel]

The USA just butchered Mexican civilians and took their land. Yeah, perhaps that is in a way similar. Did the USA compensate Mexico with anything? Or perhaps the USA targeted only legitimate military targets, never killing civilians - like, as I heard, the Mexicans did?

We gave them 18.25 million dollars and paid 3.25 million in debts they owed to US citizens. In return we got about a third of Mexico.

[Skgoa]

Forcibly made treaties are not exactly the end of all anyway, too. Poland kept quiet in part also because they got land from Germany, and Germany kept quiet because they had tons of guilt after the war and levying any territorial claims would be sheer insanity.

What Germany are you talking about? The one that sought reunification with ALL territories of theGerman Empire from the very beginning or the one that was a soviet puppet and in no position to claim anything? IIRC only the Oder-Neiße-Line was offically agreed upon by West Germany and Poland (in a treaty) in 1970, under the condition that it may be renegotiated at a later time. When Reunification happened, the hegemons forced West Germany to accept this border and it was a no-brainer to give in to that demand: reunification with East Germany was a much more important (and realistic) goal, there was no sizable german minority to repatriate AND these territories weren't worth anything economicaly, anyways.
Germany signed a treaty with Poland in November 1990, relinquishing all old claims. I.e. since 92 (when the treaty went into effect) Poland is the legal "owner" of these lands.

[Zaune]

Well you did leave it aside, buuuut, yes I would say that yes america would miss texas, thats a huge chunk of their population and a state with lots of imporant industries and military contractors and whatnot last I heard about it.

It also contains a hell of a lot of rednecks.

[PeZook]

AND these territories weren't worth anything economicaly, anyways.

How did you come to this conclusion?

In exchange for huge tracts of nearly empty land, Poland got two major, modern sea ports (Danzig and Stetin), and industrial facilities of Breslau along with a well-developed rail and road network, and a defensible border based upon the Oder, unlike the 1939 border which pretty much ran across a giant plain and was practically impossible to defend.

Even now, the "recovered lands" are THE most economically prosperous areas of the country...

But seriously - and I think Pezook would agree with me - what if the USSR gave Poland nothing after the war with Germany (remind me, did the USA give Mexico some other territories to use after it took Texas)? What if it made Poland into a tiny patch of land and never try to recompensate Poland's loss with German territories as IRL? Would Poland in the 1990s NOT make a claim? Now, it might not - but I think it would be much more of a real and pressing territorial issue than it is now, and there'd be many voices calling for compensation.

That...is an excellent point, actually. It's pretty obvious, so much that I wonder how I could miss the influence of nationalism on claims to land: as in, if there is a strong undercurrent of perceived injustice, a country's government might feel they have a stronger claim to lands they lost/treatied away than otherwise.

It's hard to say Poland got screwed in the deal, as shown above by several people. Besides, the new borders just...make more sense. Just look at the two maps: Poland is territorially compact, there are no weird, artificial creations like the Pomeranian Corridor, both the eastern and western border are based on well defined geographical features...now, saving the screeching of a lunatic minority, there's no rational reason nor significant irrational desire to get "our lands back".

I suppose it also helps our neighbors feel the same way, so nobody is disputing any claims.

[Thanas]

I suppose it also helps our neighbors feel the same way, so nobody is disputing any claims.

Well, I wouldn't mind having a bit of an expansion to the east....

[spartasman]

The USA just butchered Mexican civilians and took their land. Yeah, perhaps that is in a way similar. Did the USA compensate Mexico with anything? Or perhaps the USA targeted only legitimate military targets, never killing civilians - like, as I heard, the Mexicans did?

As Samuel stated, we paid them 18.25 million for land and reparations and forgave all debts. But surely the blame must entirely rest upon the evil imperialist Americans, for surely the Mexican Army was responsible for no atrocities, what with them being the peaceful innocents that they were.

Um... At the time of the Texan Revolution Mexico fell apart not because of corruption... although you could call slavery a particularly evil form of corruption that corrupted the minds of the high and mighty in Texas (no wonder, they were a slavocracy, so it is only natural). Because oi, the Mexican governor of Texas actually started enforcing anti-slavery laws, and Texan slavers didn't like it.

I love history.

I was talking about the Mexico of today Stas. Besides, whoever said the Texans were in the right to rebel?

[Hawkwings]

Why the hell would Mexico make a claim to Texas and demand that the US give it back? They haven't had ownership over the land since the early 1800s, and I'm pretty sure the residents of Texas would be opposed to such a thought. So where does the legitimacy of the claim come from? "Oh you won a war and kicked us out by force, but you're meanies now so we want it back!" is not legitimate. Neither is "We were the original owners!" because they weren't.

I suppose England should call next and demand their colonies back huh?

[Zaune]

Kicking another sovereign state out of part of its territory is generally frowned on today, you know. I'm not saying Mexico would be totally in the right either, but maybe some concessions like no import-export tariffs or reciprocating on anyone with state ID from the former Mexican states not needing a visa to enter the country wouldn't hurt.

[Serafina]

In the end, we recognize the right of the people inhabitating an area of land which nation they want to belong to.
And i pretty much doubt that the majority of Texans want's to become part of Mexico.

[spartasman]

Shit, most Mexicans don't want to be part of Mexico. Or at least the ones that have to live in constant terror/poverty from drug lords and corrupt officials.

[Coyote]

It is also worth remembering that back in the days of the first Mexican-American armed clashes, from the Texas era onward, the Mexicans were not the Sad Sack country they are now; they were in fact one of the better armies of the day, large, well-organized, and quite well equipped. It was not such a clear-cut case of Yankee Bullies attacking a pushover country like it would be now.

[Phantasee]

Why is this even a discussion? I'm pretty sure Knife was joking when he wrote the title.

[Knife]

Why is this even a discussion? I'm pretty sure Knife was joking when he wrote the title.

I was, but I have to admit, it is kind of a fun side tract they're on.

[Thanas]

It is also worth remembering that back in the days of the first Mexican-American armed clashes, from the Texas era onward, the Mexicans were not the Sad Sack country they are now; they were in fact one of the better armies of the day, large, well-organized, and quite well equipped. It was not such a clear-cut case of Yankee Bullies attacking a pushover country like it would be now.

Really? Their performance makes that almost hard to believe. I really doubt they were any better than any European army of the day, which IMO would be a prerequisite for being called one of the better armies.

As Samuel stated, we paid them 18.25 million for land and reparations and forgave all debts. But surely the blame must entirely rest upon the evil imperialist Americans, for surely the Mexican Army was responsible for no atrocities, what with them being the peaceful innocents that they were.

The Goliad "massacre" would actually have been called business as usual, for the Mexican Army was fighting insurgents and traitors, to whom the protection of laws does not really apply at the time. This only got changed a couple decades later, I believe. So if you want to be legalistic about it, the Mexicans were absolutely in the right to kill the prisoners, but morally of course it is another story.

[Questor]

Kicking another sovereign state out of part of its territory is generally frowned on today, you know. I'm not saying Mexico would be totally in the right either, but maybe some concessions like no import-export tariffs or reciprocating on anyone with state ID from the former Mexican states not needing a visa to enter the country wouldn't hurt.

Zuane, are you under the impression that this happened recently? The Texas Revolution was 175 years ago.

As was stated, the United States paid $18.5mn, which is almost half a billion of todays dollars - using CPI inflation.

Who exactly do you think should not need a visa to enter the United States under your proposal? Most of the people who lived in the former Mexican states were dead by the time the modern passport system came into existence.

As for import/export tariffs, I'm pretty sure the intent of NAFTA was to eliminate them. Not sure if it did or not though.

[Zaune]

I wasn't aware that there was a statute of limitations for these things. The government of Argentina would certainly deny there is, and so would enough Mexicans that it would probably be a good idea to get an impartial third party to rule on the rights or wrongs of it.

And I suggested merely holding Mexicans wishing to enter the United States to the same entry requirement as US citizens are held to when they wish to travel to Mexico, as a matter of common courtesy if nothing else.

[Questor]

I wasn't aware that there was a statute of limitations for these things. The government of Argentina would certainly deny there is, and so would enough Mexicans that it would probably be a good idea to get an impartial third party to rule on the rights or wrongs of it.

That's funny, because you said: "anyone with state ID from the former Mexican states" which implies that you think people from those states would have 1) been alive and 2) issued identification from their state - which I'm pretty sure wasn't a common practice in Mexico (or the United States) then.

And I suggested merely holding Mexicans wishing to enter the United States to the same entry requirement as US citizens are held to when they wish to travel to Mexico, as a matter of common courtesy if nothing else.

No, that's not what you said, but nice backpedal.

[paladin]

Things in Mexico must be really bad if their drones are now coming to the US!

[Akkleptos]

Mexico has no legal claim to Texas anymore. A corner stone of International Law is the power and ability to hold land. Whether we like it or night, Might Makes Right is still a fact of life.

Yeah, right. So if I forcefully evict you from your home, and for some odd reason, no one comes to your aid (police lines and 911 all are "engaged" for 170+ years), does that mean that you lose all your claims to what is righfully yours?
And if you bring some friends and their shotguns, but for some disastrous coordination mistakes and whatnot, you all get captured by my friends and me, and I -forcefully- make you sign a "treaty" while having some of my friends over at your old folks' place (say, "Alyeska City")...
Does that mean you effectively relinquish all claims to your home?

Ok, I do admit that Texas is now under a much better administration... As I keep telling my patriotic-yet-misguided students this, about that Texas story: "Just think about it... If we had kept Texas, and the rest of the Northern territories, from California to Texas in fact, we would have probably just ended up with a Tijuana, a Reynosa and a Juarez, just a few more hundred miles up north".

Mexico has no claim on anything possessed by the US because they ceded those claims after the Mexican-American War. Just because there may be Mexican revanchists or Aztlan fanatics doesn't mean Mexico has any claim to the land any longer.

Same rule applies.

No, seriously, that's something that's happening quite often around here... Drug dealers and Cartel members are snatching up houses and lands from their rightful owners... They even bring in some coerced/bribed "notarios" to make the change of the deed "legal". Does any of that mean that what the US did with California... and what Texas did when it seceeded, any more legal?

Looks like Mexico was trying to keep an eye on the cartels, and had a mechanical failure. Interesting to know they have drones, but otherwise a non-issue imho.

This is most likely what we're looking at. I mean...Wwho in their right minds would try to invade the continental US with any hope of success, since Pancho Villa (yeap, the Pershing expedition was a bust, and it was his Mexican adversaries who got to him in the end).

BTW, portraying these "drones" as some sort of of forerunners to a "Mexican invasion of Texas" seems to me as both a gross misrepresentation as well as irresponsible "journalism". Things are quite tense as it is, to lend ears to such sensationalist claims.

So what was the unmanned drone anyway, a kite with a digital camera attached to it after being set to record?

We DO have our own technology in Mexico, I'll have you know. That's how we developed colour television back in 1942 (date when the patent was issued), amongst other things. Get off your burro, snap off your siesta and take off your sombrero, we're a Western country, despite the many differences, and amongst many other things, you ignoramus.

While Mexico has little claim on Texas for much the same reasons, I must observe that the issue is more complicated than "look at the treaties" - since by that logic, france has no claim to 80% of its territorry which was ceded to Germany via treaty.

Precisely. Another instance of "might makes right".-... That's so stupid, Jean Jaques Rousseau went over it over 200 years ago (those who disagree, go read the "Social Contract" again... -Yes, pretty much the base of the modern State theory- No, REALLY! Go!).

As for Mexico & their errant drone, yeah, using drones to keep an eye on the drug cartels would be something the US probably sees favorable, so there won't be much of a problem over it. There have been problems in the past with Mexican Army and Federal Police crossing the border, either in error or pursuing someone; this will probably be a non-event by comparison.

Precisely.

did the USA give Mexico some other territories to use after it took Texas?

Uh, they did.

Um... At the time of the Texan Revolution Mexico fell apart not because of corruption... although you could call slavery a particularly evil form of corruption that corrupted the minds of the high and mighty in Texas (no wonder, they were a slavocracy, so it is only natural). Because oi, the Mexican governor of Texas actually started enforcing anti-slavery laws, and Texan slavers didn't like it.

I see what you did just there! Good point. One of the main arguments from the Texas secesionists were about Slavery, which had been abolished in Mexico since 1810 -although it was made effective only after 1824- even though slavery and slaves were less than a negligible issue back then for the Mexican Empire)

We gave them 18.25 million dollars and paid 3.25 million in debts they owed to US citizens. In return we got about a third of Mexico.

Good point. Nice for the US, forcing the Southern giant just coming out -barely- of a terrible civil war... Go, US!!!!.

By the way, the US, as a country (and this is what I tell my patriotic-yet-misled students here in Mexico, the US paid for that with blood... And I mean it literally. Blood of brother against brother. What do you think pitted the North and the South into a fratricidal war, if not the shift of power between the abolitionist North and the South, with all these new territories, that -they thought- would immediately line with them?

Also, Samuel, if I gave YOU whatever measly amount for the lands and home I took from you, and "legitimised" such trade, via the mechanism I already outlined before (corrupt officials, as per my Drug Cartel-taking-over-private-citizen's properties example)... Would that make the rightful owner of your home and lands?

I was talking about the Mexico of today Stas. Besides, whoever said the Texans were in the right to rebel?

Excellent point. Yes, Texas seceeded essentially because of the new anti-slavery laws emanating from Mexico City. As a matter of fact, it bears mentioning that they remained independent for about 11 years, before joining the US (you would have to consider what kind of terms did the Texans and the Confederates agreed on).

Kicking another sovereign state out of part of its territory is generally frowned on today, you know. I'm not saying Mexico would be totally in the right either, but maybe some concessions like no import-export tariffs or reciprocating on anyone with state ID from the former Mexican states not needing a visa to enter the country wouldn't hurt.

Now that's a first, constructive point.

In the end, we recognize the right of the people inhabitating an area of land which nation they want to belong to.
And i pretty much doubt that the majority of Texans want's to become part of Mexico.

Not all of them, but indeed, a very valid point, as I pointed out earlier. Even the original Mexican Texans would probably agree.

Shit, most Mexicans don't want to be part of Mexico. Or at least the ones that have to live in constant terror/poverty from drug lords and corrupt officials.

Hey! Actually, most Mexicans working over there have no interest in (nor know anything about, for that matter) for the so-called "American Dream". They just want the extra buck for their work. That's why most of them try to return in precisely this season, and if immigration policies and other matters didn't make it as hard, a more than significant amount of them would voluntarily go back to Mexico once they had earned enough to go back to their families a successful "bracero", knowing they could return the next year.
But, if you make it more and more difficult for these migrant workers to go through the borders, you'll only end up with more of them ending up stranded in the US, and wanting to take their families into the US with them).

It is also worth remembering that back in the days of the first Mexican-American armed clashes, from the Texas era onward, the Mexicans were not the Sad Sack country they are now; they were in fact one of the better armies of the day, large, well-organized, and quite well equipped. It was not such a clear-cut case of Yankee Bullies attacking a pushover country like it would be now.

Yes, but you should also consider that the Mexican Empire was back then severely weakened by internecine war, and individualism (everyone with a large troop command thought they had a shot at the Big Chair) was tearing the Mexican forces apart even before the actual war started.

But, yes, Historians regard it as the David and Goliath story, only that it was the big, chaos-ridden Catholic Goliath to the South, against the well organised, and unified little Protestant little-engine-that-could David to the North (who got incredibly lucky).

Bah, I'm done....!
I've got more things to do tonight...!

Those more enlightened in regards of History are more than welcome to join in and masticate upon the residues of whatever petty historic misconceptions might be left behind.

[MKSheppard]

It is also worth remembering that back in the days of the first Mexican-American armed clashes, from the Texas era onward, the Mexicans were not the Sad Sack country they are now; they were in fact one of the better armies of the day, large, well-organized, and quite well equipped.

Bullshit. If that was the case; then why was their best unit the Batallón de San Patricio, made up of Irish deserters from the U.S. Army?