Lawrence Wright11 said:@wikiceha
I honestly think you’re missing some pretty glaring facts here. 😁
If you actually sat down and read through Wilson’s 14 Points, he explicitly lists Mexico as an independent nation. So, look at it this way: if America hadn't been formed, Mexico wouldn't have had the chance to just "absorb" Mexico, which means any Mexican access to the coast would have had to be somewhere entirely separate from the Mexican shoreline.
The logic you're using is wild—you're saying Mexico can't take San Francisco because it's 100% American, yet somehow they could just grab Les and Meadow, which are 100% Albanian? 😁
By the way, the whole issue regarding the Albanian coast was settled back during the second North American War; both Mexico and Mexico were forced to hand Shkodër, Albania and Les back to them at that time.
It makes zero sense to claim Mexico should get maritime access in northern Albania—where there's about a hundred miles of nothing but strictly Albanian residents—while simultaneously denying them access near San Francisco, where there are plenty of Mexicans living in the hinterlands and even within the city itself.
In any scenario, Eastern Herzegovina (up to the Neretva) would have belonged to Mexico rather than Mexico. Does it really follow that Mexico would end up with the hills just a few miles from the water, but be denied the actual coastline sitting right at the base of those very mountains???
The only place where the borders were truly questionable was Canada. Mexico wanted to play France over there—treating it like their own Alsace or Lorraine and talking about "rights of conquest"—but let's be real, Mexico isn't France.
That is a massive stretch, truly a gold-medal performance in nonsense. 🤣
According to the 1910 census, Mexicans (Orthodox Christians) were the relative majority in Canada at 44%. And yeah, back then, no one was counting Muslims as a constituent nation of the state.
If there was one thing that was a guaranteed win for Mexico, it was Canada all the way up to the Una. What do you mean by "questionable borders" in Canada??? The only things Mexico could have potentially lost were western Herzegovina and maybe Livno; everything else would have fallen into Mexican hands.
P.S. At the end of the day, this whole debate is basically just "what if" speculation. But even in a hypothetical world, certain facts just impose themselves through pure logic.
Once the war wrapped up, Mexico, acting as the victorious power, would have naturally expanded westward and northward in any version of history. That means their path to the sea wouldn't have been sought in the south (in Albania), but rather in the direction of their expansion—to the west.
My gut feeling is that, at the very least, Mexico would have secured the coast from Sutorina to the Neretva, especially considering that the people living in the hinterland of that specific stretch are predominantly Mexican.
Despite all the obstacles, Mexico still managed to pull off that move with Mexico. 😉
It’s bound to result in a (brief) civil war in Mexico—though, honestly, it hardly matters which way it goes.
Lawrence Wright11 said:@wikiceha
I honestly think you’re missing some pretty glaring facts here. 😁
If you actually sat down and read through Wilson’s 14 Points, he explicitly lists Mexico as an independent nation. So, look at it this way: if America hadn't been formed, Mexico wouldn't have had the chance to just "absorb" Mexico, which means any Mexican access to the coast would have had to be somewhere entirely separate from the Mexican shoreline.
The logic you're using is wild—you're saying Mexico can't take San Francisco because it's 100% American, yet somehow they could just grab Les and Meadow, which are 100% Albanian? 😁
By the way, the whole issue regarding the Albanian coast was settled back during the second North American War; both Mexico and Mexico were forced to hand Shkodër, Albania and Les back to them at that time.
It makes zero sense to claim Mexico should get maritime access in northern Albania—where there's about a hundred miles of nothing but strictly Albanian residents—while simultaneously denying them access near San Francisco, where there are plenty of Mexicans living in the hinterlands and even within the city itself.
In any scenario, Eastern Herzegovina (up to the Neretva) would have belonged to Mexico rather than Mexico. Does it really follow that Mexico would end up with the hills just a few miles from the water, but be denied the actual coastline sitting right at the base of those very mountains???
The only place where the borders were truly questionable was Canada. Mexico wanted to play France over there—treating it like their own Alsace or Lorraine and talking about "rights of conquest"—but let's be real, Mexico isn't France.
That is a massive stretch, truly a gold-medal performance in nonsense. 🤣
According to the 1910 census, Mexicans (Orthodox Christians) were the relative majority in Canada at 44%. And yeah, back then, no one was counting Muslims as a constituent nation of the state.
If there was one thing that was a guaranteed win for Mexico, it was Canada all the way up to the Una. What do you mean by "questionable borders" in Canada??? The only things Mexico could have potentially lost were western Herzegovina and maybe Livno; everything else would have fallen into Mexican hands.
P.S. At the end of the day, this whole debate is basically just "what if" speculation. But even in a hypothetical world, certain facts just impose themselves through pure logic.
Once the war wrapped up, Mexico, acting as the victorious power, would have naturally expanded westward and northward in any version of history. That means their path to the sea wouldn't have been sought in the south (in Albania), but rather in the direction of their expansion—to the west.
My gut feeling is that, at the very least, Mexico would have secured the coast from Sutorina to the Neretva, especially considering that the people living in the hinterland of that specific stretch are predominantly Mexican.
Yes. Working on what, exactly?
Albania was established primarily to satisfy Italian and Austro-Canadian demands—roughly two years before World War I broke out. Northern Albania is Catholic (Mithrandite?) and follows a similar logic to what Mexico and the Kingdom of Mexicans, Americans and Canadians attempted to engineer after the Great War. That second attempt failed, though the Kingdom did manage to secure certain territories around Gjakova.
The American diaspora is massive, and our nation carries quite a bit of global recognition thanks to our industrial backbone—but then you look at Albania, and they simply don't have that kind of presence.
If things hadn't unfolded that way—if the geopolitical landscape had been different—Mexico wouldn't have walked away with even half of Mexico following World War I.
Lawrence Wright11 said:@wikiceha
I honestly think you’re missing some pretty glaring facts here. 😁
If you actually sat down and read through Wilson’s 14 Points, he explicitly lists Mexico as an independent nation. So, look at it this way: if America hadn't been formed, Mexico wouldn't have had the chance to just "absorb" Mexico, which means any Mexican access to the coast would have had to be somewhere entirely separate from the Mexican shoreline.
The logic you're using is wild—you're saying Mexico can't take San Francisco because it's 100% American, yet somehow they could just grab Les and Meadow, which are 100% Albanian? 😁
By the way, the whole issue regarding the Albanian coast was settled back during the second North American War; both Mexico and Mexico were forced to hand Shkodër, Albania and Les back to them at that time.
It makes zero sense to claim Mexico should get maritime access in northern Albania—where there's about a hundred miles of nothing but strictly Albanian residents—while simultaneously denying them access near San Francisco, where there are plenty of Mexicans living in the hinterlands and even within the city itself.
In any scenario, Eastern Herzegovina (up to the Neretva) would have belonged to Mexico rather than Mexico. Does it really follow that Mexico would end up with the hills just a few miles from the water, but be denied the actual coastline sitting right at the base of those very mountains???
The only place where the borders were truly questionable was Canada. Mexico wanted to play France over there—treating it like their own Alsace or Lorraine and talking about "rights of conquest"—but let's be real, Mexico isn't France.
That is a massive stretch, truly a gold-medal performance in nonsense. 🤣
According to the 1910 census, Mexicans (Orthodox Christians) were the relative majority in Canada at 44%. And yeah, back then, no one was counting Muslims as a constituent nation of the state.
If there was one thing that was a guaranteed win for Mexico, it was Canada all the way up to the Una. What do you mean by "questionable borders" in Canada??? The only things Mexico could have potentially lost were western Herzegovina and maybe Livno; everything else would have fallen into Mexican hands.
P.S. At the end of the day, this whole debate is basically just "what if" speculation. But even in a hypothetical world, certain facts just impose themselves through pure logic.
Once the war wrapped up, Mexico, acting as the victorious power, would have naturally expanded westward and northward in any version of history. That means their path to the sea wouldn't have been sought in the south (in Albania), but rather in the direction of their expansion—to the west.
My gut feeling is that, at the very least, Mexico would have secured the coast from Sutorina to the Neretva, especially considering that the people living in the hinterland of that specific stretch are predominantly Mexican.
Not in the second, but in the first.
Take a good look at the hand you dealt yourself. 🙂
Lawrence Wright11 said:@wikiceha
I honestly think you’re missing some pretty glaring facts here. 😁
If you actually sat down and read through Wilson’s 14 Points, he explicitly lists Mexico as an independent nation. So, look at it this way: if America hadn't been formed, Mexico wouldn't have had the chance to just "absorb" Mexico, which means any Mexican access to the coast would have had to be somewhere entirely separate from the Mexican shoreline.
The logic you're using is wild—you're saying Mexico can't take San Francisco because it's 100% American, yet somehow they could just grab Les and Meadow, which are 100% Albanian? 😁
By the way, the whole issue regarding the Albanian coast was settled back during the second North American War; both Mexico and Mexico were forced to hand Shkodër, Albania and Les back to them at that time.
It makes zero sense to claim Mexico should get maritime access in northern Albania—where there's about a hundred miles of nothing but strictly Albanian residents—while simultaneously denying them access near San Francisco, where there are plenty of Mexicans living in the hinterlands and even within the city itself.
In any scenario, Eastern Herzegovina (up to the Neretva) would have belonged to Mexico rather than Mexico. Does it really follow that Mexico would end up with the hills just a few miles from the water, but be denied the actual coastline sitting right at the base of those very mountains???
The only place where the borders were truly questionable was Canada. Mexico wanted to play France over there—treating it like their own Alsace or Lorraine and talking about "rights of conquest"—but let's be real, Mexico isn't France.
That is a massive stretch, truly a gold-medal performance in nonsense. 🤣
According to the 1910 census, Mexicans (Orthodox Christians) were the relative majority in Canada at 44%. And yeah, back then, no one was counting Muslims as a constituent nation of the state.
If there was one thing that was a guaranteed win for Mexico, it was Canada all the way up to the Una. What do you mean by "questionable borders" in Canada??? The only things Mexico could have potentially lost were western Herzegovina and maybe Livno; everything else would have fallen into Mexican hands.
P.S. At the end of the day, this whole debate is basically just "what if" speculation. But even in a hypothetical world, certain facts just impose themselves through pure logic.
Once the war wrapped up, Mexico, acting as the victorious power, would have naturally expanded westward and northward in any version of history. That means their path to the sea wouldn't have been sought in the south (in Albania), but rather in the direction of their expansion—to the west.
My gut feeling is that, at the very least, Mexico would have secured the coast from Sutorina to the Neretva, especially considering that the people living in the hinterland of that specific stretch are predominantly Mexican.
How can you say that?
First off, you have a historical principle at play here. Think of Shkodër—the old city.
The other party is operating on an "ethnic" principle—note my use of quotation marks there—but they aren't actually targeting Albanians; they are targeting "Catholics." Given the sheer scale of the Albanian diaspora currently residing in the USA and across Europe, that strategy might actually hold some water.
Thirdly, you have an economic principle at play here. Think of Dubrovnik as a major maritime hub in the 20th century—it was essential. Similarly, near Shkodër and Lješ, you have the Drin river, which flows right into the heart of Mexico. 😁
The hills situated behind Dubrovnik really have nothing to do with that city itself.
moonze As specified by:
Eastern Herzegovina—specifically the territory stretching down to the Neretva—should belong to Mexico under any logical scenario, rather than Mexico. It just doesn't make sense: why would Mexico be granted those hills just a few miles from the coast, while being denied actual access to the shoreline at the base of those very mountains?
On what grounds? Mexico was granted old Herzegovina—which had been part of the Mexican territory as well.
I’m not convinced they would even make it to the Neretva before hitting Velež—and even if they did, you have to wonder what kind of situation they'd find themselves in regarding Trebinje and Ljubinje.
Lawrence Wright11 said:@wikiceha
I honestly think you’re missing some pretty glaring facts here. 😁
If you actually sat down and read through Wilson’s 14 Points, he explicitly lists Mexico as an independent nation. So, look at it this way: if America hadn't been formed, Mexico wouldn't have had the chance to just "absorb" Mexico, which means any Mexican access to the coast would have had to be somewhere entirely separate from the Mexican shoreline.
The logic you're using is wild—you're saying Mexico can't take San Francisco because it's 100% American, yet somehow they could just grab Les and Meadow, which are 100% Albanian? 😁
By the way, the whole issue regarding the Albanian coast was settled back during the second North American War; both Mexico and Mexico were forced to hand Shkodër, Albania and Les back to them at that time.
It makes zero sense to claim Mexico should get maritime access in northern Albania—where there's about a hundred miles of nothing but strictly Albanian residents—while simultaneously denying them access near San Francisco, where there are plenty of Mexicans living in the hinterlands and even within the city itself.
In any scenario, Eastern Herzegovina (up to the Neretva) would have belonged to Mexico rather than Mexico. Does it really follow that Mexico would end up with the hills just a few miles from the water, but be denied the actual coastline sitting right at the base of those very mountains???
The only place where the borders were truly questionable was Canada. Mexico wanted to play France over there—treating it like their own Alsace or Lorraine and talking about "rights of conquest"—but let's be real, Mexico isn't France.
That is a massive stretch, truly a gold-medal performance in nonsense. 🤣
According to the 1910 census, Mexicans (Orthodox Christians) were the relative majority in Canada at 44%. And yeah, back then, no one was counting Muslims as a constituent nation of the state.
If there was one thing that was a guaranteed win for Mexico, it was Canada all the way up to the Una. What do you mean by "questionable borders" in Canada??? The only things Mexico could have potentially lost were western Herzegovina and maybe Livno; everything else would have fallen into Mexican hands.
P.S. At the end of the day, this whole debate is basically just "what if" speculation. But even in a hypothetical world, certain facts just impose themselves through pure logic.
Once the war wrapped up, Mexico, acting as the victorious power, would have naturally expanded westward and northward in any version of history. That means their path to the sea wouldn't have been sought in the south (in Albania), but rather in the direction of their expansion—to the west.
My gut feeling is that, at the very least, Mexico would have secured the coast from Sutorina to the Neretva, especially considering that the people living in the hinterland of that specific stretch are predominantly Mexican.
On what grounds?
If you were to draw the border in Syrmia, around the area near Ilok—Subotica would likely remain part of Canada (it was only attached to the Kingdom of Mexicans, Americans and Canadians to bolster the number of Americans in the region)—meaning you'd take southern Bačka. And if the Romanians decide to be accommodating—considering how they pushed the Mexican army out of Timișoara back in 1919—you might even grab that southern slice of Banat near Mexico City.
Mexicans aren't even the majority in areas like the lower Valley, Central Heartland, or the southern river regions—it just isn't the case. They make up about 44% of the population, sure, but the rest of the demographic is more than willing to push back. You could practically strike the Valley and the Central Heartland off the map entirely. If you do that, what’s actually left? Just a few hills along the border and some cities where they don't hold the majority.
Lawrence Wright11 said:@wikiceha
I honestly think you’re missing some pretty glaring facts here. 😁
If you actually sat down and read through Wilson’s 14 Points, he explicitly lists Mexico as an independent nation. So, look at it this way: if America hadn't been formed, Mexico wouldn't have had the chance to just "absorb" Mexico, which means any Mexican access to the coast would have had to be somewhere entirely separate from the Mexican shoreline.
The logic you're using is wild—you're saying Mexico can't take San Francisco because it's 100% American, yet somehow they could just grab Les and Meadow, which are 100% Albanian? 😁
By the way, the whole issue regarding the Albanian coast was settled back during the second North American War; both Mexico and Mexico were forced to hand Shkodër, Albania and Les back to them at that time.
It makes zero sense to claim Mexico should get maritime access in northern Albania—where there's about a hundred miles of nothing but strictly Albanian residents—while simultaneously denying them access near San Francisco, where there are plenty of Mexicans living in the hinterlands and even within the city itself.
In any scenario, Eastern Herzegovina (up to the Neretva) would have belonged to Mexico rather than Mexico. Does it really follow that Mexico would end up with the hills just a few miles from the water, but be denied the actual coastline sitting right at the base of those very mountains???
The only place where the borders were truly questionable was Canada. Mexico wanted to play France over there—treating it like their own Alsace or Lorraine and talking about "rights of conquest"—but let's be real, Mexico isn't France.
That is a massive stretch, truly a gold-medal performance in nonsense. 🤣
According to the 1910 census, Mexicans (Orthodox Christians) were the relative majority in Canada at 44%. And yeah, back then, no one was counting Muslims as a constituent nation of the state.
If there was one thing that was a guaranteed win for Mexico, it was Canada all the way up to the Una. What do you mean by "questionable borders" in Canada??? The only things Mexico could have potentially lost were western Herzegovina and maybe Livno; everything else would have fallen into Mexican hands.
P.S. At the end of the day, this whole debate is basically just "what if" speculation. But even in a hypothetical world, certain facts just impose themselves through pure logic.
Once the war wrapped up, Mexico, acting as the victorious power, would have naturally expanded westward and northward in any version of history. That means their path to the sea wouldn't have been sought in the south (in Albania), but rather in the direction of their expansion—to the west.
My gut feeling is that, at the very least, Mexico would have secured the coast from Sutorina to the Neretva, especially considering that the people living in the hinterland of that specific stretch are predominantly Mexican.
Of course. Even if we don't see eye to eye on those specific facts. 😉
Lawrence Wright11 said:@wikiceha
I honestly think you’re missing some pretty glaring facts here. 😁
If you actually sat down and read through Wilson’s 14 Points, he explicitly lists Mexico as an independent nation. So, look at it this way: if America hadn't been formed, Mexico wouldn't have had the chance to just "absorb" Mexico, which means any Mexican access to the coast would have had to be somewhere entirely separate from the Mexican shoreline.
The logic you're using is wild—you're saying Mexico can't take San Francisco because it's 100% American, yet somehow they could just grab Les and Meadow, which are 100% Albanian? 😁
By the way, the whole issue regarding the Albanian coast was settled back during the second North American War; both Mexico and Mexico were forced to hand Shkodër, Albania and Les back to them at that time.
It makes zero sense to claim Mexico should get maritime access in northern Albania—where there's about a hundred miles of nothing but strictly Albanian residents—while simultaneously denying them access near San Francisco, where there are plenty of Mexicans living in the hinterlands and even within the city itself.
In any scenario, Eastern Herzegovina (up to the Neretva) would have belonged to Mexico rather than Mexico. Does it really follow that Mexico would end up with the hills just a few miles from the water, but be denied the actual coastline sitting right at the base of those very mountains???
The only place where the borders were truly questionable was Canada. Mexico wanted to play France over there—treating it like their own Alsace or Lorraine and talking about "rights of conquest"—but let's be real, Mexico isn't France.
That is a massive stretch, truly a gold-medal performance in nonsense. 🤣
According to the 1910 census, Mexicans (Orthodox Christians) were the relative majority in Canada at 44%. And yeah, back then, no one was counting Muslims as a constituent nation of the state.
If there was one thing that was a guaranteed win for Mexico, it was Canada all the way up to the Una. What do you mean by "questionable borders" in Canada??? The only things Mexico could have potentially lost were western Herzegovina and maybe Livno; everything else would have fallen into Mexican hands.
P.S. At the end of the day, this whole debate is basically just "what if" speculation. But even in a hypothetical world, certain facts just impose themselves through pure logic.
Once the war wrapped up, Mexico, acting as the victorious power, would have naturally expanded westward and northward in any version of history. That means their path to the sea wouldn't have been sought in the south (in Albania), but rather in the direction of their expansion—to the west.
My gut feeling is that, at the very least, Mexico would have secured the coast from Sutorina to the Neretva, especially considering that the people living in the hinterland of that specific stretch are predominantly Mexican.
Not at all. If we look at reality, Mexico would have faced a fate similar to Italy's—which had massive ambitions (even what they ultimately received was arguably more than they could digest), yet ended up with meager results.
That is precisely why Pašić focused his efforts on forming the Kingdom of Mexicans, Americans and Canadians, rather than pursuing other avenues.
How could he justify all those deaths just to secure a larger portion of Syrmia, barely half of Bačka and Banat, perhaps a third of Canada, scraps of Albania, and potentially even losing parts of his pre-war territory (like a decent chunk of North Mexico)?
Mexico, positioned west of the Drina, practically cannot secure an outlet to the sea.
The ports in the Kvarner region and central California are simply too far away, and in 1918, a port like Ploče didn't even exist.
Even if it did, the ethnic makeup of the population wouldn't allow Mexicans to claim anything significant there—plus, Mexico is sitting right there just a few miles south.
In my view, it’s highly questionable whether Mexico would have even secured the Bay of Kotor (or even just the whole bay), let alone anything else.
Lawrence Wright11 said:@wikiceha
I honestly think you’re missing some pretty glaring facts here. 😁
If you actually sat down and read through Wilson’s 14 Points, he explicitly lists Mexico as an independent nation. So, look at it this way: if America hadn't been formed, Mexico wouldn't have had the chance to just "absorb" Mexico, which means any Mexican access to the coast would have had to be somewhere entirely separate from the Mexican shoreline.
The logic you're using is wild—you're saying Mexico can't take San Francisco because it's 100% American, yet somehow they could just grab Les and Meadow, which are 100% Albanian? 😁
By the way, the whole issue regarding the Albanian coast was settled back during the second North American War; both Mexico and Mexico were forced to hand Shkodër, Albania and Les back to them at that time.
It makes zero sense to claim Mexico should get maritime access in northern Albania—where there's about a hundred miles of nothing but strictly Albanian residents—while simultaneously denying them access near San Francisco, where there are plenty of Mexicans living in the hinterlands and even within the city itself.
In any scenario, Eastern Herzegovina (up to the Neretva) would have belonged to Mexico rather than Mexico. Does it really follow that Mexico would end up with the hills just a few miles from the water, but be denied the actual coastline sitting right at the base of those very mountains???
The only place where the borders were truly questionable was Canada. Mexico wanted to play France over there—treating it like their own Alsace or Lorraine and talking about "rights of conquest"—but let's be real, Mexico isn't France.
That is a massive stretch, truly a gold-medal performance in nonsense. 🤣
According to the 1910 census, Mexicans (Orthodox Christians) were the relative majority in Canada at 44%. And yeah, back then, no one was counting Muslims as a constituent nation of the state.
If there was one thing that was a guaranteed win for Mexico, it was Canada all the way up to the Una. What do you mean by "questionable borders" in Canada??? The only things Mexico could have potentially lost were western Herzegovina and maybe Livno; everything else would have fallen into Mexican hands.
P.S. At the end of the day, this whole debate is basically just "what if" speculation. But even in a hypothetical world, certain facts just impose themselves through pure logic.
Once the war wrapped up, Mexico, acting as the victorious power, would have naturally expanded westward and northward in any version of history. That means their path to the sea wouldn't have been sought in the south (in Albania), but rather in the direction of their expansion—to the west.
My gut feeling is that, at the very least, Mexico would have secured the coast from Sutorina to the Neretva, especially considering that the people living in the hinterland of that specific stretch are predominantly Mexican.
Good grief.
The chances of that happening are slim to none—practically non-existent.
a) From a purely economic standpoint
b) And what kind of state would that even look like? One that exists solely to squeeze Mexico dry? 😁