Second Mexican American War in 1919

[History Learner]

In 1919, there was a major war scare with Mexico over the attack on American diplomats and a threat to nationalize the oil industry (largely owned by Americans), which gave at the worst possible point as America was already in the throes of the First Red Scare. Congress at this time also produced documentation of Pro-German and Pro-Bolshevik actions within Mexico, inflaming the crisis. Ultimately it came down solely to President Wilson.

For more info:
Woodrow Wilson and the Mexican Interventionist Movement of 1919
1919: William Jenkins, Robert Lansing, and the Mexican Interlude
Tempest in a Teapot? The Mexican-United States Intervention Crisis of 1919

Of note, to me personally, is this statement before Congress by Congressman J.W. Taylor of Tennessee:

"If I had my way about it, Uncle Sam would immediately send a company of civil engineers into Mexico, backed by sufficient military forces, with instructions to draw a parallel line to and about 100 miles south of the Rio Grande, and we would...annex this territory as indemnity for past depredations . . and if this reminder should not have the desired effect I would continue to move the line southward until the Mexican government was crowded off [the] North America."

​

These feelings were the culmination of a decade of frustration and anger with Mexico, stretching back into the height of that country's Revolution/Civil War. To quote from "An Enemy Closer to Us than Any European Power": The Impact of Mexico on Texan Public Opinion before World War I by Patrick L. Cox, The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Jul., 2001, Vol. 105, No. 1 (Jul., 2001), pp. 40-80:

The Wilson administration and the military again blamed the conflict on Villa. Governor Ferguson expressed the feelings of many when he advocated United States intervention in Mexico to "assume control of that unfortunate country." J. S. M. McKamey, a banker in the South Texas community of Gregory concluded, "we ought to take the country over and keep it." As an alternative, McKamey told Congressman McLemore that the United States should "buy a few of the northern states of Mexico" because it would be "cheaper than going to war." The San Antonio Express urged the Mexican government to cooperate with Pershing's force to pursue those who participated in "organized murder, plundering and property destruction."​

 

[Deleted member 88]

This is actually really interesting, do you have a good cassus belli?

Personally I could see the US maybe annexing some northern Mexican states. Problem always was-the Mexican population was Catholic and Mestizo, and there was no way the US would have enough settlers to displace them. Not to mention it was vast in number. Far too vast to overwhelm.

If war did break out I expect the Americans would steamroll organized Mexican resistance, though Villa and other guerilla movements would be a major pain. Which would invite reprisals against the Mexican population.

Would definitely be a different inter war era, if the US was involved trying to conquer and pacify-even Northern Mexico, I couldn't tell you what the knock effects would be, beyond a larger US military and even less interest in European affairs.

 

[ATP]

In 1919, there was a major war scare with Mexico over the attack on American diplomats and a threat to nationalize the oil industry (largely owned by Americans), which gave at the worst possible point as America was already in the throes of the First Red Scare. Congress at this time also produced documentation of Pro-German and Pro-Bolshevik actions within Mexico, inflaming the crisis. Ultimately it came down solely to President Wilson.

For more info:
Woodrow Wilson and the Mexican Interventionist Movement of 1919
1919: William Jenkins, Robert Lansing, and the Mexican Interlude
Tempest in a Teapot? The Mexican-United States Intervention Crisis of 1919

Of note, to me personally, is this statement before Congress by Congressman J.W. Taylor of Tennessee:

"If I had my way about it, Uncle Sam would immediately send a company of civil engineers into Mexico, backed by sufficient military forces, with instructions to draw a parallel line to and about 100 miles south of the Rio Grande, and we would...annex this territory as indemnity for past depredations . . and if this reminder should not have the desired effect I would continue to move the line southward until the Mexican government was crowded off [the] North America."​

​

These feelings were the culmination of a decade of frustration and anger with Mexico, stretching back into the height of that country's Revolution/Civil War. To quote from "An Enemy Closer to Us than Any European Power": The Impact of Mexico on Texan Public Opinion before World War I by Patrick L. Cox, The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Jul., 2001, Vol. 105, No. 1 (Jul., 2001), pp. 40-80:

The Wilson administration and the military again blamed the conflict on Villa. Governor Ferguson expressed the feelings of many when he advocated United States intervention in Mexico to "assume control of that unfortunate country." J. S. M. McKamey, a banker in the South Texas community of Gregory concluded, "we ought to take the country over and keep it." As an alternative, McKamey told Congressman McLemore that the United States should "buy a few of the northern states of Mexico" because it would be "cheaper than going to war." The San Antonio Express urged the Mexican government to cooperate with Pershing's force to pursue those who participated in "organized murder, plundering and property destruction."​

In OTL mexican masons start prosecuting catholics after WW1,which lead to catholic uprising called "Christiada",and start winning .Masons get USA support,including planes, and win,but in exchange they must grant USA everything USA wonted economically.
Now that would not happen,becouse USA arleady have everything they wonted,so catholics would win.

I would say,that for Mexico it would be better option - those catholics was free market supporters,when ruling masons was making socialist/oligarcg economy,so Mexico would become economically stable.

 

[lordhen]

In 1919, there was a major war scare with Mexico over the attack on American diplomats and a threat to nationalize the oil industry (largely owned by Americans), which gave at the worst possible point as America was already in the throes of the First Red Scare. Congress at this time also produced documentation of Pro-German and Pro-Bolshevik actions within Mexico, inflaming the crisis. Ultimately it came down solely to President Wilson.

For more info:
Woodrow Wilson and the Mexican Interventionist Movement of 1919
1919: William Jenkins, Robert Lansing, and the Mexican Interlude
Tempest in a Teapot? The Mexican-United States Intervention Crisis of 1919

Of note, to me personally, is this statement before Congress by Congressman J.W. Taylor of Tennessee:

"If I had my way about it, Uncle Sam would immediately send a company of civil engineers into Mexico, backed by sufficient military forces, with instructions to draw a parallel line to and about 100 miles south of the Rio Grande, and we would...annex this territory as indemnity for past depredations . . and if this reminder should not have the desired effect I would continue to move the line southward until the Mexican government was crowded off [the] North America."​

​

These feelings were the culmination of a decade of frustration and anger with Mexico, stretching back into the height of that country's Revolution/Civil War. To quote from "An Enemy Closer to Us than Any European Power": The Impact of Mexico on Texan Public Opinion before World War I by Patrick L. Cox, The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Jul., 2001, Vol. 105, No. 1 (Jul., 2001), pp. 40-80:

The Wilson administration and the military again blamed the conflict on Villa. Governor Ferguson expressed the feelings of many when he advocated United States intervention in Mexico to "assume control of that unfortunate country." J. S. M. McKamey, a banker in the South Texas community of Gregory concluded, "we ought to take the country over and keep it." As an alternative, McKamey told Congressman McLemore that the United States should "buy a few of the northern states of Mexico" because it would be "cheaper than going to war." The San Antonio Express urged the Mexican government to cooperate with Pershing's force to pursue those who participated in "organized murder, plundering and property destruction."​

Some former high ranking people in Germany will be disappointing that there is now a war between Mexico and the United States.

 

[ATP]

Some former high ranking people in Germany will be disappointing that there is now a war between Mexico and the United States.

Indeed.They wonted war in 1917 to help Germany,not in 1919 when that could lead only to discovering more proof of german support and harsher USA terms on arleady defeated Germany.

 

[History Learner]

This is actually really interesting, do you have a good cassus belli?

Personally I could see the US maybe annexing some northern Mexican states. Problem always was-the Mexican population was Catholic and Mestizo, and there was no way the US would have enough settlers to displace them. Not to mention it was vast in number. Far too vast to overwhelm.

If war did break out I expect the Americans would steamroll organized Mexican resistance, though Villa and other guerilla movements would be a major pain. Which would invite reprisals against the Mexican population.

Would definitely be a different inter war era, if the US was involved trying to conquer and pacify-even Northern Mexico, I couldn't tell you what the knock effects would be, beyond a larger US military and even less interest in European affairs.

The proximate cause for the conflict was the kidnapping of William Jenkins, who was an American consular official. After his release, Mexican authorities arrested him, claiming he was behind his own kidnapping; of the sources listed, the majority conclusion is that this was untrue and probably an effort by Mexican leaders to absolve themselves of failing to protect American diplomatic officials. Outside of this immediate cause, there was underlying issues afoot, most prominently the looming threat of the Carranza Government to nationalize American oil interests as well as a recent report from the U.S. Congress showing recent Bolshevik (and Pro-German, during WWI) activities within Mexico that was considered a threat to the United States. This is important, given that the First Red Scare was currently underway.

The crisis reached its decisive point in November, when Secretary of State Robert Lansing sought to issue an ultimatum to force a conflict. According to Never Wars: The US War Plans to Invade the World by Blaine Pardoe, the U.S. Military had first drawn up embryonic plans during the crisis, and these were later refined into War Plan Green later in the 1920s. From these, we know the idea was of a force of around 400,000 U.S. soldiers (Both Army and Marines) to fight the conflict, with a holding action and limited offensives along the existing U.S. border. The main thrust, however, was to come via an amphibious landing action against Veracruz and from there an overland campaign was to be conducted against Mexico City, with the capture of said location to be the main objective. Essentially, in many ways, it was a replay of the earlier conflict in the 1840s. What ultimately prevented it was President Wilson, who recovered from his stroke and thus was able to undermine Secretary Lansing and defuse the tensions.

As far as what would come next, that is a good question. According to the 1921 Mexican Census, the population of Mexico was 14,334,780 compared to 106,021,537 Americans, based on the 1920 Census. During the 1840s war, Mexico had 1/3 of the population of the United States but now, in 1919, it had just 13.5% of the U.S. population, making it a much more easily digestible conquest if all of it was taken. If not all, and just Northern Mexico was taken, said area was still very sparsely populated and given the even greater disparity between the U.S. population and this smaller area, it could be reasonably annexed. As for the Catholic issue, they composed about 18% of the U.S. population, meaning there was 19 million Catholics in America; more than the entire population of Mexico, quite ironically.

Overall, I think the U.S. could do either and make it work. Undoubtedly insurgency would occur after, but the U.S. Military at this time had a lot of institutional experience in successfully fighting such, from the still recent Indian Wars, the Philippine–American War, the various interventions in the 1910s and then, later in the historical 1920s, in Central America during the so called "Banana Wars". Whether they would is probably the real question, and I think it depends on political developments in the U.S. itself and what actions the Mexicans themselves take.

 

[ATP]

So,we had 3 possibilities:
1.USA take all,some problems,but eventually all become good american.
2.USA take North,rest dissolved into few states/for example,Mayan people had practically their own state on Jukatan then/
3.One state - in which case we have cyvil war win by catholics,who made free market reform and strong economically Mexico.And when they become rich,they probable lost their Faith - but that is how it usually works.

 

[History Learner]

Whether they would is probably the real question, and I think it depends on political developments in the U.S. itself and what actions the Mexicans themselves take.

One development of note is, given the nature of the 1920 Election, who would win the GOP nomination? For example, the case of Leonard Wood:

After having considered a candidacy in 1916, in 1920 Wood was a serious contender for the Republican nomination.[42] The major candidates were Senator Hiram Johnson of California, a progressive who opposed U.S. involvement in the League of Nations; Governor Frank Orren Lowden of Illinois, who supported women's suffrage and Prohibition, and opposed U.S. entry into the League of Nations; and Wood, whose military career made him the personification of competence and ties to Theodore Roosevelt earned him the backing of many of Roosevelt's former supporters, including William Cooper Procter.[42] Senator Warren G. Harding of Ohio was a dark horse candidate, running as a favorite son in order to maintain his hold on Ohio's Republican Party and secure his reelection to the Senate.[42] At the convention, Wood led on the first four ballots, was second on the fifth, tied with Lowden on the sixth, and led again on the seventh.[42] With none of the three front runners able to obtain a majority, support for Harding started to grow and he won the nomination on the tenth ballot.[42] Delegates nominated Calvin Coolidge for vice president, and the Harding-Coolidge ticket went on to win the general election.[42]​

​

Why is such important? Wood was an imperialist who opposed granting independence to the Philippines IOTL and thus probably would feel the same about Mexico or portions thereof:

The Jones Act remained the basic legislation for the administration of the Philippines until the United States Congress passed new legislation in 1934 which became effective in 1935, establishing the Commonwealth of the Philippines. Provisions of the Jones Act were differently interpreted, however, by the governors general. Harrison rarely challenged the legislature by his use of the veto power. His successor, General Leonard Wood (1921-27), was convinced that United States withdrawal from the islands would be as disastrous for the Filipinos as it would be for the interests of the United States in the western Pacific. He aroused the intense opposition of the Nacionalistas by his use of the veto power 126 times in his six years in office. The Nacionalista Party created a political deadlock when ranking Filipino officials resigned in 1923 leaving their positions vacant until Wood's term ended with his death in 1927. His successors, however, reversed Wood's policies and reestablished effective working relations with Filipino politicians.​

 

[History Learner]

So, the PoD is easy: Wilson recovers a few days later, by which point Secretary of State Lansing and Senator Fall have forced the conflict with Mexico and Wilson has no choice but to persecute it.

Planning done over the course of 1919 suggested about 400,000 troops were needed for the operation, which due to the recent World War, were readily available along with large equipment stocks. The direct war planning for the campaign was more embryonic in nature, but was later refined into War Plan Green in the late 1920s quite easily. Basically, the conflict would be a replay of 1846-1848, in that there would be an amphibious landing in Veracruz before commencing an overland invasion from there to Mexico City. In the borderlands to the North, the U.S. would mainly stay static and prevent any Mexican incursions (Think 1916 Columbus Raid) while also probably doing raiding of their own; that strategic points/cities might be occupied too is probably a given.

All together, I wouldn't be surprised if the conflict wraps up within the course of 1920, at least the conventional phase of it. Once Mexico City falls to the U.S. Army, however, it gets difficult. In 1848, the U.S. wasn't seeking to replace the existing Government so they could cut a deal and then get out; here, they are doing the opposite and thus must hunt down officials or sufficiently cut them down that they can install their own replacement. Installing a puppet and then bailing out just isn't going to work here, because the moment they do the original one will overthrow it. As a result, they will need to occupy the whole country and conduct an Anti-Insurgency campaign.

As stated earlier, the U.S. has the advantage of sufficient numbers and a fair amount of institutional memory in this. The Philippine War is recent with lots of officers with experience there, and historically we saw the U.S. do this type of warfare quite well in the Banana Wars. Hell, 1920 isn't that far removed from the last of the Indian Wars either. As an added final bonus, the Mexican populace as a whole is pretty tired; they've just come out of a decade long Civil War with up to 2.7 million casualties, or roughly the same amount of casualties the USSR took in WWII. Over time, any insurgency will wither and die, and the U.S. can gradually reduce its presence over the course of the 1920s. Unlike, say, South Vietnam IOTL I'd imagine a favorable disposition would ultimately come towards the occupation; after a decade of civil war, the U.S. Army would be providing real stability and security, while American investment would likely flood into Mexico in a way it didn't until the late 20th Century or so, creating jobs. That American soldiers would also be major customers for many Mexican products is a bonus.

In the background of all of this, the First Red Scare is probably going strong all 1920 long and probably carries Leonard Wood to the GOP nomination as a result. By the time he's sworn into office in March of 1921, the conventional phase will have ended and the anti-partisan phase will have begun and like carry on for most of his Presidency. As cited earlier, Wood was an Imperialist and the need to build a new government from scratch would likely see a "Commonwealth of Mexico" established, with a nominal national Government in place but backed up by force of American arms and a Governor-General in de facto command. Obviously, a lot of changes are going to be occurring domestically within the United States at the same time too. For one, with Wood as a President, it's very likely the Pershing Plan gets implemented on the basis of national defense and the obvious economic benefits. Perhaps more important, however, is that the U.S. is unlikely to disarm as much as it did historically. In our historical 1919, Army Chief of Staff Peyton Marsh proposed a standing force of 500,000 men, a National Guard of an additional 500,000, and 100,000 reserve officers to be used as a cadre for additional following divisions. Obviously this went nowhere in our world, but here President Wood has the bully pulpit and the occupation of Mexico/extended Red Scare, at least to me, makes it likely due to sheer need.

There's also obviously more mundane political considerations to be taken into account as well. For one, there's no Harding as President, which means no Teapot Dome scandal and this is likely enough to carry Theodore Roosevelt Jr to the Governor's office in New York, which means no Al Smith in 1928 and likely no FDR either in 1932. I'd suspect Coolidge would still be Vice President under Wood, his popularity pre-dating the divergence, and I expect him to not run for a term of his own in 1928 thus paving the way for Herbert Hoover. I don't see the Great Depression being avoided with the given specifics of the scenario (It's possible, if Wood picked Senator Lenroot as his VP in 1920 IMHO), which likely means a President McAdoo in 1932. I'd imagine McAdoo would do several things from the First New Deal just as FDR did, in particular the banking holiday; he had done that previously in 1914 and prevented the Anglo-French from collapsing the U.S. economy during the early days of World War I. I'd imagine by this point the U.S. occupation force in Mexico would be more skeletal in nature in general and defense cuts would be inevitable. However, the floor is higher here given the earlier actions, which means even deep cuts would still leave the U.S. Armed Forces better off relative to our own history.

Otherwise, however, the situation is more murky because I don't see McAdoo or the "traditional" Democrats going for what FDR did with the Second New Deal and things like the Wagner Act. There might also be more aversion to deficit spending from the onset and impacting sooner. Historically, this probably resulted in the Recession in 1937, and so we may see that occur in 1936 or even 1935 here. That, combined with Labor not backing McAdoo without a Wagner Act analogue leaves the President very, very vulnerable to a primary or even third party challenge by Huey Long. One irony of a Red Scare induced Mexican War in 1919/1920 might be a more Social Democratic United States in the long run as a result.

 

[PsihoKekec]

I think the biggest problem will be the morale of the troops, they signed up for the war in Europe and wanted to go home, they might grit their teeth and carry on until the fall of Mexico City, but afterwards there would be serious problems with discipline and also domestic upheaval about ''bringing our boys home''. So the occupation of Mexico might encounter similar troubles as Reconstruction - quick downsizing of the army and thereby not enough soldiers for all the tasks.

In the borderlands to the North, the U.S. would mainly stay static and prevent any Mexican incursions (Think 1916 Columbus Raid) while also probably doing raiding of their own; that strategic points/cities might be occupied too is probably a given.

I don't think so, while I agree that Vera Cruz will be the main effort, there will be auxiliary advances along the border, because the best way to secure the border is to push the enemy as further away as possible.

 

[History Learner]

I think the biggest problem will be the morale of the troops, they signed up for the war in Europe and wanted to go home, they might grit their teeth and carry on until the fall of Mexico City, but afterwards there would be serious problems with discipline and also domestic upheaval about ''bringing our boys home''. So the occupation of Mexico might encounter similar troubles as Reconstruction - quick downsizing of the army and thereby not enough soldiers for all the tasks.

The vast majority of the World War I force had already been demobilized by this point, with the Joint Board calling for a force of about 400,000 to be used on Mexico in comparison to the 4 Million raised during the former conflict. Total U.S. Armed Forces strength in 1919 was 1,172,602 of whom 851,624 were U.S. Army. Assuming the 50:1 ratio for a successful occupation and the 1921 Mexican population of 14,334,780 people, the U.S. would need to keep about 290,000 troops in Mexico to keep it properly garrisoned.

I don't think so, while I agree that Vera Cruz will be the main effort, there will be auxiliary advances along the border, because the best way to secure the border is to push the enemy as further away as possible.

I agree, hence why I said strategic points/cities might be occupied. According to Never Wars, the U.S. Army's planning held that "The Main Army operates on the line Veracruz-City of Mexico. An Army based on the Rio Grande operates against Monterey, as a division to assist the main army, and with a view, should events permit, to pushing south to the San Luis Potosi or the City of Mexico."

 

[Husky_Khan]

Another interesting unexplored aspect would be the effect of the two year long Mexican War and the ensuing counter-insurgency campaign would have on Mexican domestic politics. The 1917 Constitution as enshrined by the Carranza Administration (which I'm guessing is going bye bye) helped foment the original reasons for the later Cristero Uprising which occurred under the Calles Administration (which lineally followed from Carranza, to Huerta to him) but means that it seems like that the Cristero Rebellion may not occur or certainly not a rebellion on the scale of one that earned the official support of the Catholic Church of Mexico.

While America wasn't exactly a bastion of Catholic love (though I feel the anti-papist sentiments in America has been overstated in general) with an ongoing American occupation and the removal of various Carranzistas (along with Villaistas and others from the 1910-20 Revolutionary era) that would prevent yet another Mexican rebellion and a few hundred thousand more dead. There might be a fear America might engage in some manner of Catholic repression but it never really came up during the Filipino-American War so it seems just as unlikely to be an issue here as well. If anything General President Wood's experience would be a plus here in his interactions with Mexican clericalism. Plus the Catholicism would be a bulwark against the Socialism that was very popular in Mexican in our time line.

That does also lead to another question of as to who the Mexican Puppet would be.

 

[Sārthākā]

The war would be won by America, that much isn't in doubt, however it is the aftermath that is interesting. Obviously, the Mexicans won't be happy under a foreign occupation, and a total annexation into the USA is impossible, even disregarding the reactions from the other Great Powers, the economic problems, and the anti-Catholic and anti-Latino prejudice America had back then, and with the Prohibition crisis also coming up, it could lead to pretty damn good butterflies.

A small nitpick to a poster above, no Mayan politician was interested in independence after the 1870s in Mexico. Neither were the people interested. So a Mayan nation in Yucatan established as an aftermath is not going to happen. More autonomy perhaps, but that is also a stretch,

 

[History Learner]

So WWII is kinda questionable with a PoD of 1919, but assuming it does happen the U.S. would probably enter with three distinct advantages that I can think of:

1. The larger standing Army and reserves, compared to OTL, would constitute a lot of mobilization experience and training expertise that could translate into a faster American military buildup. Those reserve officers in particular would provide quick cadres from which fresh divisions could be constituted upon. Instead of trying to build a multi-million man Army within two years from a base of ~140,000 they would have several hundred thousand more from which to work with.

2. The experiences of the Mexican War and occupation will obviously have an impact on weapons development. One in particular that comes to mind is the issue of the .30-06 caliber weapons, which IOTL was retained as the basis of U.S. small arms and the like because of the large stockpiles remaining after World War I. Presumably, the U.S. would tap into said stockpile instead of issuing contracts for more during the Mexican conflict and this, combined with the larger training requirements of the bigger Interwar military, will help to reduce this large stash.

What would be the ramifications of this? Well, for one, it's likely the M1 Garand enters service in the early 1930s and is chambered in .276 Pedersen, which would enable a 10 round magazine. By the time WWII rolls around or during it, an underside tublar magazine of 15-20 rounds is likely and from there all it takes is a select fire system for an American assault rifle. IOTL, the U.S. was experimenting with a select fire Garand by 1945/1946 so this would move it forward; likely an impetus for it is the ability and need to replace the BAR based on Mexican War experiences and training from the 1920s on.

3. Last, and perhaps most importantly, is access to Mexican manpower. In discussions elsewhere, I've come to the viewpoint that directly annexing Mexico is unlikely but setting it up as a Commonwealth, on the basis of Puerto Rico or the Philippines, seems likely and plausible to me. By the time WWII rolls around, that's 20 years of economic integration and familiarity which would enable the U.S. to utilize Mexico's human capital in a way it didn't IOTL. That will have very serious impacts, because in 1940-1942 the U.S. had to make the decision to abandon the 200 Division "Victory Plan" in favor of the 90 Division Gamble, because the U.S. could not sustain both industry and a large Air Force/Navy with a large Army. With Mexican industrial laborers, that frees up more American men to achieve both the 200 Division model and the large USAAF and U.S. Navy.

 

[Doomsought]

WWII is inevitable due to the French taking revenge on the Germans, and the Germans being Germans.

Woodrow Wilson being more aggressive with colonialism would also make the Fascists more aggressive with colonialism (they took many of their dues from him). That might actually split the axis if the Italians take their promised African colonies earlier and don't get snubbed by the UK. This could change the timing greatly.

 

[PsihoKekec]

There is no way UK (and France) won't snub Italy in the end, the goal of Italy is the control of Mediterranean (mare nostrum), so it was inevitable their interests would clash eventually.

 

[BlackDragon98]

There was a massive plague called the Spanish flu running rampant around the world in 1919.
Soldiers in army camps means the disease spreads faster.
Even doctors back then knew it.
Don't fight a war when a plague is going on.

 

[History Learner]

WWII is inevitable due to the French taking revenge on the Germans, and the Germans being Germans.

Woodrow Wilson being more aggressive with colonialism would also make the Fascists more aggressive with colonialism (they took many of their dues from him). That might actually split the axis if the Italians take their promised African colonies earlier and don't get snubbed by the UK. This could change the timing greatly.

The Wages of Destruction by Adam Tooze makes a very convincing case that WWII was avoidable, in that what ended up happening with the rise of the NSDAP was the result of a variety of factors coming together. The most likely outcome was something like what happened in Iberia, with a military-led regime or something of the sort; think a DNVP led Germany with more limited goals. Alternatively, had Gustav Stressman lived, we would've got a Proto-EU led by the Franco-Germans.

There was a massive plague called the Spanish flu running rampant around the world in 1919.
Soldiers in army camps means the disease spreads faster.
Even doctors back then knew it.
Don't fight a war when a plague is going on.

The third wave of the pandemic had subsided by the Summer of 1919:

 

[BlackDragon98]

The third wave of the pandemic had subsided by the Summer of 1919:

And people are still scared as shit of it.

 

[History Learner]

Taking the position WWII is inevitable, I've considered two different scenarios for it:

A) OTL WWII, but with the only difference being Richard Sorge dying in a motorcycle incident in early 1941. As a result, Stalin doesn't order the partial mobilization he historically did and he is late in pulling forces out of the Soviet Far East. Army Group Center thus handles Smolensk better, avoids the Yelna Debacle, and helps finish off Kiev sooner. Operation Typhoon starts earlier and, with fewer Soviet forces in the way, Moscow is taken. With the Soviet focus on Moscow, and the crippling of the Soviet logistical network, Army Group North is successful in linking up with the Finns on the Svir River, leading to the surrender of Leningrad in early 1942. The USSR thus collapses over the course of 1942. We thus get a Super Reich vs a Super America, with massive battles across MENA and an intense air war over Europe itself.

B) Japan seeks a diplomatic accord with China in 1934 because of concerns over the stronger United States, avoiding the confrontation with the West. The Anglo-French defeat the German offensive in the West, and the Soviets take the opportunity to jump into Eastern Europe as the Reich collapses. The German Army takes control of West Germany in alliance with the Anglo French while the Soviets overrun much of Eastern Europe and set up a rump Nazi puppet in East Germany led by Goebbels. WWII thus has a brief pause before the Anglo-French-West German alliance fights a war against the USSR and its puppets. Japan takes this opportunity to jump into the Soviet Far East.

Ultimately the Allies win and defeat the USSR, but come the 1960s the Japanese Empire has taken the place of the USSR Post-WWII but with the economy of China today; it matches the U.S. in steel, shipping, automobile production, etc. We thus get an utterly massive, intense Pacific War between the U.S. and Japan.