Could the USA have annexed the entire American continent and send pioneering and homesteading german and European...

we could annex canada and mexico right now and nobody would care

the inevitable raids and rebellions of the conquered Mexicans will justify their decimation to smaller numbers.

meanwhile in real life

Attached: 1577934176388.jpg (1280x876, 118.36K)

>meanwhile in real life

Attached: jose.jpg (1200x707, 726.09K)

VGH, LAS AMERICAS MEXICANOS, EL HOGAR

We have given away our country before. We can do it again if it means destroying mutt ass.

Attached: 4446076279_62635c6f49_z.jpg (640x485, 118.07K)

>We have given away our country before. We can do it again if it means destroying mutt ass.
should have just razed every city in mexico and burn down all of the hutts desu.

And where are you going to get those settlers? Or the manpower to drive 10 million people from their homes and keep them all in one place? Or the national opposition?

>And where are you going to get those settlers? Or the manpower to drive 10 million people from their homes and keep them all in one place?
artillery bombing all of the cities to dust.

>And where are you going to get those settlers?
homestead acts, marketing in Europe to the Northern European peasants about free 200 acres of land, using ships to transport british and european peasants.

That doesn't answer my question
What makes you think there would have been even enough people to fill the country? Or enough people willing to live Europe? And why would they settle in the jungle areas or desert parts? Never mind your objective is to conquer all of the Americas

Stop feeding the larpers

>What makes you think there would have been even enough people to fill the country? Or enough people willing to live Europe? And why would they settle in the jungle areas or desert parts? Never mind your objective is to conquer all of the Americas

>What makes you think there would have been even enough people to fill the country?
eventually with the high birthrates and immigration that homesteads generates they will be re populated.
USA population
1840 17,069,453
1850 23,191,876
1860 31,443,321
1890 62,979,766
1910 92,228,496

British population
1851–1861 27,368,800
Germany population
1871 41 million,
French population
1850, 36 million

to mostly develop all that's needed in the former latin american states you would need around 3 million in each to have firm control over the land.

We couldn’t even take canada

Canada was much stronger than Mexico and Latin America.

>>The US army marched on Mexico city with minimal problems.
Yeah, because Mexico have some years of independence in that moment.

Attached: 1596747044933.gif (320x240, 474.52K)

Soon brother soon

Canadians had all the top technology, latin americans had medieval technology at best.

Landings and siege of Veracruz
Main article: Siege of Veracruz
Bombardment of Veracruz

Veracruz was defended by Mexican General Juan Morales with 3,400 men. Mortars and naval guns under Commodore Matthew C. Perry were used to reduce the city walls and harass defenders. The bombardment on March 24, 1847, opened in the walls of Veracruz a thirty-foot gap.[179] The defenders in the city replied with its own artillery, but the extended barrage destroyed the will of the Mexican side to fight against a numerically superior force, and they surrendered the city after 12 days under siege. U.S. troops suffered 80 casualties, while the Mexican side had around 180 killed and wounded, while hundreds of civilians were killed.[180] During the siege, the U.S. soldiers began to fall victim to yellow fever.

Attached: Battle_of_Veracruz.jpg (640x405, 73.34K)

Canada was part of the British Empire.

dawlishchronicles.com/2017/10/17/the-panama-crisis-of-1885-and-chiles-cruiser-esmeralda/
>The comparison of the Esmeralda with the American ships was stark. The USS Shenandoah, which would have faced the Chilean ship in combat had the situation degenerated into a shooting war, was a wooden steamer commissioned in 1862 and had seen service in the Civil War. Armed almost entirely with muzzle-loading cannon of that period, this 1375-ton, 225-foot vessel would have been no match for the Esmeralda. It was easy to imagine this modern cruiser staying easily out of range of the Shenandoah’s antiquated weapons and blasting her to matchwood with her own powerful modern breech-loaders. The same applied to the other American vessels deployed, and indeed to the whole US Navy other than a few armoured monitors unsuited to blue-water operations.
Note, that if Mexico at the time wasn't a unstable mess, even they could have soundly defeated the US through guerilla warfare. It is estimated that the US had as much casualties as Mexicans due to diseases. The US still didn't have a military that could curb stomp the entire continent (on paper). Hell, even Ulysse Grant thought that the US wouldn't be able to have the same resounding success against Mexico during Porfirio's regime in the 1880s after it had stabilized.

Americans had better technology, more guns, more ammunition, more artillery and more ships Paco.
The US conquered Mexico city with minuscule total costs.
Guerilla warfare would not exist with scorch earth tactics as there's nothing particularly enticing in preserving Mexican lives if they do not wish to be preserved.

Mexico surrender because the liberals betray us, US have not way of conquest all Mexico, you never take guadalajara and other cities.

>Mexico surrender because the liberals betray us, US have not way of conquest all Mexico, you never take guadalajara and other cities.
Without Mexico city Mexico just had scattered villages without any development or roads nor trains.

>>Without Mexico city Mexico just had scattered villages without any development or roads nor trains.
And you should take every single one, like happened with the france some decades after.

>And you should take every single one
I don't see what would be the problem in slaughtering or capturing people without any guns or ammo.