I think for a POD not quite as massive in scale as the Independence ones everyone else has been proposing but still meaningful could be for Mexico to hold onto Central America.
A Much Stronger Latin-America
- Thread starter 9 Fanged Hummingbird
- Start date
Yeah, I don't like the large scale PoD's everyone else is proposing either. The ones involving Brits kinda take away the idea of Latin-America, and also they make it seem that the whole area was further beyond hope than they really were.
As Mexico being stronger would be very important for this as a limit and a stopper to both Spanish and American imperialism, I'll focus on my ideas for Mexico first. Yeah, keeping Central America could be quite important, but what is most important is they get rid of the colonial caste system imposed by the Spanish completely. This was the problem for most of the colonies. It retarded progress and caused constant strife and civil war that made them weak.
In Mexico this could be accomplished the same way it was in Paraguay; having an autocratic ruler not afraid of doing whatever it takes to limit the power and influence of the criollos and the church. They did have their fair share of autocratic despots, but these were typically criollos who were in favor of the status quo. Having an iron-fisted "man of the people" appealing to the masses by giving land to the poor and whatnot. Although not being as arbitrary and totalitarian as Paraguay's first dictator would also help. I mean, dude's paranoid streak made Stalin look reasonable.
Anyways, eventually this hypothetical autocrat would have to be deposed or relinquish power, but until then if they could shake up the system enough to make Mexicans much more equal, it would be quite helpful to preventing the strife and civil war of OTL, and pave the way towards industrialization. I'm not sure who this dude would be, perhaps Miguel Hidalgo could fit the bill. Perhaps have him be more successful and have his creole allies remain more loyal to him, leading him to win Mexico's independence earlier and as he was popular with the Indians and Mestizos, he could certainly have the clout and power to drag Mexico away from the rigid class system and towards a more modern society.
Adding Central America does NOTHING for Mexico.
Half of Mexico's problems in OTL came from its broad and disconnected territory and the huge societal differences found across the map. Adding Central America makes things worse- see the USCA and Mexico's own attempts to rule the region in OTL if you want proof.
History isn't a strategy game- more territory does not necessarily help. Adding Central America would result in a Mexico that would divert more of its money towards extractive agriculture and military maintenance. Not exactly starters for most industry.
Half of Mexico's problems in OTL came from its broad and disconnected territory and the huge societal differences found across the map. Adding Central America makes things worse- see the USCA and Mexico's own attempts to rule the region in OTL if you want proof.
History isn't a strategy game- more territory does not necessarily help. Adding Central America would result in a Mexico that would divert more of its money towards extractive agriculture and military maintenance. Not exactly starters for most industry.
RE: Benevolent dictators... they don't exist. And in the case of Mexico, any such hypothetical dictator would have to do a reign of terror on the scale of the French Revolution. Which would only create more problems, even if you think it would bring about "modernity" and "progress".
You would have to go back and prevent those social structures from coming into place in order for there to be a chance of removing that from the equation.
You would have to go back and prevent those social structures from coming into place in order for there to be a chance of removing that from the equation.
Presumably part of Hresvelgr's autocrat's agenda would be to break down the societal differences between the various areas of "Greater Mexico". Having Central America's agricultural resources would free up regular Mexican people to go into the industrial business and stop worrying about just getting by, foodwise. This is long term, but Mexico would also end up sitting on two prime spots for a canal that would cut down Atlantic-Pacific travel by a lot. Control of such a canal would be very beneficial, money-wise, but granted, this is a bit too much foresight considered how far ahead of the POD it is.
It does not work that way, LC. Possessing Central America does not free up resources in the rest of Mexico- it results in a realignment of investments to the profitable export agriculture of Central America. Less chance of industrialization in such a scenario.
Its the exact same thing we see in modern day Africa- extractive level investments are easy and profitable, so why spend money on industry?
Its the exact same thing we see in modern day Africa- extractive level investments are easy and profitable, so why spend money on industry?
I'll grant you that Central America is not very important, but about the autocrat thing, sorry but no democratically-elected president would be able to solve some of Mexico's major early problems if the people electing him were the richest and most self-serving lot in the country who would remove him at will as IOTL. And notice that I did make a point about such an autocrat having to relinquish power or be deposed at some point. Just, only after they can severely weaken or eliminate the power of the criollo elite and the church. Once more land and wealth is distributed among the masses and the elite can't do anything about it, they'll see less civil strife. Mexico's internal problems are the number one reason it did so badly OTL.
See ? What the hell is this talk about "Islam, Religion of Peace" or whatever you call it ?? Those damned musslemen ! It is our faith of Democracy which is the true faith sent down from the heavens !!
Perhaps if the entire method of Spanish colonialism was altered. If spain had practiced Merchantalism, could Mexico have seen an American style revolution? Perhaps with a slightly more conservative twist, the addition of a constitutional monarch perhaps?
See ? What the hell is this talk about "Islam, Religion of Peace" or whatever you call it ?? Those damned musslemen ! It is our faith of Democracy which is the true faith sent down from the heavens !!
See: the PRC will be laughing all the way to the bank.
maverick
Banned
See ? What the hell is this talk about "Islam, Religion of Peace" or whatever you call it ?? Those damned musslemen ! It is our faith of Democracy which is the true faith sent down from the heavens !!
What the hell does this have to do with ANYTHING?
See ? What the hell is this talk about "Islam, Religion of Peace" or whatever you call it ?? Those damned musslemen ! It is our faith of Democracy which is the true faith sent down from the heavens !!
What a nice non-sequitur.
If the sociopolitical landscape will not allow for an effective democratic governance of a state, it won't allow for the effective autocratic governance of it either. It applies to both cases equally.
And if you consider the PRC a success.... I'd first like to say that you're wrong and secondly that the parallel of the PRC would have to come quite a bit later.
Mercantilism was the way the Spanish ran things. The Bourbon Reforms were good because they took the Spanish colonies away from mercantilist excesses of the Hapsburgs. For instance all trade in the Americas had to go through Cadiz, that was how the Hapsburgs ran it. Which meant not only did all European goods flow through there but all American goods too. The Latin american countries were technically not supposed to trade with each other, though the smuggling was one of the more profitable trades in Colonial Latin America.
Paraguay had a similar problem, and yet their first ruler managed to equalize much of Paraguayan society to a great extent. Granted, he did so by being as ruthless as hell and was a cold-hearted bastard, but he did it. He brought Paraguay closer to being a powerful state than the backwater it was previously. Granted, a criollo who fled his regime did finish the job and was making Paraguay even more modern and progressive, but his dumbass son screwed it all up and damned Paraguay to obscurity and near-genocide.
Also, I hope I wasn't wrong in reporting Ridwan. Just that it seemed to be blatant trolling, what with an Islam rant in a Latin-America thread of all places.
maverick
Banned
Yes, but I'd like to point out that Paraguay was an isolated case, and also an example of micro-management, much like Taiwan when compared to the PRC.
Would Chiang Kai Sheck been able to replicate the successes of Taiwan, especially the economic successes of the later cold war, had he remained in control of China? It's hard to say, you certainly can't say that it's the same to manage Taiwan or Singapore than to manage all of China, and it's not the same to manage Paraguay than to manage Argentina or Mexico, which had greater populations, urban centers and stronger urban liberal elites, not to mention larger territories that were more liable to be attacked.
Yeah, I'm certain they wouldn't be able to accomplish it totally, but simply enough to create some more national unity would do.
But such an approach almost always does the opposite. Paraguay was at least mostly without regionalism. Mexico is not. The conflicts between Conservatives and Liberals almost always hinged on local autonomy and the degree to which authority were centralized.
If you get an autocrat like that in Mexico, he'd only make regional tensions worse.
As much as how democracy is just sooo inevitably suitable for all kinds of situations.
I don't consider PRC as a success, it's just that their system is still suitable for their situation, at least in the sense of it is still safe doing it.
I just get irked easily whenever anyone says anything that implies democracy is an omnipotent form of government. I won't deny the good parts of democracy compared to other forms of government. However, it's not perfect, nor celestially sacred, and can't be just slotted to any kind of situation. Hresvlgr basically intended to point out that problem, that something has to be done with Mexico in order they will suitable with democracy, that is changing the situations that made democracy did more bad than good to that country IOTL. He was trying to be nice, but you need to be woken up faster then he might had thought.
I don't mind on Hresvlgr's decision to report me. Granted what I did wasn't nice, but this fanatical overt worship of democracy has been let away too long I've just lost it......
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Total unity wouldn't have been practicable, but regional unities could have helped - if you had the countries of the Viceroyalty of Rio de la Plata (plus Chile) as one state, that would have eliminated a whole lot of horrible wars and defense spending. There aren't really a lot of naval threats, and the one that exists isn't really resistible navally anyway.
Likewise, New Granada could have been a useful combination.