Al Grito de Guerra: the Second Mexican Revolution

Ah ok.


Though, I was referring to Latin America's economic troubles in the 20th century also.
Well, the bases of latin american economies were set in the 19 century, in favor of raw resources exporters there wasnt and still ist any productive national bourgeoisie that could support national industry. Is just natural resources oligarchs that feel threatened by industry and trade unions.
 
It's kinda like a U.S. territory, you know, like Guam or PR, but less important


John_A_Macdonald_election_poster_1891.jpg
 
Ummmm …. nope.


Bolsonaro counts as a Latin American populist btw. Don't think he's part of the list you had in mind.


Look at Juan Peron in Argentina, Castro in Cuba and Chavez and Maduro in Venezuela (plus what I predict for Bolsonaro in Brazil and AMLO in Mexico). Not good results. Also, look at Trump and Salvini in the western world, or Duterte in the Philippines. Not good. Populism does not have the best track record.
Yes, but opposition to these regimes in America has often had little to do with human rights, and more to do with US interests.

Castro's wasn't despised for his human rights violations, but because he confiscated American property.

If Bolsonaro doesn't made noise about "imperialism" then he's OK to many American corporations.
Inflation was a logical result of the transition from the feudal agro bussiness estancia that the beloved argentina of the oligarchs was, to a cunsume economy centered around the internal market. He has inflation controlled by his second term, and plans to complete argentinian industrialization already drawn, thankfully argentina was saved of such and awful destiny by the coup of '55. And than is back to the domination of foreing capital and the local rentist.
This is Red England:


Corbyn-948987.jpg



P.S. Canada is more influenced by Scotland in many ways than England, so your joke works better if you called it Red Scotland. Sorry if I came across too nitpicky, but that's my personal opinion based on Canadian culture.

I’m glad that my timeline is inspiring such thought-provoking discussion, but if you are interested in discussing this at length, I only ask that you start a separate thread for it. I don’t think this the right place for an argument about Peronism and 19th century economic history followed by a contest to see who can find the reddest image.

A question: How bad would the violence get if, during the commotion during the "Fountain of Blood" speech, a police officer shot Cardenas, leading to Cardenas' death?
What happened to Cardenas? I assume he was arrested after his speech?
Second, was the university that big? 260,000 students?

If Cárdenas had been shot during his speech, well.....there would have been a whole lot of Los Pinos Massacres, I can tell you that much.

As for where he is at this point ITTL: the public hasn’t been told this, but after he broke down at the end of his speech on September 15, he was taken to his home and placed under what amounts to house arrest. The government has been hoping to use Cárdenas to quell the violence by having him publicly retract his call to arms, but so far they’ve had no success—he’s slunk back into an abyss of mourning for his wife and isn’t much in the mood to say anything to anyone. They don’t want to imprison him because they want him to cooperate of his own accord, and because if they sit him down in front of a TV camera to denounce the rebels while showing clear signs of physical abuse, it’ll only make things worse.

Second, was the university that big? 260,000 students?

Yes, it was positively huge. According to a manual published by the UNAM’s statistics department in 1988, the student body was 260,394 that year, making it by far the largest university in Latin America.

I'm wondering what will happen to PAN in all of this.
My guess is they'll be supported by the US as the safe-option middle ground between the PRI (who are non-palatable as corrupt tyrants) and the left-wing opposition (who are no goes because of likely far-leftist and communist involvement in their ranks). Maybe a "Rio Grande Republic" consisting of the states on the US Border ruled by the PAN bigwigs as a sort of buffer to keep the border states safe
I think I'd tend to agree there, they're not the PRI, but they're not also FDN which is also a plus in the eyes of those who are repulsed by the PRI's corruption but aren't fully in with the FDN and Cardenas. My issue would be that the are still very much the number three of the national parties, having been consigned to a (nonetheless respectable) third place with Manuel Clouthier. I guess the big thing is if he avoids his (suspicious) car accident death in 1989 ITTL, and if so he can use it to springboard to the governorship in Sinaloa and perhaps the Presidency of what is left of Mexico.

I refer to my previous comment:

As for the PAN, they are in a unique position here. They, of course, had no part in the PRI's electoral fraud and have been around for ages, so they have a reputation as the clean, sensible opposition to the PRI, in contrast to the new and increasingly volatile Frente Democratico Nacional. If the PAN leadership successfully maintains this reputation by preventing the party grassroots from rising up and joining the violence, the international community will view the PAN as the "good guys" of this conflict once it dies down, and they will be in an excellent position to form the government if the PRI is no longer in power by the time this is all over.

The PAN’s specific reaction will be covered in detail in the next update. Basically, they are in an excellent position at the moment. All they really have to do right now is sit back as the PRI and Cardenistas each damage their own public image and reputation before Mexico and before the United States, as Gonzo points out. I have much in store for Clouthier himself as well.

The possibility of a “Rio Grande Republic”, outlandish though it may be, will be very real and frightening to certain highly-placed individuals in the near future of TTL.

I know a lot of people are wondering what they are doing but I don't really see Zapatistas playing a major role short of US intervention. IOTL they took up arms following NAFTA being implemented. Here NAFTA probably won't become a thing, so I imagine the Zapatistas just hanging out during the civil war. I could be wrong, though.

The Zapatista rebellion actually started on the same day that NAFTA went into effect, so the unique economic effects of the trade agreement itself were irrelevant in causing the rebellion because they hadn't happened yet. It was more Salinas's and de la Madrid's general domestic agenda of neoliberalism and deregulation that led to the rebellion, and they both are President in this timeline, so their agenda will still be implemented throughout the country and the same forces of resentment will be unleashed.

BTW, have the Zapatistas actually done anything of value, or are they just glorified autodefensas?
I honestly haven't done enough research into 2010s Mexico to be able to answer that with certainty. They certainly do more—while the autodefenseas are largely a civil defense group whose main service is the dispensation of force as and where needed. The Zapatistas are essentially an alternative government, providing (or trying to provide) many of the same services that a government provides. I imagine that the Zapatistas have had a strong effect on the cultural identity of Native Mexicans living in Chiapas, which the autodefensas certainly don't do.

Maybe the revolution will go well for Mexico. Seems like it is the author’s intent

I'm glad you've picked up a little on that. This Revolution will involve death and atrocities, and it certainly won't be nice or pretty. But I don't have it in me to create an original dystopia. I'm not yet prepared to say that the Revolution itself will "go well" per se, but this will not be a doom-and-gloom timeline and Mexico will most certainly not be terribly screwed over by the end of it.

All I can tell at the moment is that it will be interesting.
Now that I can promise you all! ;)
 
Last edited:
Wow, I did not know that about the university. You learn something new every day :)

The Government would be retarded to kill or even disappear Cardenas. If word gets out, immediate nationwide riots. House arrest is oddly tempered for de la Madrid
 
Wow, I did not know that about the university. You learn something new every day :)

The Government would be retarded to kill or even disappear Cardenas. If word gets out, immediate nationwide riots. House arrest is oddly tempered for de la Madrid
As PRI presidents go, de la Madrid was far from the worst. He only invades the UNAM and imposes martial law ITTL because he believes (not unfoundedly) that doing so is the only way to prevent recession. Overall, de la Madrid is trying to project an image of a firm and decisive government but not a cruel one. Not only would killing Cárdenas be stupid politically, it would also be a reprehensible crime more befitting the Congo than Mexico. “Disappearing” him would be a similarly bad idea because, as stated before, Cárdenas might one day be useful in putting an end to the violence. I see house arrest as a fitting way to deal with a man whom the government isn’t even really trying to punish, it just knows he could be dangerous and wants to keep a lid on him for the time being.
 
Top