What's a reasonably likely, preferable end to the Mexican Revolution starting in 1910?
Best end to the Mexican Revolution
- Thread starter Rush Tarquin
- Start date
Everyone loves a dystopia, but no one cares to minimise that clusterfuck of a war(s)?
Everyone loves a dystopia, but no one cares to minimise that clusterfuck of a war(s)?
In a sense, the best outcome should be no Revolution at all.
However, that means also the prosecution of a pitiless oppression over most Mexicans.
So... Well, if someone decent enough manages not to be assissinared... Morelos maybe...
Madero's main problem is that he tried to compromise and take the middle path in the middle of a bloody civil war.
Villa and Zapata thought he was betraying the ideals of the revolution and everyone else was power hungry and when they found out that Madero didn't have anyone's actual support they simply removed him.
Madero failed to realize that you cant compromise when one side is filled with idealists and the other with power hungry ass holes that will only stab you in the back if they think it stands half a chance at making them more powerful.
Madero never has the charisma, or ability to form around himself a loyal following the way Villa and Zapata did, even without being generals.
Perhaps the best option for Madero, and probably Mexico, would be for either Madero to figure out that attempts at compromise will get him no where, except dead, or for Villa and Zapata to realize that Madero isn't really a traitor.
In any case Madero needed people that are actually loyal to him or to some ideals compatible to his own, and he needs to realize that. Or he could just have been a better judge of character, that would have solved a lot of problems.
Villa and Zapata thought he was betraying the ideals of the revolution and everyone else was power hungry and when they found out that Madero didn't have anyone's actual support they simply removed him.
Madero failed to realize that you cant compromise when one side is filled with idealists and the other with power hungry ass holes that will only stab you in the back if they think it stands half a chance at making them more powerful.
Madero never has the charisma, or ability to form around himself a loyal following the way Villa and Zapata did, even without being generals.
Perhaps the best option for Madero, and probably Mexico, would be for either Madero to figure out that attempts at compromise will get him no where, except dead, or for Villa and Zapata to realize that Madero isn't really a traitor.
In any case Madero needed people that are actually loyal to him or to some ideals compatible to his own, and he needs to realize that. Or he could just have been a better judge of character, that would have solved a lot of problems.
This. Madero was too much of an idealist himself, who surrounded with Díaz's lackeys (who at the end took potshots at backstabbing him), and lacked a strong ideology of his own. His best bet would have been to include Villa and Zapata's ideals (or themselves if possible) into his cabinet and take heed of their ideas. However, this opens up another can of worms: their ideas, while similar, had very different focuses, which corresponded more to the places they came from.
Indeed. Mexico had a very strong economy before the 1910 revolution, but afterwards it all went to bollocks. The only thing that could have worked is if Díaz had groomed a successor, and really stepped down from power like he promised. That way, people would have got their dose of "bread and circus" of having free elections, while rigging it from behind the scenes, to ensue a continuation of his policies.