Mexican Revolution w/ No or Alt WWI

We talk often about preventing or changing the First World War, but often overlook that this was happening during, and changed the course of, one of the most significant Western Hemisphere Conflicts of the 20th Century. So for this thread: How would the course of the Mexican Revolution, and the course of involved nations (not just Mexico, but the United States, etc) be affected in the following scenarios?

1) the war is prevented in 1914, and no other major wars between European powers take place for at least several decades
2) the United States remains neutral (if you need a more details than that, I'd prefer going with this; short version, the CP win)
3) Germany manages to win the war after the US joins (PoD in 1918)

In any of the cases, for example: Do generals in Mexico take different lessons from Europe, and does this affect any key battles? What effects does this have? Does the United States side with a different faction (e.g. continue supporting Pancho Villa)? Do they now more likely to intervene in Mexico militarily? Does this lead to more or fewer Latin American military interventions? And how does this change the history of not only Mexico, but the United States as well? And what other effects in the US and Latin America are worth discussing?
 
Battlr of Celaya

In April of 1915 General Obregon defeated Pancho Villa at the Battle of Celaya. Supposedly Obregon devised an entrenched defense based on the lessons learned from the war in Europe. If Villa decisively won Celaya there is a good chance (not a certainty) that together with Zapata he could have overthrown Carranza.
 
In April of 1915 General Obregon defeated Pancho Villa at the Battle of Celaya. Supposedly Obregon devised an entrenched defense based on the lessons learned from the war in Europe. If Villa decisively won Celaya there is a good chance (not a certainty) that together with Zapata he could have overthrown Carranza.

With this victory, plus the U.S. being less worried about events in Europe, that would be a possibility. At the very least, it butterflies New Columbus and the Villa Expedition.
 
Patton is credited with inventing US motorized warfare during the Villa Expedition and being the leading authority on tanks and mobile warfare from his experience in France. He commanded the tanks in France and was instrumental in US armored doctrine. Without a US presence in Europe, and if we say no Patton in Mexico... good lord the US is doomed in Casablanca and Normandy, not to mention the Battle of the Bulge. Not to mention- who would they model Cotton Hill after?!
 
1) the war is prevented in 1914...
If Villa decisively won Celaya there is a good chance (not a certainty) that together with Zapata he could have overthrown Carranza.
Looking over the board, there was a TL that looked at roughly this scenario. Don't know about the annexations, but otherwise it's pretty interesting. Longer term, what would a Mexico where Villa and Zapata (sort of) won look like?
2) the United States remains neutral (if you need a more details than that, I'd prefer going with this; short version, the CP win)
I expect, without getting sucked into a war in Europe, the US may stand a good chance of seriously escalating their military activities in Mexico, possibly even occupying sections of the country. Any thoughts?
3) Germany manages to win the war after the US joins (PoD in 1918)
Still no idea about this.
 
Looking over the board, there was a TL that looked at roughly this scenario. Don't know about the annexations, but otherwise it's pretty interesting. Longer term, what would a Mexico where Villa and Zapata (sort of) won look like?

I think in the intermediate term you would see some variation on the Plan de Ayala (agrarian redistribution) implemented. IIRC Obregon did do a toned down version OTL with the support of most of the Zapatistas OTL.

There is the thorny question of whether Villa who was mercurial, ruthless and egotistic might turn on Zapata and make himself dictator.

Another interesting question is whether they might try to nationalize Mexico's petroleum industry which was owned by US and UK firms (though they paid essentially protection pesos to a local warlord) The war increased demand for petroleum. Absent that the market should remain soft and maybe they can get away with nationalization early.
 
I think in the intermediate term you would see some variation on the Plan de Ayala (agrarian redistribution) implemented. IIRC Obregon did do a toned down version OTL with the support of most of the Zapatistas OTL.

There is the thorny question of whether Villa who was mercurial, ruthless and egotistic might turn on Zapata and make himself dictator.
It bears remembering that there were multiple visions for land reform before, during, and after the Mexican Revolution; the land reform proposed by Villa and Obregon came down to turning making property holders out of the poor, while Zapistas looked for farmers to preserve the group farming of native people, who would hold the land in common.
Another interesting question is whether they might try to nationalize Mexico's petroleum industry which was owned by US and UK firms (though they paid essentially protection pesos to a local warlord) The war increased demand for petroleum. Absent that the market should remain soft and maybe they can get away with nationalization early.
OTOH, if oil is cheaper, the gains from seizing it (and pissing off the US to at least some extent) will be less.
 
Zapata was more of a Marxist than Villa. This is one reason that a break may occur. If the break does not occur immediately the land reform is likely going to be an awkward compromise between Villa's ideas and Zapata's. It may be ironic in light of OTL but the US will likely favor Villa over the Zapatistas.

There are some wildcards as Mexico was close to warlordism in this period and that is not going away with a snap of the fingers. Another is Huerta who was looking to regain power with German backing. It is not clear how this plays out with no Great War (there were German interests in Mexico prewar). Wilson detested Huerta and if there is a chance of his regaining power Wilson might regard V+Z as not so bad. Hearst will see things differently.
 
Alternatively, the U.S. continues to support Villa while pushing him to break with Zapata, hoping for milder reforms. In which case, Pancho Villa becoming dictator may not be so far off...
 
Hmm what's the driver for this occupation? Hearst banging the drum? Wilson did not like Hearst. Zapata being too Marxist? But with no Bolshevik Revolution there should be considerably less Red Scare (note I didn't say none whatsoever). Maybe if there is a protracted civil war between Zapata and Villa with rampant warlordism and banditry with refugees streaming over the US border.
 
I expect, without getting sucked into a war in Europe, the US may stand a good chance of seriously escalating their military activities in Mexico, possibly even occupying sections of the country. Any thoughts?
Hmm what's the driver for this occupation? Hearst banging the drum? Wilson did not like Hearst. Zapata being too Marxist? But with no Bolshevik Revolution there should be considerably less Red Scare (note I didn't say none whatsoever).
My thinking here is that the US still has lots of economic interests in Mexico, and they're increasingly worried about how to secure them; by 1917, the US and Pancho Villa already had a falling out, Carranza was looking to get comfy with the Germans (which he may still be able to do, depending on how WWI ends earlier), and Zapata is, well, Zapata. It won't be, and wasn't, just Hearst banging the drum, and Wilson didn't flinch at militarily occupying other, admittedly weaker, Latin American countries (e.g. Haiti). And if they didn't decide to send the brunt of their military force to Europe, then at the very least they'd be in a better position to invade.

But you do bring up valid counterpoints (Wilson being more idealistic than your warmonger, and the absence of a Bolshevik Revolution making things easier for socialists both in the US and abroad).
 
Top