Could Mexico have gone Communist?

[Kayin Dreemurr]

This is something I was recently wondering about, possibly as a sort of plausibility check thing, but I decided to just do this thread instead.

As someone who has an interest in Mexico and Mexican history, but not a great dearth of knowledge in it, was there any point between say, the 1930's to the... I guess 70's or 80's that Mexico could have gone fully communist or had an initially successful Communist revolution of it's own?

 

[Kaloross]

Lázaro Cárdenas was a leftist.The Mexican Communist Party was outlawed in 1925 and remained illegal until 1935, during his presidency,he nationalized the oil industry,so they had a chance of becoming a communist country in the 1930's-1940's.

 

[Pyramus]

Any time after WWII- no
The US barely tolerated the existence of Cuba during the Cold War and it's an island, much less letting the neighbor that they share a massive southern border with join the enemy.

 

[herkles]

What about during the Mexican Revolution, could it have gone socialist/communist then?

 

[1940LaSalle]

Had Mexico gone communist before WW II, it would have been tolerated given the general attitude in the US at the time toward left-wing politics. Afterward-and especially after Churchill's Iron Curtain speech-I could see where a very real physical barrier would have been put in place. And I mean the entire length of the border. The border would be very tightly controlled and you better be able to show some damn good reasons for crossing. Cross-border trade would probably diminish to a trickle, and immigration would do likewise (although illegal immigrants, somewhat ironically, would probably be viewed as refugees from communism and would be welcomed, assuming they integrated themselves into US society, starting with learning English and securing employment).

Once the Soviet Union collapsed, maybe the border would open up some but it would take someone along the lines of Reagan or Nixon to make that happen. Even today, I suspect it would still be tightly controlled with a bare handful of checkpoints: say, maybe at the larger cities (Brownsville; Laredo; El Paso; San Diego) and a handful of interim points in California, Arizona, and New Mexico. The border towns of Calexico and Mexicali would probably glare at each other across the wall and have nothing more than that to do with each other.

Given that refugees would be a relatively small cohort, one wonders where inexpensive labor in the US would come from for jobs that are commonly viewed to be held by Mexicans? Thoughts?

 

[Alexander the Average]

Given that refugees would be a relatively small cohort, one wonders where inexpensive labor in the US would come from for jobs that are commonly viewed to be held by Mexicans? Thoughts?

Maybe Communist Mexico pulls a Yugoslavia and normalises relations with the US and NATO and exports migrant labour?

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

The US had a five plus year occupation of Nicaragua specifically to suppress a leftist takeover. Hari was occupied for political purposes, as was Cuba, & Mexico twice.

 

[Colonel Zoidberg]

Well, Mexico might have paid for that wall after all.

But Mexico is a federal system like the US, and it has a porous border with the US, so while it could have gone communist, it would have been tough to sustain it. Because the US would not only be on high alert with a communist neighbor right on its border, but it's a hop, skip and a jump from the Panama Canal, and the US would have sooner parted with the bald eagle than have the Canal run red. So you can bet that, if Mexico is communist after WWII, it will be under new, US-friendly management soon after.

 

[Ato]

Maybe Communist Mexico pulls a Yugoslavia and normalises relations with the US and NATO and exports migrant labour?

I imagine this is the most likley route if Mexico has a autocthonic revolution in the 20s or 30s.

Nay revolution directly supported by the USSR will lead to intervention sooner or later though.

 

[Dunning Kruger]

The US response to a communist revolution in Mexico would be a good TL. Mexico is not exactly going to be the easiest country to occupy and pacify.

1) If done in the 1930s, how much of an earlier arms build up occurs in the US? How does it affect the subsequent war effort. How does it affect relations with the USSR. Harder to sell Uncle Joe when thousands of GIs are dead south of the border.
2) If done in the 60s, 70s, or 80s how does this affect Vietnam, military modernization efforts, and Reagan's build up? How does it affect Nixon's trip to China?

This TL would be a virtual sandbox for the author.

 

[Eldritch Po l i t b u ro]

Maybe the 68 massacre could've snowballed into violent social chaos and a collapse of the PRI regime, allowing leftist groups to fill the void and seize power. The US might prefer to focus on the fight in Vietnam before they attempt to crush another revolution. Then again, maybe the US would opt to smother the socialist uprising on its doorstep rather than the one on the other side of the Pacific. There's even the chance they would move in to crush Vietnam and Mexico simultaneously... who knows? It's far easier for the USSR and PRC to deliver arms and other forms of support to Vietnam than Mexico. Cuba would certainly be interested in gaining a major ally that also would have to endure in the shadow of the US. Any US intervention in Mexico would lead to one of two scenarios: a long drawn out quagmire leads people across Latin America to become outraged at US imperialism, further strengthening revolutionary leftist movements. Or, rapidly successful regime change leads other right wing governments to be more confident in suppressing their populations' revolutionary tendencies. My guess is that the former would be more likely. In addition, counter culture and leftist political strains in the US would probably strengthen as well. Indeed, the call to "bring the war home" might actually gain some more ground, particularly in the south west.

68 or shortly afterwards is probably your best bet for a post-WWII red Mexico.

 

[1940LaSalle]

Well, Mexico might have paid for that wall after all.

But Mexico is a federal system like the US, and it has a porous border with the US, so while it could have gone communist, it would have been tough to sustain it. Because the US would not only be on high alert with a communist neighbor right on its border, but it's a hop, skip and a jump from the Panama Canal, and the US would have sooner parted with the bald eagle than have the Canal run red. So you can bet that, if Mexico is communist after WWII, it will be under new, US-friendly management soon after.

Yeah, the border is long, porous, and a lot of it runs through some pretty remote and desolate territory. But given the tenor of the times--after WW II--there are going to be a lot of young guys who don't want any part of the godless Commies sneaking across the border and will sign up for the INS: specifically for border patrol duty, where they can zip around in jeeps, carry loaded firearms and take a shot at anything bigger than a breadbox that moves. A lot of by-then-obsolete searchlights will find new life supporting night border patrol operations.

Not sure I'd want to be in a place like Nogales, AZ: IIRC, that's a town sitting right on the border, literally. ITTL, the border patrol presence and The Wall would be almost overwhelming. I wonder also if all bridges but one between El Paso and Juarez would be closed and even sections of spans removed (same deal around places like Laredo and Brownsville)?

 

[David T]

Very little chance. Cardenas was viewed as radical by many Americans (and some Mexicans) but he was no Communist; his nationalization of the oil industry was motivated by nationalism (a feeling that Mexico's resources had been in foreign hands too long) rather then Marxism. Even Vicente Lombardo Toledano, who led the trade union federation (the CTM) and was very pro-Soviet, was not a member of the Mexican Communist Party, and disappointed the Communists by giving the non-leftist Fidel Velázquez the second most important position in the federation. In any event, "Cardenas took steps to ensure that CTM did not acquire so much power that it could be independent of the party [i.e., the PRI, though it was called the PNR and then the PRM at the time]. He prohibited the CTM from representing government employees, creating a separate union federation for these workers, and barred the CTM from admitting farm workers to membership." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Velázquez_Sánchez The Communists did support Cardenas, but that didn't make him a Communst any more than FDR or Leon Blum were because they also enjoyed Communist support in the "Popular Front" era.

Perhaps if the US had reacted more violently than it did to the nationalizations, Cardenas might have been tempted to turn to the USSR for help--but the problem was that in the 1930's the Soviet Union was really not in a position to help Mexico the way it was to help Castro's Cuba after 1959.

 

[Geon]

It has been some years since I read an account in a book on the KGB, and I can't recall the title, where a former agent of that organization told a CIA agent of a plan to start a Communist guerilla uprising in Mexico during the late 60's. The leadership would have been surreptitiously supplied via Cuba. The plan was to force the U.S. to divert attention from Vietnam to the southern border.

 

[David T]

As for the 1960's I would still give the answer I gave at https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/wi-communist-mexico.402651/#post-13579291

"Given the weakness of the Mexican Communist Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Communist_Party and the firm grip the PRI had on Mexico in the 1960's, I'd say this is ASB. Yes, there were left-wing student protests--as there were in the US and many other countries. There is no plausible way they lead to a "Communist coup." In fact, the government was able to get away with some pretty brutal repression... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tlatelolco_massacre"

 

[Cryptic]

It has been some years since I read an account in a book on the KGB, and I can't recall the title, where a former agent of that organization told a CIA agent of a plan to start a Communist guerilla uprising in Mexico during the late 60's. The leadership would have been surreptitiously supplied via Cuba. The plan was to force the U.S. to divert attention from Vietnam to the southern border.

The soviets may not of needed to truly start such an uprising. Mexican communist militants had formed armed groups in rural areas of central Mexico during the 1960s and 1970s. The movement, however, soon faltered. Not only were rural recruits lacking (possibly caused by a culture gap between the urban militants from universities and their rural potential supporters), but the militants were also poorly armed and fragmented into independent groups.

The various leftist militant groups were quickly beset by surprisingly effective Mexican police units, semi official death squads and armed vigilante groups sponsored by wealthy land owners. The armed movement soon collapsed, but not before perhaps several hundred leftists were either killed in clashes or "disappeared" after being taken prisoner by security forces.

 

[Dave Howery]

it would kinda depend on just what Mexico did after the revolution. One reason the US was so paranoid about Cuba wasn't just the Communist aspect of it, it was the full-bore alliance with the USSR. If Mexico maintains a 'communist but not soviet ally' type of system, the US is likely to be a lot less paranoid. If they follow Cuba and become a Russian ally, then the US will understandably be very concerned...

 

[Johnrankins]

The US invades Mexico and conquers it. It finds someone to run a puppet government . It gives him enough money and equipment to raise a good sized army. The government pays its soldiers well by Mexican standards. A good majority of the soldiers will stay loyal as their families will be well taken care of by Mexican standards if they do . If they join the Communists their family has to hide in the desert somewhere vulnerable to attacks by government troops.

 

[James G]

The US response to a communist revolution in Mexico would be a good TL. Mexico is not exactly going to be the easiest country to occupy and pacify.

1) If done in the 1930s, how much of an earlier arms build up occurs in the US? How does it affect the subsequent war effort. How does it affect relations with the USSR. Harder to sell Uncle Joe when thousands of GIs are dead south of the border.
2) If done in the 60s, 70s, or 80s how does this affect Vietnam, military modernization efforts, and Reagan's build up? How does it affect Nixon's trip to China?

This TL would be a virtual sandbox for the author.

The concept for a TL is in my ideas list where the US fights a war to 'liberate' Mexico (plus most of Central America too) from Communist control. A heck of an idea, a lot of research.
One day...

 

[Cryptic]

Any US intervention in Mexico would lead to one of two scenarios: a long drawn out quagmire leads people across Latin America to become outraged at US imperialism, further strengthening revolutionary leftist movements. Or, rapidly successful regime change leads other right wing governments to be more confident in suppressing their populations' revolutionary tendencies. My guess is that the former would be more likely.

That would be my guess as well. Mexico is a large country with a large population. Controlling the country, and then propping up a replacement government is going to require a lot of resources. Mexico's large size, however, could also work against the leftists. More conservative cities and towns located away from the socialist stronghold of Mexico City could well just ignore the leftist government.

Though the leftists concentrated in Mexico City could send columns of sufficiently motivated pro lelft police and army units (probably few in number), leftists militias and loud 'n proud infrastructure occupiers to sieze control of conservative cities, these columns could be stopped by Mexican right wing militias supported by US special forces and even US airpower if needed.

Leftists, however, could probably gain at least token control over some conservative cities by using bus and station wagon blitzkrieg tactics before the US organizes a response or through creeping occupation where leftist civilians and a small number of militants filter into a town, seize infrastructure, then install socialist authority. In either case, Mexico could descend into chaotic hodgepodge as right and left wing militias fight each other, set up competing check points, alternative local governments, change sides on occasion, or descend into vigilantism and banditry.