WI The Mexican Fascist Party comes to power

[SunDeep]

As it says; what if instead of condemning their movement as a poor imitation of their own as they did IOTL, the Italian Fascists had instead chosen to vociferously support the Mexican Fascists? As such, instead of collapsing immediately after the Italians' denounciation in 1924 as IOTL, the Mexican Fascist Party continues to endure and accumulate popular support, and eventually comes to power around the same time as the Nazis in Germany, in the early to mid 1930's. With Mexican backing, do the Brazilian Integralists and the National Socialist Movement in Chile succeed in their respective attempts to seize power? And how profoundly would this affect the line-up for TTL's WW2? Could TTL's Mexico (and Brazil and Chile, for that matter) be counted among the Axis powers prior to the outbreak of war? And if so, could the USA potentially enter TTL's WW2 from the outset, rather than waiting around for Pearl Harbor to awake them from their isolationism and bring them into the field of play?

 

[Alternate History]

Let's make one thing clear that many people don't usually think of. Just because a power is fascist doesn't mean that they will side with the Axis. Franco is the most obvious IRL example of this, but Mussolini and Hitler weren't always best buddies and certainly not destined to fight the war together. And since the US has always had a history of propping up tyrannical regimes, I don't see why they'd be less likely to do business with a fascist regime than a run of the mill right-wing junta - thus the Latin American fascist countries you suggest might very well continue to be pro-US or neutral in their foreign policy.

Other than that, a fascist Mexico might be plausible, I don't know for sure. A spread of fascism in Latin America might mean more wars over little strips of territory because of the fascists' possible expansionistic ambitions.

 

[SunDeep]

Let's make one thing clear that many people don't usually think of. Just because a power is fascist doesn't mean that they will side with the Axis. Franco is the most obvious IRL example of this, but Mussolini and Hitler weren't always best buddies and certainly not destined to fight the war together. And since the US has always had a history of propping up tyrannical regimes, I don't see why they'd be less likely to do business with a fascist regime than a run of the mill right-wing junta - thus the Latin American fascist countries you suggest might very well continue to be pro-US or neutral in their foreign policy.

Other than that, a fascist Mexico might be plausible, I don't know for sure. A spread of fascism in Latin America might mean more wars over little strips of territory because of the fascists' possible expansionistic ambitions.

Of course, fascist doesn't automatically mean Axis. But in Mexico's case, fascism, especially the brand of revanchist fascism they'd be likely to follow, would almost certainly automatically be anti-USA. And with a revanchist, expansionist, increasingly militarized Mexico on its southern border, with its fascist dictator spouting rhetoric about restoring the former glory of the Mexican Empire, going around annexing its former territories in Central America? Could the USA possibly adopt the isolationist, non-interventionist stance ITTL that they did IOTL, placed in the situation they'd find themselves in? Or, given that Mexico would be perceived by the American people to be a far bigger, more palpable threat than the Japanese across the vast expanse of the Pacific ever were IOTL prior to Pearl Harbor, wouldn't you expect President Roosevelt's anti-fascist, pro-Allied interventionist stance to get a lot more popular support far, far earlier?

 

[CalBear]

Mexico would need the money to build an army.

Mexico was broke, dead broke, and that was BEFORE the Depression. It was so broke that the Depression had much smaller impact than any major economy. Manufacturing was close to nil and the Civil War did little to improve that. It was not until Camacho's tenure that Mexico even began to get on its economic feet. Fascist states are lousy at economics so if anything a fascist Mexico is even a worse basket case than IOTL.

 

[SunDeep]

Mexico would need the money to build an army.

Mexico was broke, dead broke, and that was BEFORE the Depression. It was so broke that the Depression had much smaller impact than any major economy. Manufacturing was close to nil and the Civil War did little to improve that. It was not until Camacho's tenure that Mexico even began to get on its economic feet. Fascist states are lousy at economics so if anything a fascist Mexico is even a worse basket case than IOTL.

The Nazi Germans seemed to do a decent job economically (or at least gave that impression to the German people and the outside world, for their first six years in power). In Mexico, it's be even easier to generate a popular notion of economic stability and improvement than in Germany, because that bar's so much lower to begin with. And I'm not suggesting they'd be an actual threat to the USA; just that they'd be perceived as a more credible threat which would be taken more seriously by the American people than Imperial Japan was IOTL. If anything, it'd get the USA into the war earlier, provide added incentive to get the USA's military production running at full throttle more quickly, and probably shorten WW2 by a considerable margin. Perhaps American involvement from the outset of WW2 might even be enough to butterfly away the Pacific War; with the USA's true industrial might made patently clear, might this convince the Japanese to abandon the Tripartite Pact, call off the attack on Pearl Harbor and stay out of WW2 altogether? Perhaps.

 

[Asami]

The Nazi Germans seemed to do a decent job economically (or at least gave that impression to the German people and the outside world, for their first six years in power). In Mexico, it's be even easier to generate a popular notion of economic stability and improvement than in Germany, because that bar's so much lower to begin with. And I'm not suggesting they'd be an actual threat to the USA; just that they'd be perceived as a more credible threat which would be taken more seriously by the American people than Imperial Japan was IOTL. If anything, it'd get the USA into the war earlier, provide added incentive to get the USA's military production running at full throttle more quickly, and probably shorten WW2 by a considerable margin. Perhaps American involvement from the outset of WW2 might even be enough to butterfly away the Pacific War; with the USA's true industrial might made patently clear, might this convince the Japanese to abandon the Tripartite Pact, call off the attack on Pearl Harbor and stay out of WW2 altogether? Perhaps.

Nazi Germany's economy was built on a war machine and would have collapsed in any victory scenario.

 

[SunDeep]

Nazi Germany's economy was built on a war machine and would have collapsed in any victory scenario.

Well, of course we all know that now, but the German people didn't at the time, and that was what mattered. Very few people at the time did, if anyone. The same would presumably be true in TTL's Fascist Mexico. It'll never last, but it's the immediate short-term results which matter if you want to generate popular support quickly, and for a fascist government, short-term popular support is all that matters. Que the Mexican war machine economy...

 

[AudieonAHCom]

Well, of course we all know that now, but the German people didn't at the time, and that was what mattered. Very few people at the time did, if anyone. The same would presumably be true in TTL's Fascist Mexico. It'll never last, but it's the immediate short-term results which matter if you want to generate popular support quickly, and for a fascist government, short-term popular support is all that matters. Que the Mexican war machine economy...

Here:

Nazi Germany's economy are mainly geared towards war,and they have the capability to do a major war.

Mexico? Yeah..
Sure..
If you count those horses and such as their most-advanced weapons.
So no. They even doesn't have the capability to do a major war.

Well,against the Central American States-and those Island nations? Sure.

Against USA and any nations down below on South America? Epic no.

 

[SunDeep]

Here:

Nazi Germany's economy are mainly geared towards war,and they have the capability to do a major war.

Mexico? Yeah..
Sure..
If you count those horses and such as their most-advanced weapons.
So no. They even doesn't have the capability to do a major war.

Well,against the Central American States-and those Island nations? Sure.

Against USA and any nations down below on South America? Epic no.

Again; I'm not suggesting that the Mexicans have the slightest chance going up against the USA. I'm just suggesting that the threat of a fascist, militant Mexico, marching around and annexing the Central American states, might be taken seriously enough by the Americans for the USA to never to adopt an isolationist policy ITTL, and bring the Americans into WW2 from the outbreak of hostilities in the European theatre, as Roosevelt intended.

 

[CalBear]

The Nazi Germans seemed to do a decent job economically (or at least gave that impression to the German people and the outside world, for their first six years in power). In Mexico, it's be even easier to generate a popular notion of economic stability and improvement than in Germany, because that bar's so much lower to begin with. And I'm not suggesting they'd be an actual threat to the USA; just that they'd be perceived as a more credible threat which would be taken more seriously by the American people than Imperial Japan was IOTL. If anything, it'd get the USA into the war earlier, provide added incentive to get the USA's military production running at full throttle more quickly, and probably shorten WW2 by a considerable margin. Perhaps American involvement from the outset of WW2 might even be enough to butterfly away the Pacific War; with the USA's true industrial might made patently clear, might this convince the Japanese to abandon the Tripartite Pact, call off the attack on Pearl Harbor and stay out of WW2 altogether? Perhaps.

The Nazis created the appearance of a strong economy by going broke building weapons. Mexico didn't have that option, they didn't even have an arms industry or the related manufacturing base.

Dog won't hunt.

 

[Librarian]

The USA would immediately intervene as soon as Mexico tried to invade Guatemala and wreck the fascists' day. It'd be incredibly stupid for Mexico to try this.
UK would also position troops to defend British Honduras.

Yeah, less isolationist USA too, i'm sure. They'll realise they can't become clams with fascism stomping about the world.

 

[ChazMo]

Again; I'm not suggesting that the Mexicans have the slightest chance going up against the USA. I'm just suggesting that the threat of a fascist, militant Mexico, marching around and annexing the Central American states, might be taken seriously enough by the Americans for the USA to never to adopt an isolationist policy ITTL, and bring the Americans into WW2 from the outbreak of hostilities in the European theatre, as Roosevelt intended.

With what army? Mexico in the 1930s was a basket case that had never quite recovered from the Revolution. The central government was unable to assert itself in any meaningful way outside of a few of the big cities, leaving a void eagerly filled by ambitious governors, the provincial quasi-aristocracy and corporate allies of the IRP. Even if this scenario were to become reality by some miracle of Hitlerite conception, the U.S. has too much vested in the banana republics for all but a truly insane government to do diddly-squat (and I mean Tojo Hideki insane - the Mexican mindset is extremely unlikely to yield such a government as that which led Japan into its suicidal confrontation with the Allies, anyhow).

Don't get me wrong, the premise is cool. But the Latin American states of the early-20th Century, with the possible exception of Argentina, were far too weak, far too poor and far too loosely organized to give rise to anything like the hyper-centralized fascist regimes of Europe.

 

[lounge60]

Nazi Germany's economy was built on a war machine and would have collapsed in any victory scenario.

USA economy in WW-II was focused on the war machine,but have not collapsed after the victory (rather the opposite).

 

[iori]

They'd probably get crushed eventually, either by the PRI (who were themselves Fascistic) who'd been building cementing their power or by the United States (perhaps with tacit PRI support), seeing them as a threat (not just 'because Fascism' but because they'd be intrinsically nationalist and might try something).

 

[CalBear]

USA economy in WW-II was focused on the war machine,but have not collapsed after the victory (rather the opposite).

Not really. The U.S. outspends everyone on the military, but the U.S. economy is mainly driven by supplies and services, along with raw materials, manufacturing and high tech. Far & away largest GDP (EU actually shades it, but that is 28 countries, including 4 G-7 states (France, Germany, Italy, & the UK) allows a country to do a lot of things.

Even with that huge economy, the U.S. is still have to look at making some serious changes on either the income and/or spending side to keep things going.

The U.S. just has a vastly larger pie.

 

[David T]

I am curious that so many people here seem to have accepted the initial post's assumption that Italian financial support could somehow transform a marginal group like the Mexican Fascist Party into a major, let alone ruling, party. The basic problem was that "the adhesion of Catholics and conservatives to the PFM was irregular and limited, and besides, the bourgeoisie attracted to 'fascism' had already been absorbed by, and become generally satisfied with, the official revolutionary movement, not having any serious reason to fight against the revolution with an alternative programme." http://books.google.com/books?id=zSNGAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA101 This is not something that Italian funds could have cured. It is not the case that the PFM didn't get anywhere because the Italian government wouldn't support it; rather, the Italian government declined to support it because they saw it would get nowhere.

If you want to talk about a fascist mass movement in Mexico, surely the Sinarquistas come closer to the mark. (The Cristeros, who preceded the Sinarquistas, were essentially a peasant self-defense force; as Stanley Payne observes, if anyone acted like "fascists" in the Cristero war, it was the government... http://books.google.com/books?id=x_MeR06xqXAC&pg=PA342 ) but they were of a later era (when the Revolution's leftward turn had dismayed many Catholics and middle-class people) and their inspiration was Franco, not Mussolini. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_synarchism