While much of Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East were embroiled in the destruction of World War I, Mexico was undergoing a period of transition of its own in the form of a socio-political revolution. The following paper examines some of the characters of the Mexican Revolution, their actions, and how the United States’ reaction and World War I-era attitudes helped shape the power dynamic on the North American continent
Mexico: The 20th Century’s First Revolution Between 1884 and 1911, Mexico was controlled by a charismatic and controversial general who served as the nation’s president: Jose de la Cruz Porfirio Diaz Mori. During his thirty year regime, Mexico remained a democracy, but the general election in Mexico became …show more content…
and Mexico: A Balance of Power In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson said, “The world must be made safe for democracy.” His words were part of his appeal to Congress to enter the war in Europe. However, the words of the United States’ leadership and its actions often differed. First, it is important to note that the United States spent much of the first decade of the Mexican Revolution occupied by the First World War raging on in Europe, but it did not ignore its neighbor to the south. Indeed, a number of armed skirmishes occurred between the two countries, and the United States retained an interest in Mexico’s economy as well as the U.S. citizens living in Mexico. The United States was also involved in the overthrow of President Madero, a democratically elected Mexican leader; thus, there in was a major contradiction in official U.S. policy on democracy and the country’s actions. Mexico was a democracy, but the United States was eager to participate in Mexico’s leadership because of its own agenda related to economic …show more content…
The United States emerged from the First World War as a major global player, and it brought its skills to the table in Mexico. Yet, Mexican leaders have been as skilled as they have been dedicated to their social ideals; even though they have historically failed to implement them. Ultimately, understanding the history of the dynamic between Mexico and the United States remains important for understanding the modern power structure: one of mutual dependence, but one in which the United States consistently asserts itself as the dominant player in the
Mexico: The 20th Century’s First Revolution Between 1884 and 1911, Mexico was controlled by a charismatic and controversial general who served as the nation’s president: Jose de la Cruz Porfirio Diaz Mori. During his thirty year regime, Mexico remained a democracy, but the general election in Mexico became …show more content…
and Mexico: A Balance of Power In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson said, “The world must be made safe for democracy.” His words were part of his appeal to Congress to enter the war in Europe. However, the words of the United States’ leadership and its actions often differed. First, it is important to note that the United States spent much of the first decade of the Mexican Revolution occupied by the First World War raging on in Europe, but it did not ignore its neighbor to the south. Indeed, a number of armed skirmishes occurred between the two countries, and the United States retained an interest in Mexico’s economy as well as the U.S. citizens living in Mexico. The United States was also involved in the overthrow of President Madero, a democratically elected Mexican leader; thus, there in was a major contradiction in official U.S. policy on democracy and the country’s actions. Mexico was a democracy, but the United States was eager to participate in Mexico’s leadership because of its own agenda related to economic …show more content…
The United States emerged from the First World War as a major global player, and it brought its skills to the table in Mexico. Yet, Mexican leaders have been as skilled as they have been dedicated to their social ideals; even though they have historically failed to implement them. Ultimately, understanding the history of the dynamic between Mexico and the United States remains important for understanding the modern power structure: one of mutual dependence, but one in which the United States consistently asserts itself as the dominant player in the