The Cuban and Mexican Revolutions: Similarities and Differences

Revolution is a very persuasive word. Its definition spans and differs

according to what subject it is referring to. For example Revolution in Mechanics means

rotation of something on its axis. In historical terms, revolution means the overthrow or

repudiation of an established government by its own people. This event in any nations

history is recorded and studied.

There are many reasons as to why revolutions are started

in the first place.

According to” The Anatomy of Revolution” by Crane Brinton, the people

are the most direct cause of any revolution, also sated in Karl Marx’s “Communist

Manifesto”. When the government doesn’t meet the demands of the people, they get

restless. With the desire to be included in a social class, people conflict with other

people over social class. The government cant support itself due to the lack of support

from any one group. It fold under pressre of not being able to meet the demands of its

people and a rebellion is started. However mostly there is no unity and one dictator

emerges from the revolution, but not always.

Revolutions are studied for various reasons. In Karl Marx’s “Communist

Manifesto” the ultimate goal of the book is a call for “Workers to Unite” and eventually

a cause for change. Successful change for the most part in history, has come through the

means of bloody revolution. The study of the way these revolutions were carried out

gives a lot of information about the characteristics of that nation. For example the Cuban

and Mexican revolutions.

The Cuban Revolution and the Mexican Revolution are two revolutions

that share a lot of similarities as well as differences. Both countries involved had a

dictatorship involved. Both had the support of the larger lower class support.

However

Mexico was in a somewhat economic prosperity when their revolution started to take

shape.

In 1896, Mexico’s national budget was 7 million pesos. This increased to

almost 24 million pesos in 1906. Reasons for the increase involved (

1. Foreign

   investment, which led to developed cities

2. Link to the American job market which led

   to more jobs

3. Mining boom made cities
4. Shortened railroad systems led to unified

   markets and a hike in land prices

5. A modernization in agriculture, (“In the

   Shadow of the Mexican Revolution” , Hector Aguilar Camin, Lorenzo Meyer).

Revolution seemed out of the question.

These proved to be double-edged swords however. U.S involvement(which

happened in both revolutions) lead to a dependence on the U.S. economy for stable jobs.

Advancing of agriculture put the lower class poorer people out of work. The land was

getting expensive due to mining and market booms.

This bridged a divide between the

poor landless lower class and the rich land owning upper class. Both classes of people

showed a resentment for acting dictator Porfirio Diaz.

Fransisco Madero was one of few notables against Diaz. A wealthy

businessman who joined the Benito Juarez Democratic Club, he wrote political pamphlets

against Diaz. He quickly grew in popularity amongst the lower class and was jailed for

going against him, but subsequently released after Diaz won the 1910 election.

After he

was released he published a book called “Plan de San Luis”. He called for an organized

revolt on November 20, 1910. This revolt failed but there was still a sense of revolution

instilled within the Mexican people.

Others took to the causes of revolution. In the north Pancho Villa and

Pascual Orozoco started raiding small government establishments. There were other

successful rebellions such as that in Durango, but more importantly is the bloody

campaign set in the south by Emiliano Zapata in the south. In May 21st, 1911 the treaty

of Cuidad Juarez ended the reign of Porfirio Diaz, who was exiled to Venezuela.

Madero took control right after but was a failure as a leader. He could not

bring forth the changes he fought for. A stated by Roque Estrada, a close collaborator

Madero, “He was the apostle and the caudillo, but never the ruler.” (Meyer, “In the

Shadow of the Mexican Revolution”). A lot of men such as Emilio Gomez and Fransisco

Gomez split over differences in the way the government would rule. Madero also faced

a lack of support from the populace and opposition from Zapata and his rebels. In the end

the people brought down the Madero movement when initially they supported it.

In Karl Marx’s “Communist Manifesto” it talks about the proletariats

being the ones who overthrow the despotic leader and not the middle class.

The Mexican

Revolution is a prime example with Madera being overthrown by the same people that

put him in power due to disappointing proof of reform. This reform was also needed in a

place called Cuba, where another dictator Batista was in power and the people wanted

reform.

The Cuban Revolution had rebel forces just like the Mexican Revolution.

They used Guerilla tactics as well. The Cuban Revolution was believed to have started

around July 26, 1953. This is when Fidel Castro and his brother Raul Castro Ruz attacked

the Moncada Barracks.

Many of Castro’s forces were killed or captured by Batista’s

forces. They were jailed but subsequently let out, similarly to the Mexican Revolution

with Madero. The Castro brothers went to Mexico to to gather more fighters and here

they met Ernesto “Che” Guevara. They hoped to launch another attack by landing with

in Eastern Cuba and meeting up with the llano segment of the movement.

Fidel’s Granma forces however landed late and further east. Most of his

men were killed but Fidel and a few made it to the Sierra Maestra mountains. From here

Castro seeked to connect to the many underground forces of Cuba to admit to his

cause, necessarily for expansion and strategy. These underground forces starting

building up an army to tackle Castro’s plan of liberation. From 1956 to 1958 Castro

with the help of underground leaders such as Frank Pais, Ramos Lautour, Faustino Perez,

and Armando Hart, gained small victories on government outposts in the Sierra

mountains. Even though they were severely outnumbered, Castro’s forces were able to

push back Batista’s forces until the battle of Las Mercedes.

Castro called for a cease fire

and got it.

Castro soon began his movements into the major cities and gained big

victory after victory, especially in the victory at Guisa and Santa Clara. With the help of

more insurgent forces Castro, Che Guevera, and Camilio Cienfuegos lead the rebels to

Santa Clara, and eventually Santiago de Cuba or Havana, the capitol. All this time Batista

had remained in power due to the assistance of his “imperialistic masters”(Sweig ,

“Inside the Cuban Revolution”). With the capitol city under control Castro was free to

start negotiations to take over. Batista fled to the Dominican Republic after news of the

take over of Santiago de Cuba.

Hasta La Victoria or “Until the victory, the struggle continues” was the motto

of the rebels. When news of the rebel victory was finalized it was told through every

broadcasting radio station of Batista’s defeat. A brief provisional government was formed

to get things under control in Cuba. The pact of Caracas was formed to punish those that

were still loyal to Batista, such as policeman, lawyers, etc. In effect the Cuban revolution

played out a lot like the Mexican Revolution but had many stark differences.

There were many similarities that tie the Mexican and Cuban Revolutions

together. In the beginning both Madero of Mexico and Castro of Cuba initially failed in

their frist attempts at Revolution. Then similarly both were imprisoned by the dictators

at that time and both were eventually released under political pressure to do so. One

difference was that Madero ultimately could not carry out what he had planned for in his

book “Plan de San Louis”. This was due to differences once he got to power.

The rebels in the Mexican war were not united in their efforts both

strategically and in ideology. The Cubans stressed the need for “unity”, which the

Mexicans did not possess. Each sect of the rebel forces in Mexico were basically acting

on their own agenda. “The anatomy of a revolution must contain a strong central

leadership, unity, and loyal men”(“The Anatomy of Revolution” Crane Brinton). This is

why Madero failed to unify his country under one idea of revolution and was therefore

succeeded by the other sect of rebels.

Cuba however was a different story. The unity factor was there even though

some of the friction between socialist and communist rebels existed. They were fighting

for one cause and therefore were able to take down Batista’s forces, despite being

severely outnumbered. Their use of guerilla tactics were more effective than the

Mexicans.

They were on a unified agenda and eventually took the capitol.

Both revolutions had significant historic figures who helped in the

success of the revolution. Mexico had Pancho Villa and Cuba had Che Guevara.

Both revoltuiona also had the U.S. directly or indirectly involved. In Mexico, the U.S.

wanted the Pefirio Diaz campaign to stay in power. It did not want to hurt trade relations

with Mexico. It also was in a tense situation with the possible interception of the

Zimmerman note that Germany allegedly sent to Mexico to attack the U.S.

In Cuba the arms embargo that the U.S. initiated prevented Batista’s

air forces to strike Castro’s mountain forces. This led to no help from the air force

and gave the Batista regime a great disadvantage because U.S. parts were needed to fix

the planes.

The U.S. also allegedly supplied the guerrilla forces with weapons in the

Sierra Maestra Mountains to fight forces of Batista. This lead to the forces of Castro to

win some big battles in outposts in these mountains.

Overall both revolutions took major manpower and had a certain degree of

success, more so the Cuban than the Mexican however. Both revolutions defined the do’s

and don’ts of how a revolution should be handled. Both revolutions produced a change,

and eventually that is the most certain result of any revolution, whether it was for the

better of the nation, or for worse.