Mexican+Revolution+Group+7

=Foreign Intervention in the Mexican Revolution=

Introduction
To a great extent, revolutionary-era Mexico was not strictly a Mexican enterprise, but rather an amalgamation of foreign business interests and political agendas, nursed for years by the big-money dictatorship of Don Porfirio Diaz. It follows, then, that the Mexican Revolution encountered foreign intervention on all fronts during its fight for basic freedoms in the country's enormous peasantry. Indeed, one could certainly argue that in that sense, foreign intervention was a defining facet of the Mexican conflict, a facet that led the country's turmoil to last far longer than it should have.

[[image:EGcowdray.jpg align="right" caption="Lord Cowdray"]]
Great Britain played its role in Mexico mainly through extensive business interests (Calvert 161). Magnates such as Lord Cowdray held vast influence in Mexico (Katz 170). British companies were thoroughly invested in Mexican resources such as mining, railways, and the petroleum industry. These investments were almost equal to those from the United States, and Great Britain treated them delicately (Calvert 235).

The British were reluctant to interfere with the Huerta regime in particular, since that regime treated them quite favorably. Indeed, when the United States under Woodrow Wilson issued policies that effectively sponsored the overthrow of the Huerta regime, Great Britain's response was less than enthusiastic. The country maintained neutrality and insisted that it could not support a revolution against a government that it specifically recognized. For a time, then, Britain sustained Huerta's counter-revolutionary dictatorship.

World War One, however, disrupted Huerta's favor in Europe. As American support became crucial, the European powers sided with Wilson on the issue of Mexico, and Huerta found himself with very little capital. Indeed, World War One, despite Mexico's neutrality, was a major turning point for Huerta's regime and the Mexican Revolution in general.

From there on, the British generally acted as wingmen for the United States in Mexico. British ministers rarely decided on Mexican issues for themselves; rather, they acted in tandem with America.

[[image:AmbWilson-HiRes.jpg width="210" height="407" align="right" caption="Henry Lane Wilson"]]
American intervention in the Mexican Revolution began in earnest when President Taft allowed the assassination of Francisco Madero ("shot while trying to escape") and a subsequent power-grab from General Victoriano Huerta. To be sure, the American ambassador Henry Lane Wilson all but orchestrated Huerta's rise, seeing the dictator as one who would restore Mexico to its prior (business-friendly) state under Porfirio Diaz.

Taft's successor, Woodrow Wilson, saw Huerta in an entirely different light. Shocked by his terrorist methods of rule, Wilson refused to recognize Huerta as president, although he could not persuade Europe to follow his example. With a new ambassador (John Lind) in play, America under Wilson actively pulled strings to remove Huerta from power. Among the methods he used were arming Carrancista revolutionaries in northern Mexico.

Several diplomatic blunders followed for Wilson. First, suspicious of German relations with Huerta's Mexico, he intercepted a German ship and occupied the port of Veracruz. This achieved very little aside from uniting Mexico for a brief period -- against the United States.

When Pancho Villa acted out his displeasure with America by leading raids on U.S. soil (culminating in the sack of Columbus), Wilson responded with an ill-fated campaign, led by General John Pershing, to ferret out Villa in Mexico. Once again, this achieved absolutely nothing, aside from diminishing Wilson's political capital in his own country and galvanizing the Mexican public against America.

U.S. relations with Mexico were fairly poor during both the Obregon and Carranza presidencies. American business interests -- especially in petroleum -- naturally resented growing calls for land reform. To save face internationally, Mexican leaders essentially had to ignore the Constitution of 1917 and pander to U.S. demands. True reform in that regard only came with the presidency of Lazaro Cardenas, who nationalized the Mexican oil industry.

European Intervention
Europe's main role in the Mexican revolution was its status as a main holder of the national debt. Thus, it generally supported such men as Huerta and Diaz -- capitalist sorts who would nurture their interests abroad. Likewise, they generally opposed such idealists as Woodrow Wilson.

Wilson's stance on America ultimately won out, however, and Huerta's fall and the advance of the revolution kept Mexico from servicing its national debt, much to the dismay of European businessmen (Knight 133). (Actually, a desperate Huerta, sensing his imminent downfall, ceased to service the national debt before he was even ousted.) Several decades of revolutionary conflict did little to advance Mexico's financial standing among Europeans, and thus Europe held a substantial stake in Mexico for many years.

A slightly more roundabout European influence in Mexico came in the form of the Roman Catholic Church -- a definite thorn in the side of revolutionaries. The Church stood in the way of such crucial reforms as education, and its reactionary stances clashed with revolutionary views in general. Furthermore, it had amassed wealth for many lifetimes. Conflict between reformers and the Church was a major theme of the Mexican Revolution (Knight 501).

Conclusion
Aside from a brief stint of idealism on Woodrow Wilson's part, foreign intervention in Mexico was mainly concerned with the health of big, capitalistic enterprise. Leaders such as Huerta and Diaz were thus met with international enthusiasm, while such eager reformers as Cardenas were met with dismay. Without a doubt, it was the very entrenchedness of foreign interests in Mexico that made its revolution such a long and grinding conflict. Idealistic new leaders found that they had not the resources to carry out the reforms needed by the peasantry, for those who held the necessary capital had very different agendas in mind. Had Mexico been able to avoid the global specter of dollar diplomacy, "Mexico for the Mexicans" would have been a much more feasible goal indeed.