Talk: Chiapas Libre (1983: Doomsday)

Article in general

So, I've been wondering, where is this article headed? Is anyone writing a specific story for it?--Vladivostok 09:00, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Lahbas was, I think. And it was going to tie somehow with the Chiapas rebels and Guatemala attacking Belize. I think. Benkarnell

Lahbas' original proposal: http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:1983:_Doomsday/Former_Proposals_6#New_Situation_for_Mexico:_The_Yucatan. Benkarnell 22:36, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I think I remember this conversation. And I was planning on making a Guatemala page and all, it's just that I feel that socialism in the Carribean has now been a bit overdone. I mean, the USSR has a lot of allies in the region: Nicaragua, Cuba, the Dominican Republic and even though it's not an official member, an observer Costa Rica. Wouldn't adding one more be a bit much?--Vladivostok 06:31, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

The states of the Caribbean/Central American part of the Socialist bloc needs to be numerous if they want to remain an equal to the SAC and the Anglophone countries in this part of the world. I support more socialist states in Central America, though Yucatan is not absolutely necessary as a part of it. Guatemala would be better. Grand Prince Paul II. 14:24, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

And under that scenario, the USSR would directly be sponsoring rebel movements in Mexico, a much more significant regional power and likely a South American ally. Probably not a wise thing to do. [EDIT] There must have been an edit conflict, I didn't see GPP2's comment. That makes sense too. Actually Australia-New-Zealand seems to be the weakest power in that region right now. Its only obvious ally is the East Caribbean Federation. If I were A-NZ I'd be trying very hard to make friends with a nation that has a Pacific coastline, either El Salvador or Honduras (it does have a small one). Possibly Mexico as well, but assuming the history of the Panama Canal becomes canon, it's pretty clear that A-NZ needs a friendly port it can get to without going through the canal or around South America. Honduras was positively crawling with American troops in 1983; maybe they have a role to play somewhere.

I'm not against a Siberian-alligned Guatemala, but it would be very awkward for Siberia to be sponsoring the country that is itself sponsoring rebels in Mexico. I suppose Siberia could say, "We're not responsible for our ally's actions; we've asked them nicely to stop." You know, that could tie in nicely with my Panama Canal page. Siberia was just as concerned with access to the canal as A-NZ was; maybe South America was already angry with them for supporting those Guatemalans.

PS: at Talk:North America I raised the possibility of Honduras actually getting attacked on DD, because of the strong US presence. (Although I kept spelling the country's name wrong.) Benkarnell 15:03, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

I think you underestimate the ANZC. The ECF, it's Caribbean ally is a significant regional power, Mexico, another important country and home of even more US-American expatriates than the ANZC would be, if not an outright ally, definitely friendly and the status as the premier power of the Pacific would ensure noticeable ANZ-influence in western Central America. No, I do not think it's the weakest power in this region. The ANZC- and Socialist are rather quite equal. Grand Prince Paul II. 16:14, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

So, we should make a decision. Should we tip the balance of power in the region? I didn't really consider the fact that Mexico is such a strong ally of ANZC, your right Paul. Maybe you'd like to take a go at writting a suitable proposal? Or a team effort? Ben, you could also really help out, considering the involvement you already have in the Panama Canal region. And we can also focus on the reast of the nations in the region, like Honduras and San Salvador.--Vladivostok 16:38, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess it's not so much that ANZ has no allies in the region - just no known allies. So how about this: a "scorecard" for Central America and the Caribbean:

• Siberian allies:
  • Cuba
  • Nicaragua
  • Guatemala (probably)
  • Yucatan (through Guatemala?)
  • Chiapas rebels?
  • Dominican Republic
• South American allies:
  • Puerto Rico
• Australian-NZ allies:
  • East Caribbean Federation
  • Guyana Cooperative (probably?)
  • Mexico?
• Contested between Siberia and South America:
  • Costa Rica: close ties to Siberia, but is trying to stay neutral by reaching out to South America
• Contested between Siberia and ANZ:
  • None known - maybe Belize?
• Contested between ANZ and South America:
  • Netherlands Antilles: different factions support different sides
  • French West Indies: has close treaty relationships with both sides through the French Pacific islands
  • Mexico?
• Non-alligned:
  • Guyane
  • Haiti: receiving massive aid from all three, but before the earthquake was an East Caribbean Federation ally
  • Panamanian Federation (currently just a proposal): Dependent on Costa Rica, but does not deal with any great powers (yet)
  • Azuero in Panama (also just a proposal)
• Unknown:
  • Honduras
  • El Salvador

Can we work from here? Benkarnell 17:52, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Good starting point Ben, but I think you're forgetting that Belize is a part of the ECF. We should definately ask BrianD about Mexico's affiliaton. I'd personally like it to be an ANZC ally, a strong foothold for them in the Caribbean. I think I'll just create the article for Guatemala, to get the ball rolling, we'll talk about affiliation and history of that specific nation there and then see what's the next step.--Vladivostok 19:32, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

I would put Mexico in the SAC camp. OTL, they have been oberservers of both Mercosur and the Andean Community of Nations. Mitro 19:44, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Well, they are also pro-USA OTL. They joined NAFTA and are economically dependent on the US. In ATL they play a mediator between the two sides. I think it comes down to what Brian thinks of the relationship between the blocs and Mexico and where he thinks it will lead the country.--Vladivostok 19:53, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

They may have been pro-USA OTL, but things might have changed since Doomsday. Remember how Mexico reacted to West Texas? Also the ANZC is not the US and South America is much more wealthy and powerful group and they are right next door practically. Mitro 19:56, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe it will also come down to, who hates the USSR more out of the other blocs. Come to think of it, that would probably be the SAC, considering its realtionship with Pakistan. Or we can just let the nation stay neutral. There really is no pressure coming from either potential ally, Mexico is to strong to be bullied in such a way.--Vladivostok 20:10, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Nice list and good basis for the geopolitics of Central America/Caribbean. Mexico should be kind of like a big version of Costa Rica; traditionaly an ally of ANZC (like Socialist Siberia in Costa Rica), they have started to seek closer ties to the rising SAC, while trying to re-establish goverment authority in all parts of Mexico and becoming a power in its own right. Haiti would be IMO the area where all three power-blocs challenge each other, in other words, the contested area of the region. Guyana Cooperative as ANZC-ally seems very likely after the SAC rejected it and Venezuela remains hostile.Grand Prince Paul II. 20:15, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

i think the above list is realistic. HAD 20:23, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a fairly good description of Mexico, GPPaul. There's also two mitakes I think we're in danger of making: first, it's very important to remember that the South American countries had at least a 15-year head start on making friends in this region. Now, before Siberians and ANZians showed up I suppose they weren't thinking in those terms. But I am surprised that they seem to have so few firm allies, given their much longer history here. Second, we've all sort of talked about ANZ like it's exactly the same as the USA. It's got American influence, but it is a merger of Australia and New Zealand first and foremost. NZ at least has a very long history of avoiding imperialist tendencies. Given the climate in Latin America during the Cold War, I can understand why so many people even now (TTL) would have a poor opinion of los Gringos, but Australia and New Zealand would not necessarily draw as much ire as the old United States.

So if Guatemala is definitely a Siberian ally, I propose "dividing" Honduras & El Salvador between the other two. Actually, I'll bet both are quite nervous having Soviet allies on either side! I suggest that Honduras is an SAC observer, while ANZ gave El Salvador a very generous offer to be allowed to use its ports. Benkarnell 21:37, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the South American countries were too focused on their continent and the closest neighboring areas (Falklands, Canaz Zone, and so on), while states and parties (pro-American lobbies in Mexico and elsewhere, Sandinistan and other Socialists) which later become partners and allies of ANZC and the USSR were active all the time and prevent that their countries became part of the slowly forming South American sphere. Anyway, I like your idea how Central America is divided.Grand Prince Paul II. 23:01, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was thinking. I really think that we should consider the actual history in El Salvador and Honduras before we decide to "give them away", but it's something to think about. ANZ could instead have a treaty with Mexico that gives it rights of some kind in one port. Benkarnell 23:30, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

I've expanded the Guatemala article and I'd love to hear your input. As I read the articles on San Salvador and Honduras on Wikipedia, I came to the conclusion that Honduras would make an excellent ally for the SAC in the region, as it is relatively strong and stable, while San Salvador is a politically weaker country and could be manipulated, so why not have it for the ANZC?--Vladivostok 20:22, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

As of 1983, neither country was strong or stable. Both were in essentially the same place: leftist guerrillas were waging civil wars against US-backed regimes. The main difference seems to be that US troops had a stronger presence in Honduras (I've seen the word "protectorate" used). As I see it, they can evolve in almost any direction in this TL. Benkarnell 23:00, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

This is getting interesting. Seems to me that South and Central America have replaced the Middle East as the world's political tinderbox. Could Mexico finally recognize the Yucatanese? I think that Mexico has other issues to deal with.

Yankovic270 23:31, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I missed this conversation. I came here looking for background on Yucatan as part of my work on the Mexico page, and instead have as many questions as I did before!

I would like to clarify that Mexico sees itself as an ally of the ANZC and of the SAC. It would not be sympathetic necessarily to Communist influence on its borders, but has sought for good, cordial relations with Cuba and Honduras/Nicaragua. Yucatan would be different, but I need to know Lahbas' ideas for the region to move forward.

I saw in the infobox Yucatan independence as coming in 1983, but I want to revise that to 1993.

I'm also looking to revise the history of Texas (to unify it and make it a Mexican ally). BrianD 18:23, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarificiation Brian. I can't speak for Lahbas, but I see no reason why you couldn't revise the independance date, or maybe adopt it if he agrees. And what do you think of Honduras and San Salvador, who would you like to hold influence over them, if any? I'm asking since they are the only Central American countries currently without an article.--Vladivostok 23:15, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

Vlad, I had no ideas for Honduras nor El Salvador per se; I'm open to anything. I guess the biggest question is whether the Communist bloc (Cuba, Nicaragua, SSR, et al) or the East Caribbean Federation would have established sufficient influence in those two countries.

Here's a couple of items from Wikipedia that might help guide a prospective editor going forward:

1. The two nations have some history between them:

In 1969, Honduras and El Salvador fought what would become known as the Football War. There had been border tensions between the two countries after Oswaldo López Arellano, a former president of Honduras, blamed the deteriorating economy on the large number of immigrants from El Salvador. From that point on, the relationship between the two countries grew acrimonious and reached a low when El Salvador met Honduras for a three-round football elimination match as a preliminary to the World Cup. Tensions escalated, and on 14 July 1969, the Salvadoran army launched an attack against Honduras. The Organization of American States negotiated a cease-fire which took effect on 20 July and brought about a withdrawal of Salvadoran troops in early August. Contributing factors in the conflict were a boundary dispute and the presence of thousands of Salvadorans living in Honduras illegally. After the week-long football war, many Salvadoran families and workers were expelled. El Salvador had agreed on a truce to settle the boundary issue, but Honduras later paid war damage costs for expelled refugees.

2. There was some sort of US military presence in the area apparently (Honduras being an ally). What do we do with the US military in the region on Doomsday? Or do we nuke them?

During the early 1980s, the United States established a continuing military presence in Honduras with the purpose of supporting the Contra guerillas fighting the Nicaraguan government and also developed an air strip and a modern port in Honduras. Though spared the bloody civil wars wracking its neighbors, the Honduran army quietly waged a campaign against Marxist-Leninist militias such as Cinchoneros Popular Liberation Movement, notorious for kidnappings and bombings, and many non-militants. The operation included a CIA-backed campaign of extrajudicial killings by government-backed units, most notably Battalion 316.

3. El Salvador was in the middle of a civil war on Doomsday.

The Salvadoran Civil War was predominantly fought between the government of El Salvador and a coalition of four leftist groups and one communist group known as the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN). This coalition got organized in 1980 after Fidel Castro of Cuba requested that there be a common front. Castro had a lot of influence in the region and provided weapons through Nicaraguan territory (then in the hands of President Ortega).

Subversive activity started with "El Grupo" (a group that later would be called E.R.P.) and also the FPL that initiated activities after Cayetano Carpio (its leader) broke in ideology from now extinct El Salvador's Communist Party (PCES). In 1970, the FPL guerrilla force was small and didn't have military training. Later the FPL was one of the largest organizations inside of the FMLN coalition.

In the beginning of the conflict, the PCES didn't believe in taking power by force, but through elections. The ERP split off, creating the RN (National Resistance) after ERP leaders killed the leftist poet Roque Dalton, whom they believed had spied for the American CIA. Approximately 75,000 people were killed in the war. The Salvadoran Civil war was fought in the context of the global Cold War, with Cuba and the USSR backing the Marxist-Leninist rebels and the United States backing the right wing military Salvadoran government.

4. All that to say: the Communist rebels in Yucatan might be part of a greater Communist force in Central America. It would be interesting to develop ties between the various groups in Yucatan, Chiapas, El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica and Nicaragua. I'm a bit over-extended with the other projects I'm working on now, but that opens the door for other editors to work on this.

Following up on Lahbas' comments here; could Siberia have any real influence in the region? And what about Cuba?BrianD 00:17, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've just realized this now, but Siberia hasn't actually directly helped to place a communist government in any of the Caribbean nations. Excluding Cuba and Nicaragua who both had a communist government before Doomsday, Guatemala and the Dominican Republic have created socialist governments all on their own. The Siberians basically swoopped in and gave them support after the hard times were already over. For Honduras and San Salvador I thought of simply the following: Honduras was stronger OTL, it should be a SAC ally. San Salvador had subversives in its country, but for the sake of ballancing them all out, I'd make it an ANZC toehold in the area.--Vladivostok 08:10, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Adoption request

I want to adopt this article, and find some way to fully reconcile it with canon (especially in regards to Mexico) while trying to abide by the intent of the original creators.BrianD 04:47, April 18, 2011 (UTC)

Changes in the article

Can I adopt it? I want to update this content. Also, why Yucatan haves to get a terrorist group, couldn´t be eliminated?

Review

I just did a thing where I completely rewrote the page so that it's about Chiapas rather than Yucatan. Yucatan was a 19th-century entity with no actual support in the 1980s; Chiapas was a real insurgency that in OTL broke out just over a month after the date of Doomsday and which smoldered for decades, up to the present day. The zapatista revolution is something that would be very, very plausible to see get bigger and more successful in this timeline, whereas Yucatan comes off as random historical roleplaying. It seems like an easy enough switch to make, and I kept as much of the original text as I could. On the other hand, it should be considered tentative. I wrote it myself in one sitting. Wikitext can be edited, and it's easy to revert my changes. False Dmitri (talk) 03:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)