• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

The American Mafia in a World with no Castro

Polyphemus

Some kind of robot
Pronouns
they/them
The Mafia was heavily invested in Cuba in the 50s, a tax haven for their illicit dollars that they were busy building into a tourist paradise. Batista welcomed the business and offered a great deal of support.

In a world where the Cuban Revolution falters and Cuba remains a pro-American capitalist society, what does this mean for American organized crime in the short and long run?
 
The Mafia was heavily invested in Cuba in the 50s, a tax haven for their illicit dollars that they were busy building into a tourist paradise. Batista welcomed the business and offered a great deal of support.

In a world where the Cuban Revolution falters and Cuba remains a pro-American capitalist society, what does this mean for American organized crime in the short and long run?
Short-term: Mob stonks go straight to the moon.
Long-term: Honestly not sure, but at the very least they'll most likely have a tax haven and a lot more legitimate businesses to use as fronts to protect themselves in the event that the US government sends RFK after them. Not to mention just being able to flee the country for Havana and live like kings if they can't avoid a government crackdown.
 
The Mafia was heavily invested in Cuba in the 50s, a tax haven for their illicit dollars that they were busy building into a tourist paradise. Batista welcomed the business and offered a great deal of support.

In a world where the Cuban Revolution falters and Cuba remains a pro-American capitalist society, what does this mean for American organized crime in the short and long run?

I don't think Batista could have lasted much longer. Many people other than Castro were plotting against him. I also think any plausible successor would crack down on the Mafia to some extent.
 
I don't think Batista could have lasted much longer. Many people other than Castro were plotting against him. I also think any plausible successor would crack down on the Mafia to some extent.

I was coming out here to say this. It's worth remembering that Castro's was not the only group (not even the only armed one), merely the most successful. If it hadn't been Castro in 1959, it would have been someone else a little while down the road.
 
Batista's successor cracking down on the mafia seems inevitable, though it won't be as big a crackdown as "capitalism's out, lads". So they may stick around in parts, reminiscing about the time they were the big fish, probably getting edged out over time by Cuban mobs.

When Batista's replaced and the mob is cracked down on would matter as well - that'd affect where they might go instead, who's in charge, etc.
 
would they expand their operations in like the DR or Haiti in case cuba cracks down on them?

At the time, I think Cuba is considered the safest bet due to being in the sweet spot of having established infrastructure and accessibility while also being poor enough to welcome illicit money. I could be wrong though.
 
I was coming out here to say this. It's worth remembering that Castro's was not the only group (not even the only armed one), merely the most successful. If it hadn't been Castro in 1959, it would have been someone else a little while down the road.

I don't think Batista could have lasted much longer. Many people other than Castro were plotting against him. I also think any plausible successor would crack down on the Mafia to some extent.

"William Alexander Morgan and the Second National Front of the Escambray topple Batista and bring Democracy to Cuba" TL when.
 
Fun fact - Cuba is actually one of the big reasons so many people blame the Mob for the assassination of JFK. Something about being mad over how badly the Bay of Pigs went, I dunno, it's all conspiracist gobbledygook. Odds are you could discount a huge wedge of the JFK-theorists.
 
Back
Top