Make a stable Latin America.

Take Latin America, with it's Fascists, Communists, Juntas, economic collapses, stolen elections, coups, killing fields, and corruption, and make it a continent and a half of stable first world democracies. Good luck!:D
 
maybe Germany doesnt declare war on the USA after pearl harbour. As such, the US will probably invest more in their sphere of Influence (Latin America and South East Asia) in a cold war with Nazi Germany.
 
probably, something out of Harris's fatherland, where Latin America would be more propserous than OTL and the US doesnt focus as much on Western Europe.
 
As far as Mexico goes, killing off or distracting Santa Ana before he has the chance to become president (eleven times:eek:) would go a long way.
Keeping central America as one medium-sized country instead of a bunch of statelets would help too; keeping them part of Mexico would only help if the latter was stable. As for South America, a successful Gran Colombia and Peru-Bolivia Confederation fixes almost half the continent.

The "Make Mexico a First-World Country" discussion fills in a lot about the politico-economic problems this region had due to the exploitative system of huge landowners and serfs.

Which leads to a discussion I had recently... If Great Britain or France had colonized *Latin-America (i.e. the Incas & Aztecs and the Amazon rainforest) instead of Spain and Portugal in the 16th and 17th centuries, would they have set up the same system of serfdom?

Since both countries in OTL utilized slavery extensively in the Carribean and the (US) South, I am inclined to believe they'd fall into the same economic system.
 
I'm temptred to say remove the things mentioned in the OP.:D

And congratulation on a post that can't possible turn political:)
 
Iberian Union Holds Up

A first world Latin America would require a concentrated immigration and capital infusion along the lines of the British colonization of the 13 colonies.

My favorite POD would be Philip the IV of Spain working to strengthen the ties between Portugal and Spain, preventing the revolt of Portugal in 1640 and the breakup of the Iberian Union. By 1700, the two nations had effectively merged as one, united under conflict with the Dutch for various colonial possesions in Brazil, India, and Africa.

Instead of the eventual decline of the two seperate Spainish and Portuguese Empires, combined they held their major colonies in South America, and continued to trade at a level equal to the British Empire. When Napoleon came to power, the Iberian Empire started to invest in development of Brazil, and used it's naval power to tighten control of world trade while England fights France.

By 1900 Brazil has developed to the point of Pre-ACW United States, and gradually gains independance from the Iberian Union.

<WHOOPS POST 1900 POD, MY BAD>
 
Last edited:
On the top of my head, most people seems to suggest a land reform.

I'm not sure it is the solution since the last century was about people leaving the countryside to work in the industry while the farms grow bigger. So those large farms should have a future.
 
As far as Mexico goes, killing off or distracting Santa Ana before he has the chance to become president (eleven times:eek:) would go a long way
Nah, Santa Anna was cool. Besides the combined might of every writer on this board couldn't produce a political demise that the man couldn't recover from :cool:

On a more serious note, I'm of the opinion that Santa Anna was a symptom of Mexico's ills rather than the cause. Obviously he didn't exactly help matters but I don't see him as any worse than his contemporaries. Young states with weak central authorities (ie, all of post-independence Latin America) just tend to throw up more than a few colourful regional caudillos. Now that is directly related to landholding patterns

To my mind the biggest problem with Latin America is that it never industrialised to the degree of Europe or the US. For this I'd give two major reasons. Landholding patterns have already been mentioned (the decline of the peasantry is a prerequisite for the growth of a urban proletariat) but much blame has to rest on the developed world. There's (largely) been nothing malicious about this but Latin America seems to be stuck in a trade dependency loop which limits the development of a domestic industrial base
 
Top