Third World gets no development aid

From 1960-2010 the rich states pumped around 5 TRILLION Dollars of
D-aid into the third world. (Never found an exact number by country/year)

Assuming that the first world/western world/rich countries didnt pay a penny to the third world since 1960. How would these countries look like?

And what would booming countries like Turkey, India and China look like?
Would they still have economic growth rates of some 8% or more?

Or is that only because of development aid?
 

Perkeo

Banned
If no development aid also means no intervention in any effort to solve their problems themselves, the third world might actually look better. In many cases, the wrong aid made things worse. e.g. because food donations screwed up the local food industry.

I am not advertising against development aid though, I'm just drawing attention to the fact that all welfare or aid system runs the risk of impeding a longterm solution to the problem.

One good example are game reserves like the Kruger National Park in South Afrika: No family father would give a damn about wether elephants are an endagered species as long as his children are starving - unless he can make a living on tourism.
 

abc123

Banned
From 1960-2010 the rich states pumped around 5 TRILLION Dollars of
D-aid into the third world. (Never found an exact number by country/year)

Assuming that the first world/western world/rich countries didnt pay a penny to the third world since 1960. How would these countries look like?

Same as today.
Maybe even better.
 
Then why the hell are we paying billions and billions?
The cynical answer is to makes us self feel good (as we have the illusion we did something for thhe poor starving children in Africa) and to create goodwill among the developed countries, so they might support us in the international diplmacy.
 
What sort of 'developmental aid' are you referring to exactly? In many instances, third world nations will accept loan packages from organizations such as the IMF or the World Bank that only drive them into terrible debt while doing very little for their local economy due to abuse and misuse of funds.
 
With NO Western/First World Aid... the Third World would be a massive Red Sea. Communist, Populist-Socialists and Agrarian-Socialists as far as the eye can see. Things would be much, much worse off, especially as much of the 'Third World' controls the majority of the world's oil supplies.
 
With NO Western/First World Aid... the Third World would be a massive Red Sea. Communist, Populist-Socialists and Agrarian-Socialists as far as the eye can see. Things would be much, much worse off, especially as much of the 'Third World' controls the majority of the world's oil supplies.

So basically if the west isn't allowed to freely exploit the resources of the third world, then the entire world is worse off? I wasn't aware that the welfare of the west superseded that of the remainder of the world.
 
So basically if the west isn't allowed to freely exploit the resources of the third world, then the entire world is worse off? I wasn't aware that the welfare of the west superseded that of the remainder of the world.

Worse off because the West would still continue to 'exploit' the resources of the Third World. Between the racial/ethnic & religious issues of First vs Third World ('those brown people'), there'd also be the ideological component (Capitalism vs Socialism), and even more of an incentive to control key resources in regions like the Middle East or the West African Coast in light of there likely being little-to-no trade between the Third and First World.

Also, what's the Second World's reaction to all of this? The Soviets and the Chinese would likely make some very close friends, especially in the Middle East.

I sense that this entire discussion has a political motivation behind it and thus we might see this thread moved to Chat soon.
 
Worse off because the West would still continue to 'exploit' the resources of the Third World. Between the racial/ethnic & religious issues of First vs Third World ('those brown people'), there'd also be the ideological component (Capitalism vs Socialism), and even more of an incentive to control key resources in regions like the Middle East or the West African Coast in light of there likely being little-to-no trade between the Third and First World.

Also, what's the Second World's reaction to all of this? The Soviets and the Chinese would likely make some very close friends, especially in the Middle East.

I sense that this entire discussion has a political motivation behind it and thus we might see this thread moved to Chat soon.

Presuming that these areas go solidly red early enough, they would likely be open to receiving a great deal of Soviet support in terms of military training and hardware. This would basically serve as a deterrent of any major US involvement in the regions, and thus curb any potential expansion in conflict. As long as we can safely say that these nations openly apply leftist terminology to their movements, it is hard to imagine a scenario where the scope of conflict actually widens. I think it's safe enough to say that the archetype of Cuba and its revolution serves as a pretty solid basis for how this would play out in cold war Latin and South America.

The middle east is the only real wild card here, it's hard to say how religion would factor into the equation and how that would effect the ability of America to launch its beloved clandestine military campaigns.
 
Presuming that these areas go solidly red early enough, they would likely be open to receiving a great deal of Soviet support in terms of military training and hardware. This would basically serve as a deterrent of any major US involvement in the regions

No, this would lead to even more US/Western/First World involvement, which is basically what happened IOTL.

I think it's safe enough to say that the archetype of Cuba and its revolution serves as a pretty solid basis for how this would play out in cold war Latin and South America.

You mean an attempted use as a close-proximity weapons platform nearly leading to WWIII and Nuclear Holocaust, followed by 50+ of embargo? Yes, that is a great precedent to follow.

the ability of America to launch its beloved clandestine military campaigns

Beloved? Can we get a mod to move this to Chat now please.
 
No, this would lead to even more US/Western/First World involvement, which is basically what happened IOTL.



You mean an attempted use as a close-proximity weapons platform nearly leading to WWIII and Nuclear Holocaust, followed by 50+ of embargo? Yes, that is a great precedent to follow.



Beloved? Can we get a mod to move this to Chat now please.

No, that isn't basically what happened IOTL. The US had almost free reign over the Western hemisphere, launching a coup of the Guatemalan government in 1954, killing Che in Bolivia, toppling Allende in Chile, and toppling the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, all without any substantial resistance from the Soviets as they did not have powerful ties with any of those nations. Had the CCCP been backing comparable movements more forcefully and been throwing around their political capital, they very well could of gotten the US to concede to not mounting any invasions or military operations, as was done with Cuba. You seemed to of misinterpreted what was meant by the reference to Cuba by muddling it with a mess of irrelevant details. The primary point was that Soviet involvement and direct relations with Cuba prevented it from falling back into American hands. If we follow the trend that this region goes red, most likely following the Cuban model for revolution, than it is quite reasonable to presume this.

And can you honestly tell me that the CIA did not have a liking for supplying right wing paramilitary outfits with US supplied weaponry and training for the purpose of 'fighting communism'?
 
Anyone with even an inkling of history should know how wrong you are right now. What about all of the 'Red' uprisings and movements in in Columbia, Peru, up and down Central America, etc etc. The New Jewel Movement, Nicaraguan Revolution, Salvadoran Civil War, Civil War in Peru, any of these ring a bill? Even to this day socialism remains strong in Latin America; the Cooperative Republic of Guyana, the Bolivian MAS, the Sandinistas, Bolivarianism, etc. Hell, the Institutional Revolutionary Party of Mexico held de-facto one-party rule of that country until the 2000 election, and it remains a prominent force there. And that's even with a leftist split between the IRP and the Party of the Democratic Revolution, who also holds quite a bit of political power in Mexico. Socialism has always been strong in Latin America and was complimentary to the general anti-Colonialism of the region.

Cuba was a special case because it had a strategic position for the Soviets to use to place their missiles. You can't write off the entire Cuba Missile Crisis as 'irrelevant' when its one of the defining features of not only the Cold War but also First-Second-Third World relations.

And can you honestly tell me that the CIA did not have a liking for supplying right wing paramilitary outfits with US supplied weaponry and training for the purpose of 'fighting communism'?

400x.jpg


Did it happen? Yes. Was it 'beloved,' or did the US 'have a liking' for it? No. I get the feeling you ignored the entire 'Peace Movement' when you hastily skimmed over Cold War history, beyond the fact that not all CIA black ops were known by the general populace until well after the fact.
 
Anyone with even an inkling of history should know how wrong you are right now. What about all of the 'Red' uprisings and movements in in Columbia, Peru, up and down Central America, etc etc. The New Jewel Movement, Nicaraguan Revolution, Salvadoran Civil War, Civil War in Peru, any of these ring a bill? Even to this day socialism remains strong in Latin America; the Cooperative Republic of Guyana, the Bolivian MAS, the Sandinistas, Bolivarianism, etc. Hell, the Institutional Revolutionary Party of Mexico held de-facto one-party rule of that country until the 2000 election, and it remains a prominent force there. And that's even with a leftist split between the IRP and the Party of the Democratic Revolution, who also holds quite a bit of political power in Mexico. Socialism has always been strong in Latin America and was complimentary to the general anti-Colonialism of the region.

Cuba was a special case because it had a strategic position for the Soviets to use to place their missiles. You can't write off the entire Cuba Missile Crisis as 'irrelevant' when its one of the defining features of not only the Cold War but also First-Second-Third World relations.



400x.jpg


Did it happen? Yes. Was it 'beloved,' or did the US 'have a liking' for it? No. I get the feeling you ignored the entire 'Peace Movement' when you hastily skimmed over Cold War history, beyond the fact that not all CIA black ops were known by the general populace until well after the fact.

Well, it would appear that you have given me a great deal of leverage through which a wide array of insult could be levied towards your understanding of history, but I will forgo that and instead focus on showing you how dead wrong you are.

So you googled some leftist movements and put them into a nice list, what is the point of that? Perhaps if you actually understood the model of the Cuban Revolution, this wouldn't be so painfully difficult. Soviet support for Castro did not begin to emerge until the revolution had already begun, and even then it was slow to come in. It was only after the Bay of Pigs invasion and the official requisition of support from the newly minted Cuban government that the Soviets began to provide them with military support. The Soviets did not seek to secure Cuba for its strategic position, by this point in time their R7 rocket was more than powerful enough to be launched from Soviet soil and to accurately deliver nuclear payloads to US targets. The short and medium range armaments provided to the Cubans were done so to denture the US from attempting any more offensive measures against the legitimate Cuban government. The Soviets actually had to fight with the Cubans to withdraw the missiles from the island, as the Cubans were that fearful of the US. Though that fear was not unfounded, given the events of the bay of pigs and the damage done by the CIA through Operation Mongoose.

The point here is that Latin and South America did not go far enough to the left to justify Soviet involvement, thus you did not see the sort of Soviet backing provided to the Cubans become widespread in the region.

When using the term US in that context I was referring to the actions of its government. I was using it in much the same way as I have been using the Soviet Union, as it is largely irrelevant to factor in the domestic trends of these nations.
 

Perhaps if you actually understood the context and particulars of the discussion at hand you wouldn't feel so insulted when I simply list facts showing how wrong you are.

1) Cuba, once again, was a strategic weapons platform. The Soviets wished to install missiles there, among other reasons, in retaliation for the US' missiles in Turkey.

2) Latin American Leftism was, once again, an important and ongoing point of the Cold War. Your 'beloved' CIA operations in that region was partially due to ongoing American fears of communism (see: McCarthyism) and the rise of socialist movements in the Latin American states.

3) You can't discuss modern politics, especially communist uprisings, while simply ignoring domestic affairs of various states. According to such a world view important events such as the creation of the US itself, let alone the USSR, or for a contemporary comparison the on-going Arab Spring, wouldn't be able to be properly explained... leading to your current misunderstanding of historical context and facts.

I'm beginning to believe you're either a sock-puppet or a troll. :( :mad:
 
Perhaps if you actually understood the context and particulars of the discussion at hand you wouldn't feel so insulted when I simply list facts showing how wrong you are.

1) Cuba, once again, was a strategic weapons platform. The Soviets wished to install missiles there, among other reasons, in retaliation for the US' missiles in Turkey.

2) Latin American Leftism was, once again, an important and ongoing point of the Cold War. Your 'beloved' CIA operations in that region was partially due to ongoing American fears of communism (see: McCarthyism) and the rise of socialist movements in the Latin American states.

3) You can't discuss modern politics, especially communist uprisings, while simply ignoring domestic affairs of various states. According to such a world view important events such as the creation of the US itself, let alone the USSR, or for a contemporary comparison the on-going Arab Spring, wouldn't be able to be properly explained... leading to your current misunderstanding of historical context and facts.

I'm beginning to believe you're either a sock-puppet or a troll. :( :mad:

1) You just ignored everything I said. The Cuban people wanted a means to defend themselves from concentrated US terrorism. If the Soviets wanted to launch a nuclear attack on the US, they did not need Cuba to do so. They had a massive fleet of bombers and multi stage clustered rockets which would be far more effective for a nuclear attack against the US. The missiles in Cuba were actually out of the jurisdiction of the Soviet military largely, hence the conflict between the Cubans and the Soviets over control over the missiles. If the Soviets were so intent upon securing Cuba as a military outpost in the Caribbean, they would of surely been more active and timely in their support of the 26th of July movement and its objectives.

2) I never doubted the significance of Latin America in the cold war, I just said that none of the movements were met with enough success or far enough to the left in their association to draw in Soviet support, which would change the dynamic entirely.

3) We are discussing a very specific topic here where certain variables much be presumed as unchanging for the sake of the productivity of this conversation. Obviously those factors are of significance, they just have little place in the direct conversation here.
 
African governments would be forced to cultivate their own countries for a source of revenue. They are often disinclined to do so, because the West provides them funds and they can use those rather then developing a business class and bourgeoisie class that could challenge them for power.
 
Top