What if Fidel had made Cuba a democracy?

I think had Eisenhower agreed to meet with Castro, as Castro wanted to do, that the entire history of Castro's government could have gone a different way.

I've always had the belief that Castro had good intentions but in the end had to turn away from a large amount of them both from necessity and outside interference. I think had Castro been better treated by the Eisenhower government that he might not have felt such a strong necessity to side with the only other option, the USSR.
 
If the United States had continued the Good Neighbor Policy and not overthrown Guatemala, Brazil, or Chile and had backed Castro's Cuba, I think Latin America would be much better off today.....

Essentially you are asking for a socialist USA. Which is fine with me! But hardly likely to emerge smoothly out of the New Deal unfortunately. Good Neighbor policy had some benefits but they were mainly short term--if we had continued them, surely Arbenz would not have been overthrown in Guatemala for instance, and hundreds of thousands of Mayans, as well as other large numbers of oppressed Guatemalans would still be alive today.

If Fidel were to grow up facing such a benign El Norte, would he even become a revolutionary at all? Might not Batista be overthrown by more constitutional means, or else he'd be steered into less oppressive forms of rule by observing his American patrons frowning at his antics? But of course his patrons were not American idealists, they were American profit-seeking entities (including criminals like the Mafia as well as legal private firms) and these would have to be actively restrained in their exploitive actions by a responsible US government. A US government lacking sympathy with the interests of bodies like the United Fruit Company, at least to the extent that it demands American investors overseas follow norms they are expected to at home, would behave very differently from the governments we actually had. Before he took the step of nationalizing UFC's plantations, Arbenz in Guatemala levied taxes on them--which the UFC defied payment of. Had UFC acted the same way in the USA of course they probably would not be nationalized, but they probably would be taken to court and forced to pay back taxes and also penalties; this might bankrupt them, and civil and criminal penalties applied to individuals in management responsible for the anti-social actions would shake up their management quite a lot. UFC basically claimed a right to act differently in Guatemala than in the USA, and the US government recognizing the Guatemalan state's right to act as the US government would would be, if not socialist, than at any rate operating on a level of fairness in foreign policy alien to precedent or OTL subsequent priorities.

With the USA acting like that, Cuban development would presumably be rather different. Perhaps the Castro brothers would become radical Marxists nonetheless, and perhaps thus alienate a USA that acts fairly and openly, but still favors private capital, just not overwhelmingly and one-sidedly. Then again even if they were radical, even acting as revolutionary Marxists Castro might be able to strike some kind of deal with the USA. Not so much if he seeks the patronage of a Soviet Union perceived as the Manichean enemy of the USA.

I regard Castro as a legitimate ruler. I've been asked on a number of threads, especially recently, how I dare say that when hundreds of thousands of Cubans violently opposed him--but clearly the fact is far more Cubans supported him, or he'd have been overthrown long long ago. Unlike the satellite "people's republics" of Eastern Europe, there was no way for massive Soviet armies of occupation to daunt and intimidate mass resentment; in any case it has been over 25 years since Soviet aid ceased to assist Castro and despite deep hostility embedded in US policy determined to see him unseated, he lived out his life in nominal power, with real power devolving to his brother and associated junta. That would not have happened if he were not seen by a substantial majority of Cubans as delivering some good.

There is no predicting what exactly would happen in an ATL where the USA behaved differently without gaming it out closely and realistically. I'd think the Castros would probably be more moderate to begin with, and more willing and able to allow standard parliamentary limits on government power to stand, and more willing and able to face being turned out by democratic processes, with more hope that they can come back in again by the same means later. But that would not be true if in fact they were determined to move Cuba toward a communist goal, unless we suppose the USA too is also strongly socialistic and sympathetic to such a goal. Which is a TL with much bigger changes than just a regime change in Cuba!
 
You seriously believe that Castro is to blame for weak economic development, powerful drug cartels and the drive to migrate to the USA in Latin America?

And furthermore, that the reason Latin America suffers these weaknesses is entirely because Fidel Castro undermines the "strength" of the governments?

But I thought Castro was supposed to be bad because he was authoritarian--it seems though that instead you are suggesting he was the wrong kind of authoritarian, for Latin America surely requires some kind of authority to have strong economy, rein in drug cartels, and keep its people at home!

Or--one could recognize that perhaps Castro has nothing to do with any of these alleged ills, that Latin American economies are weak because they are in a structurally poor position; that the relevant variable governing drug cartels in South America and Mexico is the US market demand, and that whenever the wealth of the world is sucked up by some rich nation, the people living outside that rich nation are drawn into it after the wealth they produce and have fleeced from them. And that if anything, Latin American governments have been too "strong," in the sense of being police states recognizing few if any restraints, and this has not strengthened industry, quelled drug cartellism, nor made the countries attractive enough to keep their peoples happy at home.

Does it really seem to you that had Fidel Castro not taken Cuba down a Communist path, that Latin America would enjoy stronger economies, said no to drugs, its peoples would stay put, and all of this is due to respect for "strong governments" that that wicked Castro dared to disrespect OTL, with fatal consequences? That they'd be happy, hard-working, and perfectly sweet US allies too were it not for Castro's trouble-making verbal interference? Or would you go farther and suggest that Castro actually interfered by sending in legions of agents who have acted to discredit government, sabotage enterprise, promote drug cartels, and stir up the masses to discontent generally?

Do you really think communist agitprop is that effective?
No,the over reactions of several American presidents and South American governments to minor Communist movements did that.
 
So, if El Norte is capable of inflicting that degree of harm on a continent and a half, might that not explain the extremism of Castro pretty well? Strong measures against a strong threat?

What is the alternative, but to submit to mastery cheerfully, and hope Master is kind and careful instead of short-sighted, petulant and selfish? Is it not to defy the Master, and seek allies to help?

I for one think that if Cuba had never rebelled and remained under Batista-type crony capitalist dictatorship to this day (as say Haiti largely has) the same dysfunctions would have been inflicted on the Latin Americans anyway. They were before Castro, in Guatemala. The suggestion that if the Latin American politicians had just been more conciliatory they would have been treated better runs dead against the entire arc of US involvement south of our borders; it is only if and when these nations can somehow or other afford to defy our power that we begin to negotiate with them respectfully. Sad but true. I certainly wish it were otherwise, but show me where and when it has been?

FDR's Good Neighbor policy might be a good place to start, but it's an exception that proves the rule. We needed all the help we could get versus the Axis, and even so our deals often still had strong strings attached. It was under this diplomatic regime that Arbenz was democratically elected in Guatemala, and it did not take long for the winds to shift and leave him in the cold. To be plotted against and murdered by a US backed coup. Long before anyone in El Norte ever heard of Castro!

Your best bet would be to explain how Costa Rica has managed to avoid the worst. I think it involved a lot of cynical submission to Yankee whims by a clever leader who stayed in our good graces--at a price. I don't think the deal he got was on the table for the super-continent as a whole though; profitable exploitation is in direct conflict with the interests of the people and requires kleptocratic dictatorships.
 

Bulldoggus

Banned
I for one think that if Cuba had never rebelled and remained under Batista-type crony capitalist dictatorship to this day (as say Haiti largely has) the same dysfunctions would have been inflicted on the Latin Americans anyway. They were before Castro, in Guatemala. The suggestion that if the Latin American politicians had just been more conciliatory they would have been treated better runs dead against the entire arc of US involvement south of our borders; it is only if and when these nations can somehow or other afford to defy our power that we begin to negotiate with them respectfully. Sad but true. I certainly wish it were otherwise, but show me where and when it has been?
Fair. I do think it is reasonable to say we wouldn't have behaved in AS insane a matter without Fidel (or if Fidel had democratized and gone anti-Sov), but how far that goes is questionable at best. Maybe, MAYBE, we decide to tolerate Democratic Socialist governments so long as they align with us instead of the Sovs in FP (and pour campaign funds to make it impossible for any Anti-American Gov't to get elected), but I kinda doubt that. As you said, we did behave in short-sighted, panicky ways throughout the Cold War.
 
Why people always compare Cuba with Haiti? Even pre-revolution Cuba was way ahead of Haiti in all social standards.
 
And before. The Nicaraguan Sandinistas of the 1970s and 80s (and again in power nowadays) derived their name from Sandino's revolutionaries of the 1920s. USMC General Smedley Butler's "War is a Racket" essay derived from his many experiences in Latin America between the Spanish-American War and the 1920s, and referred to many countries (including Haiti, which he in effect ruled as military governor). We can't blame mere Cold War panic. After all Axis panic actually motivated us to behave halfway decently! It mattered who the enemy was I guess; if the enemy was another race-supremacist imperial power it behooved us to act like democrats, populists, even a little bit pinko--but if the enemy was Reds, then we lined up the ruling classes and encouraged them to close ranks against democracy as such. But before we were worrying about any new foreigners penetrating Latin America we were busy displacing the British, and keeping distorted exploitive quasi-colonial relations firmly in place against any ragtag populist shenanigans.

And writing learned books about why tropical peoples are inferior and unable to sustain democracy or civilization anyway....or when even Huntington's climate theory of racial inferiority was too stinking, fell back on cultural theories where culture is tantamount to race in "explaining" why democracy and enterprise are inherently alien to our brown brothers south of the border we must, under one rationale or another, protect and guide or see fall into the thrall of some wicked foreigners or other.

I swear; I used to browse books college libraries were selling off and encountered Huntington's climate theory of human behavior that said tropical people would lack the self-discipline temperate climate people enjoyed due to bracing winters or something, evidently very fashionable in the USA in the 1940s. And the culture=race stuff was evident in mainstream US academic publications--in the 1990s!

Face it; the threat of foreign intervention and violation of the Monroe Doctrine has never been necessary, it just offers a more convenient cover for our interventions than naked greed. Take the mask away and we behave the same way anyway though.
 
Why people always compare Cuba with Haiti? Even pre-revolution Cuba was way ahead of Haiti in all social standards.
This proves the Cubans had no reason to rebel, since they could after all be even worse off?

It certainly does not do much to prove the good will of the USA, or the automatic benefits accruing to nations who submit themselves to Washington's whims. The neighboring Dominican Republic of course was actually invaded by the US under LBJ in the mid-60s.
 
This proves the Cubans had no reason to rebel, since they could after all be even worse off?

It certainly does not do much to prove the good will of the USA, or the automatic benefits accruing to nations who submit themselves to Washington's whims. The neighboring Dominican Republic of course was actually invaded by the US under LBJ in the mid-60s.
Nice strawman you missed my point completely.

I'm asking why people always compare Cuba to Haiti when the matter is Fidel, it's like "urr without Fidel Cuba would become like Haiti!" talk.
 
Relative to what Cuba is now, it was like Haiti. There is money to be made in Haiti, and a few people in the world make it. In pre-Revolutionary Cuba, there were all sorts of assets that made Cuba richer than Haiti--but who owned these assets, who profited from them? Not the average Cuban! They may have been materially better off by a small amount of trickle-down, but the future hardly held out any bright prospects for general betterment as long as foreign capital, mainly American, determined what would happen there. What Castro attempted to do was realize the wealth for everyone, and in certain respects such as education and medicine Cuba is far better off now than it was before, and better off than any reasonable projection of the old order to modern times, given the example of other countries in similar positions, would justify expecting.

Haiti may have additional problems. I do think though if they had undergone a Castroite revolution at the same time as Cuba did, and the USA somehow or other were prevented from invading or massively sabotaging it, Haitians today would be on the whole better off than they are now.
 

It's

Banned
What would be the impact on history, would Cuba's government be overthrown in the future?
What would have been the most likely result?
To echo other threads "Castro wouldn't be Castro" if this had happened.
But, well, Cubans would been richer (good) and a lot of 1950's yank tanks would have been recycled by now into newer cars (bad)☹️️.
 
I doubt very much the poorest 50 percent of Cubans would be any richer. The top 50 percent, who knows?

The USA has been embargoing Cuba since 1960 and much of the time from then till now got its allies to go along. Soviet aid could not come close to the value of US investment, but neither did the Soviets extract value from Cuba on anything like the scale foreign investors did before the Revolution there. Once the USSR collapsed Cuba was in dire straits indeed.

But who is to say that Cuba would have held its relative position in the Caribbean economies it had before 1959? Might it not have slipped?
 
Promoting the interests of major corporations seems to be the main deal with U.S. foreign policy, as well as probably the foreign policy of Britain, France, Austrailia, China, India, etc, etc.

But tension this with something a Nigerian fellow only half-jokingly repeated to me that the only thing worse than bring exploited by multinational corporations is not being exploited by multinational corporations.

And tension the two creatively and and hopefully come up with something much better than the path of IMF, big debt, and austerity programs.
 
Top