WI: Marshall Plan extended to Latin America and the Philippines

I actually believe there was a version of the Marshall Plan that was extended to most areas of East Asia.

I have not heard of a Latin American variant though, though I imagine it would mostly have to do with the fact they were not subject to attack in the same sense as those other areas, nor did they contribute the same kind of manpower (Brazil being the most notable with a full Division I believe).
 
Oddly, this could make Henry Wallace quite happy. He was critical of the early Marshall Plan proposals, and the pressure from his responses helped make it less militarized. He was also in favor of hemispheric cooperation.
 
To prevent to rise of left-leaning governments, thus butterflying away the Castro regime had the United States focused on strengthening the economies and democracies of Latin America and the Philippines.

A Marshall Plan is expensive. Supporting strongmen like Marcos or Batista is much cheaper. I agree 100% that it would have been beneficial, but its still hard to make reality simply because of the cost at the time.
 
Wait, what if the cost savings from implementing the Morgenthau Plan in Europe were used to extend the Marshall Plan to the Americas? Ignore for a moment the impracticality of surrendering half of Europe to the Soviet SOI and briefly consider this premise :D
 

Incognito

Banned
A Marshall Plan is expensive. Supporting strongmen like Marcos or Batista is much cheaper. I agree 100% that it would have been beneficial, but its still hard to make reality simply because of the cost at the time.
Not to mention that if you WERE to include South America in the Marshall Plan, the aid would go to the strongman governments that were in power back then anyway.
 
Exactly what was the "Marshal Plan"., that is what were the details of how it worked?

From 1941 the US spent a fair amount of cash & underwrote bank credit for various forms of 'aid' to South America. In general this was to help any pro Allied governments or political parties in South America. I'm wondering how large this was?

In the 1950s there were another round of aid programs, which basically ran up to the present. The names of the programs, amonts of money, and objectives changes, but cash and bank credits still went south.
 
A Marshall Plan is expensive. Supporting strongmen like Marcos or Batista is much cheaper. I agree 100% that it would have been beneficial, but its still hard to make reality simply because of the cost at the time.

With the expense of destroying the democratic institutions in Latin America and the Philippines and increased anti-American sentiment from those regions as the United States propped up dictators just to prevent the rise of Communism for the most of Latin America and the Philippines.

Had the United States strengthened the economies and democracies in Latin America and the Philippines like what they did in Western Europe and Japan, I think there would be lesser anti-American sentiment from Latin America and the Philippines.
 

Hoist40

Banned
But would it accomplish anything in Latin America or the Philippines?

It could be argued that what worked in Germany and Japan was the fact that they had pretty successful economies prior to WW2 and the Marshall Plan at best just helped them get back doing what they already knew what to do.

Britain economy on the other hand had been very successful in the 19th century but was falling behind in the 20th and after WW2 they continued to fall behind even with US aid.

So the success of an aid program depends in large part on the country and people getting aid and not so much on the aid itself. So you might give large amounts of money to a country but it does not accomplish much or even just entrenches bad practices and hurts the country.
 

Dirk_Pitt

Banned
But would it accomplish anything in Latin America or the Philippines?

It could be argued that what worked in Germany and Japan was the fact that they had pretty successful economies prior to WW2 and the Marshall Plan at best just helped them get back doing what they already knew what to do.

Britain economy on the other hand had been very successful in the 19th century but was falling behind in the 20th and after WW2 they continued to fall behind even with US aid.

So the success of an aid program depends in large part on the country and people getting aid and not so much on the aid itself. So you might give large amounts of money to a country but it does not accomplish much or even just entrenches bad practices and hurts the country.

I agree with this. Just look at today's Africa. I think this arguement is won!:eek:

Also I had the feeling that the US was fairly popular in the Philippines...
 
Top