PC: A Marshall-like Plan for the former USSR?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,044
SoCal
#1
Was it ever plausible for an economic plan similar to the Marshall Plan to be developed for the former USSR after the end of the Cold War?

I was thinking of having the West pay for rebuilding the former USSR after the end of the Cold War similar to how the U.S. paid for rebuilding Western Europe after the end of WWII. Also, perhaps the West could make this aid dependent on certain conditions--such as reform and democratization in the former USSR.
 
Jun 2017
143
UK
#2
That may have caused more division in the USSR. groups wanting the aid and those that didn’t. It may have put more fruition to a civil war that no one in the world wanted. not with nukes involved.
 

Chlodio

Ad Honorem
Aug 2016
3,831
Dispargum
#3
There were transition assistance programs at the time but I don't think they were financial - more like lending technical expertise. I remember some jokes about these programs - teaching the Czechs about checks and balances or the importance of polls in elections and someone asking, "Why do we have to use Poles? Why can't we use East Germans instead?"
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,044
SoCal
#5
There were transition assistance programs at the time but I don't think they were financial - more like lending technical expertise. I remember some jokes about these programs - teaching the Czechs about checks and balances or the importance of polls in elections and someone asking, "Why do we have to use Poles? Why can't we use East Germans instead?"
The Poles are there for the kielbasa. ;) After all, one can get hungry when one is voting. :)
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,044
SoCal
#6
That may have caused more division in the USSR. groups wanting the aid and those that didn’t. It may have put more fruition to a civil war that no one in the world wanted. not with nukes involved.
I really don't think that anyone in the former Soviet Union actually wanted a civil war--certainly not over this issue.
 
Oct 2013
14,075
Europix
#7
That may have caused more division in the USSR. groups wanting the aid and those that didn’t. It may have put more fruition to a civil war that no one in the world wanted. not with nukes involved.
There couldn't have been more division in URSS, nor less division, as there was no "division" in URSS: URSS was united around the great leader Stalin.

And Stalin was more than capable for keeping things like that.
 
Dec 2017
275
Regnum Teutonicum
#8
If a Marshall-Plan after the end of the Cold War would succeed, a GIGANTIC one was needed. For reunification Germany gave the soviets 5 DM of credit and masses of food like grain and at least 120000 tons of meat. The situation was so dire, the Soviet Union couldn't feed its people.
 
Sep 2016
1,103
Georgia
#9
I really don't think that anyone in the former Soviet Union actually wanted a civil war--certainly not over this issue.
Civil wars already started by the end of 1980's. Conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia over Karabakh in 1988 exploded.
Civil War in former Soviet Republics during 1990s : Nagorno - Karabakh War, Transistria War, Tajikistani Civil War, Osetian and Abkazian Wars, Civil War in Georgia between Gamsaxurdia and Shevarnadze, East Prigorodny Conflict, Political crisis of 1993 in Russia ( when tanks were firing in Moscow ), First Chechen War, Dagestan War and Second Chechen War. There was also 1991 August Coup attempt in Moscow by Boris Yeltsin.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Teslatron
Dec 2011
1,303
#10
The success of the Marshall Plan was possible primarily for one reason: Europe had an industrial powerhouse in its mid that could re-start production very fast and, thus, supply other countries with resources and machines during their reconstruction and/or industrialization periods. (West) Germany was not only the most developed nation on the continent, but also had close connections to pretty much the entire rest of (continental) Western Europe hailing from the War period.

Furthermore, compared to the USSR of the 1990s, the Germany of the 1940/50s came from an economic system that, while being Fascist in nature, was nonetheless conducive to Capitalist growth. It had an emphasis on technological progress, highly capable big businesses, and a daring, well trained and highly experienced "managing force". Moreover, while the Nazi focus on vocational education had led to a dearth in manual laborers, the postwar economy that had not deal with war production, anymore, had access to a highly trained labor force.

Hence, a Marshall Plan for the USSR would not only have had to be vastly bigger than the postwar one, it would have had to account for the lack of technological capabilities, managerial and labor capabilities and a lack of systemically relevant infrastructure. Consequently, such a Marshall plan would have had to be extended linearly to account for the sheer size of the former USSR, it would have had to be enlarged almost exponentially.

"Shock therapy" has proven to be incapable of transforming former Socialist economies, successfully, and a Marshall Plan would not have been sufficient, either. I would say, a gradual opening starting with developmental state type changes in, primarily, industrial policy (Japanese style), would probably have been more successful.
 
Likes: Futurist

Similar History Discussions