Uff Da the optimist
Donor
As the title suggests, how would this affect the Euro-American relationship, Europe itself and not to mention the European Community that lies in the future?
WI: No Marshall aid?
- Thread starter Uff Da the optimist
- Start date
sharlin
Banned
If the US went 'lol see ya!' and didn't do anything to help the bombed out wreck that was europe after the war not only would you probably face more contries going communist but those that didn't would probably accuse the US of war profiteering, the US got amazingly wealthy in the war after all. The UK would probably tell the US to get bent regarding any loans and lend lease too.
Europe would be a lot poore as without the Marshall Plan large scale economic recovery would have taken longer to get going. As Shaby says there would be huge resentment towards America for the perception that they had cut and run from Europe. I would expect some kind of Trans-National organisation to emerge probably with an Anglo-French leadership.
Also without American money underpinning their economies I think Britain and France would struggle to maintain their colonial possessions so you could see an earlier, and in some places a potentially messier decolonisation.
So in short a bit of a clusterfuck
Also without American money underpinning their economies I think Britain and France would struggle to maintain their colonial possessions so you could see an earlier, and in some places a potentially messier decolonisation.
So in short a bit of a clusterfuck
altamiro
Banned
Result by 1952: Isolated and fiercely isolationist Britain, a huge and more unwilling GDR all the way to beyond the Rhine, and a communist France going the way of Tito to keep USSR from having too much to say in their internal affairs, while formally still a member of "socialist brotherhood".
First, as with all US economic aid, the Marshall Plan came with strings.
Ironically the biggest loser from no aid would be the USA - it was hardly a charity program. Without Europe as a market, the USA would be heading straight back into recession.
Ironically the biggest loser from no aid would be the USA - it was hardly a charity program. Without Europe as a market, the USA would be heading straight back into recession.
I dont understand why no Marshall Aid seems to immediately cause western europe to go commumist. Its not as if Russia was providing any help at all!
The only game in town would be Britain and the Empire; the biggest issue is food - I think the Empire could (just) provide the food.
That would lead to an interesting recovery in Europe - the British are seen as the guys who saved them after the war, the Russians have just ignored them, the USA is a money-grubbing selfish entity.
For example, in these circumstances Europe might well be in the Sterling Zone, which would carry on rather than be sabotaged by the USA after the war. And the Empire and Europe arent going to trust the USA again, with big long-term implications.
There are also deep political issues for the USA - letting all those white Europeans starve (remember all those GI's whos been over there), helped only by the British, while the USA sits on its hands. Next US election could be interesting.
The only game in town would be Britain and the Empire; the biggest issue is food - I think the Empire could (just) provide the food.
That would lead to an interesting recovery in Europe - the British are seen as the guys who saved them after the war, the Russians have just ignored them, the USA is a money-grubbing selfish entity.
For example, in these circumstances Europe might well be in the Sterling Zone, which would carry on rather than be sabotaged by the USA after the war. And the Empire and Europe arent going to trust the USA again, with big long-term implications.
There are also deep political issues for the USA - letting all those white Europeans starve (remember all those GI's whos been over there), helped only by the British, while the USA sits on its hands. Next US election could be interesting.
Faeelin
Banned
Nope. America's trade with Europe in this period was pretty small, given the relative size of the US internal market and the fact that Europeans were living in bombed out ruins.
The point is that without the aid this would stay the case - a revival of European buying power was necessary to keep US sales up after the immediate post-war domestic demand had been satisfied.
Faeelin
Banned
Is it? I think you would have to show that European trade was responsible for the economic boom the US had in the 50s, to get me to agree to this.
Uff Da the optimist
Donor
Europe get smashed during ww2
USA helps Europe rebuild
USA gives Europe financial aid in return for a economically stable Europe,
in turn giving them a bigger future market
Europe becomes financially viable, and in turn help the US politically, militarily and economically.
When Europeans could finally afford cars, clothes and other "non-essential" products, wasn't this partly responsible for the american economic boom?
Was about this way, right?
USA helps Europe rebuild
USA gives Europe financial aid in return for a economically stable Europe,
in turn giving them a bigger future market
Europe becomes financially viable, and in turn help the US politically, militarily and economically.
When Europeans could finally afford cars, clothes and other "non-essential" products, wasn't this partly responsible for the american economic boom?
Was about this way, right?
mowque
Banned
Well, it helped for sure. But I think historians tend to side with internal growth for the '50's boom'.
What this will really screw up is NATO and stuff. Look for more of a Galluist approach in Europe. Hard for USA to order nations around and forge alliances without the massive goodwill the Plan created.
Faeelin
Banned
There's an odd belief among some Europeans (and I am not saying you are one of them) that the Marshall Plan was a diabological plan to destroy America, because no nation would ever do something out of its good nature.
(Ernest Bevin disagreed, describing Marshall's annoucenement of the plan was one of the greatest speeches in world history, but that's neither here nor there).
So, some statistics are worth noting. In the first year of the Marshall PLan, aid to Italy was devoted to imports of coal and grain. But after that it went to investments in engineering, energy, and transportation.
In France, the Marshall Plan financed fifty percent of the Monnet plan to modernize thenation.
In 1950, the Marshall Plan was credited for providing half of Greece's GNP.
In the UK, 97% of all Marshall Plan aid went to paying off debt.
So when you talk about how the nation that "most benefitted" from the plan was the US, you might want to consider the thousands of people who didn't starve to death in Greece, say, because of it.
Faeelin
Banned
Britain didn't go off rationing for years after the war. Where are they getting the resources to pay for this, given that in OTL they were the largest recipients of Marshall Plan aid?