No Marshall Plan?

What if the Marshall Plan had not been implemented? What would have happened to Europe? Would Communism be more widespread? More military dictatorships in Western Europe?
 
Doubtful. Other countries did very well without any grants like this (Japan for example) so while the recovery MAY have taken longer it would still happen.

And there is little to suggest that not having this money would lead to countries becoming communist or ruled by a military dictatorship.
Even without the plan the US is not going to withdraw from western europe and just let the Soviets walk in and try to take over.
 
The modern view is that Western Europe had already been recovering before the Marshall Plan, specifically West Germany, France, and Belgium.

However, France and others had used the funds from the Plan for the preservation of colonies abroad. France in particular benefited off of the money, trying to keep Indochina. Without such aid, its not hard to imagine a quicker end to the independence war for the Vietnamese. If the United States refuses aid to France, it might provide such a downturn in relations that the AHer's wet-dream of a Ho Chi Minh Vietnam and US pseudo-alliance becomes somewhat possible (though not very likely).
 
The modern view is that Western Europe had already been recovering before the Marshall Plan, specifically West Germany, France, and Belgium.

However, France and others had used the funds from the Plan for the preservation of colonies abroad. France in particular benefited off of the money, trying to keep Indochina. Without such aid, its not hard to imagine a quicker end to the independence war for the Vietnamese. If the United States refuses aid to France, it might provide such a downturn in relations that the AHer's wet-dream of a Ho Chi Minh Vietnam and US pseudo-alliance becomes somewhat possible (though not very likely).

Truman supported the French, but thought that Ike "wanting to get involved in Indochina" was foolish. I could see it happening.
 
The question is why there is no Marshall Plan. Has the US turned isolationist, or have US-European relations badly broken down over the details? Or is there another plan to replace it?

Also, the Marshall Plan didn't just involve financing. There was a lot of technical, managerial/industrial expertise involved, and it was mentioned at the time how part of American advantages in productivity were related to those superior managerial factors.

Theoretically, we could see people like Deming go to Europe instead of Japan with some of those other experts still going to the Continent; that is if they are especially given a reason to go. European industrial policies are sure to be very different given the budget pressures, but it's quite possible that they could sponsor and finance an industrial redevelopment based on the principles that Japan eventually adopted.

Admittedly, the American and Deming model is rather contrary to German Mittelstand systems or other heavy craft business models prevalent in Europe, but IIRC, Japan moved away from a similar business architecture post-war.

Then there's trade. Does the US attempt to secure free(er) trade relations across the Atlantic, in the form of GATT and other multilateral agreements? Do the European governments respond to their economic difficulties by continental economic integration, or nationalist economic isolation? If the US is at least as open to rebuilding international trade as OTL, and the Europeans don't engage in regional trade wars, they'll still have plenty of potential for growth.

As to what Marshall Plan recipients do without that extra financing in their budgets... Presumably, they're more willing to limit and reduce military and colonial commitments outside of Europe, which the US is very happy about until an unabashedly communist movement takes advantage of the new situation somewhere.

But this has a similar impact on the domestic policies that the Europeans put in place as well, which sets the foundation for political and economic direction in the post-war world. Will Britain be able to afford the nationalization of the railways, steel industry, and so on? Will European governments in general establish agricultural subsidy and support systems anywhere as generous as OTL? If they can't spend though, they might well try to 'direct' via industrial policy and regulation in a very rough parallel to Japan.

Full of interesting possibilities here, if starting conditions were more fleshed out, there would be even more to talk about.
 
Doubtful. Other countries did very well without any grants like this (Japan for example) so while the recovery MAY have taken longer it would still happen.

And there is little to suggest that not having this money would lead to countries becoming communist or ruled by a military dictatorship.
Even without the plan the US is not going to withdraw from western europe and just let the Soviets walk in and try to take over.

1. Japan did well without Marshall Aid because it was under US occupation and economic guidance at the time.

2. The point of the Marshall Plan was to stimulate growth with an independently-lead recovery, see the oft-cited German recovery by deeply-misinformed right-wingers who claim that "guv'ment aid wasn't needed".

3. It's unlikely that no Marshall Plan means the Red Tide completely engulfs all of Europe, but there's the possibility that the consequences of trying to deal with devastated postwar economies are exactly the sorts of things that cause people to lose faith in incumbent governments and listen to groups like communists who preach an alternative.
 
3. It's unlikely that no Marshall Plan means the Red Tide completely engulfs all of Europe, but there's the possibility that the consequences of trying to deal with devastated postwar economies are exactly the sorts of things that cause people to lose faith in incumbent governments and listen to groups like communists who preach an alternative.

Eurocommunism arises earlier, perhaps even the French Communists or other parties that are affiliated with Moscow at this time make a break with the Soviet line, seeking to court the support of a worried populace. If anything, down the road it will mean a stronger social democrat presence in these states (or weaker depending on how well it works out). Stronger socialist and communist parties in Europe are always a good way of diversifying and splitting the Communist world.
 
Eurocommunism arises earlier, perhaps even the French Communists or other parties that are affiliated with Moscow at this time make a break with the Soviet line, seeking to court the support of a worried populace. If anything, down the road it will mean a stronger social democrat presence in these states (or weaker depending on how well it works out). Stronger socialist and communist parties in Europe are always a good way of diversifying and splitting the Communist world.

Pretty much, I can see a gentler, non-Moscow version of communism taking a decent hold in Europe and all the worst fears of "the red tide sweeping NATO out of Europe" being just a bunch of reactionary pantshitting.
 
Top