We've had a lot of threads about WW2 here, but, as far as I can remember) very few about the post-war situation. I'm interested in the situation in Europe, and the events leading up to the Cold War.
I've recently been reading up on the Marshall Plan, and was surprised to see statics pointing to a rapid recovery of Western Europe after the end of WW2, with industrial production quickly recovering (except in Germany, of course).

The plan seems to have been made is response not to a "rebuilding crisis", but to a financial crisis due to a mounting current-account dollar deficit on european trade with the USA. And as a response to a notification, by the british government, that they could no longer afford to keep financing their side on the greek civil war and in Turkey and would be forced to withdraw from there.
Moreover, it seems that the main problem faced by Europe was the disruption of the pre-war trade patterns within Europe. Food imports which formerly came from Russia and Eastern Europe had to be replaced with imports from the USA, and the industrial heathland of Europe was deliberately prevented from rebuilding.

What I want to ask, from anyone who may have looked more in depth into this already, is: how could things have evolved in Europe without the Marshall Plan?
- Would the 1947 crisis be quickly overcome, or would it drag Europe down and force it to request help later?
- Would the european colonial empires be cut off earlier to save in those costs, or would european countries seek to exploit them even further, and probably fail anyway, as the dutch did immediately?
- Would the Berlin blockade and the Cold War happen, or might Germany have been restored earlier?

i seem to recall that some in the state dept were steadfastly against re-indsutrializing W Germany in those early post-war years. so much so that it would've had the effect of starving the population. of course, cooler heads prevailed and the Marshall camp of the state dept won out. gaddes wrote about all of this in fine detail. so i guess to answer your question, w/out the marshall plan, i can't see WG and other parts of europe recovering as quickly as it did. i mean, w/out a re-energized WG, the heartland of europe would've had a tough time getting off the ground (this is what i seem to recall).

Britian saw the writing on the wall in terms of its colonial empire after the war. she was flat broke and simply could've sustain itself. iirc, food rationing was still in place after the war. so this in itself says that something is wrong. but i think that the greatest single factor in the post war world was self determination. Britain saw this coming as did the US. france otoh was a different stroy as we know. i often wonder how the post war decolonization movement would have proceeded had FDR not passed away. he was an ardent decolonization proponent and gave churchill and de gaulle earfuls over it (truman less so however).

oh, the cold war would've definitely happened imo...even if the so-called "Wirtschaftswunder" had not occurred. stalin was bent on destroying capitalism and this was going to happen whether or not europe and/or WG rebounded. of course, the formation of nato and the remilitarization of WG had an impact. but those aside, i strongly believe that there'd have been a cold war in the absence of these occurrances.

Crisis would continue, european communist parties especcialy in Italy and France would be much better in elections, major workers strikes among Europe, Greece would became red. Probably colonies would be lost earlier.

The Wirtschaftswunder was indeed more depending on the lowering of restrictions than the money by the Marshall plan. Indeed the money the Germans were given, they had to pay with reparations. Only when the restrictions were lowered the Wirtschaftswunder happened. It was not so effective for the rebuilding of the economy in WG as it is seen broadly.

Adler