Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Cloudsweeper99, post: 1120300, member: 3011&quot;]I think Germany would have done as well or better without the loans under the Marshall Plan.&nbsp; You are free to hold a different opinion.&nbsp; I fully realize that many people consider government to be the engine of economic growth, but I don&#039;t happen to be one of them.</p><p><br /></p><p>Henderson, David R. (1993, 2002). &quot;German Economic &quot;Miracle&quot;&quot;. The Concise Encyclopaedia of Economics. The Library of Economics and Liberty. Archived from the original on 2007-03-05. <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070305071222/http://www.econlib.org/library/enc/GermanEconomicMiracle.html" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070305071222/http://www.econlib.org/library/enc/GermanEconomicMiracle.html" rel="nofollow">http://web.archive.org/web/20070305071222/http://www.econlib.org/library/enc/GermanEconomicMiracle.html</a>. Retrieved 2007-05-03. &quot;This account has not mentioned the Marshall Plan. Can&#039;t the German revival be attributed mainly to that? The answer is no. The reason is simple: Marshall Plan aid to Germany was not that large. Cumulative aid from the Marshall Plan and other aid programs totaled only $2 billion through October 1954. Even in 1948 and 1949, when aid was at its peak, Marshall Plan aid was less than 5 percent of German national income. Other countries that received substantial Marshall Plan aid had lower growth than Germany. Moreover, while Germany was receiving aid, it was also making reparations and restitution payments that were well over $1 billion. Finally, and most important, the Allies charged the Germans DM7.2 billion annually ($2.4 billion) for their costs of occupying Germany.&quot;[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in