Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
The marshall plan and cold war
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by Adebayors Gangly Legs (U2863008) on Monday, 16th January 2006
can anyone show me how the marshall plan contributed to the cold war
-
Message 2
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Monday, 16th January 2006
Probably because it gave lots of loot to Western Germany and not to Eastern germany, and showed Russia how rich the USA was, since it could afford to do that, and hence how powerful it was, and hence how dangerous it was.
Otherwise no idea! Be interested to see what others say.
Eliza -
Message 3
Posted by Adebayors Gangly Legs (U2863008) on Monday, 16th January 2006
cheers but wouldt you reckon this plan would lead to the cold war or just intesify the bad relationship the two super powers had
-
Message 4
Posted by henrylee100 (U536041) on Tuesday, 17th January 2006
here's my little conspiracy theory: both the marshal paln and the cold war were two integral elements of one bigger plan which was to keep the US economy on a roll once WWII was over.
Before WWII the US had been in a very painful recession for almost a decade. Ultimately the US was the only overall winner in WWII, it had minimal losses (less than 1 million I believe) and at the same time it's economy got a powerful boost from the flood of military contracts.
Potentially when the war came to an end and mil contract began to dwindle the US economy might have wound up in another bad recession, something had to be done. Obviosuly it was decided to do two things simultaneously: declare a cold war on the USSR, a war in which not a single shot is fired but yet the military keeps ordering ever more stuff as if they were in an actual war(the arms race); and at the same time develop new overseas markets by pumping money in war devastated economies of western europe and Japan.
Both parts of the plan actually did work, except that by the late 1950's the hawks in Washington got a little bit carried away and began to take the cold war more and more seriously, so much so that in 1961 together with the eccentric soviet leader Nikita Khrustchyov (who like all soviets leaders always took the whole thing most seriously), almost blew the world apart in an all out nuclear showdown. -
Message 5
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Tuesday, 17th January 2006
Well,
I suppose you can credit the Marshall Plan with preventing the spread of communism into Western Europe. Remember that in 1945, Europe was trashed. I mean economically, socially, trashed. We're talking industry in ruins, infrastructure devastated, no jobs, no money, very little food.
The last time we saw a situation where people had so little in the way of jobs and personal wealth was in the late 20s with the Great Depression. As we all saw back then, when people are in desperate times economically, they turn to extremist political solutions. Nazism and the far-right politics of Fascism were out, so that left communism. People in the early 30s in Germany, for example polarised towards Nazism and Communism, and we all saw the result of that. The Marshall Plan was to start Europe on the road to economic recovery, and so to avoid the old extremisms of the past. IMO, the Marshall Plan did much to improve the state of Europe after 1945, and it sowed the seeds of peace. It is IMO one of the main factors which prevented a Third World War starting in Europe.
A politically brilliant act of benevolence by the US, and one which has legacies even today.
DL -
Message 6
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Tuesday, 17th January 2006
henrylee - it isn't conspiracy theory, it's just good old Keynseyian economics.
Arch Keynseyian J K Galbraith was quite open about saying that the way out of recession was by the Government spending money, thus creating demand for the supply side to respond to, so that those working on the supply side could make money and be paid wages, which they could spend on the goods now being produced etc etc in a nice Keynseyian virtuous circle. And if that meant military spending, so be it. It was, if you like, WWII that actually really accelerated the New Deal recovery in the USA, by the government suddenly spending huge amounts rearming etc.
As DL points out excellently, by investing (spending) US tax money in Europe, whether by building infrastructure like ports and roads etc, or by having a lot of troops (paid with US tax dollars) stationed in Western Europe, buying European food and goods and local services, then the broken economy of Europe could be mended in the fastest possible way,thereby avoiding the appalling situation that had settled over Europe after the first world war, when global recession led, as DL reminds us, to political extremism.
In a way, the Marshall Plan ENDED the cold war, as it was the 50 odd years of eastern bloc countries seeing - and envying - the huge consumer wealth of the west, that finally brought the iron curtain crashing down. Now, of course, we are at the apotheosis of the Marshall Plan - Fukiyama's End of History, and sailing off into a sublime sunset of non-stop consumerism and capitalism.
Only two little upsets along the way - in the Middle East 'the natives are restless' and up in the sky, things are hotting up too much, too fast....
Eliza. -
Message 7
Posted by nuneatonguitarplayer (U2327933) on Wednesday, 1st February 2006
I won't write it all up for you ... so you can do your own research
But you can link the Marshall Plan to the Russian "equivalent": The Warsaw Pact
This was again a defensive military agreement which was signed by the Communist states in E-Europe
We can safely say the Warsaw Pact was a direct response to the Marshall Plan in an ideological sense: Communism vs Capatilism
This in turn spawned the arms race between the two "super-powers" and the Cold War was born -
Message 8
Posted by nuneatonguitarplayer (U2327933) on Wednesday, 1st February 2006
In a way, the Marshall Plan ENDED the cold war, as it was the 50 odd years of eastern bloc countries seeing - and envying - the huge consumer wealth of the west Ìý
My students will have a good giggle at that one
The MP ended in 1951... yet the Cold War ravaged on throughout the future decades. The expenditure by the US and the USSR on military operations exceeded all monies from the MP. -
Message 9
Posted by henrylee100 (U536041) on Wednesday, 1st February 2006
I won't write it all up for you ... so you can do your own research
But you can link the Marshall Plan to the Russian "equivalent": The Warsaw Pact
This was again a defensive military agreement which was signed by the Communist states in E-Europe
We can safely say the Warsaw Pact was a direct response to the Marshall Plan in an ideological sense: Communism vs Capatilism
This in turn spawned the arms race between the two "super-powers" and the Cold War was bornÌý
The eastern block was playing catch up the whole time, NATO was set up in 1949, It took Moscow how long, about 5 years if I'm not mistaken, before they responded with the Warsaw pact and they never really had any real economic content to their structures in the east. In a way the cold war always worked for the economy in the west in one way or another while in the east it just burdened the planned state capitalist economies of the eastern block countries. -
Message 10
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Wednesday, 1st February 2006
In a way, the Marshall Plan ENDED the cold war, as it was the 50 odd years of eastern bloc countries seeing - and envying - the huge consumer wealth of the west Ìý
My students will have a good giggle at that one
The MP ended in 1951... yet the Cold War ravaged on throughout the future decades. The expenditure by the US and the USSR on military operations exceeded all monies from the MP.
Ìý
Please tell me your not a real school teacher? -
Message 11
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Wednesday, 1st February 2006
In a way, the Marshall Plan ENDED the cold war, as it was the 50 odd years of eastern bloc countries seeing - and envying - the huge consumer wealth of the west Ìý
My students will have a good giggle at that one
The MP ended in 1951... yet the Cold War ravaged on throughout the future decades. The expenditure by the US and the USSR on military operations exceeded all monies from the MP.
Ìý
Whether or not formal investment funding under the MP ended in l951 or not, the investment was sufficient to kickstart the western european economy again - that this was a real kickstart can be found by asking any German if they understand the term economic miracle. Thanks to the economic theories that generated the MP, Western Europe became consumer-rich, whereas the eastern bloc did not, because it lacked those economic theories and practices. Again, ask any former inhabitant of the Eastern block whetther they thought they were richer or poorer than western europeans?
As for military spending, again, this is covered by Keynsian/Galbraithian economics - goverments that spend money on armaments and armed forces have a conduit thereby of injecting money into the economies. It may not be the most efficient way (eg, cf investing into industry/infrastructure) but it beats not investing at all!
The effects of history are very seldom local in time or place - they reverberate, and spread outwards and onwards.
Eliza. -
Message 12
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Wednesday, 1st February 2006
I happen to think that this discussion has got off on the wrong foot from the start. The MP was offered to the WHOLE of Europe (both East and West) to put it back on its feet. Of course, the USA stood to benefit, in the long term, from having healthy economies to sell its goods to. But there is nothing wrong with enlightened self interest, particularly if the receiving of the money by the aided countries was voluntary.
It is a total travesty to call the MP an act of war, cold or otherwise.
It was Stalin, the imperialist, who prevented the Eastern Europeans from benefitting from the MP.
I am convinced that Europe was offered the aid for one major reason, that is a shattered Europe could well result in the breakdown of democracy and more wars as everyone fought over the scraps, which the US, on past record, would have to dig Europe out of. The aid was primarily to shore up democracy and peace -
Message 13
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Wednesday, 1st February 2006
The world had very good 'proof' that poverty stricken defeated countries can be extremely dangerous - especially if those that defeated them are also proverty stricken. Defeated, poverty-stricken Germany after WWI put all its efforts into revenge and comeback, and so another generation of young men had to die - and millions upon millions of citizens, victims of Nazi aggression.
If 'squeezing them till the pips squeak' - the policy of the victorious powers in l919 had failed, then it was well worth the opposite tactic in l946. Fortunately it paid off.
Even Stalin stopped murdering quite so many people after the war..... (but maybe that was because, finally, the devil came to claim his own.)
Eliza. -
Message 14
Posted by nuneatonguitarplayer (U2327933) on Thursday, 2nd February 2006
-
Message 15
Posted by nuneatonguitarplayer (U2327933) on Thursday, 2nd February 2006
In a way, the Marshall Plan ENDED the cold war, as it was the 50 odd years of eastern bloc countries seeing - and envying - the huge consumer wealth of the west Ìý
My students will have a good giggle at that one
The MP ended in 1951... yet the Cold War ravaged on throughout the future decades. The expenditure by the US and the USSR on military operations exceeded all monies from the MP.
Ìý
Please tell me your not a real school teacher?Ìý
Not yet... not school anyway...
But the theory is still the same... the MP was never about creating Cold War or otherwise. If you research the period of diplomatic relations throughout during this time, you will see it is one of intense rivalry and more often than not, one of miscalculation
And I am not sure how the above person could say the MP "ended" the CW... how strange indeed -
Message 16
Posted by nuneatonguitarplayer (U2327933) on Thursday, 2nd February 2006
I am convinced that Europe was offered the aid for one major reason, that is a shattered Europe could well result in the breakdown of democracy and more wars as everyone fought over the scraps, which the US, on past record, would have to dig Europe out of. The aid was primarily to shore up democracy and peace
Ìý
Agreed... all of the appeasement process following WW1 had the same intention... no one wanted another war simply because of the cost involved -
Message 17
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Thursday, 2nd February 2006
Hi,
Did any of you figure just maybe the MP was initiated because it was plain and simply, the right thing to do? Or would that be giving those heartless Yanks too much credit.
Cheers, An American Taxpayer. -
Message 18
Posted by henrylee100 (U536041) on Friday, 3rd February 2006
Hi,
Did any of you figure just maybe the MP was initiated because it was plain and simply, the right thing to do? Or would that be giving those heartless Yanks too much credit.
Cheers, An American Taxpayer.Ìý
for one you must realize that only a small portions of american taxpayers are yanks. for second the Mp was the right thing for the US to do at the time. You see there is universal right and wrong, for any given situation it'll always depend on who you are how you fit in and so on a number of factors and simultaneously what's the right thing to do for one entiry may be the wrong thing to do for another in the same situation.
Yet I find it rather hard to believe that the US could have been driven by purely altruistic motives when they decided to go ahead with the MP. if you want a nice sounding name for the Us motives behind the MP then Enlightened Selfishness, already cited earlier in this thread, is perhaps the closest you can get. Btw there's nothing really wrong with being selfish , enlightment sort of redeems it because it ultimately means 1) you won't be harming anyone unless you really have to and 2) you'll just as easily help others as long as you're enlightened about tha fact that by helping others in cirtain situations you may be in fact helping yourself in the long run (thus the MP after WWII) -
Message 19
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Friday, 3rd February 2006
Buckskinz, I for one am grateful to the Americans of that generation for their far-sighted generosity, which really put Western Europe on its feet. They seemed happy to 'do the right thing', but that cannot have been the sole motive for giving the aid. There was the urgent need to stop Europe falling into the kind of recession that affected it so disastrously between the wars.
How about a new Marshall Plan for Africa? -
Message 20
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Friday, 3rd February 2006
US did with the MP help Europa on its way to recovery,and thus in the long run even helped USA.
It was a generous offer and general Marchall did start laying down his plan before the war was ended,he was probably thinking of the disasterous Versaille treaty of WWI.Since he was part of the US expeditionary force in WWI,had he first hand seen the disaters of modern warfare.
So conspiration theories about MP as a starter to the cold war is rubbish. No attack on this thread intended,since its both fun and educational taking up all angels.
As an end to why US did put in all this money.
Dont look a gift horse in the mouth.
Hasse -
Message 21
Posted by Mr Pedant (U2464726) on Friday, 3rd February 2006
Hi,
Or would that be giving those heartless Yanks too much credit.
Cheers, An American Taxpayer.Ìý
That would be a bit unfashionable though wouldn't it
-
Message 22
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Friday, 3rd February 2006
Buckskinz, I for one am grateful to the Americans of that generation for their far-sighted generosity, which really put Western Europe on its feet. They seemed happy to 'do the right thing', but that cannot have been the sole motive for giving the aid. There was the urgent need to stop Europe falling into the kind of recession that affected it so disastrously between the wars.
How about a new Marshall Plan for Africa?Ìý
Hi fascinating,
Given the way we treated them after WW2 how about a joint MP for Poland.
Cheers, Matt. -
Message 23
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Friday, 3rd February 2006
Hi,
Or would that be giving those heartless Yanks too much credit.
Cheers, An American Taxpayer.Ìý
That would be a bit unfashionable though wouldn't itÌý
Mr Pedant,
Please accept my nomination of your message for, Understatement of The Month.
Cheers, Matt. -
Message 24
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 3rd February 2006
Matt,
Has Pastor Bubba been banned from the boards now, or is he just in pre-mod? -
Message 25
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Friday, 3rd February 2006
Matt,
Has Pastor Bubba been banned from the boards now, or is he just in pre-mod?
Ìý
DL,
That was so funny yesterday. They deleted my messages because they said to me in an email that I was posting in a foregn language. No Pastor Bubba Jenkins is spending all the donations he has accumulated over the past week.
Cheers, Matt. -
Message 26
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 3rd February 2006
Weeeeeell
God bless y'all, and thanks fir th cash!!
Can ah git an aaaaaaaaaaamen?
I still remember watching the guy who got caught out with certain ladies of ill-repute confessing he'd spent his donations on items other than what God had intended. Was his name Bakker or Baker? Can't remember! Anyway, it was one of the poorest acting performances ever, and ranks amongst one of my top ten most hilarious TV moments!! -
Message 27
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Friday, 3rd February 2006
Actually, it wasn't me who suiggested the MP had ended the cold war, but I took it up and explored it and I think it's right. After all, the Cold War 'officially' ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall, and that marked the end of the Eastern bloc, and the reunification of those countries into the western block, with all our givens on how to run our economies - which are, of course, entirely based on MP Keynsian economics (ie, the more money people have to buy things, the more money that people who sell things will make, and since they employ the people that buy things, hey presto, we're all rich guys.....)(yes, I know, partly we're rich because of labour arbitrage with the farmers and factory workers of the third world - will be interesting to see whether that's critical, or optional, when that labour arbitrage factor eventually disappears when globabisiation is complete.)
On the USA doing the right thing? Well, I wouldnt' actually say the MP WAS the right thing, in the sense of morally right, as it simply rewarded Germany for having destroyed - yet again! - European civilisation and killed a generation of young men PLUS all the horrors of the Holcaust (cv the Holocaust thread). Yet courtesy of the MP they get a shiny new ecomonmy and their wonderful Werkschaftswunder and become the richest post war nation in Europe - all as a reward for having been the bullyboy killers of Europe - and to stop them doing it a third time. It's like bribing a criminal not to commit crime by giving them more than they can steal...
I've never really understood why the WWII allied victors didn't impose delayed reparations on Germany - to be repaid WHEN their economic miracle (kicked off by the MP) had paid out.
Eliza. -
Message 28
Posted by Goldfinches (U2947535) on Friday, 3rd February 2006
Don't forget the Marshall Plan/Allies links to the 'use of culture' - at one point a huge amount of lorries were being used to import be-bop records and such like to Berlin.
Also concerts and exhibitions being held in the ruins - there was extensive and rapid building of theatres. libraries and 'cultural' infrastructure in general alongside the more readily recognised 'economic' infrastructure.
Also books and magazines - I have heard comment that more books were actually burnt by the Allies (pro-Nazi, revisionist etc) and then replaced by 'appropriate' publications to foster the liberal democracy cause.
Artists, musicians and film-makers were caught up in a variety of ways:
Hollywood Director Billy Wilder Born in Austria) was a propaganda officer in post-war Berlin. In 1945 he was sent to Germany (with the rank of colonel) to help with de-Nazification and to serve as a sort of German film commissioner for the army's Psychological Warfare Division.
'Brought in to help de-Nazify the West German film industry before it proceeded to roll cameras once again; any book about Wilder usually recounts a half-dozen hilarious stories he tells about the process...........'
The Allied Four-Power Kommandatura which administered Berlin had a cultural affairs committee, which in turn had a denazification subcommittee to advise it on policy and cases. Including the conductor Furtwangler:
In response to Allied activity the Russians also poured resources into publishing, music, theatre and film-making etc.
One later, well documented, example of the 'use of culture' is the CIA funding of international touring exhibitions of Abstract Expressionist art - to show off modern America, LD values....the use of culture in this and similar contexts is still prevalent
other links -
REVISITING ZERO-HOUR 1945
THE EMERGENCE OF POSTWAR GERMAN CULTURE
-
Message 29
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Friday, 3rd February 2006
Eli7abeth, come on, you can do better than that! Germany did cause a lot of destruction, we all know that, but they also suffered terribly. Much as I admire the MP, I do not think that it was the SOLE reason for the building of the German economy, by which I mean that the German people had to work very hard!
The MP was the right thing to do because it gave shattered Europe a leg up, such that, at the very least, people could generally find employment, and put some food in their bellies. They might otherwise have roamed the streets hungry, and formed radical political parties with strong leaders and rearmament policies to get people into full employment and...... -
Message 30
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Friday, 3rd February 2006
Fascinating - totally agree the MP was the smart thing to do, and worked brilliantly. BUT I don't really see why Germany should have got off so lightly, considering it caused the war in the first place. Millions of people would have lived whom they killed. This is not somethign to forgive and forget lightly. Yes, the German people suffered, and yes, this included children who did NOT cause the war, but they did not suffer more than their victims.
What we actually DO about the 'innocent' portions of a 'guilty' nation is always a heartbreaking decision. one thing is vividly in my mind from Dresden - a man with grief mother carrying her dead child in a suitcase....
There's a threaad on the rights and wrongs of Hiroshima going on now, and that's an even more horrendous situation.
And now, of course, there's Iraq...
Eliza. -
Message 31
Posted by nuneatonguitarplayer (U2327933) on Friday, 3rd February 2006
"I've never really understood why the WWII allied victors didn't impose delayed reparations on Germany - to be repaid WHEN their economic miracle (kicked off by the MP) had paid out"
Possibly because the reparations issue was high on the Nazi agenda
But saying that you have a point... GB paid (and I believe is still paying) war loans from that period and GER is not. Although I believe they have been hit with a compensation claim from the Jewish community recently -
Message 32
Posted by nuneatonguitarplayer (U2327933) on Friday, 3rd February 2006
<quote> considering it caused the war in the first place <quote/>
It was the Nazis who caused the war... not Germany as such.
The same as the victors of the war are not the Allied nations people of today but those who fought in the war.
While I'm on the subject; I hate the way people say nowadays "but we won the war" as if it is something to be proud of. I believe in remembering those who fought on both sides but the wars were not pretty for anyone. Why punish countries/people who never had any part of that period -
Message 33
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Saturday, 4th February 2006
henrylee100
for one you must realize that only a small portions of american taxpayers are yanks.Ìý
I usually try to ignore your anti-U.S. drivel but curiosity has got the better of me on this one. Would you care to try and explain your above comment?
for second the Mp was the right thing for the US to do at the time. You see there is universal right and wrong, for any given situation it'll always depend on who you are how you fit in and so on a number of factors and simultaneously what's the right thing to do for one entiry may be the wrong thing to do for another in the same situation. Ìý
And now that you are finished with your brilliant statement of the obvious..
Yet I find it rather hard to believe that the US could have been driven by purely altruistic motives when they decided to go ahead with the MP. if you want a nice sounding name for the Us motives behind the MP then Enlightened Selfishness, already cited earlier in this thread, is perhaps the closest you can get. Btw there's nothing really wrong with being selfish , enlightment sort of redeems it because it ultimately means 1) you won't be harming anyone unless you really have to and 2) you'll just as easily help others as long as you're enlightened about tha fact that by helping others in cirtain situations you may be in fact helping yourself in the long run (thus the MP after WWII)
Ìý
So, after the United States committed an army and treasure, in part because the Germans had kicked the British Army into the English Channel, not to mention the MP was offered and rejected to the Soviet Union, yet even more American treasure was committed under the MP for selfish American reasons. I guess we were going to get rich trading with the affluent Soviet Union. The sad part is the UK received more money than any other country under the MP and squandered it trying to play the big shot on the world stage. West Germany invested it in their country and as a result the UK was eating West Germany's economic dust all through the cold war. I can't begin to imagine what some of you people are being taught in your schools.
Cheers, Matt. -
Message 34
Posted by henrylee100 (U536041) on Saturday, 4th February 2006
I usually try to ignore your anti-U.S. drivel but curiosity has got the better of me on this one. Would you care to try and explain your above comment?
Ìý
here you go: I always thought that the term yanks primarily referred to New Englanders and that if you called someone from Atlanta a yank they might not get the joke. but I admit I might be confusing things here (maybe yankee and yank are different after all)
So, after the United States committed an army and treasure, in part because the Germans had kicked the British Army into the English Channel, not to mention the MP was offered and rejected to the Soviet Union, yet even more American treasure was committed under the MP for selfish American reasons. I guess we were going to get rich trading with the affluent Soviet Union. Ìý
not a single country in Europe was affluent after the war ended so they had to be made affluent so the US might get rich trading with them in the future. The SU was a totaly different story, actually if they'd have had someone other than Stalin in chrage and would have accepted the MP offering, which no doubt would have included some guidelines on how to runt he economy along with the cash, then yes the US could have gotten even richer than it did off trading with the SU, you have to remember that the SU(or Russia today) probably has more natural resources than any other country in the world and if it wasn't so screwed up all the time, potentially it could make a great trading partner.
The sad part is the UK received more money than any other country under the MP and squandered it trying to play the big shot on the world stage. West Germany invested it in their country and as a result the UK was eating West Germany's economic dust all through the cold war. I can't begin to imagine what some of you people are being taught in your schools.
Ìý
West Germany had no choice, nobody would have allowed them to play big shot so about the only thing they could do with the money in that situation was put it in their economy, The UK policies weren't always the wisest so what? It doesn't make the US altruistic, I'm in turn left wondering what sort of brainwashing propaganda they're teaching you in your shcools if there's people among you you actually belive in the altruism of the US. The US has always been the closest to the free market model, it's a model where everyone's fending for themselves and it does not included altruism, under it if you help someone else you only do that if you know you can benefit by helping them. Enlightment in this model means that you have information which allows you to make relatively reliable predictions about the future so that you can decide whom to help in the present. So I really don't understand why it is that some peopel have trouble accepting the US the way it is: pragmatic and are willing istead to create this fairy tale about a big white puffy altruistic US of A that's out to help everybody never expecting to get anything in return. -
Message 35
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Saturday, 4th February 2006
Re: Message 34.
Henrylee,
IMO the Marshall Plan was the best thing that could happen to Europe immediately after WWII and the Americans were not imposing capitalistic measurements on Europe as they had them already long before the war. And whatever advantages they had afterwards from it, it was certainly in the benefit of both
If the former Soviet Union didn't force, Czechoslovakia, Poland, East-Germany into their zone of influence and turned over their governments into "people's democracies" and obliged them to refuse the Marshall aid they would have been nearly from after WWII in a much better shape, both from economical as from democratical point of view as from the point of view of wealth in my humble opinion.
Kind regards. -
Message 36
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Saturday, 4th February 2006
Eliza
The MP plan wasnt just for Germany your country and even my that wasnt in the war did get some.
.
Again about Germany the strong prewar west Germany was a bullvark in the cold war and one of the main reasons of the communist fall.
Hasse -
Message 37
Posted by superfern (U3137729) on Sunday, 5th February 2006
The Marshall Plan widened the gulf which had already opened between the USA and the USSR as a result of the Russian Civil War and distrust during WWII. The Marshall Plan WAS offered to Stalin but it was dependent on trade with the USA so he rejected it.
The Marshall Plan heightened tensions already present because it a) increased Stalin's infamous paranoia based on a fear that the west was planning to attack the USSR - (economcially strong meant militarily strong enough to attack) and b) the MP served to further pitch east agaisnt west, this time drawing the line in economic terms. It therefore sparked the economic competition between the USA and the USSR. It was COMECON which was established a result of the MP NOT the WARSAW PACT - this was the consequnce of the establishment of NATO.
Cheers. -
Message 38
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Sunday, 5th February 2006
Hesse - agreed - but why did Germany get any at all?? ..... and certainly how come it's not paid it back and we still are repaying war loans??????????
But, overall, I agree that the benefits outweigh the 'justice' (and since discovering that dumping towels on sunloungers is illegal, I feel a lot better).....
Interesting that Russian paranoia fed on the wealth of the western bloc. But I think the MP still was essential - we have to remember that in the late forties and fifties there was real fear that even more countries would 'go commie' like Greece and Italy, for example. Could well hve done so, were it not for the lure of consumer goodies???
Eliza. -
Message 39
Posted by henrylee100 (U536041) on Sunday, 5th February 2006
But I think the MP still was essential - we have to remember that in the late forties and fifties there was real fear that even more countries would 'go commie' like Greece and Italy, for example. Could well hve done so, were it not for the lure of consumer goodies???
Ìý
obviously the MP alone wasn't enough. Italy was still a pretty bad shape in the 1950's, so much so that to prevent it from going commi the CIA had to intervene in their elections. The agency admitted it recently, actually they even made a documentary about it, it wasn't like they rigged elections or something but huge amounts of cash were spent exclusively on making sure that the socialists/communists would lose. -
Message 40
Posted by henrylee100 (U536041) on Sunday, 5th February 2006
IMO the Marshall Plan was the best thing that could happen to Europe immediately after WWII and the Americans were not imposing capitalistic measurements on Europe as they had them already long before the war. And whatever advantages they had afterwards from it, it was certainly in the benefit of both
If the former Soviet Union didn't force, Czechoslovakia, Poland, East-Germany into their zone of influence and turned over their governments into "people's democracies" and obliged them to refuse the Marshall aid they would have been nearly from after WWII in a much better shape, both from economical as from democratical point of view as from the point of view of wealth in my humble opinion.
Ìý
you must realize though that it only happened to Western Europe, Eastern Europe was excluded from it. And this is where the US pragmatism comes in, to effectively deal with Hitler the US needed the USSR as an ally. The USSR was a dictatorship, in mnay ways under Stalin it was practially as brutal and blood thirsty as the Nazi Germany yet it was choses as an ally during WWII on the lesser evil principle. Obviously when you strike a deal with a totalitarian regime of this magnitude and force you have to pay it with something. Decision was made at a number of allied conferences that took place during the war that the payment would be in the form of spheres of influence in Europe. In other words the US and the USSR divided up Europe into spheres of influence. Under the circumstances it was probably the smart thing to do, yet there were still people who eventually had to foot the bill, not only in the form of not getting any Marshal plan money but also in the form of having their protests and rebellions put down , often in a rather severe and bloody fashion (Hungary, the Prague spring)
You see you can't look at the MP in isolation, it was an integral part of an over all policy which didn't start at the end of WWII. Yes a bunch of countries in Europe got help whehn they most needed it and that was a good thing to those countries. But that didn't make any difference to the countries that never got any aid for one reason or another but that needed it just as much and for second if there'd been no MP chances are the US would have faired worse economically than it did. The MP was an enlightened thing to do at the time but it was purely pragmatic. As for its relation to the Cold War, imho both the cold war and the MP were used to accomplish the same set of objectives but from different angles. There were basically two objectives :# ensure economic prosperity for the US and Europe (and Japan) and # 2 keep the war in Europe cold. They were both accomplished. -
Message 41
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 6th February 2006
Re: Message 40.
Henrylee,
in the whole I agree with you and yes the Marshall Plan had as you say a double purpose and was pragmatic, on the one side to help the European nations to revive their economy while that was also good for the American economy (why not it was good for both the sides) and at the other hand it was an instrument as you said in the cold war. And you were also right that there was an agreement from both sides the SU and the US to keep to their zones of influence. Stalin kept him to his promises while giving Greece to the English and the Americans. But perhaps in the meantime the US felt a bit trapped in its promises as for the East of Europa and as such used the Marshall Plan as an incentive to lurr the later East-Block countries in their camp. As such they weren't not so honest as Stalin (big prolonged laugh). Only Yugoslavia and Tito were the spoilsporters?
And yes again as you said eastern Europe received not only no money but it was also, worser IMO, pulled into dictatorships under the Sovjet umbrella.
Kind regards.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.