Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: miko2d on November 19, 2003, 01:49:37 PM
-
With all that Marshall Plan being thrown around, I just had to see what the heck it was all about. Sure - it was mostly hype.
Germany has to thank the Marshall Plan for a total of almost $1.4 billion received in aid. In addition, while the German government was receiving help from the Marshall Plan, it was still obliged to make reparations and restitution payments that amounted to well over half the funds received from the United States from the Marshall Plan. ( $1.4 billion - a measly $12.4 billion in 2002 money of which over half was paid right back?)
France received a grant of over $2.7 billion from the Marshall Plan - nearly twice as much as Germany - but it still took France 30 years to reach the economic level Germany arrived at within less then 15 years
When looking at these statistics and the fact that it took Germany only half as long as France to reach a comparable economic level of develop, we must ask ourselves what caused the German "economic miracle". It is clear that the Marshall plan was not the major contributor to Germany's rapid economic growth.
miko
-
commie revisionest, next you will be telling us stalin was great, or did you already say that?
-
go the fk back to russia.
The Marshall Plan was amazing, and the results were evident.
dago
-
Sometimes it helps to have key industrial centers bombed to the ground. Germany got new factories with new tooling.
France didn't.
-
Originally posted by john9001
commie revisionest, next you will be telling us stalin was great, or did you already say that?
LOL!!! You've been so revised, you believe revision is history!! hahahahahaha
-
Originally posted by john9001
commie revisionest, next you will be telling us stalin was great, or did you already say that?
No, it could be me.
"Commie revisionist" is an oxymoron in a world of twisted propaganda you Western people enjoy. Thanks Miko for blowing up another bubble of the "popular history" illusions.
US never needed competition from Europe, so all that "american assistance" is another propaganda hypocricy.
Next time I hope some of you will try reading something about true post-war European politics instead of watching what you call "history channel".
-
Originally posted by Dago
go the fk back to russia.
The Marshall Plan was amazing, and the results were evident.
1) Miko is from the Ukraine.
2) Yes, the results were evident, especially for American business who didn't suck enough money from Europe during the War.
-
Gees Boroda, that was an amazing reply, amazing stupid anyway.
1) Miko is from the Ukraine.
Same thing.
dago
-
(http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/marshall/russiancartoon.jpg)
Not everyone gets their news from "the History Channel" Boroda. Your version is available here too.
Here is the bottom line....
1. After the War people were starving
2. Starving people don't give a crap about democracy, they want to eat.
3. The Marshall Plan recognized this fact and fed them.
End of story.
-
The Marshal paln had great succes and was a diffrent move to the American stand after the WW1.
Making Germany pay for "War damage" and taken away thier ability to defend themselfs, banned way for the WWII.
Vengance for the humiliation of "Versille-treaty" was supported all over, not only by "nazis".
US was one of the countries that Pushed "Versille-treaty" through and was the loudest mouth, most unforgiven one in the crowd.
Marshalplan was the total oposite. They had learned the leason.
Now they need to learn from even resant lessons and leave Iraq, while theres still possible to form a "democratic" goverment.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
1. After the War people were starving
2. Starving people don't give a crap about democracy, they want to eat.
3. The Marshall Plan recognized this fact and fed them.
Look at the numbers Miko gave, and you'll see that "democracy" is the last thing you goverment and business thinks about. I mean democracy in it's original Greek meaning, not your propaganda newspeak meanig "falling under American political and economical control".
Marshall plan = propaganda slogan for people starved by reparations.
-
By your reasoning communism (with a small 'c') never existed in the Soviet Union either.
I didn't think you were trite enough to argue semantics.
-
Yep and the Marshall Plan was one of the key factors that strengthened the dictatorship of Franco in Spain.
The US could have helped Spain by supporting a democratic government, but they said: "hey, if a dictator is against communism, he's our friend!".
Oh, many people died during Franco's dictatorship and many, many civil liberties were lost here. Kudos to the Marshall Plan.
Daniel
-
^^^^ A commie ! burn him ;)
I've not an answer to you miko just an indication :
Where was located French tooling in 1945 ?
-
Originally posted by straffo
^^^^ A commie ! burn him ;)
Actually, I'm tastier "au naturel" :D
Daniel
-
"Sometimes it helps to have key industrial centers bombed to the ground. Germany got new factories with new tooling. France didn't."
Also, France spent alot of $$$ rearming and got embroiled in Southeast Asia. Germany didn't.
-
Originally posted by crabofix
US was one of the countries that Pushed "Versille-treaty" through and was the loudest mouth, most unforgiven one in the crowd.
You're saying the US pushed for extreme reparations and neutering of German military post-WW1?
If I read that wrong, please correct me...
Surely you know of Woodrow Wilson's 14 points? He pushed for reconciliation after World War I and not punishment.
France was the biggest advocate for punishing the Germans post-WW1 with GB not far behind.
Post-WW2 the western Allies learned the lesson and went the route of reconciliation and rebuilding.
-
while theres still possible to form a "democratic" goverment.
Now that is the funniest thing I have read here on this board in a long long time. We leave Iraq now, they will form a democratic government all on their own. What planet you on anyway?
If we just walk out right now, Saddam Hussein will reemerge, the Bathe party will take over again, and the slaughter will resume.
Geez, some just don't reallly have a clue. Maybe listen to the average Iraqi citizen instead of so many slanted journalists?? Give it a shot for a change.
The US could have helped Spain by supporting a democratic government
Oh, you think we could/should have involved ourselves in Spains government and internal affairs? Seems the opposite of so many of the other posts from outside the USA. I guess Spain could not/should not control their own destiny? Incapable you say?
the Marshall Plan was one of the key factors that strengthened the dictatorship of Franco in Spain.
How you made this huge jump I don't have a clue. The Marshall plan did not include Spain. Spain recieved no aid from the Marshall plan. How do you make the jump from the Marshall plan helping some European nations to feed their people to our "failure" in Spain is beyond me. Seems to me the Spanish failed themselves.
It might be worth noting that the Soviet Union was invited to join in with the Marshall plan but declined to do so.
dago
-
My country, Iceland, was not exactly war-torn, but still we received a generous sum from the Marshall programme.
Id did influence our economics drastically, booming them upwards.
Just a question though, did the British get any Marshall funds? I read somewhere that at least they are still paying for some of the armour they bought of the US in WW2.....
-
Originally posted by Octavius
You're saying the US pushed for extreme reparations and neutering of German military post-WW1?
If I read that wrong, please correct me...
Surely you know of Woodrow Wilson's 14 points? He pushed for reconciliation after World War I and not punishment.
France was the biggest advocate for punishing the Germans post-WW1 with GB not far behind.
Post-WW2 the western Allies learned the lesson and went the route of reconciliation and rebuilding.
Yes this is correct.
But later on, when the others wanted to "ease" the burdon put on Germany, US refused this and wanted to have it fullfilled.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
1) Miko is from the Ukraine.
Heh heh, THE Ukraine. Is that anywhere near Ukraine?
-
Dago: - Same thing.
:) Next you will call some southerner a "yankee"...
CyranoAH: Yep and the Marshall Plan was one of the key factors that strengthened the dictatorship of Franco in Spain.
I doubt it did much - it seems too measly a sum to make any difference one way or another, even if it were aptly spent, which I doubt.
crabofix: The Marshal paln had great succes...
Suuure... $6 billion / 40 million = $150 per person in 2002 money. Over the course of several years. That must have made all the difference, right...
Oh, did you mean "great success" as being the cheapest piece of ego-stroking propaganda that is still effective?
miko
-
All I can say is that some of our foreign posters' vaunted "superior knowledge of history" is appalling. If you want to know why many Americans are sick of handing money out in aid, this is it.
Miko, you're going to take TWO samples and declare the Marshall Plan a failure? How smart is that? I know you know better, so you have to be trolling.
Boroda, you are the living embodiment of the USSR brainwashed commissar. I don't really mean to insult you, though it obviously must, but when I close my eyes and picture someone who would blindly defend that system of government, well, you're it. "No, the sky is not bloo, you foolish Ameddikun..." You have an amazing ability to ignore all manner of truth and historical fact. Marshall Plan a failure? LOL! It really sucks to be French, German, or Japanese right now, huh? ;)
Crab, that is one convoluted path to blaming the US for WWII (via enforcing reparations forced by UK and France). I knew I could count on you, though. Good Lord, is there anything bad on this earth you can't blame America for?
-
Kieran: Miko, you're going to take TWO samples and declare the Marshall Plan a failure? How smart is that? I know you know better, so you have to be trolling.
I do not understand what you mean by "two samples". And I am not declaring Marshall Plan a failure. I do not know what else was involved besides the measly money grants.
Even the money grants I would not declare a failure either. I am only saying there was too little money to make a perceptible difference for Germany.
miko
-
Back to your original post, the Marshall Plan may be hyped, but America's role in helping western Europe on its feet is not. If the US had gone back to its pre-war neutrality you can bet that the France and the Germany and the Italy would have suffered the same economic conditions as the Ukraine.
ra
-
the measly money grants.
Wouldn't this fall into the "looking a gift horse in the mouth" category?
Miko, how about you expound a little on
1) Why did American even develop and institute a Marshall Plan?
2) What did we owe anyone after the war?
3) What did we owe the recipients of aid that we had to give them aid?
4) What did we require in form of repayment?
5) What repayment did we actually recieve?
Why do you live in the USA if you find so many things wrong with it?
And lastly, why don't you go back to the Ukraine where everything is so freaking wonderful?
dago
-
After being bombed back to the stone age, $150 per head DO matter.
As I understand how the Marshall plan worked, the money was used largely for reconstructing factories, facilities, etc. That creates jobs and production. The wheels of the economy start turning, - faster as they would have. There is no doubt the Marshall plan worked. In a way it may have been similar to Roosevelt's Big Deal, wheeling the USA out of the great depression. Now I wonder how many bucks per head was involved there.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Crab, that is one convoluted path to blaming the US for WWII (via enforcing reparations forced by UK and France). I knew I could count on you, though. Good Lord, is there anything bad on this earth you can't blame America for?
As always, you read between the lines, Kieran.
The total defeat and the humiliation of the versille treaty, did put enough disorder into German politics/economics, to let Hitler step up and take power.
Yes, the journey was long, but decades of depression, laid out a red carpet for a "strong" leader.
When WWII ended, the Marshalplan was set up to bring order into Germany and to help them build up thier country, not to repeat the same misstake again.
I am not blaming the US for WWII. But I am saying, the hard line on "Versille" brought the WWII. US supported the hard line.
Now, in Iraq, the Leader is not captured or killed. The Iraquis are humiliated by the US army. They where laying on the ground, but US just kept on kicking and are still kicking. Suddenly the Memory of Saddam´s brutal reign is watered out and he becomes a "national symbol" of resistance.
US did win the battle, but they lost the war. And instead of removing Saddam, they made him a hero. It is just a matter of time.
-
Miko is merely opposed to it because he views it as a backwards social welfare program - thats why the example of French vs German productivity compared to the amount of money they recived as Marshall Aid..
-
Dago to answer all your question just look east. To understand Marshall look what happened in China. To prevent western Europe from embracing the communist Marshall knew something had to be done. We didn't just hand over money because we are the good guys. There was a direct economic benefit for the US as well as it helped keep western Europe from turning to Stalin.
As for the Soviets, Marshall concluded that they had decided to stall in the expectation that the spreading social disintegration would work to their benefit. Their attitude reminded Marshall of the 1944 proposal by Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau to break up and pastoralize Germany, and when he returned to Washington he reread then Secretary of War Henry Stimson’s vehement critique of the plan. It probably also reminded him of the Communist’s attitude during his 1946 mission to China.
Marshall’s second public address as Secretary of State came in an April 28 national radio speech on the Moscow Conference. Marshall still desired to avoid a rupture with the Soviet Union, but his optimism was rapidly waning. Europe, he asserted, needed American help for reconstruction and economic relief, and there must not be further delay on a German settlement. "Disintegrating forces are becoming evident. The patient is sinking while the doctors deliberate." He called for bipartisan unity on the reconstruction of Europe.
The Marshall plan cost the American taxpayers $11,820,700,000 (plus $1,505,100,000 in loans that were repaid) over four years.
http://www.marshallfoundation.org/about_gcm/marshall_plan.htm#expenditures
In wasnt until '48 when the 1st of the money arrived.
http://www.marshallfoundation.org/about_gcm/marshall_plan.htm#summary
crabo do a search on wilson he didnt support the harsh treatment of the germans.
-
Originally posted by Batz
crabo do a search on wilson he didnt support the harsh treatment of the germans.
Yes, One thing is Wilson. But I am talking about time after Wilson.
US was the driving force of the Versille treaty, when most off the Victoriouse countries wanted to cut down, US wanted to enforce it.Seams very strange, as no harm was done on the US soil.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
By your reasoning communism (with a small 'c') never existed in the Soviet Union either.
I didn't think you were trite enough to argue semantics.
"communism" = Soviet regime or "communism" as a social-economical formation according to Marx?...
Sorry, I only want to say that both "blue" and "red" sides used "democracy" as a definition to the regimes supporting their views. Now "red" side is gone, and "democracy" is only a slogan used to justify criminal aggressions and supporting terrorism :(
Again, let me repeat: "Marshall plan = propaganda slogan for people starved by reparations".
The post-war European history is a very interesting thing if you try to look for sources from both sides. So far I see that Western "allies" are to blame for what happened there. All USSR was doing was no more then an answer (sometimes too soft) to Western politics of tearing Europe in two and forming an agressive alliance against "evil communists" employing nazi propaganda slogans.
I wonder if you know what was the real reson for "siege" of West Berlin and "Berlin airlift". I have studied this question a little since you asked me about it some time ago... Funny that I have to dig into memoirs and not into Soviet official propaganda to find the answers. Our propaganda always sucked :(
-
Originally posted by Kieran
All I can say is that some of our foreign posters' vaunted "superior knowledge of history" is appalling. If you want to know why many Americans are sick of handing money out in aid, this is it.
You guys never do anything for charity, you always make sure to get something in return. I respect this attitude and wish our government could be less idealistic and care more about it's own people.
Originally posted by Kieran
Boroda, you are the living embodiment of the USSR brainwashed commissar. I don't really mean to insult you, though it obviously must, but when I close my eyes and picture someone who would blindly defend that system of government, well, you're it. "No, the sky is not bloo, you foolish Ameddikun..." You have an amazing ability to ignore all manner of truth and historical fact. Marshall Plan a failure? LOL! It really sucks to be French, German, or Japanese right now, huh? ;)
I do not defend Soviet system of government, unlike you I can see it's real, not imaginary drawbacks and failures. I am pretty sure that the sky is grey here in Moscow, and it was snowing in the morning.
I don't say Marshall plan was a failure. I only doubt the declared "good will" purposes of this Panama.
As for if it sucks to be French, German, or Japanese right now - I don't know, I am Russian, and for me it doesn't suck to live here. In some aspects I live much better then any Westerner. I only can imagine how better we could live without 50 years of working our prettythanges off to oppose Western "peacekeepers", after rebuilding the whole country from ashes, while our "allies" from overseas were counting their profits.
-
I firmly believe every country does indeed act in its perceived best interests, US included. It is in our best interests to have trade partners, and if we can help build an economy that will later help contribute to ours, it's good for all concerned. In our country, taxpayers will most definitely hold the government accountable for the money given- we'd like to think it's an investment in the future one way or another.
I think you go far too far to say we do nothing for charity... ever hear of UNICEF? Christian Children's Fund? Red Cross?
Peacekeeping efforts... you mean like Korea? Viet Nam? You know we WERE invited to those countries, and we WERE asked for aid. Whether or not it was smart to be in either situation is moot, but... what's gonna happen 15 minutes after US troops leave the Korean DMZ, hmmm? A lot of our guys and gals are serving as the tripwire, and I can't say I see a whole lot of profit we are reaping from it. We keep Japan and Taiwan happier, and their economies are good for us, but we are throwing quite a bit of money at that situation. In addition, last time I checked we had a pretty good trade deficit with both countries. We lose money on the deal now that I think of it... so... why do you think we continue?
-
Dago: Wouldn't this fall into the "looking a gift horse in the mouth" category?
Wouldn't "looking a gift horse in the mouth" be impolite only for the receiving side?
Also, there is such a thing as poisoned gift. We know that the foreign aid destroyed african societies. The only reason I do not bother examining whether the Marshall Plan money was not detrimental to the Germany's development is that there was too little money to matter.
Miko, how about you expound a little on
1) Why did American even develop and institute a Marshall Plan?
Apparently a PR campaign.
2) What did we owe anyone after the war?
3) What did we owe the recipients of aid that we had to give them aid?
Nothing.
4) What did we require in form of repayment?
Influence and control.
5) What repayment did we actually recieve?
Influence, control, enormous transfer of wealth from Europe to US over the following decades in the form of trade imbalance.
Why do you live in the USA if you find so many things wrong with it?
Not many. Mostly the government. I am doing OK here without coercing anyone or telling anyone what to do and where to go.
And lastly, why don't you go back to the Ukraine where everything is so freaking wonderful?
I've heard US government is considering giving aid to Ukraine.... If it was just going to drope a nuke or two there I would consider going but the foreign aid that US gives to developing nations proved much more destructive. :D
Anyway, with people like you we will have a soviet-style nationalistic socialism here in no time, so I could just stay and wait. In fact, if you love big government, propaganda and socialism so much, why don't you go there instead of ruining this country?
Angus: After being bombed back to the stone age, $150 per head DO matter.
It was a tiny percentage of their GDP at the time.
is no doubt the Marshall plan worked.
???
Germany recovered - yes. Was it because MP, despite MP or regardless of MP is far from being "no doubt". It did not work nearly as well in France, does not work in any other country receiving US aid, so there are grounds for doubt.
Boroda: or "communism" as a social-economical formation according to Marx?...
Just a minor note. There is no "'communism' as a social-economical formation" according to Marx. Among all his writings there is not a line describing any design for such a society.
miko
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Crab, that is one convoluted path to blaming the US for WWII (via enforcing reparations forced by UK and France). I knew I could count on you, though. Good Lord, is there anything bad on this earth you can't blame America for?
You rang the bell with that one Kieran. :aok
-
In case you didn't know, The Marshall Plan is our Social Security money at work.
-
Again, let me repeat: "Marshall plan = propaganda slogan for people starved by reparations".
I wonder if you know what was the real reson for "siege" of West Berlin and "Berlin airlift". I have studied this question a little since you asked me about it some time ago... Funny that I have to dig into memoirs and not into Soviet official propaganda to find the answers. Our propaganda always sucked
Enlighten me. What *was* the purpose for the cutting and attempted starvation of Berlin?
You say "people starved by reparations". Post WWII? People of Berlin starved by reparations... hmm I seem to think they were starved by the Soviet "siege" as you named it.
You say the entire premise of the Marshall Plan was for propaganda purposes. The Marshall plan/Berlin Airlift would not have been necessary if the Soviets hadn't sealed Berlin in the first place. Think of the positive effects of the "propaganda" Berlin Airlift/Marshall Plan as a side bonus for keeping a starving city alive (which began as a result of Soviet blockage of land routes to Berlin).
As for if it sucks to be French, German, or Japanese right now - I don't know, I am Russian, and for me it doesn't suck to live here. In some aspects I live much better then any Westerner. I only can imagine how better we could live without 50 years of working our prettythanges off to oppose Western "peacekeepers", after rebuilding the whole country from ashes, while our "allies" from overseas were counting their profits.
[/b]
That's really stretching it. Don't blame the west for the Soviet Union's decision to become communist/stalinist (non-marx). The USSR wasn't forced to oppose anything; it was their decision.
-
Originally posted by Octavius
Enlighten me. What *was* the purpose for the cutting and attempted starvation of Berlin?
You say "people starved by reparations". Post WWII? People of Berlin starved by reparations... hmm I seem to think they were starved by the Soviet "siege" as you named it.
You say the entire premise of the Marshall Plan was for propaganda purposes. The Marshall plan/Berlin Airlift would not have been necessary if the Soviets hadn't sealed Berlin in the first place. Think of the positive effects of the "propaganda" Berlin Airlift/Marshall Plan as a side bonus for keeping a starving city alive (which began as a result of Soviet blockage of land routes to Berlin).
Hehe here we come :)
West was so desperate to separate their occupation zones that they stopped taking the "occupational marks" currency, issued both by USSR and Western "allies". It was a deliberate hostile act. Did they expect the West Berlin, a part of their occupational zones to be fed by USSR? No. They did a nice propaganda job with airlift, and showed how "evil" are that hordes of asian bolsheviks who's only desire was to be left alone.
And don't play with the words. You you understand quite well what I meant.
Originally posted by Octavius
That's really stretching it. Don't blame the west for the Soviet Union's decision to become communist/stalinist (non-marx). The USSR wasn't forced to oppose anything; it was their decision.
Yes, it was OUR decision to be a target for planned agression since 1946. It was our plan to arm instead of reconstructing what was left of European USSR. It was our decision to have B-52s armed with H-bombs on combat patrol over Europe 24/7. Did you understand what you wrote?... Confrontation in Europe was deliberately grown by the Western "allies". Check historical calendars. We only answered on your hostile moves towards your twisted version of "democracy". And we definetly didn't want to pay another price for your "assistance" - we had enough expenses since 1941.
-
Octavius: The Marshall plan/Berlin Airlift would not have been necessary if the Soviets hadn't sealed Berlin in the first place.
What an ignorant thing to say.
Do you really mean that if soviets did not blockade Berlin, the France would not have received it's $2.7 billion?
That 16 European countries would not have received $13.3 billion over four years to aid in reconstruction? They must be all very gratefull to the soviets then for blockading Berlin.
For those who prefer to deal with reality rather than fantasy, a little historical humor:
In Berlin, Marshall aid reconstructed a power station that had earlier been dismantled as war reparations.
:D :D :D :D Allies paid a lot of money to american(?) companies to dismantle the Berlin power station and sell equipment for pennies on the dollar as reparations.
Then they gave money to Germany that was funneled as contracts to the same companies to restore the same power station at much higher price.
I see where mr. Bush got his business acumen. Send a gunship to shoot holes in a factory (warn the population first so that nobody gets hurt), then award a restoration contract on the same factory to his buddies...
Yet many U.S. and European historians have recently concluded that the Marshall Plan's impact in Western Europe was more important politically and psychologically than it was economically.
Their assessment is based, first, on data that shows West European recovery was well underway, particularly in Germany, before the first Marshall Plan sacks of wheat and other goods reached the continent[/i] in mid-1948. Early historians lauded the ERP's economic effect in rather extravagant terms. For example, Britain's Richard Mayne spoke of Europe's "great leap forward (that saved the continent) from imminent economic ruin." But barely a decade later, U.S. historian Charles Maier concluded that Marshall aid served as what he called the "lubricant in an engine -- not the fuel[/i] -- which allowed a machine to run that would have otherwise buckle and bind."
Cute. First it was "fuel". Then it was "lubricant". Then we found out the engine was running full speed before the guy with a can -or rather a pipette - full of "lubricant" even showed up? :D
In fact, the more recent historians say, the Marshall Plan provided Europeans as much psychological reassurance as it did recovery. And politically, it was crucial. Europeans had not forgotten the U.S.' isolationism both after World War I and before 1939.
What? It was an attempt to assuage american guilt for causing a world-wide economic disruption by enacting the Smooth-Hawley tariff act and thus helping the rise of fascism and nazism and Japanese militarism?
In France and Italy, the promise of U.S. aid helped persuade Center-Left political parties to break with the communists and, in France's case, with Soviet foreign policy. It also helped overcome France's unwillingness to see the rebuilding of the then Western-occupied zones of Germany and, in 1948, win Paris' acceptance of the creation of a new West German state.
Marshall's dramatic offer was necessary before skeptical Europeans would embark on a course that went against their postwar swing to the Left. In Italy, two weeks after the ERP was enacted, Christian Democrats won almost half of the popular vote, reversing a three-year electoral trend to the Left. After the ERP was passed, too, there was far less talk throughout Western Europe of a possible "third force" that would avoid close alignment with either of the two new superpowers.
So it really was an attempt to influence the democratic political process? For so little actual money involved, it was a great buy.
In their view, that's because the U.S. initiative, while remembered for its altruism, was neither naive nor devoid of self-interest. Those bags of wheat that fed Germans and others had to come from the U.S.' mid-Western grain belt, and many were paid for in so-called counterpart local funds which the United States could spend as it wished in Europe. What's more, at the outset of 1947, Washington feared that Europe's mounting problems and lack of purchasing power for U.S. goods, would intensify the beginnings of a recession in the United States.
Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs William Clayton, after Marshall himself the single most important U.S. official dealing with the ERP, put it this way: "Let us admit right off that our objective has as its background the needs and interests of the people of the United States. We need markets -- big markets -- in which to buy and sell."
I should have known, another damn corporate welfare scheme... Fortunately it was very small and insignificant, except for hype.
miko
-
Boroda, if you are correct, why is it West Berliners tell a different history? Your version of the Berlin Airlift would almost be believable if it weren't for the fact Germans are quite capable of speaking for themselves.
What? It was an attempt to assuage american guilt for causing a world-wide economic disruption by enacting the Smooth-Hawley tariff act and thus helping the rise of fascism and nazism and Japanese militarism?
Ok Miko, now you've joined Crab in "Out-there Land".
Sure, any number of economic decisions by any number of countries can be construed as indirectly contributing to the rise of fascist powers, but isn't it funny how we always (anymore, anyway) focus on the US role? What you guys are trying to do is take anything positive done by the US in the last 50 years and re-write it into more sinister versions. Crabofix said the US "voice was loudest and most unforgivable" concerning the enforcement of reparations. Now you are saying the Marshall Plan was intended to assauge the guilt Americans felt over contributing to WWII?
Perhaps you are really trying to say spending money in Iraq is a bad idea, but you sure are doing a piss-poor job of delivering the message. Cripes, using your logic the US had best withdraw from the world stage entirely, lest they enact some trade agreement or do business with some country that somehow in some convoluted manner contributes insignificantly to a conflict. Whether or not the bulk of Europe or Asia actually loses it and start fighting, it still, somehow someway, will be the US's fault.
-
Kieran: Ok Miko, now you've joined Crab in "Out-there Land".
Well, I did say that the following is "a little historical humor", so some of my statements are a mostly sarcastic, hyper-emphacised and hypothetical.
There is some thruth to them and I could elaborate but would rather not at the moment.
...but isn't it funny how we always (anymore, anyway) focus on the US role?
You should have heard me speak about Soviet Union when I lived there. Was easily worth a few years in siberian camps. Why would I care to discuss them now?
My interest in saving any other country from ruin is purely academic. It's US where my interest is practical and personal. My criticsim is quite constructive, not just bashing without an alternative to offer.
What you guys are trying to do is take anything positive done by the US in the last 50 years and re-write it into more sinister versions.
No. We want to correct the socialist propaganda and attribute the successes of the past where they belong - to liberty and free market enterprise and free spirit and energy of the american people - or at least the productive fraction thereof. Not to the government who took credit for success that happened despite its policies.
US government is not US, hovewer many people are braiwashed to believe the opposite.
Now you are saying the Marshall Plan was intended to assauge the guilt Americans felt over contributing to WWII?
No, that was pure sarcasm. American government would never try to assuage real guilt or admit real mistakes - except raise taxes/borrow money because of "terrible mistakes" made by previous administration of the opposite party. Only imaginary guilt is acceptable to admit - like discrimination, global warming, etc.
Cripes, using your logic the US had best withdraw from the world stage entirely, lest they enact some trade agreement or do business with some country that somehow in some convoluted manner contributes insignificantly to a conflict.
Right! Just like George Washington said in his Farewell Address (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm). Trade with anyone who is willing to (persons, not governments), make no treaties, alliances or binding agreements.
Whether or not the bulk of Europe or Asia actually loses it and start fighting, it still, somehow someway, will be the US's fault.
I would prefer that the next time it is a groundless accusation.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Octavius: The Marshall plan/Berlin Airlift would not have been necessary if the Soviets hadn't sealed Berlin in the first place.
What an ignorant thing to say.
Do you really mean that if soviets did not blockade Berlin, the France would not have received it's $2.7 billion?
No, I was specifically referring to the Berlin Airlift as side show of the marshall plan. Why conduct a massive airlift for a city not cut off and in distress?
West was so desperate to separate their occupation zones that they stopped taking the "occupational marks" currency, issued both by USSR and Western "allies". It was a deliberate hostile act. Did they expect the West Berlin, a part of their occupational zones to be fed by USSR? No. They did a nice propaganda job with airlift, and showed how "evil" are that hordes of asian bolsheviks who's only desire was to be left alone.
And don't play with the words. You you understand quite well what I meant.
[/b]
How would anyone see refusal of a certain temporary currency as a hostile move? (<- serious question)
Only wanted to be left alone? I'm sure they did all they could to make that clear. Innocent Soviet rebuilding efforts thwarted by aggressors... every side is always innocent... it's relative.
Ever think perhaps the west was reacting just as the Soviets claim to have done? Two sides to the coin here.
-
Octavius: No, I was specifically referring to the Berlin Airlift as side show of the marshall plan.
OK then. It was not clear from your phrasing.
Why conduct a massive airlift for a city not cut off and in distress?
For the same reason the US bothered to to do all this D-day and invasion of Normandy stuff, bleeding and dying when the russians were well on their way of rolling up the germans and their victory was assured - after Stalingrad and Kursk.
They were grabbing real estate from the soviets. It was cheaper to deliver food to german Berlin rather than pour rivers of blood over russian Berlin.
Same as russians were willing to lose a lot of people defeating the huge japanese army in Manchuria even though Japan was bound to shortly fall to americans.
How would anyone see refusal of a certain temporary currency as a hostile move? (<- serious question)
BERLIN AIRLIFT QUICK FACTS (http://www.usafe.af.mil/berlin/quickfax.htm)
18 Jun 48
As a first step toward a West German government, the Western powers announced a currency reform, effective 20 June. To keep the old currency from entering their zone, where it was still valid, the Soviets banned all travel to and from the eastern zone.
Imagine the currency bacomes worthless paper in the western zone and can only be used in the eastern zone. All the currency would flow to the east (which was only 1/4 of the Germany) to buy anything and everything, cause terrible inflation and leave the population with worthless paper.
Imagine the world outside outlaws the use of US dollars and all 35 trillion of them comes into US to buy anything. And our GDP is only about 10 trillion. That would be similar situation and we would ban all travel and transfer untill we replaced our currency with the new one.
They initial ban was most likely defencive and then escalated. Soviets were evil bastards but hardly erratic - and the west was spoiling for a fight as well.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Octavius: No, I was specifically referring to the Berlin Airlift as side show of the marshall plan.
OK then. It was not clear from your phrasing.
Why conduct a massive airlift for a city not cut off and in distress?
For the same reason the US bothered to to do all this D-day and invasion of Normandy stuff, bleeding and dying when the russians were well on their way of rolling up the germans and their victory was assured - after Stalingrad and Kursk.
They were grabbing real estate from the soviets. It was cheaper to deliver food to german Berlin rather than pour rivers of blood over russian Berlin.
Same as russians were willing to lose a lot of people defeating the huge japanese army in Manchuria even though Japan was bound to shortly fall to americans.
[/b]
So to put full blame on either one side is pretty lame. Capitalism and communism are fundamentally incompatible from the start.
How would anyone see refusal of a certain temporary currency as a hostile move? (<- serious question)
BERLIN AIRLIFT QUICK FACTS (http://www.usafe.af.mil/berlin/quickfax.htm)
Imagine the currency bacomes worthless paper in the western zone and can only be used in the eastern zone. All the currency would flow to the east (which was only 1/4 of the Germany) to buy anything and everything, cause terrible inflation and leave the population with worthless paper.
Imagine the world outside outlaws the use of US dollars and all 35 trillion of them comes into US to buy anything. And our GDP is only about 10 trillion. That would be similar situation and we would ban all travel and transfer untill we replaced our currency with the new one.
They initial ban was most likely defencive and then escalated. Soviets were evil bastards but hardly erratic - and the west was spoiling for a fight as well.
miko [/B]
Is that not what eventually happened 50 years later with the reunification of East/West Germany? All Germans happy with reuniting. West Germany economy booming while East Germany sluggish with little value... the reunification brought the average economy as a whole down a few notches. Soon former West Germans are complaining of the work ethic of former East Germans. East Germans say jobs and needs were taken care of by the former eastern government and found no security with capitalism ( they actually have to work for the money now).
At least... thats the impression that I got. And after speaking with a few Germans while visiting the country earlier this year, it seems this animosity still exists (only a little over a decade old though).
Close?
-
Imagine the world outside outlaws the use of US dollars and all 35 trillion of them comes into US to buy anything. And our GDP is only about 10 trillion. That would be similar situation and we would ban all travel and transfer untill we replaced our currency with the new one.
According to the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank, there is about 660 Billion in cash currently in circulation.
-
Originally posted by Octavius
East Germans say jobs and needs were taken care of by the former eastern government and found no security with capitalism ( they actually have to work for the money now).
I notice that you never visited the actully DDR. Never seen people work harder in the harbours then in DDR, during my travels on cargo ships around balticsea/north sea between 1984-1989.
You can call em what ever you want, but dont say they didnt work.
Then again, never seen a harder security check anywhere in the world either. All hands on deck, lining up with passport in hand and all currency, even pocket change was needed to account for.
The whole ship was search with dogs on arrival and departure.
Anywhere else, there was always bribes, like Poland and Russia, but God forbide, not in this country. Yes, I was pretty impressed, but still, I pity the poor people who had to live under this regime.
-
miko: of US dollars and all 35 trillion of them comes into US to buy anything
Holden McGroin: According to the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank, there is about 660 Billion in cash currently in circulation.
I cannot understand the meaning of that statement in relation to what I said.
If it's just an observation, it's OK, but could use an explanation of the terms to avoid being misleading.
If it is ment as a refutal, it is not relevant since I was not talking about "cash" and not talking about "in circulation".
Much of the tens of trillions of dollars held abroad are either not in the form of cash or not in the circulation.
miko
-
Cute. First it was "fuel". Then it was "lubricant". Then we found out the engine was running full speed before the guy with a can -or rather a pipette - full of "lubricant" even showed up?
Speaking of changing stories...
The topic header suggests the Marshall plan didn't do anything in reality- which means it failed.
You said you didn't say it failed, and you are only discussing the economic aspect of the plan.
You then say the plan was intended to make America feel better about having contributed to WWII.
You then said the plan was just propaganda for the West.
I suppose if you totally disregard the message, intent, and actions of the US WRT the Marshall Plan, well, yeah, it was a failure. Still, I don't think you've landed on a particular point yet, and I'm waiting for it. You've given similar prepared statements on the topic on both boards, indicating you knew what you were going to say even before people responded.
Once again I say, "Get to the point".
-
In relation to the Marshall plan it is a bit much to attribute sinister motivations for the aid. At it's simplest it was a way of helping get Europe back on it's feet after the devastation and dislocation of war and secondly it was in America's interest to prevent any possible slide to communism which the chaos and confusion of the the post war situation might allow. It was also in Europe's interest not to fall into communism. Who can deny that?
In truth America came out of the war richer than before it started and not materially damaged. It was not in their interest to allow Europe to fester. On the contrary the economic well being of America depended on the rest of the world having plenty of free market economies to trade with. That is still true.
Boroda in his natural tendency to favour his own country has allowed this to cloud his judgement.
Yes, it was OUR decision to be a target for planned agression since 1946. It was our plan to arm instead of reconstructing what was left of European USSR. It was our decision to have B-52s armed with H-bombs on combat patrol over Europe 24/7. Did you understand what you wrote?... Confrontation in Europe was deliberately grown by the Western "allies". Check historical calendars. We only answered on your hostile moves towards your twisted version of "democracy". And we definetly didn't want to pay another price for your "assistance" - we had enough expenses since 1941.
That if I may say sounds like a piece of pure Soviet propaganda.
Notwithstanding genuine fears of western aggression in the Soviet Union stoked at least in part by the party appartus because it suited them. Like Al Qaeda and Arab governments today who use the same method to deflect people from thinking about just who keeps them in ignorance and poverty.
People in the Soviet Union were never in any danger from the west except perhaps the risk that they free them from the tyranny they lived under. Even you Boroda cannot deny that. Only now in recent years do you have the beginnings of the freedom and prosperity, flawed though it is, that we in the west take for granted. The Soviet Union and communism in general had nothing to offer in that regard. If you don't believe that ask anyone who lived in Hungary, Czechslovakia, Poland etc etc.
Comparsions to`1941 were not valid. The Nazis were a threat to everyone. Fear of German resurgence was common in Russia then and even now. It may surprise some Americans to konw that in Europe fear of Germany is often more prevalent than fear of a Communist Russia. So much so that at re-unification the German chancellor felt moved to state that they wanted a European Germany not a German Europe.
Our 'twisted' verson of democracy worked a lot better than your one party non democracy and the lack of freedom to criticise your leaders or even leave the country. The biggest threat from America and the west was to the cosy little world of the party faithful who milked the system to their own benefit while keeping the workers in their place.
-
Kieran: Speaking of changing stories...
The topic header suggests the Marshall plan didn't do anything in reality- which means it failed.
You said you didn't say it failed, and you are only discussing the economic aspect of the plan.
You then said the plan was just propaganda for the West.
Fair criticism. I have an explanation though that at least indicates my truthfullness if not the good knowlege of the subject.
I had an impression that Marshall Plan was all about the money grants and when I looked up the information on the size of those grants, I did not see any evidence to the contrary.
That's why I called money grants the "Marshall Plan" and argued their ineffectiveness.
When posters confronted me with the statements that there was more to the MP than just grants, I promptly admitted my lack of knowlege and also admitted that the other aspects of the Plan unknown to me could have been more successfull - if they existed.
Berlin Airlift was certainly successfull and many people believe it was a part of the Marshall Plan.
Everything else I posted on the Marshall Plan I've got off google after I've posted the threads. I did copy from one thread to another on both boards as the discussions are substantially the same.
I wish I had been better prepared on the topic of the Marshall Plan, but believe me - there was no prepatation here.
You've given similar prepared statements on the topic on both boards, indicating you knew what you were going to say even before people responded.
I hope my previous paragraph cleared things. I do often have more knowlege on a subject than I put in my first post, unfortunately not in this case.
Still, I don't think you've landed on a particular point yet, and I'm waiting for it.
???
Marshal Plan monetary grant was an insignificant overhyped political action.
Other aspects of the Marshall Plan could have been great success. Considering that most socialist economic projects (those conducted by the government rather than free enterprise) fail miserably, it does not seem likely, but I just have to plead ignorance here.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
With all that Marshall Plan being thrown around, I just had to see what the heck it was all about. Sure - it was mostly hype.
Germany has to thank the Marshall Plan for a total of almost $1.4 billion received in aid. In addition, while the German government was receiving help from the Marshall Plan, it was still obliged to make reparations and restitution payments that amounted to well over half the funds received from the United States from the Marshall Plan. ( $1.4 billion - a measly $12.4 billion in 2002 money of which over half was paid right back?)
France received a grant of over $2.7 billion from the Marshall Plan - nearly twice as much as Germany - but it still took France 30 years to reach the economic level Germany arrived at within less then 15 years
When looking at these statistics and the fact that it took Germany only half as long as France to reach a comparable economic level of develop, we must ask ourselves what caused the German "economic miracle". It is clear that the Marshall plan was not the major contributor to Germany's rapid economic growth.
miko
The plan worked as it should in Norway (wich had nothing left after nazi leadership for almoust 5 yeaurs) , it brought us up form poorness to rich in about 30 years (well it helped us the first 5 years as a start and from there the Norwegian worked hard and togheter to bring us the wealth we have today :) )
And another thing it helped us getting rid of the commies (that was a big ghost after 1945 for sure), thank god for that.
Dont forget Norway was one of the poorest countries in Europe from the 1800`s to 1945.
The plan wasnt all money it was also political and worked well, and that is good.
-
Originally posted by crabofix
I notice that you never visited the actully DDR. Never seen people work harder in the harbours then in DDR, during my travels on cargo ships around balticsea/north sea between 1984-1989.
You can call em what ever you want, but dont say they didnt work.
Then again, never seen a harder security check anywhere in the world either. All hands on deck, lining up with passport in hand and all currency, even pocket change was needed to account for.
The whole ship was search with dogs on arrival and departure.
Anywhere else, there was always bribes, like Poland and Russia, but God forbide, not in this country. Yes, I was pretty impressed, but still, I pity the poor people who had to live under this regime.
You may be right. What I heard was secondary sources and west German opinions mainly. But I'm sure each side had it's share of lazy workers just as anywhere else in the world.
-
Miko-
It felt kinda like you had this laid out in prepared steps, you know... feeding it to us in bits. That lead me to believe we were being lead to a conclusion. If that's not the case, my apologies.