Marshall Plan - hype or not?

[crabofix]

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.

[Boroda]

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

[Boroda]

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.

[Kieran]

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?

[miko2d]

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.

  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

[AKIron]

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.

[Krotki]

In case you didn't know, The Marshall Plan is our Social Security money at work.

[Octavius]

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.

[Boroda]

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.

[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?
 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.

  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?

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

[Kieran]

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.

[miko2d]

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 . 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

[Octavius]

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.

[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.

 
How would anyone see refusal of a certain temporary currency as a hostile move?  (<- serious question)

BERLIN AIRLIFT QUICK FACTS

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

[Octavius]

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



 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?