4 ms·
Not really rejected by the west. They could have taken marshall plan money if stalin didnt forbid it.
by ryan93 5y ago
Not really rejected by the west. They could have taken marshall plan money if stalin didnt forbid it.
- panick21_ 5y agoThe Marshall plan, no matter how much the US hypes it, is not a magical get rich pill. And the Marshall plan is certainty not why Western Europe is rich today. In fact, places that have received less Marshall Plan money often did better then does that did. I understand in the US the Marshall Plan is often taught as this amazing act that prevented WW3 but that a lot of propaganda. To to say it was bad, but whenever I hear people talk about the Marshall Plan it sounds like they are talking about the second coming of Christ.
- zdragnar 5y agoThe resulting policies from the league of nations after WW1 directly contributed to the rise of Germany as the main antagonist of the European theater of WW2. In that context, the Marshall Plan was a complete reversal of policy, and saw the rise of allies out of the ashes. It should be small wonder, then, that the Marshall Plan gets the credit for averting future war. Certainly it was not panacea, but that is no reason to ignore the effect entirely.
- panick21_ 5y agoWhat if I told you, the US invested more in Germany after WW1 then after WW2. And again, I didn't say it was bad, but Americans have a majority overinflated view of the Marshall Plan that simply doesn't line up with reality.
- zdragnar 5y agoI would say that the US rejected both the Treaty of Versailles and league of nations, and the American contribution to post WW1 Germany couldn't undo the billions in reparations that Germany was compelled to pay after the war. The whole point of the Marshall plan was to rehabilitate their economies under representative governments - it would have failed equally badly after WW2 had the same crippling punishments been applied as after WW1. We have tried propping up governments and economies since, and many of the efforts have failed because the governments were either corrupt or unable to foster a culture of peaceful representation of the populace- evidence in support of the point we both agree on, at least, that the Marshall plan didn't succeed in a vacuum.
- refurb 5y agoEurope was practically bankrupt after WW2, including the UK. Add on top Germany stripping valuable factories from the countries it occupied, which was then either blown to pieces or taken back to the USSR, there weren’t a lot of options for Europe after the war. The US taking on the much of the cost of rebuilding Western Europe was paramount in accelerating the economic recovery.
- panick21_ 5y ago> The US taking on the much of the cost of rebuilding Western Europe That's not what happened. This is what I am talking about when saying that Americans have a majority inflated view of the Marshall Plan. The important part was reduction of debt between all the countries, the direct payments of the Marshall plan were a little sweeter to make that more palatable. It nowhere close amounts to the 'cost or rebuilding Western Europe'. And if you look at where Marshall Plan money was actually spent, it doesn't actually line up well with where the majority of growth happened in the next 10 years.
- refurb 5y agoRelief of debt is functionally equivalent to a cash payment. And where the money went versus where growth happen wouldn’t expect to be perfectly aligned - each region suffered differently from the war.