4 ms·

> Not once has a European ever given the US credit for the Marshall Plan. How can you honestly say that though. A blatant overgeneralization of a large group o

by aldrich 5mo ago

> Not once has a European ever given the US credit for the Marshall Plan. How can you honestly say that though. A blatant overgeneralization of a large group of people, but this has been a recurring theme on HN lately. So I would agree that people spouting anti-US sentiment have been conveniently downplaying, leaving out, or haven't been educating themselves on, this important part of US-European history, but what's new. In the meantime, streets have been named after Marshall, plaques and statues have been erected (including recent times) at least in the more Western parts of continential Europe where much of the Marshall Plan funds ended up, and its extreme importance is quite an ingrained part of WW2 school history education. Just as one example, Arnhem was largely rebuilt using these funds and has historically paid homage and still does today with such tributes and memorials.

0xDEAFBEAD 5mo ago
>How can you honestly say that though. A blatant overgeneralization of a large group of people, but this has been a recurring theme on HN lately. Perhaps there is a miscommunication. What I meant to say is, I have not seen it mentioned a single time over many hours of arguing on HN about the US/Europe relationship. It's not an 'overgeneralization', simply an observation. >In the meantime, streets have been named after Marshall, plaques and statues have been erected (including recent times) at least in the more Western parts of continential Europe where much of the Marshall Plan funds ended up, and its extreme importance is quite an ingrained part of WW2 school history education. Just as one example, Arnhem was largely rebuilt using these funds and has historically paid homage and still does today with such tributes and memorials. That is nice to hear. But it doesn't seem to stop US-bashing from being the continent's trendiest hobby. I never saw a European say to another: "Hey now, they did do the Marshall Plan for us. Maybe the Yanks aren't always bad." The problem is that US establishment politicians have traditionally sold US foreign policy to voters as "a responsibility to uphold freedom and democracy" and so forth. Then Americans hear directly from the supposed beneficiaries of this "responsibility", and the sentiment is overwhelmingly negative. The American voter feels betrayed, and wants out of the arrangement. It contributes to (1) anti-establishment sentiment, and (2) isolationist sentiment. The condescending attitude of Europeans ("NATO is mainly to benefit US interests, you American fool", without being very specific about those interests aside from vague handwaving towards the Middle East, where most of us want less involvement anyhow) is not helping matters.
- nephihaha 5mo ago
  The relationship is complex. Remember the Marshall Plan was needed partly because massive amounts of European infrastructure and industry which had occurred in some cases long before the USA even joined the war. The USA had the benefit of being resource rich, but also geographically isolated which meant that the continental USA never suffered from severe bombing raids or threats of invasion. (Many European towns and cities ended up being levelled.) It fought the war on entirely different terms to Europeans. Even today this geographic factor plays out. Europe deals with the refugee crises caused by Middle Eastern wars far more than the USA does, and Russia could invade EU countries by land far more easily than the USA. Europe has benefitted from the USA in some ways, but the USA doesn't always have to bear the consequences.
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 5mo ago
    >Remember the Marshall Plan was needed partly because massive amounts of European infrastructure and industry which had occurred in some cases long before the USA even joined the war. How does that change things? You could just as easily argue that Poland's economy was ruined by the USSR, therefore EU help is "complex". Europe was an unfortunate spot, due to a war which started in Europe, and the US helped Europe defend against tyranny and rebuild. If the US hadn't helped Europe rebuild and defend itself, perhaps the USSR would've expanded all the way to the Atlantic. Europeans have an annoying habit of taking US help for granted, and complaining about us endlessly. I'm tired of it. We should've taken the Swiss approach and allowed Europe to suffer the full consequences of European folly. That's what we do about poverty in Africa and South America. We don't regard that as our problem. Europe should not be our problem either. Lord knows Europe wouldn't help the US rebuild if we suffered a devastating war. There was no European Marshall Plan after the US Civil War. I never see Europeans complain about Swiss neutrality. The US should take the Swiss approach.
    - nephihaha 5mo ago
      Poland's economic woes were caused by Germany. It was not able to regrow its economy due to its Cold War government. "Europe was an unfortunate spot, due to a war which started in Europe" That is arguable. Some Asians say the war started in the Far East with Japanese attacks on China and the USSR which occurred before 1939, let alone 1941. "I never see Europeans complain about Swiss neutrality. The US should take the Swiss approach." Switzerland is not a militaristic power, but an economic one. It is not expansionist. It is currently the host country of the World Economic Forum though, and the WEF's legacy is controversial to say the least. "Lord knows Europe wouldn't help the US rebuild if we suffered a devastating war. There was no European Marshall Plan after the US Civil War." The US Civil War had nothing like the scale of WW2. The tank battle at Kursk alone dwarves the US Civil War. Large parts of the USA were unaffected by the civil war and both sides had the same language and a similar culture. "That's what we do about poverty in Africa and South America. We don't regard that as our problem. Europe should not be our problem either." North America and Europe have interfered heavily in both Africa and South America. Not just militarily but economically, propping up and training various dictators. The USA just bailed out Millei in Argentina and intervened in Venezuela. Europe is a lot friendlier to the USA than most parts of the world and is a major part of its trade. Elsewhere it becomes more complicated.

by aldrich 5mo ago

0xDEAFBEAD 5mo ago

>How can you honestly say that though. A blatant overgeneralization of a large group of people, but this has been a recurring theme on HN lately. Perhaps there is a miscommunication. What I meant to say is, I have not seen it mentioned a single time over many hours of arguing on HN about the US/Europe relationship. It's not an 'overgeneralization', simply an observation. >In the meantime, streets have been named after Marshall, plaques and statues have been erected (including recent times) at least in the more Western parts of continential Europe where much of the Marshall Plan funds ended up, and its extreme importance is quite an ingrained part of WW2 school history education. Just as one example, Arnhem was largely rebuilt using these funds and has historically paid homage and still does today with such tributes and memorials. That is nice to hear. But it doesn't seem to stop US-bashing from being the continent's trendiest hobby. I never saw a European say to another: "Hey now, they did do the Marshall Plan for us. Maybe the Yanks aren't always bad." The problem is that US establishment politicians have traditionally sold US foreign policy to voters as "a responsibility to uphold freedom and democracy" and so forth. Then Americans hear directly from the supposed beneficiaries of this "responsibility", and the sentiment is overwhelmingly negative. The American voter feels betrayed, and wants out of the arrangement. It contributes to (1) anti-establishment sentiment, and (2) isolationist sentiment. The condescending attitude of Europeans ("NATO is mainly to benefit US interests, you American fool", without being very specific about those interests aside from vague handwaving towards the Middle East, where most of us want less involvement anyhow) is not helping matters.

nephihaha 5mo ago
The relationship is complex. Remember the Marshall Plan was needed partly because massive amounts of European infrastructure and industry which had occurred in some cases long before the USA even joined the war. The USA had the benefit of being resource rich, but also geographically isolated which meant that the continental USA never suffered from severe bombing raids or threats of invasion. (Many European towns and cities ended up being levelled.) It fought the war on entirely different terms to Europeans. Even today this geographic factor plays out. Europe deals with the refugee crises caused by Middle Eastern wars far more than the USA does, and Russia could invade EU countries by land far more easily than the USA. Europe has benefitted from the USA in some ways, but the USA doesn't always have to bear the consequences.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 5mo ago
  >Remember the Marshall Plan was needed partly because massive amounts of European infrastructure and industry which had occurred in some cases long before the USA even joined the war. How does that change things? You could just as easily argue that Poland's economy was ruined by the USSR, therefore EU help is "complex". Europe was an unfortunate spot, due to a war which started in Europe, and the US helped Europe defend against tyranny and rebuild. If the US hadn't helped Europe rebuild and defend itself, perhaps the USSR would've expanded all the way to the Atlantic. Europeans have an annoying habit of taking US help for granted, and complaining about us endlessly. I'm tired of it. We should've taken the Swiss approach and allowed Europe to suffer the full consequences of European folly. That's what we do about poverty in Africa and South America. We don't regard that as our problem. Europe should not be our problem either. Lord knows Europe wouldn't help the US rebuild if we suffered a devastating war. There was no European Marshall Plan after the US Civil War. I never see Europeans complain about Swiss neutrality. The US should take the Swiss approach.
  - nephihaha 5mo ago
    Poland's economic woes were caused by Germany. It was not able to regrow its economy due to its Cold War government. "Europe was an unfortunate spot, due to a war which started in Europe" That is arguable. Some Asians say the war started in the Far East with Japanese attacks on China and the USSR which occurred before 1939, let alone 1941. "I never see Europeans complain about Swiss neutrality. The US should take the Swiss approach." Switzerland is not a militaristic power, but an economic one. It is not expansionist. It is currently the host country of the World Economic Forum though, and the WEF's legacy is controversial to say the least. "Lord knows Europe wouldn't help the US rebuild if we suffered a devastating war. There was no European Marshall Plan after the US Civil War." The US Civil War had nothing like the scale of WW2. The tank battle at Kursk alone dwarves the US Civil War. Large parts of the USA were unaffected by the civil war and both sides had the same language and a similar culture. "That's what we do about poverty in Africa and South America. We don't regard that as our problem. Europe should not be our problem either." North America and Europe have interfered heavily in both Africa and South America. Not just militarily but economically, propping up and training various dictators. The USA just bailed out Millei in Argentina and intervened in Venezuela. Europe is a lot friendlier to the USA than most parts of the world and is a major part of its trade. Elsewhere it becomes more complicated.