Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:25, 28 November 2005

Template:Featured article is only for Misplaced Pages:Featured articles.

Marshall Plan received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Old talk

An event in this article is a April 3 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment).

Events leading up to the implementation of the Marshall Plan

The Allied Control Council undertook the sole government of Germany from May, 1945 until 1949, when they created the limited self-government of the German Federal Rebublic and the German Democratic Republic.

The Marshall Plan came to be implemented after strong appeals by people such as Senator Homer E. Capehart of Indiana to the United States Senate on February 5, 1946. He delivered a mass of supporting evidence while he exposed the US policies of deliberate mass starvation in his address to the Senate

" Mr. President, the cynical and savage repudiation of these solemn declarations (It is not the intention of the Allies to destroy or enslave the German people) ,which has resulted in a major catastrophe, cannot be explained in terms of ignorance or incompetence. This repudiation, not only of the Potsdam Declaration, but also of every law of God and men, has been deliberately engineered with such a malevolent cunning, and with such diabolical skill, that the American people themselves have been caught in an international death trap.... For nine months now this administration has been carrying on a deliberate policy of mass starvation without any distinction between the innocent and the helpless and the guilty alike... The first issue has been and continues to be purely humanitarian. This vicious clique within this administration that has been responsible for the policies and practices which have made a madhouse of central Europe has not only betrayed our American principles, but they continue to betray the GIs who have suffered and died, and they continue to betray the American GIs who have to continue their dirty work for them."

General Joseph T. MnNarney and Lucius Clay on April 13, 1946 in a formal statement pointed out the urgent need for food. "Ten months after V-E Day, only 600.000 tons of food had been imported into (the American Occupied Zone of Germany) by AMG, or about one ounce per person per meal. Yet AMG officers asked GI's to remind the Germans that they owe America a debt of gratitude for feeding them."

A general European famine was advertised by Washington. Senator Butler of Nebraska undertook a 33 countries trip after which he stated that the famine is mostly German, indicated by the fact that UNRRA has been used "to finance governments and not to feed the hungry". UNRRA has supported mostly the satellites of the Soviet Union, by supplying them with billions of dollars worth of goods, which they have sold to those with money to buy. In Germany, where there is widespread hunger and poverty, UNRRA is specifically forbidden to function for the benefit of any but "displaced persons" and then only by making requisitions against the starving Germans.

Cyril Osborn, M.P. in August 1946 denounced the so-called relief agency of the United Nations as "the biggest racket in Europe".

No Red Cross has been permitted in the German Reich. For a year the Washington administration strongly resisted all efforts to bring private relief to the Germans. Senator Albert W. Hawkes of New Jersey had made a strong appeal to the President urging him to permit private relief packages to prevent mass starvation of the German people.

Hal Foust wrote from Berlin, February 20, 1946 "Germans are dying in masses, not so much from starvation alone as from illness aggravated by acute malnutrition."

British Humanist and Publisher Victor Gollancz had also lamented the destructive policies of starvation of Germans.

The Allied Countrol Council disbanded and the Soviet Union Blockade took place.

I'm surprised at the inclusion of Britain as a receiver of Marshall Plan aid. As far as I remember Marshall Aid was only available to countries that had been occupied by Nazi Germany and the 'losing powers' themselves and apart from having the Channel Islands occupied, Britain was neither. The Soviet Union qualified and was offered Marshall Aid but Stalin refused it. My memory of things is that Britain still had rationing until 1955, having been deliberately bankrupted by the US demanding that Britain sell-off all its assets in the US and pay for everything in hard cash (e.g., Britain paid £500,000,000 - $2 billion USD to the US in 1940 for aircraft alone - 1940 values) prior to the US entry into the war and the introduction of lend-lease.

Iceland was never occupied by Germany to my knowledge during World War II. However, they also received aid. I believe the Marshall Plan was more of a rebuilding the entire continent than just the areas occupied by Nazi Germany. Britain suffered a lot of damage from German aircraft so it doesn't suprise that they received money. Here is a map that includes both Britain and Iceland. http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/marshall/wholemap.jpg -Falphin

Diffrent numbers

On page numbers for Marshall plan are different from the table in our text. Can anybody explain the difference, especially the large Germany discrpeancy (~1,300 on Wiki, 2,219 on that page)? The one year difference (51 on the page, 52 on Wiki) doesn't account for such a big DECREASE (I could understand increse, but decrese??). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:51, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Effects?

The article states:

"The years 1948 to 1952 saw the fastest period of growth in European history. Industrial production increased by 35%. Agriculture had substantially surpassed prewar levels" Substantial post-war growth can be expected anyway, due to the necessary reconstruction. It's easy to increase by 35% when you produced next to nothing before. Since the funds started coming in 1948 for most of Europe, a higher resolution of the growth is needed. As it stands, the article is unable to show that the cited growth indeed was an effect of the Marshall Plan and not of independent reconstruction effort. Indeed, other sources claim that production was already close to pre-war levels as early as 1949, so that the key effects would be more political than economical. In any case, if the funds started flowing in '48, and taking into account a reasonabe timeframe for an effect, then at least '48 has to be taken out of the growth frame, and a comparison of pre- and post- plan implementation needs to be made to illustrate an effect. 141.5.194.218 09:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

That is why the next lines are "there is some debate among historians over how much this should be credited to the Marshall Plan. Most reject the idea that it alone miraculously revived Europe, as evidence shows that a general recovery was already underway. Most believe that the Marshall Plan sped this recovery, but did not initiate it." The article doesn't, and shouldn't, claim that the Marshall Plan was responsible for this growth. The background section also has a set of 1947 figures, so anyone who reads the article can make the desired comparisons. - SimonP 01:57, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Millions vs. Billions

I'm not entirely sure how billions is "ambiguous to some readers" since--

• the term "billions" is used throughout the article in various places, in fact, it is used in the sentence in question!

• the term "billions", even in Europe, is understood to mean "a thousand million" (according to the Wiki on Billion).

I do, however, think ambiguity is created by mixing "billions" and "millions" in the same sentence. The sentence in dispute is--

"Of the some $13 billion allotted by mid-1951, $3,430 million had been spent on imports of raw materials and semi-manufactured products; $3,192 million on food, feed, and fertilizer; $1853 million on machines, vehicles, and equipment; and $1,567 million on fuel."

Locke Cole 19:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

On second thought I agree with you, and have reverted myself. - SimonP 20:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Simon. - Locke Cole 21:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Tightening the argument

There is too much material on pre-MP economics, often stretching back to the 1920s. In a short encyclopedia article that material belongs elsewhere. Rjensen 08:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, information on where the Marshall Plan came from is central to understanding it. It's incorrect to present the Marshall Plan as appearing whole cloth in 1947, it had important historical precedents. The perceived successes and failures of post-WWI efforts directly translated into the formation of the Marshall Plan. - SimonP 16:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

One sentence is all that is necessary here. No need to encapsulate Europe's history for 25 years! The problem is that in 1947 most of the wartime damage was fixed, or irrelevant to the economic stagnation. The reader will be misled to thinking MP $$ was used to fix wartime damages. That is not what happened at all. It is a gross exaggeration to suggest that the planners spent much time looking at the 1919 situation. (For example, no one suggested bringing in Hoover, who was the #1 expert on European damage in 1919). Rjensen 17:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review