Talk:Marshall Plan - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 00:18, 26 April 2020 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Marshall Plan/Archive 2) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:18, 26 April 2020 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Marshall Plan/Archive 2) (bot)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Marshall Plan article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Marshall Plan is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 22, 2006.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 15, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
September 18, 2005	Featured article candidate	Promoted
May 7, 2010	Featured article review	Demoted

Current status: Former featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

European history High‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Socialism High‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States History High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of the United States on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject United States HistoryTemplate:WikiProject United States HistoryUnited States History

High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject United States History To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Cleanup : United States History articles needing attention
Infobox : United States History articles needing infoboxes
Stubs : Stub-Class United States History articles, Category:United States history stubs
Other :
- Place either of the following WikiProject banners on United States History-related articles and assess:
  - {{WikiProject United States History|class=|importance=}}
  - {{WikiProject United States|class=|importance=|UShistory=Yes|UShistory-importance=}}

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

National Archives (inactive)

This article is within the scope of National Archives project, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.National ArchivesWikipedia:WikiProject National ArchivesTemplate:WikiProject National ArchivesNational Archives

Template:WP1.0

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on April 3, 2004, June 5, 2004, April 3, 2005, April 3, 2006, April 3, 2007, April 3, 2008, April 3, 2009, April 3, 2010, and April 3, 2015.

Public opinion data on the Marshall Plan

Eliannalandau (talk)

Notes

References

Lukacs, John. “A LOOK AT . . . THE LEGACY OF THE MARSHALL PLAN.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 25 May 1997, www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1997/05/25/a-look-at-the-legacy-of-the-marshall-plan/47b5b44c-e1eb-4c68-bd46-5a29c5c76c73/?utm_term=.b758f5822e5f.
Machado, Barry. “Selling the Marshall Plan.” The George C. Marshall Foundation, George C Marshall Foundation, marshallfoundation.org/library/digital-archive/selling-the-marshall-plan-chapter-2-monograph-collection/.
National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago. Foreign Affairs Survey, Jun, 1952 . USNORC.520327.R16. National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago . Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, iPOLL , accessed Oct-13-2017.
National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago. Foreign Affairs Survey, Mar, 1949 . USNORC.490164.R11. National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago . Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, iPOLL , accessed Oct-13-2017.
Gallup Organization. Gallup Poll, Feb, 1948 . USGALLUP.030348.RT07C. Gallup Organization . Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, iPOLL , accessed Oct-13-2017.
Gallup Organization. Gallup Poll (AIPO), Sep, 1941 . USGALLUP.41-248.QKT09. Gallup Organization . Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, iPOLL , accessed Oct-13-2017

Non-Neutral Language

WP:NOTFORUM. Please be much more specific in the sense of "change X to Y using Z source" or "add X using Y source". There's nothing we can do with this lengthy monologue. Misplaced Pages summarises reliable independent secondary sources and is not a publisher of original thought. Guy (help!) 23:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nonesensical Metaphors

How can Washington realize things? Was it members of the Truman administration? Who?

By July 1947 Washington realized that economic recovery in Europe could not go forward without the reconstruction of the German industrial base, deciding that an "orderly, prosperous Europe requires the economic contributions of a stable and productive Germany." In addition, the strength of Moscow-controlled communist parties in France and Italy worried Washington.

Only One Side Presented

Marshall's direct statement is there.

After the adjournment of the Moscow conference following six weeks of failed discussions with the Soviets regarding a potential German reconstruction, the United States concluded that a solution could not wait any longer. To clarify the American position, a major address by Secretary of State George Marshall was planned. Marshall gave the address at Harvard University on June 5, 1947. He offered American aid to promote European recovery and reconstruction. The speech described the dysfunction of the European economy and presented a rationale for US aid. The modern system of the division of labor upon which the exchange of products is based is in danger of breaking down. ... Aside from the demoralizing effect on the world at large and the possibilities of disturbances arising as a result of the desperation of the people concerned, the consequences to the economy of the United States should be apparent to all. It is logical that the United States should do whatever it is able to do to assist in the return of normal economic health to the world, without which there can be no political stability and no assured peace. Our policy is not directed against any country, but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos. Any government that is willing to assist in recovery will find full co-operation on the part of the United States. Its purpose should be the revival of a working economy in the world so as to permit the emergence of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist.

However, Molotov's direct statement is missing. Therefore, it favors one side over the other.

This is Molotov's statement:

Therefore, the question of American economic aid of which indeed nothing definite is yet known has now provided an occasion for the British and French Governments to seek the creation of a new organization standing over and above the countries of Europe and interfering in their internal affairs down to determining the line of development to be followed by the main branches of industry in these countries. Furthermore, Great Britain and France together with the countries close to them are laying claim to a predominant position in this organization or in the so-called “Steering Committee” for Europe as it has been named in the British draft.
Verbal reservations are now being made to the effect that this organization would allegedly not intervene in the internal affairs of these states and would not encroach upon their sovereignty. But it clearly follows from the tasks which are being set before this organization or before the “Steering Committee” that the European countries would find themselves placed under control and would lose their former economic and national independence because it so pleases certain strong powers

Shouldn't the side which opposed the Marshall plan also be included with the side that supported it? Or else, it paints the USSR as ridiculously evil.

Highly opinionated language

Along with the UN, many humanist ideas were circulating over the five-year period that ensued its formation. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) date from this time. One of the ideas proposed in 1947 at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment (UNCTE) was the International Trade Organization (ITO). The GATT was first conceived around that time too.

Why is the IMF and the World Bank described as humanist? Why is GATT described as humanist? What is a humanist idea?

Mind-reading

Stalin opinions

How do you know what Stalin thought? How did we know that he changed his outlook?

Stalin only changed his outlook when he learned that (a) credit would only be extended under conditions of economic cooperation and, (b) aid would also be extended to Germany in total, an eventuality which Stalin thought would hamper the Soviets' ability to exercise influence in western Germany.

Manuevering

Initially, Stalin maneuvered to kill the Plan, or at least hamper it by means of destructive participation in the Paris talks regarding conditions. He quickly realized, however, that this would be impossible after Molotov reported—following his arrival in Paris in July 1947—that conditions for the credit were non-negotiable. Looming as just as large a concern was the Czechoslovak eagerness to accept the aid, as well as indications of a similar Polish attitude.

"Kill the plan OR at least hamper it by means of destructive participation" sounds extensively like an opinion or speculation.
How do you know he quickly "realized" something.
"Looming as a large concern" for whom?

Factually incorrect assertions

Economic Recovery

Most of Europe's economies were recovering slowly, as unemployment and food shortages led to strikes and unrest in several nations. Agricultural production was 83% of 1938 levels, industrial production was 88%, and exports 59%

This is misleading because it varied from place to place. European Economic Growth Post World War II.png

References

De Long, J. Bradford; Eichengreen, Barry (1991-11-01). "The Marshall Plan: History's Most Successful Structural Adjustment Program". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Conflicting Statements

The United States was already spending a great deal to help Europe recover. Over $14 billion was spent or loaned during the postwar period through the end of 1947 and is not counted as part of the Marshall Plan. Much of this aid was designed to restore infrastructure and help refugees. Britain, for example, received an emergency loan of $3.75 billion.

Earlier in the document, it mentions $12 billion and now it is $14 billion? Which one is the real number?

Anti-Communist Bias

Why is a communist insurgency a threat? It should be a communist insurgency fighting in Greece. Also, it is Truman's opinion that capitalists are "free" and communists are not free.

With a communist, although non-Soviet, insurgency threatening Greece, and Britain financially unable to continue its aid, the President announced his Truman Doctrine on March 12, 1947, "to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures", with an aid request for consideration and decision, concerning Greece and Turkey.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Openly-admitted Bias by Misplaced Pages editor

A wikipedia editor says,"Something about history being written by winners" AKA that wikipedia's policy is having pro-western bias. Therefore, not being neutral or trustworthy. http://archive.is/wip/KNOPV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eshaparvathi (talk • contribs) 01:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages follows the reliable sources. If the majority of historical sources are pro-western on this topic, so too will be the Misplaced Pages article. - MrOllie (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

You have not cited "a majority" of historical sources. The majority of the article cites ONE source. https://en.wikipedia.org/Marshall_Plan#cite_ref-wettig116_48-0 10 times. If a source is biased, it is by definition NOT reliable. Eshaparvathi (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome to that opinion, but on Misplaced Pages we have established guidelines for that constitutes a reliable source, which you can find at Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources. Sources are specifically not required to be unbiased. - MrOllie (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

all Misplaced Pages editors have their own opinions on the topics they write about. The SUGGESTED goal is to edit AS IF they were neutral. The POLICY is that the article covers both/all sides when the RS are in disagreement. Rjensen (talk) 04:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

If someone has a problem with a page like this using the same source 10 times, whether "biased" or not (hint: every source is biased. period.) then the person objecting should go ahead and do some work to update the sources themselves. Why complain? Fix if you don't like it. Isn't that the point here? --gobears87 (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Categories: