During World War II, the constant bombardment of war time power had negatively effected the groups of Europe. Many citizens had no choice but to leave their homes, resulting in the displaced persons problem that I discussed in my first post on the blog. According to the Rebuilding the world after the second world war on the guardian website, “In Germany, it has been estimated, 70% of housing had gone and, in the Soviet Union, 1,700 towns and 70,000 villages. Factories and workshops were in ruins, fields, forests and vineyards ripped to pieces” (Pg 1 MacMillan). The Marshall Plan provided great help and played a major role in western Europe regaining stability.
The United States was able to help in the way of the Marshall Plan, also known as the European Recovery Plan. According to the Consumer-Citizen, the Marshall Plan’s imprint does not weight as heavily on its financial contribution but rather in its ability to meet the demanding conditions to disburse the aid (Pg 345 De Grazia). The Marshall plan is considered by many to be the starting point for western Europe getting back on their feet after World War II.
The United States gave over thirteen billion dollars in aid under the Marshal Plan. According to De Grazia, “Consequently the first priority of aid was to boost productivity by investing in industrial retooling and infrastructure such as power stations, electric grids, port facilities, and railroad bridges” (Pg 346). The Marshall Plan also sought out to fix was the dollar shortage. This was such a problem because it inhibited European suppliers from buying US goods and risked brining the recovery to a halt. The Marshall Pan aid did not work to rebuild everything. No aid was released to fix ragged wardrobes, homes, household crockery and furnishings, pay for pensions, and even to raise wages (Pg 346). The purpose of the plan was not to fix every little detail wrong with western Europe after the war, it was to provide economic support to build their economies.
You talk about how the positive outcomes of the Marshall Plan but only briefly mention some of the negative consequences. In addition to The Marshall Plan focusing only on the rebuilding effort that would lead to Europeans buying American goods, were there any other negative effects of the Marshall Plan on Europe
What were the percentages of losses in other countries? This is a very interesting tidbit of information that your provide with Germany. What was the guidelines that the Marshall Plan laid out that showed what could and could not be fixed. You did a very good job of laying out the positives that the Marshall Plan provided. As has already been commented, were there more negative results from the plan?
I like your idea that “The Marshall Pan aid did not work to rebuild everything. No aid was released to fix ragged wardrobes, homes, household crockery and furnishings, pay for pensions, and even to raise wages (Pg 346).” The Marshall plan itself was not necessarily conceived to rebuilding and reconstructing the lives of those who were affected but rather the nation’s economy. I always thought of people receiving goods and money directly beforehand, but I believe your point makes an important distinction between the ideal and reality of the Marshall Plan.
You make good use of the context of World War II to drive the point that war-time Europe was ravaged. Your bit on the Marshall plan was insightful, and it helped me to put the paper into perspective of the US effort in the region. I think you should elaborate more on the other sources, and talk about how they connect to each other. Discussing the Marshall Plan in relation to the document on “French Policy” helps to show how other nations viewed the US during this time. Span of influence and the capacity of the Marshall Plan to take care of nations helped to drive nations to the US system.