Cartoon depicting American involvement in rebuilding the European economy through the Marshall Plan
Following the end of WWII, Europe was reeling from loss and destruction but one of the biggest problems Europeans faced together was the economic crisis brought on my years of conflict. While different political factions sought various solutions to reviving the economy, everyone agreed on one thing: the political stability and economic stability were intrinsically linked and must be treated as such. The photo that I chose for this blogpost was a cartoon that shows the perspective of the U.S. in their role in rebuilding Europe through the Marshall Plan. I thought that this was an interesting depiction because from the articles that I read, it was evident that the U.S. did play a part in this but their role was more in the way that they influenced Europe or tried to influence Europe than them actually providing most of the money that boosted the economy (De Grazia, 345).
In her chapter entitled, “The Consumer Citizen: How Europeans Traded Rights for Goods,” historian Victoria De Grazia takes a critical look at the position of Europe during this time as being torn between the East and its focus on social betterment through Communist policy and the West and the focus on economic production to gain prosperity. During this time, there was a focus on raising the “standard of living” as part of this economic revival (339). This new initiative of the “welfare state” was aimed at combatting social issues that Europe was facing (De Grazia, 340). In the text, she engages two movies that I found very interesting. One deals with a small Spanish town and the other is about a town in Greece but both focus on U.S. intervention through the Marshall Plan and the narrative that was being pushed, namely: No amount of money is going to fix Europe overnight; lasting economic stability is something that needs to be cultivated over time (33
. Of course, it was easy for the U.S. to say this as their economy boomed, putting them in a position to even provide aid to Europe but that is perhaps another issue.
In Outline of a Doctrine of French Policy, French philosopher Alexandre Kojeve makes the case for the formation of a “Latin Empire” consisting of Spain, Italy and France. Following WWII, two major “empires” emerged: the “Anglo-American” and “Slavo-Soviet” blocs (. Kojeve sees the necessity in France belonging to an empire to ensure its survival but he ultimately concludes that it would be better for France to be the strongest nation in a weaker empire, namely this Latin Empire he describes, than to be part of one of the two primary empires and be forced into a lesser role (24).
These two readings offer two different perspectives on reconstruction. As a contemporary, Kojeve sees the process of reconstruction in more of a top-down fashion in which political bonds are formed (his beloved Latin Empire) and, from that union, economic issues are resolved and the prosperity of France is secured. On the other hand, De Grazia, with the gift of hindsight, describes the reconstruction of Europe as a complex multi-front initiative that integrates this understand of both the need for economic support as well as the need for social programs that would actually improve the daily lives of Europeans in a more immediate sense. For her, it isn’t one or the other in the same way that it was thought of at the time.
While Kojeve’s dream of France as a major political presence was not realized during the Cold War years (at least, as far as I am aware), his vision for France speaks to the desire of so many Europeans to reconcile their political and economic issues in a way that would ultimately put their interests on top. After all, isn’t this what America was trying to do by attaching strings to the Marshall Plan? When does the benevolence of initiatives like the Marshall Plan become secondary to the private motives of nations like the U.S.? Can we ever truly separate it?
For more on De Grazia:http://heymancenter.org/people/victoria-de-grazia/
For more on Kojeve:http://www.iep.utm.edu/kojeve/
I thought the cartoon was interesting because it shows how the Marshall Plan was a financial burden for the American taxpayer. The money had to come from somewhere. It makes me wonder if the American public supported or resented their contribution to the Marshall Plan.
I agree with you that one of the main purposes of the Marshall Plan was to benefit America economically. However do you think you could argue that that was the sole purpose of the plan? Was there a humanitarian foundation to this plan or were American interests the foundation?
Joy, I like how you reiterated that the Marshall Plan did more socio-cultural rebuilding as opposed to actual physical reconstruction. I think that distinction is paramount in understanding what the Marshall Plan actually was and why Truman enacted it.
I also think your political cartoon is fairly ironic. The Marshall Plan provided little financial aid in the grand scheme of things – approximately 5% of total capital if I recall correctly – yet it was considered to be a major drain on American taxpayers. What an Americentric perspective!
I think the cartoon you picked is interesting, it brings the American taxpayer into this issue, where they weren’t present before. I like the comparison you make between Kojeve and de Grazia, specifically the distinction that Kojeve’s approach is more top down. I agree, he clearly was advocating for a unified empire that France could rule and use to achieve peace and security.
I liked the political cartoon that you used and how you incorporated it into your essay, it was not what i thought you were going to talk about when i saw it. you mention how economic stability has to be built over time and do you believe this is why the US did not give so much money through the Marshall Plan? Or do you have the understanding that this was mainly a political move and the US needed to put money into Europe immediately?
I think it’s important to understand that the Marshall Plan may have not been purely to support Western Europe rebuild after the war. Perhaps there was some altruism involved that meant to make a statement to the world about how powerful and humanitarian the United States was.
I think that you make a valid point when talking about how the Marshal Plan aimed to boost moral and social aspects instead of the actually reconstruction of western Europe. I think that the Marshal plan had a lot of benefits both socially and from the reconstruction aspect.