Devastated by intense combat, rampant death, and widespread social change and unrest, post-World War II Europe was a shadow of its pre-war self. Buildings were flattened with shelling and explosives; infrastructures lay ruined with damage from the mass deployment of military forces; culture’s egos were bruised , and much of Europe collectively became confused about their place in the quickly developing new world order. This last point is perhaps the most important piece in understanding the legacy – and fallout – of World War II.
Europe was in utter destruction, and rebuilding was the only option. This required a massive influx of financial (and human) resources, setting the table for America to swoop in with a massive bail-out. Indeed, America did swoop in, passing the Foreign Assistance Act of 1948 and legislating over 13 billion – 132 billion in today’s money – to be used for assistance to select European countries.
America was very selective about what countries were eligible for assistance. Only countries that fit in with their goal of “building a self-sustaining industrialized Europe, one that thrived by intra-regional trade yet was firmly inserted into the America-dominated world economy” (De Grazia 346). Thus, it is clear that the Marshall Plan was borne of a calculated, political agenda – not altruism. In short, America aimed to prevent Europe from falling back into a centralized government system and reliance on government aid and influence them to pursue laissez-faire economies. While their 13 billion dollars did little in terms of actually funding public works projects, America did succeed in stepping into the forefront of world politics, stimulating its own economy, and – perhaps most importantly – keeping the Soviet Union’s expansion in check.
I think it’s interesting how you looked at the Marshall Plan from the US perspective, and how they used something positive– such as giving aid– to bolster their own ideas of what Europe should look like. I like your point that even if the plan did rebuild Europe, the major intention behind it was for American gain.
Thanks, Critchey! I think it’s important to note that the motivation behind the Marshall Plan was American gain. In light of America’s current position as a global superpower and purveyor of foreign aid, it is easy to use this examples to explain some of America’s more controversial policies (i.e. strict policy re: accepting refugees).