• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. 12

Assess the view that the US Policy of Marshall Aid was motivated mainly by the altruistic desire to help the economic recovery of Europe.

Extracts from this document...


Assess the view that the US Policy of Marshall Aid was motivated mainly by the altruistic desire to help the economic recovery of Europe. Following advice from U.S General Marshall, Marshall Aid was introduced to Europe in 1947. Some argue this policy was motivated mainly through altruistic desire to help the economic reconstruction of Europe; however the four interpretations dismiss this argument, focusing on the need to boost capitalism, preventing communism. The main reasons for Marshall Aid's introduction were political and economic, not altruistic. The theory that Marshall Aid was mainly motivated through altruism isn't credibly acknowledged in any interpretation. Judt acknowledges altruism in his interpretation by stating aid was offered ''to all European countries, without distinction'' and ''Enthusiastic American New Dealers'' had ''urged upon European colleagues'' virtues of ''freer trade, international collaboration and inter-state integration'', however he dismisses altruism and argues other influences had great significance, aid was part of a program to reform the European economy as a whole; Europe would need to ''collaborate in planning'' and ''confer....with each other''. ''Enthusiastic American New Dealers'' supported aid through their own self-interests, not altruistic desire. Balfour, McCauley and Gaddis fail to acknowledge altruism in their arguments, supporting Judt's dismissal. ...read more.


Washington believed that reestablishment of multilateral trade was key to boosting the economy, the ''protective device'' of aid intended European countries to switch ''from the bilateral to the multilateral as soon as possible''. McCauley references the benefits of multilateral collaboration throughout his interpretation, strengthening Judt's argument that economic reasons were the main motivation behind Marshall Aid. The subsequent boom led to an economic divide as obvious as the political one, with the rich West and poor East. European markets had exceeded pre-war levels of production and income by the 1950's, reducing the influence of the communists and verifying Ryan's argument that Marshall Aid would negate the appeal of communism. The West had no incentive to turn communist now it was booming. All four interpretations agree Marshall Aid would gain popularity if it would have a negative impact on communism. Gaddis outlines the greatest threat to the West wasn't military intervention, rather ''the risk that hunger, poverty and despair might cause Europeans to vote their own communists into office'', who would ''obediently serve Moscow's wishes'', this is a credible argument because communism was benefitting with many European economies bankrupt - Soviet domination was a real danger. ...read more.


However Balfour goes on to concede that other events had greater significance, such as differing ideologies and fear of communism. Since Truman didn't want war in election year, these two factors combined dismiss this view. Several motivational factors were involved in implementing the Marshall Plan. A plan to boost capitalism, argued by Balfour, the economic concerns argued by Judt, and argued by McCauley and Gaddis to be interlinked with political concerns, along with hints of militarism and altruism. However, Gaddis' argument that the US was following a political grand strategy through economic means, and the interlinking economic concerns established by McCauley reference the greatest motivational theory, along with the differing ideologies between U.S and USSR, implied by Judt and Balfour. The Marshall Plan wasn't motivated through altruistic desire to help Europe, despite Churchill's statement that it was ''the most unsordid act in history''5 1 How successful was the Marshall Plan? - Scott Newton, History Today (2000) 2 David Ryan, The United States and Europe in the Twentieth Century (2003) 3 David Ryan, The United States and Europe in the Twentieth Century (2003) 4 The Marshall Plan reconsidered: A complex of Motives - Diane Kunz (1997) p162, 9pgs 5 The American Past, A Study of American History. Joseph Conlin (2009) p. 724 ?? ?? ?? ?? ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text


Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Using these four passages and your own knowledge, asses the view that the US ...

    5 star(s)

    the USA but with each other.'4 The altruistic approach of the US was to create a self-sufficient area (Europe), that could easily trade and make itself strong. The source by Judt was written over 20 years after the fall of Communism, which disintegrates much of the hostilities that the Cold War had created between the USSR and the USA.


    France * Of all the major countries involved, France had been the most affected by the damage caused by the fighting. 750,000 homes been totally destroyed and 23,000 villages. The war had also placed a tremendous financial burden on France and the French believed that Germany should be made to pay.


    spheres of influence, but within a context of universalist principles, so that the American people would not feel that the Atlantic Charter had been betrayed. The future of Germany represented a third critical point of conflict. For emotional as well as political reasons, it was imperative that steps be taken to prevent Germany from ever again waging war.

  2. The Marshall Plan.

    Marshall Plan funds were not mainly directed toward feeding individuals or building individual houses, schools, or factories, but at strengthening the economic superstructure (particularly the iron-steel and power industries). The program cost the American taxpayers $11,820,700,000 (plus $1,505,100,000 in loans that were repaid)

  1. The Collapse of Communism in the USSR and Eastern Europe

    its own quarters and in places like Afghanistan, more than as a genuine moral code, was evident in Washington's ongoing support of brutal military dictatorships in Central America, and its collaboration with apartheid South Africa. Likewise, the Soviet Union ignored the terms of the act, which were not legally binding,

  2. Introduction - US policy to Southeast Asia in general

    Again, America's near obsession with rebuilding Western Europe is demonstrated. The police action offensive triggered off a new intensity in the guerrilla insurgency. The nationalists appeared to be gaining the upper hand and Washington became concerned over the possible materialisation of "radical elements" within the movement.

  1. The great war plan, preparations, collapse, and recovery - a revised view

    * While Hitler occupied half of Europe from Norway to Greece, Russia occupied the Baltic states and parts of Finland and Romania. * To keep Hitler appeased all this time, Stalin's Russia provided Germany, as agreed, with large quantities of war materials and even operational support services to assist the German war effort.

  2. American Anticommunism

    to be delivered to Greece and Turkey, both of which he suspected were threatened by a possible communist invasion.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work