the marshall plan essay

  • History Classics
  • Your Profile
  • Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
  • Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
  • Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
  • Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
  • Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
  • This Day In History
  • History Podcasts
  • History Vault

Marshall Plan

By: History.com Editors

Updated: November 1, 2022 | Original: December 16, 2009

Chief of Staff General George C. Marshall at his headquarters in the War Department.

The Marshall Plan, also known as the European Recovery Program, was a U.S. program providing aid to Western Europe following the devastation of World War II. It was enacted in 1948 and provided more than $15 billion to help finance rebuilding efforts on the continent. The brainchild of U.S. Secretary of State George C. Marshall, for whom it was named, it was crafted as a four-year plan to reconstruct cities, industries and infrastructure heavily damaged during the war and to remove trade barriers between European neighbors—as well as foster commerce between those countries and the United States.

Europe After World War II

Post-war Europe was in dire straits: Millions of its citizens had been killed or seriously wounded in World War II , and in related atrocities such as the Holocaust .

Many cities—including the industrial and cultural centers of London , Dresden , Berlin, Cologne, Liverpool, Birmingham and Hamburg—had been partly or wholly destroyed. Reports provided to Marshall suggested that some regions of the continent were on the brink of famine because agricultural and other food production had been disrupted by the fighting.

In addition, the region’s transportation infrastructure—railways, electric utilities, port facilities, roads, bridges and airports—had suffered extensive damage during airstrikes and artillery attacks, and the shipping fleets of many countries had been sunk. In fact, it could be argued that the only world power not structurally damaged by the conflict had been the United States.

The reconstruction coordinated under the Marshall Plan was formulated following a meeting of the participating European states in the latter half of 1947. Notably, invitations were extended to the Soviet Union and its satellite states.

However, they refused to join the effort, allegedly fearing U.S. involvement in their respective national affairs.

Truman Approves the Marshall Plan

President Harry Truman signed the Marshall Plan on April 3, 1948, and aid was distributed to 16 European nations, including Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, West Germany and Norway.

To highlight the significance of America’s largesse, the billions committed in aid effectively amounted to a generous 5 percent of U.S. gross domestic product at the time.

the marshall plan essay

HISTORY Vault: World War II

Explore documentaries on World War II.

What Was the Marshall Plan?

The Marshall Plan provided aid to the recipients essentially on a per capita basis, with larger amounts given to major industrial powers, such as West Germany, France and Great Britain. This was based on the belief of Marshall and his advisors that recovery in these larger nations was essential to overall European recovery.

Still, not all participating nations benefitted equally. Nations such as Italy, who had fought with the Axis powers alongside Nazi Germany, and those who remained neutral (e.g., Switzerland) received less assistance per capita than those countries who fought with the United States and the other Allied powers.

The notable exception was West Germany: Though all of Germany was damaged significantly toward the end of World War II, a viable and revitalized West Germany was seen as essential to economic stability in the region, and as a not-so-subtle rebuke of the communist government and economic system on the other side of the “Iron Curtain” in East Germany.

In all, Great Britain received roughly one-quarter of the total aid provided under the Marshall Plan, while France was given less than one fifth of the funds.

In addition to economic redevelopment, one of the stated goals of the Marshall Plan was to halt the spread of communism on the European continent.

Implementation of the Marshall Plan has been cited as the beginning of the Cold War between the United States, its European allies and the Soviet Union, which had effectively taken control of much of central and eastern Europe and established its satellite republics as communist nations.

The Marshall Plan is also considered a key catalyst for the formation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) , a military alliance between North American and European countries established in 1949.

Impact of the Marshall Plan

Interestingly, in the decades since its implementation, the true economic benefit of the Marshall Plan has been the subject of much debate. Indeed, reports at the time suggest that, by the time the plan took effect, Western Europe was already well on the road to recovery.

And, despite the significant investment on the part of the United States, the funds provided under the Marshall Plan accounted for less than 3 percent of the combined national incomes of the countries that received them. This led to relatively modest growth of GDP in these countries during the four-year period the plan was in effect.

That said, by the time of the plan’s final year, 1952, economic growth in the countries that had received funds had surpassed pre-war levels, a strong indicator of the program’s positive impact, at least economically.

Political Legacy of the Marshall Plan

Politically, however, the legacy of the Marshall Plan arguably tells a different story. Given the refusal to participate on the part of the so-called Eastern Bloc of Soviet states, the initiative certainly reinforced divisions that were already beginning to take root on the continent.

It’s worth noting, too, that the Central Intelligence Agency ( CIA ), the secret service agency of the United States, received 5 percent of the funds allocated under the Marshall Plan. The CIA used these funds to establish “front” businesses in several European countries that were designed to further U.S. interests in the region.

The agency also allegedly financed an anti-communist insurgency in Ukraine, which at the time was a Soviet satellite state.

By and large, though, the Marshall Plan was generally lauded for the desperately needed boost it gave America’s European allies. As the designer of the plan, George C. Marshall himself said, “Our policy is not directed against any country, but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos.”

Still, efforts to extend the Marshall Plan beyond its initial four-year period stalled with the beginning of the Korean War in 1950. The countries that received funds under the plan didn’t have to repay the United States, as the monies were awarded in the form of grants. However, the countries did return roughly 5 percent of the money to cover the administrative costs of the plan’s implementation.

Department of State. Office of the Historian. Marshall Plan, 1948. History.state.gov . The Marshall Plan. The George C. Marshall Foundation . Truman and the Marshall Plan. Harry S. Truman Library and Museum .

the marshall plan essay

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

  • Student Opportunities

About Hoover

Located on the campus of Stanford University and in Washington, DC, the Hoover Institution is the nation’s preeminent research center dedicated to generating policy ideas that promote economic prosperity, national security, and democratic governance. 

  • The Hoover Story
  • Hoover Timeline & History
  • Mission Statement
  • Vision of the Institution Today
  • Key Focus Areas
  • About our Fellows
  • Research Programs
  • Annual Reports
  • Hoover in DC
  • Fellowship Opportunities
  • Visit Hoover
  • David and Joan Traitel Building & Rental Information
  • Newsletter Subscriptions
  • Connect With Us

Hoover scholars form the Institution’s core and create breakthrough ideas aligned with our mission and ideals. What sets Hoover apart from all other policy organizations is its status as a center of scholarly excellence, its locus as a forum of scholarly discussion of public policy, and its ability to bring the conclusions of this scholarship to a public audience.

  • Douglas Rivers
  • Philip Zelikow
  • Steven Koonin
  • Arun Majumdar
  • Chester E. Finn Jr.
  • John H. Cochrane
  • China's Global Sharp Power Project
  • Economic Policy Group
  • History Working Group
  • Hoover Education Success Initiative
  • National Security Task Force
  • National Security, Technology & Law Working Group
  • Middle East and the Islamic World Working Group
  • Military History/Contemporary Conflict Working Group
  • Renewing Indigenous Economies Project
  • State & Local Governance
  • Strengthening US-India Relations
  • Technology, Economics, and Governance Working Group
  • Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region

Books by Hoover Fellows

Books by Hoover Fellows

Economics Working Papers

Economics Working Papers

Hoover Education Success Initiative | The Papers

Hoover Education Success Initiative

  • Hoover Fellows Program
  • National Fellows Program
  • Student Fellowship Program
  • Veteran Fellowship Program
  • Congressional Fellowship Program
  • Media Fellowship Program
  • Silas Palmer Fellowship
  • Economic Fellowship Program

Throughout our over one-hundred-year history, our work has directly led to policies that have produced greater freedom, democracy, and opportunity in the United States and the world.

  • Determining America’s Role in the World
  • Answering Challenges to Advanced Economies
  • Empowering State and Local Governance
  • Revitalizing History
  • Confronting and Competing with China
  • Revitalizing American Institutions
  • Reforming K-12 Education
  • Understanding Public Opinion
  • Understanding the Effects of Technology on Economics and Governance
  • Energy & Environment
  • Health Care
  • Immigration
  • International Affairs
  • Key Countries / Regions
  • Law & Policy
  • Politics & Public Opinion
  • Science & Technology
  • Security & Defense
  • State & Local
  • Books by Fellows
  • Published Works by Fellows
  • Working Papers
  • Congressional Testimony
  • Hoover Press
  • PERIODICALS
  • The Caravan
  • China's Global Sharp Power
  • Economic Policy
  • History Lab
  • Hoover Education
  • Global Policy & Strategy
  • National Security, Technology & Law
  • Middle East and the Islamic World
  • Military History & Contemporary Conflict
  • Renewing Indigenous Economies
  • State and Local Governance
  • Technology, Economics, and Governance

Hoover scholars offer analysis of current policy challenges and provide solutions on how America can advance freedom, peace, and prosperity.

  • China Global Sharp Power Weekly Alert
  • Email newsletters
  • Hoover Daily Report
  • Subscription to Email Alerts
  • Periodicals
  • California on Your Mind
  • Defining Ideas
  • Hoover Digest
  • Video Series
  • Uncommon Knowledge
  • Battlegrounds
  • GoodFellows
  • Hoover Events
  • Capital Conversations
  • Hoover Book Club
  • AUDIO PODCASTS
  • Matters of Policy & Politics
  • Economics, Applied
  • Free Speech Unmuted
  • Secrets of Statecraft
  • Pacific Century
  • Libertarian
  • Library & Archives

Support Hoover

Learn more about joining the community of supporters and scholars working together to advance Hoover’s mission and values.

pic

What is MyHoover?

MyHoover delivers a personalized experience at  Hoover.org . In a few easy steps, create an account and receive the most recent analysis from Hoover fellows tailored to your specific policy interests.

Watch this video for an overview of MyHoover.

Log In to MyHoover

google_icon

Forgot Password

Don't have an account? Sign up

Have questions? Contact us

  • Support the Mission of the Hoover Institution
  • Subscribe to the Hoover Daily Report
  • Follow Hoover on Social Media

Make a Gift

Your gift helps advance ideas that promote a free society.

  • About Hoover Institution
  • Meet Our Fellows
  • Focus Areas
  • Research Teams
  • Library & Archives

Library & archives

All sections.

hoover digest

The Marshall Plan

An essay by Hoover fellows Peter Duignan and the late Lewis H. Gann on the fiftieth anniversary of "the greatest voluntary transfer of resources from one country to another."

The Marshall Plan formed the greatest voluntary transfer of resources from one country to another known to history. Technically known as the European Recovery Program, the plan was passed by the U.S. Congress with a decisive majority and was signed by President Truman on April 3, 1948--just in time to influence the Italian election in that year.

The Marshall Plan did not, in and of itself, cause Western European economic recovery. Indeed, there was little direct correlation between the amount of U.S. aid received and the speed of economic recovery in the various recipient countries. France and Britain obtained much more aid per capita than West Germany, which nevertheless progressed more quickly than either. But the Marshall Plan (guided by the European Cooperation Administration, ECA) helped to tide Western Europe over a dangerous period. The plan provided new confidence to Western Europe; the plan furnished money, food, fuel, and machinery at a time when the Western European economies were all in disarray. Marshall Plan experts argued in favor of free trade, decentralized management, breaking up of cartels, the elimination of quotas and customs, and labor-saving technologies.

The Americans also delivered know-how. For example, at the Doboelman soap works in Holland, American experts showed the Dutch how to cut processing time from five days to two hours with new machinery. In Norway, fishermen used a new type of net made from yarn spun in Italy. In Offenbach in West Germany, Marshall Plan leather revived the handbag industry; in Lille, Marshall Plan coal kept a steel factory in business; and in Roubaix, Marshall Plan wood maintained one of the world's largest textile mills. In 1945, only twenty-five thousand tractors were in use on French farms; four years later, Marshall Plan aid had put another two hundred thousand tractors in the field. Overall, American investment in Western Europe grew apace, and more and more U.S. patents found customers abroad. Americans had good reason for talking about "the American century."

A host of U.S. technical experts, consultants, and managers also contributed their experience to Western Europe. But there was also a reverse flow of Europeans to the United States. As William James Adams, an economist, puts it with regard to France:

Under the Marshall Plan, France dispatched large numbers of business executives, trade unionists, civil servants to the United States with an eye toward absorption of American productivity. They returned not only with . . . butch haircuts and wineless lunches, but also with an appreciation of how business was conducted in a relatively dynamic, seemingly disorganized setting.

The plan likewise presented an immense U.S. political commitment. Not for nothing did George C. Marshall, a professional soldier, receive the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts. In a more intangible sense, Europeans benefited from the American sense of optimism and the American premise that peace, labor productivity, consumerism, welfare, and profits went hand in hand--this at a time when gloomy existentialist philosophies were in high fashion among European intellectuals. America produced cheaper coal (coal miners struck in Europe's coldest winter, 1946) and sent food to tide the Europeans over and then the means to revive quickly their economies through the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan, like NATO, created an intricate network of intra-European and transatlantic contacts among businessmen, civil servants, and trade unionists.

Above all, the Marshall Plan was designed to push Europeans toward political and economic cooperation--a major objective of U.S. policymakers. Paul G. Hoffman, who headed the ECA, predicted European unification through a common market. Aid was administered through the OEEC (Organization for European Economic Cooperation, created in 1948, replaced in 1961 by the OECD, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). In terms of a narrowly conceived realpolitik, the Americans might have benefited from dealing separately with their European allies in a strictly bilateral fashion. In practice, the Americans looked toward a new Western European economic association.

The United States was both a lobbyist for a united Europe and also a role model. Surely, European federalists argued, the United States could not have developed into the world's greatest economic power had the fifty states remained divided by customs barriers and if a New Yorker visiting California were obliged to show his passport every time he crossed the border of a state. The OEEC created a network of transnational bodies and transnational committees to deal with specialized questions. (These included the European Payments Union [EPU], set up in 1950, and a central bank and clearinghouse for intra-European trade and payments. By 1959 the European currencies had largely become convertible, and the EPU was replaced by the European Monetary Agreement.)

Yet the Marshall Plan was only passed against heavy U.S. domestic opposition. American isolationists resented having to spend American taxpayers' money on foreign countries that had already defaulted on their previous debts from World War I. Businessmen didn't want to reconstruct competitor European industries. Congressmen only wanted to give food, not loans. The Soviet Union and its allies all the world over denounced the plan for strengthening the hold of U.S. capitalism on Western Europe; hence the Soviet Union would not become a beneficiary of the plan, nor would Moscow permit any of its satellites to participate. Even pro-American Europeans were bound to feel uneasy. It was hard to ask a foreign country for aid, harder still to ask aid from a donor whom visiting European dignitaries had traditionally described in unflattering terms. A handful of purists also complained because of the plan's Keynesian connotations, its refusal to leave European recovery to the free market alone.

Nevertheless, the plan worked. It succeeded in part because it gained widespread political acceptance within the United States itself--a remarkable political achievement. The plan represented a new welfare capitalism--confident, committed to raising productivity, raising wages, expanding markets, and establishing good labor relations by depoliticizing trade unionism. The Marshall planners were convinced that only a prosperous Europe would resist communism and that only a prosperous Europe would provide expanding markets for U.S. as well as European producers. On the whole, the plan was well administered; there were no scandals, no massive diversion of funds into the pockets of political and bureaucratic racketeers. Yet the expenditure involved was astronomical by the standards of the time. The Marshall Plan and other forms of foreign assistance between them cost the United States $17.6 billion (or $120 billion in current value for the Marshall Plan alone)--as we said, the largest voluntary transfer of resources in history. Ten years after the end of the greatest war in history, Western Europe had not only fully recovered but had become far more prosperous and productive than before.

Adapted from The USA and the New Europe, 1945–1993 , Published by Blackwell. Used with permission. To order, call 800-903-1181. The following books, available from the Hoover Press , provide additional information on the Marshall Plan: The Rebirth of the West: The Americanization of the Democratic World, 1945–1958 , by Peter Duignan and L. H. Gann, and Our Finest Hour: Will Clayton, the Marshall Plan, and the Triumph of Democracy, by Gregory A. Fossedal. Also available as part of the Essays in Public Policy series is "World War II and Europe", by Peter Duignan and L. H. Gann. To order, call 800-935-2882.

View the discussion thread.

footer

Join the Hoover Institution’s community of supporters in ideas advancing freedom.

 alt=

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

Course: US history   >   Unit 8

  • Origins of the Cold War
  • The GI Bill
  • African Americans, women, and the GI Bill
  • The baby boom
  • The growth of suburbia
  • The dark side of suburbia
  • Start of the Cold War - The Yalta Conference and containment

Start of the Cold War - The Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan

  • Start of the Cold War - The Berlin airlift and the creation of NATO
  • The postwar era, 1945-1950
  • In 1947, President Harry S. Truman pledged that the United States would help any nation resist communism in order to prevent its spread. His policy of containment is known as the Truman Doctrine .
  • The Truman Doctrine demonstrated that the United States would not return to isolationism after World War II, but rather take an active role in world affairs.
  • To help rebuild after the war, the United States pledged $13 billion of aid to Europe in the Marshall Plan .

The Truman Doctrine

The marshall plan, what do you think, want to join the conversation.

ESSAY SAUCE

ESSAY SAUCE

FOR STUDENTS : ALL THE INGREDIENTS OF A GOOD ESSAY

Essay: The Marshall plan

Essay details and download:.

  • Subject area(s): History essays
  • Reading time: 12 minutes
  • Price: Free download
  • Published: 25 November 2020*
  • File format: Text
  • Words: 3,584 (approx)
  • Number of pages: 15 (approx)

Text preview of this essay:

This page of the essay has 3,584 words. Download the full version above.

The Marshall plan was a US program introduced to recover the Western European countries after WW2. The motives behind the plan come down to three broad strands that are economic, political and humanitarian. Each interpretation focuses on one or more of these aspects. In the Kolko’s argument they outline that the Americans economy and prosperity was the most important motive behind the introduction of the Marshall plan. That it was introduced as the US relied on the European countries trade to expand. A varied argument comes from David Rees, he claims that the plan was simply to defend Europe from communism and to rehabilitate the countries. Finally, Daniel Yergins key argument is one where economics and politics were motives. He argues that the plan was to consolidate the Western sphere by rebuilding the economy, which at the same time would keep the communists out. The motives each have different impacts on the Marshall plans introduction.

Kolko’s analysis and explanation

Joyce and Gabriel Kolko, writing in ‘The limits of power’, make it clear that they had a straightforward view on the motives behind the introduction of the Marshall plan. They openly imply the main factor behind it was that the US wanted to re-establish the American economy by which they would “subsidize United States exports” and “permanently influence and shape Western Europe’s internal economic policy”. The most significant argument that the Kolkos present is that of economic self-interest and expansion in Europe. A point that they make early on in the work is the plan was the “outcome of real alarm with which Washington viewed the direction of the world economy”. The Kolkos argue that the USAs prosperity was dependant on the plan. They claim the US is “a powerful nation rebuilding its potential economic competitors from the ruins of war”. This aim, the Kolkos say, was key as they saw it is an attempt by the US “to expand their market to avoid internal crisis” and also “secure their own immediate gains” by introducing the Marshall plan. This internal crisis they believe was the dollar gap and export surplus, as after the war there wasn’t enough dollars in Europe to purchase American goods, therefore their exports were building up with no one to buy them. Henry G Aubrey, a US economist noted “dollars were so scarce that the economists were talking about a permanent dollar shortage”. Kolko saw this as an immediate motive as without the dollars in Europe it would “further isolate” the US economy. Therefore, the Kolkos claim the motive behind the plan is to “re-establish normal trading patterns through which the entire world would realise prosperity and peace”. The Kolkos further expand this point of internal crisis by saying that a prominent danger to the US was that the trade set up by European countries to provide their countries with basis needs would stick, therefore permanently excluding the US and halting their expansion. Another element to the Kolkos argument is that the US couldn’t relieve the economic problem they were facing in their country by themselves as the Kolkos claim they were a “capitalist nation unable to expand its internal market”. The Kolkos have little sympathy for the US and argue that because of the “vast unsalable surplus” that had built up, the aim of American prosperity was dependant to the rebuilding of European cities, with no interest of the people or resolving their issues. They suggest that the rebuilding was crucial and a principal motive behind the Marshall plan as it was this that would allow prosperity in the countries to return to normal levels and hence have the money to pay for the US goods, and fuel their aim of an American empire. In the Kolko’s book, they are clearly anti-US, which is seen in their criticisms of the plan and its aim. This could be because around the time they were writing in 1972, American foreign policy was heavily under scrutiny from America, this is evident as during this time troops were being withdrawn from Vietnam due to the persistent backlash from the American public Kolko addressed the issues of the foreign policy as inapplicable and was notoriously anti-capitalist. Historians have said it was “no surprise: Kolko had been a socialist” which explain his views of the Americans selfish self-interest.

Rees analysis and explanation

Rees writing in the “Age of containment” has a contrasting argument to the Kolkos as he has a central focus on the containment of communism as being a key motive. Rees argues that the motives behind the Marshall plan “stems from the events of 7 November 1917, with the successful storming of the Petrograd Winter Palace” and the deep rooted ideological differences that he noted as “grave differences” at Potsdam. From this we can see that Rees first argument for the motives of the Marshall plan and his principal argument was that it was purely defending Europe from communism. The containment policy that flowed over into the basis of the Marshall plan was of “defensive nature” and “encouraging…the survival of free institutions”. Rees argued that the the communist ideology would influence those in Europe due to their lack of structure after the war, he believed “American opinion was beginning to see that it could not let Europe…fall to the Soviets by default”. To support his argument that ideology was a key motive he quotes Truman “the constant threat of unpredictable Soviet moves resulted in an atmosphere of insecurity…among the peoples of Western Europe”. This emphasises Rees argument that the Marshall plan was introduced to combat the “increasingly suspicious” Soviet policy. It also indicates that ideology was a long term factor behind the introduction of the Marshall Plan as he saw that the US and Soviets would always be on an ideological collision course, due to those early events as said earlier. A secondary argument that Rees presents is that a motive behind the introduction of the Marshall plan was humanitarian. Contrasting the Kolko’s view that Americas motive behind the Marshall plan was for selfish reasons. Rees argues that Americas interest was more focused on actually protecting Europe, rather than focussing only on their own benefits. He says that “American power was still the ultimate guarantee of Western collective security”, this emphasises that the Americans needed to protect Europe and their “free institutions”. Rees mentions that “the entire continent would have to be rehabilitated with US aid”. The language highlights that in Rees’ eyes it was about fixing Europe with the US’ help as hero’s, not the US doing it in their own interest. David Rees argument for the motives behind the Marshall plan are traditionalist, and were written during the 1960s when the common perception of the Cold War that the USA were defending freedom and capitalism. This outlook can easily be explained as the sources he uses are largely official documents from the US government “Foreign relations of the United States”, and memoirs and bibliography’s from US congressmen.

Yergin analysis and explanation

A third works that investigates the motives behind the Marshall Plan comes from Daniel Yergin in The Shattered Peace. His interpretation of the motives is that the political scene in Europe and the divisions between the US and communism were responsible for the plans introduction. Yergin also touches upon the economic factors that play into the political conflict and the impact it has on the Communists influence in Europe. However, these were of a humanitarian nature and were not to do with self-interest for the Americans as the Kolko’s believed they were. He describes Europe as being in “an economic crisis with momentous political ramifications” and that the Marshall plans two aims were “to halt a feared communist advance… and to stabilize an international economic environment favorable to capitalism”. Yergin claims that the two factors fuse together to form the Marshall plan. Yergin suggests that the Truman doctrine was failing, as US policy was focused on acting against the soviet sphere. He interprets this as being a long term motive behind the plan and that it was introduced to create a shift in US policymaking towards creating a Western Sphere to block any further spread of the communist regime. He argues that the Marshall plan was “the last great effort, using the powerful and attractive magnetism of the American economy, to draw these countries out of the Soviet orbit”. Yergin uses Truman’s point that “There are other places where we can be effective”, highlighting how a consolidated Western Sphere is more significant than a weakened Soviet sphere. To extend this Yergin breaks down the consolidation of Europe and says that the recovery of Germany was a motive behind the plan as he believed the security and development of the other western countries was based on its survival. He says “Western Germany was presented as essential for the recovery of its non-communist neighbors”. Yergin stresses that West Germany needed to become “integrated into a Western system”. This motive would deter a communist interest and prevent a “feared communist advance into Western Europe”. Another area Yergin argues was a motivation behind the Marshall plan was humanitarian aid to Europe. Yergin claims that this was mostly done through economic help. Yergin argues a reason the plan was introduced was “to cover the entire range of European economic problems”. He makes it clear though that the motive behind this was less to do with the “impending American depression”,which Kolko argues is the centre of the plan. But more based around helping Europe from its “economic crisis” and preventing its “complete collapse”. Yergin also makes a clear point that the economic motives were of a humanitarian nature as he makes reference to the “visible destruction”, that needs repairing, as well as the the capital destruction that affected the people of Europe “Western Europe was no longer able to obtain food stores from traditional sources in Eastern Europe”. This indicates Yergins awareness of the state of the people and not just the economy or politics. Yergins assessment of the motives can be explained as some historians have said…

“Yergin has largely escaped from the arid conceptual desert of all those revisionist versus traditionalist tracts. He appreciates that neither the orthodox blame-it-on-the-Russians approach, nor the revisionist blame-it-on-the-Americans,”.

This could be explained as he was writing in 1990, when primary sources became widely available for use, especially some from the soviet archives which were released after USSR began to collapse in 1990. Also his jobs provide an insight to why he holds the views he does. He is a director of the Council on Foreign Relations and also teaches in the program on National and international Affairs. This provides evidence towards his international views. Evaluation The Kolko’s argument is more narrow than others as he claims that the motives behind the Marshall plan were purely of economic self-interest as the US wanted to “secure their own immediate gains”. This already strays Kolko’s argument away from those of Rees and Yergin who have more diverse views on the motives such as humanitarian and political. Kolko’s particular focus economically for the basis of his argument is on the self-interests of the American government and particularly the dollar crisis which at the time was viewed as critical for the condition of the world economy. Similarly, to add support to Kolko’s specific argument McCormick too comments on the importance of it, that “the dollar gap situation provoked” the plan. Therefore, Kolko’s argument does highlight the important motive that economic factors, such as the dollar crisis, had on the introduction of the Marshall plan. This argument is further developed as Europe was undoubtedly in a financial crisis with money being the short term requirement by many European countries. This is seen as Britain was already using up the $3.75bn Anglo-American loan given in 1945 which was meant to last till 1951 and “designed to get England back on its feet”, which it didn’t. Emphasizing the need for the Marshall plan. Overall, the Kolko’s were right to say that Europe was desperate and that the Americans exploited this for their own selfish reasons. Michael J Hogan provides a supporting argument to this in that US integration into Europe was key for European economic recovery and was essential for the long term interests of the USA, “The Marshall plan rested squarely on an American conviction that European economic recovery was essential to the long term interests of the United States.”. Hogan’s approach somewhat validates Kolko in implementing the importance that the economics had behind the Marshall plan. But also backs up Kolko’s argument of economic self-interest. Hogan says American policy makers saw “economic integration as the best way to achieve the interrelated economic, political, and strategic goals on their agenda”. Kolko’s anti-capitalist views are one reason why he fails to mention communism as a motive for the Marshall Plan, weakening his argument. Kolko appears to overlook communism as a factor despite taking interest in “the direction of the world economy”, which would indicate a concern of communism influence. Hogan who has a similar economic argument does comment on a communism motive behind the Marshall plan, which provides his argument with more depth and therefore a more balanced piece then Kolko. Hogan argues “American officials saw Marshall’s plan as a way to break soviet influence in Eastern Europe”. I agree that the lack of economic stability could strengthen communist parties, as in France the communist party was the strongest politically, winning 25% of the votes that year. To further maintenance this Hogan says “This level of expenditure was necessary to avert ‘economic, social, and political’ chaos in Europe, (and) contain communism”. This argument is stronger than Kolko as its undeniable that economic motives were important as clearly Europe needed the money however the communist ideology was an underlying fear as it would have had the influence over the direction of world trade and economics as a whole in the long term. This subsequently shows Kolko is wrong to say it’s all down to economics. Truman introduced the Truman doctrine only a year before the Marshall plan. I would argue that this clearly shows Truman’s stance on communism and that it’s at the for-front of his policies. In the New York, St Patrick’s day address on 17 March 1948 while discussing the Marshall plan Truman is quoted saying,

“So long as democracy is threatened in the world, and during the period in which the free nations of Europe are regaining their strength, this country must remain strong in order to give support to those countries of Europe whose freedom is endangered… It (communism) is tyranny against freedom.”

I therefore find it hard to agree with Kolko that economics, despite being important, was the only motive. David Rees provides a compelling argument for the introduction of the Marshall plan, due to the breath of motives he includes. He offers two strands, a humanitarian aspect and protecting Europe from communist threat. This already is more convincing than Kolko as Rees gives a more diverse view of American politics, not just the economic self-interest that Kolko proposes. Rees’ strand articulating the motive behind the plan, containment of communism, is credible as he emphasizes the deep rooted ideological differences that had been shown between the US and the Soviets for years as key to the introduction of the Marshall plan. Rees’ citing of Potsdam, 1945 where he says “grave differences” were seen between the two powers can be validated by other sources, ‘’the United States government was initially hostile to the Soviet leaders for taking Russia out of World War I and was opposed to a state ideologically based on communism”. This shows that for years’ communism had been the wall between the two powers. Also, Rees citing of George Kennan, US diplomat “I still consider that containment is better than war… with regards to Russia”, gives convincing support towards his argument the Marshall plan was defensive. This argument provides strong evidence that communism was the most important motive as Rees says it was about “encouraging as far as possible the survival of free institutions”. This can be supported by the fact Truman’s foreign policy was about containing communism, the Truman Doctrine, which in turn lead to the Marshall plan as Europe “still reeling from the devastation wrought by World War II, might elect indigenous Communist governments that would orient their nations—politically, economically, and militarily—toward the Soviet Union.”. This shows that Rees was right to say defending Europe was the key factor because the fear of communism and it spreading was clearly rooted in American policy. John Gaddis, offers an argument that gives supporting evidence. Likewise, to Rees Gaddis argues that the Americans were defending Europe, he says the “Americans began to realize that a potentially hostile power was one again threatening Europe”. Gaddis validates this by saying “Stalin’s policy, was one of imperial expansion”. Gaddis provides sufficient support to Rees. These arguments provide evidence to show that communism was key and I specifically agree with Gaddis argument. “It’s difficult to see how a strategy of containment could have developed – with the Marshall plan as its centerpiece – had there been nothing to contain”. Therefore, Rees and Gaddis highlight the underlying motive of containment. The plan couldn’t have arisen without the initial doctrine of containment as it was this that spurred on the Marshall plan, in the fact that economic support was required to contain it. Rees says that without the Marshall plan “the collapse of Western Eurasia seemed imminent”. David Rees provides a somewhat compelling argument for the introduction of the Marshall plan, due to the breath of motives he includes. He offers two strands, a humanitarian aspect and protecting Europe from communist threat. This already is more convincing than Kolko as Rees gives a more diverse view of American politics, not just the economic self-interest that Kolko proposes. Rees’ strand articulating the motive behind the plan, containment of communism, is credible as he emphasizes the deep rooted ideological differences that had been shown between the US and the Soviets for years as key to the introduction of the Marshall plan. Rees’ citing of Potsdam, 1945 where he says “grave differences” were seen between the two powers can be validated by other sources, ‘’the United States government was initially hostile to the Soviet leaders for taking Russia out of World War I and was opposed to a state ideologically based on communism”. This shows that for years’ communism had been the wall between the two powers. Also, Rees citing of George Kennan, US diplomat “I still consider that containment is better than war… with regards to Russia”, gives convincing support towards his argument the Marshall plan was defensive. This argument provides strong evidence that communism was the most important motive as Rees says it was about “encouraging as far as possible the survival of free institutions”. This can be supported by the fact Truman’s foreign policy, the Truman Doctrine, was about containing communism, which in turn lead to the Marshall plan as Europe “still reeling from the devastation wrought by World War II, might elect indigenous Communist governments that would orient their nations—politically, economically, and militarily—toward the Soviet Union.”. This shows that Rees was right to say defending Europe was the key factor because the fear of communism and it spreading was clearly rooted in American policy. John Gaddis, offers an argument that gives supporting evidence. Likewise, to Rees Gaddis argues that the Americans were defending Europe, he says the “Americans began to realize that a potentially hostile power was one again threatening Europe”. This is evident as Stalin was already beginning his consolidation of power throughout Western Europe between 1945-47 through rigged elections, for example Poland in 1947 violence was used and ant-communist parties were persecuted, with the Communists winning the election this gave the Soviets legitimacy to say that Poland was democratic. Gaddis validates this by saying “Stalin’s policy, was one of imperial expansion”. Gaddis provides sufficient support to Rees. These arguments provide evidence to show that communism was key and I specifically agree with Gaddis argument. “It’s difficult to see how a strategy of containment could have developed – with the Marshall plan as its centerpiece – had there been nothing to contain”. Therefore, Rees and Gaddis highlight the underlying motive of containment. The plan couldn’t have arisen without the initial doctrine of containment as it was this that spurred on the Marshall plan, in the fact that economic support was required to contain it. Rees says that without the Marshall plan “the collapse of Western Eurasia seemed imminent”. The second strand arguing the motive behind the plan was humanitarian, is less persuasive. He focusses more on portraying the US as a hero against communism the “tyranny”, with little evidence to support their motives were to specifically help the European people. Whilst this isn’t as far-fetched as Kolko saying it was all American self-interest. Rees argument is more substantial in saying the motive was protecting Europe from communism, not helping the people, “Most important of all, American power was still the ultimate guarantee of Western collective security”. On the other hand, despite Rees’ humanitarian argument not being that strong, I think that Nicolaus Mills provides a stronger argument for the motive on the grounds that he provides more evidence that the plan was introduced with the people of Europe in mind.

...(download the rest of the essay above)

About this essay:

If you use part of this page in your own work, you need to provide a citation, as follows:

Essay Sauce, The Marshall plan . Available from:<https://www.essaysauce.com/history-essays/the-marshall-plan/> [Accessed 16-03-24].

These History essays have been submitted to us by students in order to help you with your studies.

* This essay may have been previously published on Essay.uk.com at an earlier date.

Essay Categories:

  • Accounting essays
  • Architecture essays
  • Business essays
  • Computer science essays
  • Criminology essays
  • Economics essays
  • Education essays
  • Engineering essays
  • English language essays
  • Environmental studies essays
  • Essay examples
  • Finance essays
  • Geography essays
  • Health essays
  • History essays
  • Hospitality and tourism essays
  • Human rights essays
  • Information technology essays
  • International relations
  • Leadership essays
  • Linguistics essays
  • Literature essays
  • Management essays
  • Marketing essays
  • Mathematics essays
  • Media essays
  • Medicine essays
  • Military essays
  • Miscellaneous essays
  • Music Essays
  • Nursing essays
  • Philosophy essays
  • Photography and arts essays
  • Politics essays
  • Project management essays
  • Psychology essays
  • Religious studies and theology essays
  • Sample essays
  • Science essays
  • Social work essays
  • Sociology essays
  • Sports essays
  • Types of essay
  • Zoology essays

Privacy Overview

Milestone Documents

National Archives Logo

Marshall Plan (1948)

refer to caption

Citation: Act of April 3, 1948, European Recovery Act [Marshall Plan]; Enrolled Acts and Resolutions of Congress, 1789-1996; General Records of the United States Government; Record Group 11; National Archives.

View All Pages in the National Archives Catalog

View Transcript

On April 3, 1948, President Truman signed the Economic Recovery Act of 1948. It became known as the Marshall Plan, named for Secretary of State George Marshall, who in 1947 proposed that the United States provide economic assistance to restore the economic infrastructure of postwar Europe.

When World War II ended in 1945, Europe lay in ruins: its cities were shattered; its economies were devastated; its people faced famine. In the two years after the war, the Soviet Union’s control of Eastern Europe and the vulnerability of Western European countries to Soviet expansionism heightened the sense of crisis.

To meet this emergency, Secretary of State George Marshall proposed in a speech at Harvard University on June 5, 1947, that European nations create a plan for their economic reconstruction and that the United States provide economic assistance.

On December 19, 1947, President Harry Truman sent Congress a message that followed Marshall’s ideas to provide economic aid to Europe. Congress overwhelmingly passed the Economic Cooperation Act of 1948, and on April 3, 1948, President Truman signed the act that became known as the Marshall Plan.

Over the next four years, Congress appropriated $13.3 billion for European recovery. This aid provided much needed capital and materials that enabled Europeans to rebuild the continent’s economy.

For the United States, the Marshall Plan provided markets for American goods, created reliable trading partners, and supported the development of stable democratic governments in Western Europe. Congress’s approval of the Marshall Plan signaled an extension of the bipartisanship of World War II into the postwar years.

Teach with this document.

DocsTeach logo

Previous Document Next Document

Secretary of State George Marshall's Speech (the  transcript of the European Recovery Act/Marshall Plan follows)

I need not tell you gentlemen that the world situation is very serious. That must be apparent to all intelligent people. I think one difficulty is that the problem is one of such enormous complexity that the very mass of facts presented to the public by press and radio make it exceedingly difficult for the man in the street to reach a clear appraisement of the situation. Furthermore, the people of this country are distant from the troubled areas of the earth and it is hard for them to comprehend the plight and consequent reaction of the long-suffering peoples, and the effect of those reactions on their governments in connection with our efforts to promote peace in the world.

In considering the requirements for the rehabilitation of Europe the physical loss of life, the visible destruction of cities, factories, mines, and railroads was correctly estimated, but it has become obvious during recent months that this visible destruction was probably less serious than the dislocation of the entire fabric of European economy. For the past 10 years, conditions have been highly abnormal. The feverish maintenance of the war effort engulfed all aspects of national economics. Machinery has fallen into disrepair or is entirely obsolete. Under the arbitrary and destructive Nazi rule, virtually every possible enterprise was geared into the German war machine. Long-standing commercial ties, private institutions, banks, insurance companies, and shipping companies disappeared, through the loss of capital, absorption through nationalization, or by simple destruction. In many countries, confidence in the local currency has been severely shaken. The breakdown of the business structure of Europe during the war was complete. Recovery has been seriously retarded by the fact that 2 years after the close of hostilities a peace settlement with Germany and Austria has not been agreed upon. But even given a more prompt solution of these difficult problems, the rehabilitation of the economic structure of Europe quite evidently will require a much longer time and greater effort than had been foreseen.

There is a phase of this matter which is both interesting and serious. The farmer has always produced the foodstuffs to exchange with the city dweller for the other necessities of life. This division of labor is the basis of modern civilization. At the present time, it is threatened with breakdown. The town and city industries are not producing adequate goods to exchange with the food-producing farmer. Raw materials and fuel are in short supply. Machinery is lacking or worn out. The farmer or the peasant cannot find the goods for sale which he desires to purchase. So the sale of his farm produce for money which he cannot use seems to him unprofitable transaction. He, therefore, has withdrawn many fields from crop cultivation and is using them for grazing. He feeds more grain to stock and finds for himself and his family an ample supply of food, however short he may be on clothing and the other ordinary gadgets of civilization. Meanwhile, people in the cities are short of food and fuel. So the governments are forced to use their foreign money and credits to procure these necessities abroad. This process exhausts funds which are urgently needed for reconstruction. Thus a very serious situation is rapidly developing which bodes no good for the world. The modern system of the division of labor upon which the exchange of products is based is in danger of breaking down.

The truth of the matter is that Europe's requirements for the next 3 or 4 years of foreign food and other essential products -- principally from America -- are so much greater than her present ability to pay that she must have substantial additional help, or face economic, social, and political deterioration of a very grave character.

The remedy lies in breaking the vicious circle and restoring the confidence of the European people in the economic future of their own countries and of Europe as a whole. The manufacturer and the farmer throughout wide areas must be able and willing to exchange their products for currencies the continuing value of which is not open to question.

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 in the world, without which there can be no political stability and no assured peace. Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine but against hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos. Its purpose should be the revival of working economy in the world so as to permit the emergence of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist. Such assistance, I am convinced, must not be on a piecemeal basis as various crises develop. Any assistance that this Government may render in the future should provide a cure rather than a mere palliative. Any government that is willing to assist in the task of recovery will find full cooperation, I am sure, on the part of the United States Government. Any government which maneuvers to block the recovery of other countries cannot expect help from us. Furthermore, governments, political parties, or groups which seek to perpetuate human misery in order to profit therefrom politically or otherwise will encounter the opposition of the United States.

It is already evident that, before the United States Government can proceed much further in its efforts to alleviate the situation and help start the European world on its way to recovery, there must be some agreement among the countries of Europe as to the requirements of the situation and the part those countries themselves will take in order to give proper effect to whatever action might be undertaken by this Government. It would be neither fitting nor efficacious for this Government to undertake to draw up unilaterally a program designed to place Europe on its feet economically. This is the business of the Europeans. The initiative, I think, must come from Europe. The role of this country should consist of friendly aid in the drafting of a European program so far as it may be practical for us to do so. The program should be a joint one, agreed to by a number, if not all European nations.

An essential part of any successful action on the part of the United States is an understanding on the part of the people of America of the character of the problem and the remedies to be applied. Political passion and prejudice should have no part. With foresight, and a willingness on the part of our people to face up to the vast responsibilities which history has clearly placed upon our country, the difficulties I have outlined can and will be overcome.

Transcript of the European Recovery Act/Marshall Plan

Eightieth Congress of the United States of America At the Second Session

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the sixth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and forty-eight

An Act  To promote world peace and the general welfare, national interest, and foreign policy of the United States through economic-financial and other measures necessary to the maintenance of the conditions abroad in which free institutions may survive and consistent with the maintenance of the strength and stability of the United States.

Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "Foreign Assistance Act of 1948".

Sec. 101. This title may be cited as the "Economic Cooperation Act of 1948".

Findings and Declaration of Policy

Sec. 102. (a) Recognizing the intimate economic and other relationships between the United States and the nations of Europe, and recognizing that disruption following in the wake of war is not contained by national frontiers, the Congress finds that the existing situation in Europe endangers the establishment of a lasting peace, the general welfare and national interest of the United States, and the attainment of the objectives of the United Nations. The restoration or maintenance in European countries of principles of individual liberty, free institutions, and genuine independence rests largely upon the establishment of sound economic conditions, stable international economic relationships, and the achievement by the countries of Europe of a healthy economy independent of extraordinary outside assistance. The accomplishment of these objectives calls for a plan of European recovery, open to all such nations which cooperate in such plan, based upon a strong production effort, the expansion of foreign trade, the creation and maintenance of internal financial stability, and the development of economic cooperation, including all possible steps to establish and maintain equitable rates of exchange and to bring about the progressive elimination of trade barriers. Mindful of the advantages the United States has enjoyed through the existence of a large domestic market with no internal trade barriers and believing that similar advantages can accrue to the countries of Europe, it is declared to be the policy of the people of the United States to encourage these ... 

[pages omitted]

Economic Corporation, may deem necessary to carry out the purposes of this title and to improve commercial relations with China. 

Sec. 406. Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, the Reconstruction Finance Corporation is authorized and directed, until such time as an appropriation is made pursuant to section 404, to make advances, not to exceed in the aggregate $50,000,000, to carry out the provision of this title in such manner and in such amounts as the President shall determine. From appropriations authorized under section 404, there shall be repaid without interest to the Reconstruction Finance Corporation the advances made by it under the authority contained herein. No interest shall be charged on advances made by the Treasury to the Reconstruction Finance Corporation in implementation of this section. 

Sec. 407. (a) The Secretary of State, after consultation with the Administrator, is hereby authorized to conclude an agreement with China establishing a Joint Commission of Rural Reconstruction in China, to be composed of two citizens of the United States appointed by the President of the United States and three citizens of China appointed by the President of China. Such Commission shall, subject to the direction and control of the Administrator, formulate and carry out a program for reconstruction in rural areas of China, which shall include such research and training activities as may be necessary or appropriate for such reconstruction: Provided, That assistance furnished under this section shall not be construed as an express or implied assumption by the United States of any responsibility for making an further contributions to carry out the purposes of this section.

(b) Insofar as practicable, an amount equal to not more than 10 per centum of the funds made available under subsection (a) of section 404 shall be used to carry out the purposes of subsection (a) of this section. Such amount may be in United States dollars proceeds in Chinese currency from the sale of commodities made available to China with funds authorized under subsection (a) of section 404, or both.

[endorsements]

  • An Ordinary Man, His Extraordinary Journey
  • Hours/Admission
  • Nearby Dining and Lodging
  • Information
  • Library Collections
  • Online Collections
  • Photographs
  • Harry S. Truman Papers
  • Federal Records
  • Personal Papers
  • Appointment Calendar
  • Audiovisual Materials Collection
  • President Harry S. Truman's Cabinet
  • President Harry S. Truman's White House Staff
  • New Materials
  • Research Procedures
  • Collection Policy and Donating Materials
  • Truman Family Genealogy
  • Research Room Regulations
  • To Secure These Rights
  • Freedom to Serve
  • Events and Programs
  • Featured programs
  • Civics for All of US
  • Civil Rights Teacher Workshop
  • High School Trivia Contest
  • Teacher Lesson Plans
  • Truman Library Teacher Conference 2024
  • National History Day
  • Student Resources
  • Truman Library Teachers Conference
  • Truman Presidential Inquiries
  • Student Research File
  • The Truman Footlocker Project
  • Truman Trivia
  • The White House Decision Center
  • Three Branches of Government
  • Electing Our Presidents Teacher Workshop
  • National History Day Workshops from the National Archives
  • Research grants
  • Truman Library History
  • Contact Staff
  • Volunteer Program
  • Internships
  • Educational Resources

Marshall Plan: Convince the American People

This lesson plan requires the classroom to be divided into proponents and opponents to the Marshall Plan.  Using primary documents from the Truman Library website https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/library/online-collections/truman-marshall-plan , the proponents will create a persuasive speech trying to convince a skeptical American public to support the measures of rebuilding war-torn Europe.  The opponents will use general arguments against the plan to formulate questions to ask the proponents after their speeches.  After presentations, students will construct an essay detailing both sides of the arguments and ultimately taking a side in the debate.

Basic skills are required for college and career readiness.  Of these, oral expression and supporting opinions with facts are keys to success.  This assignment allows students to develop these skills and acquire knowledge of the Marshall Plan.

  • Identify the main arguments for and against the Marshall Plan
  • Analyze primary sources related to the Marshall Plan
  • Construct arguments to defend or refute the Marshall Plan
  • AP-8  Describe and evaluate the evolution of United States domestic and foreign policies, including: Cold War
  • AP-11  Examine all of the wars of the twentieth century (i.e., World War I and II), including: causes, comparisons, consequences and peace efforts
  • AP-15  Determine the economic consequences of personal and public decisions
  • AP-17  Explain the United States role in the global economy and of the roles of trade, treaties, international organizations and comparative advantage in the global economy
  • 1.  Cite strong and thorough textual evidence to support analysis of what the text

says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text, including determining

where the text leaves matters uncertain.

  • 1. Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts,

using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence

  • a.  Introduce precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establish the significance of the

claim(s), distinguish the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and

create an organization that logically sequences claim(s), counterclaims,

reasons, and evidence.

  • b. Develop claim(s) and counterclaims fairly and thoroughly, supplying the

most relevant evidence for each while pointing out the strengths and

limitations of both in a manner that anticipates the audience’s knowledge

level, concerns, values, and possible biases.

  • 4.  Produce clear and coherent writing in which the development, organization,

and style are appropriate to task, purpose, and audience. (Grade-specific

expectations for writing types are defined in standards 1–3 above.)

  • 4.  Present information, findings, and supporting evidence, conveying a clear

and distinct perspective, such that listeners can follow the line of reasoning,

alternative or opposing perspectives are addressed, and the organization,

development, substance, and style are appropriate to purpose, audience, and a

range of formal and informal tasks.

  • Nation of Nations
  • Nick Cullather, Indiana University.  “CIA and the Marshall Plan:  The Paradoxes of Liberal Anti-Communism”.  Presented at Ninth Annual Truman Library Teachers Conference.  The Legacy of the Marshall Plan.  July 9-13, 2012
  • “Who is the Man Against the Marshall Plan?”, Committee for the Marshall Plan to Aid European Recovery.  Harry S. Truman Library and Museum, The Legacy of the Marshall Plan. Marshall Plan, p.25.
  • Speech by Dean Acheson, "The Requirements of Reconstruction", May 8, 1947 
  • Development of Foreign Reconstruction Policy, March-July 1947, ca. September 1947  
  • "The Immediate Need for Emergency Aid to Europe", September 29, 1947  
  • Report, "German Agricultural and Food Requirements", February 26, 1947  
  • Correspondence between Ray Moseley and Harry S. Truman, November 26, 1947  
  • https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/library/online-collections/truman-marshall-plan
  • https://www.marshallfoundation.org/marshall/the-marshall-plan/
  • Start Activity – Display the following quick writing prompt so all students can see, “What would be the advantages and disadvantages of rebuilding a country we have defeated in war?”  Discuss the student answers to get a preview of the pros and cons of this issue.
  • Provide the necessary background information necessary for students to have a basic knowledge of the Marshall Plan.
  • Divide the class into 2 groups.  Assign one group to research arguments supporting the Marshall Plan and the other group to develop arguments against the Marshall Plan.
  • Provide students with a packet of the following primary documents from these websites https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/library/online-collections/truman-marshall-plan https://www.marshallfoundation.org/marshall/the-marshall-plan/ https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/library/online-collections/truman-doctrine
  • Provide time for student groups to analyze the primary documents and review the secondary sources.  Assign the remaining analyses to be done at home.  Instruct students to bring to class any questions they have about the documents the next day.
  • Provide time for the student groups to develop arguments, speeches, and questions for the opposing side.  It is the teacher’s option whether to provide time to revise student speeches.
  • Present the speeches in favor of the Marshall Plan.  After each speech, allow students that are part of the opposing side to ask questions or present arguments against the Marshall Plan.

As a capstone, students will write a persuasive essay on whether to accept or reject the Marshall Plan

http://rubistar.4teachers.org/index.php

  • About George C. Marshall
  • The Marshall Plan
  • Foreign Assistance Act
  • Essays & Speeches
  • Pogue Interviews
  • Film & Videos
  • Bibliography
  • Search Collections
  • Featured Collections
  • Library Frequently Asked Questions
  • Library Services
  • Marshall Scholars Program
  • Articles & Features
  • The Marshall Plan History Speech Foreign Assistance Act Resources
  • Timeline Essays & Speeches Pogue Interviews Film & Videos Bibliography Quotes
  • Collections
  • Marshall Foundation Scholars

June 1, 2022

The 75th Anniversary of the Marshall Plan Speech

"our policy is directed against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos.".

As the situation in Europe grew more dire during the spring of 1947, Secretary of State George Marshall knew that he needed to begin the process of helping the people of Europe in a very organized and long-lasting way soon.

the marshall plan essay

Secretary of State George Marshall in his office, May 1947. Harris & Ewing photo.

Harvard University had offered Marshall an honorary degree in 1945, 1946, and earlier in 1947. Marshall had replied to the 1947 offer it was “impossible for me at the present time to give you a definite indication of whether or not I can be present” to accept the degree that year, as he had only been Secretary of State a few days.

The last week of May, Marshall decided that Harvard on June 5 would be a good time to introduce the topic of a plan to help the people of Europe and enable European countries to become part of the world economy again.

On May 28, Marshall wrote a letter to Harvard University President James Conant, “I will not be able to make a formal address, but would be pleased to make a few remarks in appreciation of the honor and perhaps a little more.”

He then wrote a memorandum to Brig. Gen. Marshall Carter, his special assistant at the State Department, instructing him to “prepare a draft for a less than 10-minuted talk by me at Harvard. The substance of the talk might be reference to the extremely critical period through which we are passing. It is of tremendous importance that our people understand the situation in Europe, the plight of the people, their very natural reactions, and particularly the dominant character of the economic factors.”

Carter sent the State Department Policy Planning Staff report from May and some other information to Chip Bohlen, Soviet expert at the State Department who worked with Marshall on many speeches. Marshall also sent a request for a draft to George Kennan, head of the Policy Planning Staff and then wrote one himself. After a number of meetings held in the next few days, the “end result was very much a combination of all three,” noted Marshall.

the marshall plan essay

Secretary of State George Marshall in the processional at Harvard on June 5, 1947. Photo courtesy of HUPSF Commencement 1947. Harvard University Archives.

No one at the State Department, or President Truman, knew exactly what Marshall would say on June 5. Undersecretary of State Dean Acheson received a dictated copy of the speech by telephone so the necessary press release could be made. This release was not made in the normal double-spaced format for ease of quoting on the radio; it was single spaced, which was a tacit message to the press that it was unimportant.

the marshall plan essay

State Department Press Release for Secretary of State George Marshall’s speech at Harvard.

Marshall also wanted no press invited to his short talk. He did ask Acheson to notify the BBC to pay attention, as Marshall wanted the first response to his speech to come from some of the countries that would benefit from the ideas in his text.

the marshall plan essay

Secretary of State George Marshall’s reading copy of his speech.

At 2:50 p.m., Marshall began to speak. He said that the “rehabilitation of the economic structure of Europe quite evidently will require a much longer time and greater effort than had been foreseen.” He laid out the responsibility that the United States would have in this assistance: “The truth of the matter is that Europe’s requirements for the next three or four years of foreign food and other essential products – principally from America – are so much greater than her present ability to pay that she must have substantial additional help, or face economic, social and political deterioration of a very grave character.” The solution, he said, “lies in breaking the vicious circle and restoring the confidence of the European people in the economic future of their own countries and of Europe as a whole.”

Marshall stated that “our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos.” He said that help “must not be on a piece-meal basis as various crises develop.”

He pointed out that “it would be neither fitting or efficacious for our Government to undertake to draw up unilaterally a program designed to place Europe on its feet economically. This is a business of the Europeans. The initiative, I think, must come from Europe.”

He ended by explaining that “it is of vast importance that our people reach some general understanding of what the conditions really are, rather than react from a passion or prejudice or an emotion of the moment. We are remote from the scene of these troubles. And yet the whole world of the future hangs on a proper judgment. What is needed? What must be done?”

After speaking a short 12 minutes, Secretary of State George Marshall had changed the course of the world.

Before becoming director of library and archives at the George C. Marshall Foundation, Melissa was an academic librarian specializing in history. She and her husband, John, have three grown children, and live in Rockbridge County with three large rescue dogs. Melissa is known as the happiest librarian in the world! Keep up with her @MelissasLibrary.

The Marshall Plan History Essay

Introduction.

Bibliography

It is imperative to mention that the Marshall Plan is a program that was conducted in 1948 to address some of the issues that countries that have suffered had to deal with at that time, and the United States believed that an intervention is necessary. 1 Moreover, its role and impact are frequently discussed, and the fact that George Michael has received The Nobel Prize for his efforts also should not be overlooked. It is possible to state that the influence of this initiative is not as significant as many scholars suggest, and it cannot be viewed as the only reason European economies were able to recover. The amounts of money provided were relatively small if compared to the total value of goods in those countries at that time and some of the processes that took place were not considered.

It is necessary to understand that publicity has played a critical role in this case, and it has affected the opinions of the population. Moreover, the funds that were received did not even exceed five percent of GNP of those nations. Machado states that “two percent went a long way when used wisely and productively.” 2 In other words, the author of the book did not consider the importance of quantitative to justify the impact of this program.

Moreover, it is paramount to understand that the resources were spread among many countries, and such small funds may not be viewed as a force that has influenced economic growth. Also, it is important to note that the growth that has followed could not be caused by the Marshall Plan alone because the assistance was rather minor. The biggest problem that countries in Europe had to deal with at that time is that their economic policies were underdeveloped and had to be improved because they were not efficient. The issue is that the governments were used to systems that were established and were not ready to make any significant changes at that time.

Furthermore, economies of these countries were able to grow at rapid rates once such approaches as unreasonable control were eliminated. Financial stability and restoration of liberty were of utmost importance and had a positive impact on the economy. It is necessary to mention that the Marshall Plan could not have led to such processes. Also, many businesses have started to be much more confident and were willing to participate in activities that would help to rebuild countries after the war.

The importance of economic integration also should not be overlooked, and the collaboration was vital. Another aspect that is quite interesting is that the countries that have received the most support were not able to recover until assistance was reduced. Moreover, such countries as Italy and France have started to develop at rapid rates even before the introduction of the plan. The problem that many countries in Europe have to deal with at that time is that they were military-oriented, and it was not an easy task to get used to other approaches.

Carrol states that “Europe was steadily recovering by 1947 but that the United States needed to protect its economy from a return to the prolonged depression of the 1930s.” 3 Differently put, this approach could have been used as a way to deliver American products in Europe and establish a particular market dependency. The recovery of Germany is especially fascinating, and many view it as the best example of the effectiveness of the Marshall Plan.

However, the situation is quite similar in this case because the support that was offered was not significant, and was less than five percent of GNP. Another aspect that should not be overlooked is that the economy of the country had to suffer because of such factors as reparations and occupation costs. Furthermore, it must be noted that the policies of the United States have hurt the country. The problem is that approaches that were used by Germany were not efficient and had to be changed. The pressure of Allies was enormous, and it was not an easy task to recover the economy because the country had to deal with such issues as increased taxes and had problems with foreign trade. Moreover, the approach that was used by Ludwig Erhard, a German politician was incredibly efficient and has helped the country to get a better understanding of what needs to be done to recover the economy. He criticized the Plan because he viewed it as incredibly bureaucratic. Also, he was able to ensure that a planning initiative that could have been extremely problematic is avoided. 4

A free market and reasonable monetary policies should be viewed as primary factors that have led to the development of the country. Also, it is necessary to mention that these processes have started before the Marshall Plan, and economic growth that has been shown was simply enormous. Another aspect that should not be disregarded is that the economy of Belgium was stable, and it has resisted some of the issues that other European countries had to deal with at that time. Moreover, the state had offered credits to others. Also, it is believed that Belgium was one of the first countries that have dealt with the crisis and were able to recover successfully.

It is necessary to understand that this approach was in the interest of the United States because it has helped to build valuable relationships with many countries. The threat of the USSR was viewed as a significant issue that should be addressed, and a military alliance had to be established. Also, another problem that needs to be discussed is that the evidence that is available may not be viewed as sufficient. Moreover, Alvarez-Cuadrado and Pintea mention that “the Plan contributes to no more than one-fourth of a percentage point of additional growth per year between 1948 and 1951.” 5 Moreover, the author suggests that some of the claims that are made are not backed up by statistics and data was not analyzed. Also, it is noted that the impact on private investments was also not significant, and they have increased only by one percent.

It is imperative to mention that such information is fascinating, and it is entirely possible that European countries would be capable of demonstrating similar growth even without the Plan. On the other hand, the way that ERP has affected political economies also should not be overlooked, and it would not be an easy task to predict what processes would be introduced without an anti-communist perspective. Also, it is necessary to note that growth strategies that the dissimilarity between growth strategies that were adopted by different countries is quite significant. However, it is entirely possible that the period of war may be viewed as an interruption, and free markets would develop even without the support that was offered.

On the other hand, many other positive aspects also should not be overlooked. For instance, some scholars think that the process would take much longer if the support and assistance were not offered. Also, it is important to understand that the United States did not only provide financial aid, and the provision of food and other vital resources also should not be overlooked. Also, it is necessary to mention that the military capabilities of Europe have also increased significantly, and it has an enormous impact on the economy in most cases. Moreover, it is paramount to understand that tremendous amounts of investments were quite important. However, it can be seen that many regions were able to recover without any support, and this aspect needs to be taken into account.

The problem is that it is entirely possible that a significant percentage of those funds were used to support other activities. For instance, communist parties were forced to leave the governments in such countries as Italy and France, and it is possible to state that there were other motives besides the support of economies. 6 Also, many scholars suggest that the impact of new economic approaches was vital and was much more important than financial aid. However, it can be seen that the situation was not the same in many countries. Sorensen and Rudiger state that “American involvement was limited to encourage those political and economic forces best suited to undertake and implement the Plan’s policies.” 7 Furthermore, the strength of the political spectrum should not be disregarded, and it is a factor that needs to be considered in such cases.

Also, it is important to note that tariffs and quotas were especially problematic and could have been addressed to promote free trade. Also, the import from European countries has been reduced in later years, and it may be viewed as a particular contradiction because it was stated that the primary objective of this program was to increase European prosperity. Another core aspect that should not be overlooked is that some think that the initiative has hurt the economy of the United States because several barriers were present. Moreover, it is necessary to note that the situation in Europe at that time was unique, and the Marshall Plan should not be regarded as the most efficient approach in such cases.

In conclusion, it is imperative to note that it is evident that the impact of the Marshall Plan is frequently exaggerated. The reasoning behind this statement is that such amounts of money were not sufficient to cause such dramatic changes. Also, it is believed that many countries were on the way to recovery before the introduction of the initiative. Moreover, Germany was hurt by most policies, but it has shown enormous progress.

It may not be an easy task to take all the aspects into consideration to determine an actual impact that ERP had on the economies. However, it is evident that it may not be viewed as the only reason European countries were able to recover, and numerous pieces of evidence may be listed to support this perspective. The impact on the political economy also may be hard to evaluate, but it is important to understand that most policies at that time were already well-developed. Moreover, the level of understanding of free markets was critical, and most had experience in this area. Overall, it is necessary to understand that the government was capable of using resources that were provided to ensure that recovery processes that have started after the war are prolonged.

Agnew, John, and Nicholas J. Entrikin. The Marshall Plan Today: Model and Metaphor . Abingdon, UK: Psychology Press, 2004.

Alvarez-Cuadrado, Francisco, and Mihaela A. Pintea. “A Quantitative Exploration of the Golden Age of European Growth.” Working Paper, Florida International University, 2008.

Carroll, Francis M. “Ireland and the Marshall Plan, 1947-57 (Review).” New Hibernia Review 1 (2002): 149–151.

Harman, Chris. A People’s History of the World: From the Stone Age to the New Millennium . New York, NY: Verso Books, 2008.

Machado, Barry F. In Search of a Usable Past: The Marshall Plan and Postwar Reconstruction Today. Lexington, VA: George C. Marshall Foundation, 2007.

Mierzejewski, Alfred C. Ludwig Erhard: A Biography. Columbia, SC: University of North Carolina Press, 2005.

Sorensen, Vibeke, and Mogens Rudiger. Denmark’s Social Democratic Government and the Marshall Plan 1947-1950 . Copenhagen, DK: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2001.

  • John Agnew and Nicholas J. Entrikin, The Marshall Plan Today: Model and Metaphor (Abingdon, UK: Psychology Press, 2004), 9.
  • Barry F. Machado, In Search of a Usable Past: The Marshall Plan and Postwar Reconstruction Today (Lexington, VA: George C. Marshall Foundation, 2007), 32.
  • Francis M. Carroll, “Ireland and the Marshall Plan, 1947-57 (Review),” New Hibernia Review 1 (2002): 150.
  • Alfred C. Mierzejewski, Ludwig Erhard: A Biography (Columbia, SC: University of North Carolina Press, 2005), 76.
  • Francisco Alvarez-Cuadrado and Mihaela A. Pintea, “A Quantitative Exploration of the Golden Age of European Growth” (Working Paper, Florida International University, 2008), 20.
  • Chris Harman, A People’s History of the World: From the Stone Age to the New Millennium (New York, NY: Verso Books, 2005), 76.
  • Vibeke Sorensen and Mogens Rudiger. Denmark’s Social Democratic Government and the Marshall Plan 1947-1950 (Copenhagen, DK: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2001), 83.
  • Chicago (A-D)
  • Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, July 10). The Marshall Plan History. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-marshall-plan-history/

"The Marshall Plan History." IvyPanda , 10 July 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/the-marshall-plan-history/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'The Marshall Plan History'. 10 July.

IvyPanda . 2020. "The Marshall Plan History." July 10, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-marshall-plan-history/.

1. IvyPanda . "The Marshall Plan History." July 10, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-marshall-plan-history/.

IvyPanda . "The Marshall Plan History." July 10, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-marshall-plan-history/.

  • Historical Political Event: The Marshall Plan
  • Alfred Marshall and His Contribution to Economics
  • Alfred Marshall's Economic Theories
  • "Principles of Economics" by Alfred Marshall
  • Lessons Learned From the History of the Marshall Plan About the Importance of the USA in the Process of European Integration
  • The Spirit of the Marshall Plan
  • Thurgood Marshall: Supreme Court of the United States
  • The Marshall Plan' Effects on Post WW2 Design
  • Kerry James Marshall's Painting "Better Homes Better Gardens"
  • The Nuclear Weapons Tests on the Marshall Islands
  • The Persian Constitutional Revolution Factors
  • The Emergence of the Bipolar World
  • Marriage and Politics in 3500 BC-1600 AD
  • Why European Economies Rose over the Eastern Ones?
  • The Renewal of Imperial Conflict

IMAGES

  1. The Marshall Plan Argumentative Essay (500 Words)

    the marshall plan essay

  2. The Marshall Plan Handout

    the marshall plan essay

  3. Marshall Plan Essay

    the marshall plan essay

  4. Marshall Plan Essay Sample

    the marshall plan essay

  5. 70 years ago, a Harvard Commencement speech outlined the Marshall Plan

    the marshall plan essay

  6. The Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan Essay

    the marshall plan essay

VIDEO

  1. Marshall Plan: Rebuilding Europe, Resisting Communism

  2. ¿Fue el PLAN MARSHALL un ENORME FRAUDE?

  3. YouTube El Plan Marshall Guerra Fría Cap 3 Part 1 5

  4. Marshall Plan 2024.02.25 @Boppers

COMMENTS

  1. Marshall Plan

    Marshall Plan, formally European Recovery Program (1948-51), U.S.-sponsored program advocated by Secretary of State George C. Marshall to rehabilitate the economies of 17 western and southern European countries in order to create stable conditions in which democratic institutions could survive.

  2. The Marshall Plan: Definition, Date & Cold War

    The Marshall Plan, also known as the European Recovery Program, was a U.S. program providing aid to Western Europe following the devastation of World War II. It was enacted in 1948 and provided ...

  3. PDF Background Essay: The Marshall Plan and the Cold War

    after the plan was put into action. Secretary of State George Marshall presented the plan at Harvard University in June 1947, and it was met with acceptance by military leaders and political advisers. Although the idea behind developing the Marshall Plan had good intentions of offering aid to people in postwar Europe, however, some

  4. The Marshall Plan

    The Marshall Plan. An essay by Hoover fellows Peter Duignan and the late Lewis H. Gann on the fiftieth anniversary of "the greatest voluntary transfer of resources from one country to another." Thursday, October 30, 1997 4 min read By: Peter J. Duignan, Lewis H. Gann,

  5. Marshall Plan

    The Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program, ERP) was an American initiative enacted in 1948 to provide foreign aid to Western Europe. The United States transferred $13.3 billion (equivalent to $173 billion in 2023) in economic recovery programs to Western European economies after the end of World War II.

  6. The Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan (article)

    His policy of containment is known as the Truman Doctrine. The Truman Doctrine demonstrated that the United States would not return to isolationism after World War II, but rather take an active role in world affairs. To help rebuild after the war, the United States pledged $13 billion of aid to Europe in the Marshall Plan.

  7. PDF The Marshall Plan: Design, Accomplishments, and Significance

    The Marshall Plan: Design, Accomplishments, and Historic Significance Congressional Research Service 2 Formulation of the Marshall Plan The Marshall Plan was proposed in a speech by Secretary of State George Marshall at Harvard University on June 5, 1947, in response to the critical political, social, and economic conditions in

  8. The Marshall Plan and the Cold War

    The Marshall Plan was estimated to cost the United States approximately $22 billion, but it was later scaled down to cost $13 billion after the plan was put into action. ... Cold War Timeline - History on the Net website (see Background Essay) Handouts. Marshall Plan Background Information (opens in a new window) Marshall Plan Documents to ...

  9. For European Recovery: The Fiftieth Anniversary of the Marshall Plan

    For his efforts in reviving Europe, Marshall won the 1953 Nobel Peace Prize, the first professional soldier to receive it. Over the four-years during which the Marshall Plan was formally in operation, Congress appropriated $13.3 billion for European recovery.

  10. The Marshall Plan

    The Marshall Plan. In 1947, Secretary of State George C. Marshall grew increasingly concerned about the situation in Europe. He assembled a team of experts to develop ideas for helping European nations recover from World War II. The recovery was to be funded by the U.S., and it helped save western Europe.

  11. The Marshall Plan

    The Marshall Plan was another name for the European Recovery Plan (ERP). The ERP was an extensive aid program for post-war Europe, approved by Harry Truman in 1947. 2. In the four-year period between 1947 and 1951, more than $13 billion of American aid was advanced to European nations for post-war reconstruction. 3.

  12. The Marshall plan

    This page of the essay has 3,584 words. Download the full version above. The Marshall plan was a US program introduced to recover the Western European countries after WW2. The motives behind the plan come down to three broad strands that are economic, political and humanitarian. Each interpretation focuses on one or more of these aspects.

  13. Marshall Plan (1948)

    On April 3, 1948, President Truman signed the Economic Recovery Act of 1948. It became known as the Marshall Plan, named for Secretary of State George Marshall, who in 1947 proposed that the United States provide economic assistance to restore the economic infrastructure of postwar Europe. When World War II ended in 1945, Europe lay in ruins ...

  14. The Marshall Plan Speech: Rhetoric and Diplomacy

    The former includes a background essay, a textual analysis with close reading questions and responses, three interactive exercises, and an optional follow-up assignment. The first interactive exercise explores vocabulary in context; the second and third explore how Marshall deploys evidence. ... The Marshall Plan, officially known as the ...

  15. PDF Background Essay: The Marshall Plan and the Cold War

    after the plan was put into action. Secretary of State George Marshall presented the plan at Harvard University in June 1947, and it was met with acceptance by military leaders and political advisers. Although the idea behind developing the Marshall Plan had good intentions of offering aid to people in postwar Europe, however, some

  16. Marshall Plan: Convince the American People

    Present the speeches in favor of the Marshall Plan. After each speech, allow students that are part of the opposing side to ask questions or present arguments against the Marshall Plan. As a capstone, students will write a persuasive essay on whether to accept or reject the Marshall Plan

  17. History

    The Marshall Plan and Its Meaning. Ithaca, N.Y.:Cornell University Press, 1955. The first substantial evaluation of the Marshall Plan and its impact. The book was a part of the debate over the efficacy and level of U.S. foreign aid in the 1950s. Wexler, Imanuel. The Marshall Plan Revisited: The European Recovery Program in Economic Perspective.

  18. Study On The Marshall Plan

    The Marshall Plan, officially called the European Recovery Program, came into being on April 3, 1948. The United States Congress passed the new law and called it the Economic Cooperation Act, which outlined a great program of European aid. By the end of 1952 the Marshall Plan had grossed more than $13 billion in funds to rescue Europe and ...

  19. Essay On The Marshall Plan

    The Marshall plan was the plan named after George Marshall on June 5, 1947, to aid Western Europe after World War II. The winter of 1946-1947 brought intense suffering to the people of Western Europe and the only country economically healthy enough to help them was the United States. The U.S organized a convention on July 12, 1947, to announce ...

  20. The 75th Anniversary of the Marshall Plan Speech

    Secretary of State George Marshall's reading copy of his speech. At 2:50 p.m., Marshall began to speak. He said that the "rehabilitation of the economic structure of Europe quite evidently will require a much longer time and greater effort than had been foreseen.". He laid out the responsibility that the United States would have in this ...

  21. PDF The Marshall Plan Speech: Rhetoric and Diplomacy

    Text. Marshall Plan Speech, June 5, 1947, Harvard University (transcript. from recording) Background. The Marshall Plan, oficially known as the European Recovery Program, is generally considered one of, if not the, most successful American foreign policy initiative since World War II. Nonetheless, historians still debate its goals.

  22. The Marshall Plan History

    Introduction. It is imperative to mention that the Marshall Plan is a program that was conducted in 1948 to address some of the issues that countries that have suffered had to deal with at that time, and the United States believed that an intervention is necessary. 1 Moreover, its role and impact are frequently discussed, and the fact that George Michael has received The Nobel Prize for his ...

  23. Marshall Plan Essay

    The Marshall Plan Essay. The Marshall Plan First and foremost, a great deal of Europe's success would not have happened without its initial aid from the United States. After helping destroy so much of the continent, the U. pumped billions and billions of dollars back into the European economy through The Marshall Plan.

  24. 'The Making of a Leader' Review: George Marshall's Plan

    George C. Marshall (1880-1959), arguably the greatest soldier America has produced, was an enigmatic figure throughout his life. Famously tight-lipped, the general-statesman repressed all personal ...