What is your analysis of the argument put forth in The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan? What are the strengths and weaknesses of this thesis? Limit your responses to 2 pages MAX. There is an excellent site, http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/ , that includes video interviews with several key figures in Cold War politics. See in particular Episodes 2, 3 & 4.
Responses due Friday 5/2.
45 comments:
History is constantly an area open for debate and reassessment. In doing so, historians and civilians alike must review all old facts and include those new ones presented at the time of reassessment. In keeping with this statement, Michael Cox and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe created their article The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? : Rethinking the Marshall Plan. They wrote this article with the goal of rethinking the circumstances that contributed and led to the Cold War. Both writers believed it was crucial to take into account historians views that went against the traditional views about the Cold War and analyze new information that surfaced after the end of the Cold War from the Soviets. I strongly agree with the writer’s goal of the article. I believe it is imperative that we include all sides of the information. To exclude Soviet information or opinion would be doing a disservice to the situation. By studying how the Marshall Plan was viewed by the Soviets, we are able to create a more finite picture as to why the Cold War occurred and other circumstances that led to its beginnings. This being said, there are both strengths and weaknesses about this article. From my perspective, there are more strengths than weaknesses, but it must be taken into account what the writers could have improved upon.
The weaknesses of the article are few even though the article is open to harsher criticism since it is advancing the new opinions that have surfaced about the Cold War. Many historians, I am sure, would claim that the article did not include enough information about how the Marshall Plan was a defensive mechanism for the American government. This was the old view about the Cold War and many would think that the article was too biased since it didn’t contain much about the US side of the argument. Cox and Kennedy-Pipe’s article solely focuses on how the Marshall Plan was a threat to the Soviets but doesn’t explore much why the Marshall Plan was put into place. There was a communism scare at the time and Americans agreed the Marshall Plan was crucial. As stated in Marc Trachtenberg’s The Marshall Plan as Tragedy, a response to Cox and Kennedy-Pipe’s article, the writer’s have put the Cold War situation and circumstances leading to it into much too simple terms. “…the defensive goals of both sides and to interpret the conflict as a clash of essentially defensive policies” (136). Trachtenberg accuses Cox and Kennedy-Pipe of forgetting the US side of this Cold War in the previous quote. In essence, he is saying that they are not remembering the complexity of the situation by being so biased.
This being said, the article holds many strengths and allows future historians to continue analyzing the Cold War in a different light by presenting this new information. Overall, the largest strength was their primary goal, to present the world with further reasoning and speculation as to how and why the Cold War started in the first place. Cox and Kennedy-Pipe present information not just from the American side but from the Soviets. We are able to see how the Soviets were threatened by the Marshall Plan. They viewed this plan as an attack that may lure their Eastern European satellite states away from them. The article allows us to see that Stalin wouldn’t have wanted to create such a block against his Eastern European territory. It helps paint the Soviets as just another country trying accumulate power and in the process were confronted with a situation that threatened their ultimate goal. Cox and Kennedy-Pipe state that the Marshall Plan was seen as a completely negative action from Soviet perspective. Information that surfaced after the end of the Cold War points to the fact that Soviets were not unwilling to have friendly respect for US influence in Western Europe if they respected the influence they held over Eastern Europe. The Marshall Plan dissolved this willingness and therefore created the Cold War. This article humanizes the Soviet reactions rather than painting them negatively as previous views have. In the end, not only was their primary goal their largest success but their ability to challenge historians old views about the Cold War was another. They were able to justify not just pointing blame on the Soviets but distributing some of the blame to US policies such as the Marshall Plan.
The achievements of the article surpass those of the downfalls. Cox and Kennedy-Pipe have continued what keeps history alive by reshaping and reanalyzing events of our past and accurately present new information about the Cold War by showing us how the Soviets viewed the Marshall Plan.
In order to accurately portray and comprehend history, it can’t be looked at from only one perspective. To truly understand an event one must analyze the different points of view that could have been taken in that instance. After having said this, I believe that Michael Cox and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe wrote the article The Tragedy of American Diplomacy?: Rethinking the Marshall Plan to provide people with the Soviet Union’s perspective on the Marshall Plan, and to suggest different things that could have led to the Cold War. The two authors found it very important to include the Soviet view of the Marshall Plan and ideas from historians who did not believe in the accepted views on the Cold War. I think that Cox and Kennedy-Pipe did a great thing by showing us a different view of the Cold War. Although I think that this article is a very strong piece, it has both weaknesses and strengths that can be discussed.
The Tragedy of American Diplomacy?: Rethinking the Marshall Plan is most likely viewed by many as biased and unfair. Cox and Kennedy-Pipe’s article primarily centers around the idea that the Marshall Plan was a huge threat to the Soviet Union. Although this may have been true, since it was very possible for the satellite states to be easily lured in to taking the United States offer, the authors should have included information from both sides. With facts from both sides they would have been able to explain the incident more accurately. Instead Cox and Kennedy-Pipe disregarded many of the American justifications for implementing the Marshall Plan, which distorted the situation. The authors were trying to show a different perspective through this article, but it would have been more effective if they discussed both sides of the situation.
Cox and Kennedy-Pipe definitely achieved their goal through this article. They successfully presented new ideas on how and why the Cold War started that hadn’t really been explored before. I think it’s pretty easy to understand how the Soviet Union viewed the Marshall Plan as a negative thing, since they thought the U.S. was trying to threaten it by appealing to the satellite states. After the United States instated the Marshall Plan, any willingness of the Soviet Union to comply with and respect the U.S. was diminished since in the Soviet’s view, the U.S. did not respect them. Thus, the Cold War began. Through their article, Cox and Kennedy-Pipe were able to show that the U.S. did hold some responsibility for the Cold War and all the blame could not be laid on the Soviet Union. Ultimately this article successfully showed that the Soviet Union was just trying to protect itself and grow, like almost every other nation in the world.
Cox and Kennedy-Pipe did what many historians do, and analyzed a different perspective of history that allows us to better understand events. They successfully portrayed the Soviet view on the Cold War and the Marshall Plan.
Rethinking the Marshall plan, how about rethinking Caroline Kennedy and Michael Cox’s academic integrity!
By looking at my title you probably have already guessed my feeling on the assigned article. To say the least I thought it was utter drivel with testimonies obviously skewed to suit the anti-American sermons put forth by two people who seem better suited in another country. Having said that I plan to provide ample evidence to disprove the thesis of the aforementioned article in a succinct critique of the article, “The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan.”
The first weakness that I found in this article was of course the thesis in which the whole analysis is based on. Ignoring the fact that when the thesis was first introduced it was in the form of a citation to a academic that I had never heard of before, it was easy to spot the flaws of the statements that, ‘the cause of the cold war was not communist expansionalism but rather the result of US pursuit of an “Open Door” world where all countries and all peoples would have to sing from the same free enterprise hymn sheet printed in Washington—and those that [End Page 97] did not (including the Soviet Union) would be forced to suffer the consequences”(Kennedy – Cox pg 97). This was one of two common ideas expressed, the other was that there is some kind of conspiracy going on to suppress the collateral damage of the cold war, this idea is called revisionism.
To address the first segment of the thesis, it seems quite illogical that the historians writing this article happened to not see data clearly defining the foreign policy of the United States at this time. When researching the background of the Marshall plan in the ever popular wikipedia I stumbled upon this information “The Marshall Plan offered the same aid to Japan and its allies, if they would make political reforms and accept certain outside controls. However, the Soviet Union rejected this proposal with Vyacheslav Molotov describing the plan as dollar imperialism” For those who aren’t familiar with the term Dollar imperialism was a term coined by Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Molotov, the Soviet Foreign Minister at the start of the Cold War; it was used in reference to the American government's Marshall Plan. The Soviet Union believed that the Marshall Plan was being used by the United States in an attempt to create a 'sphere of influence' in Western Europe after World War II. In response the Soviet Union set up Comecon, which was a kind of Eastern Bloc equivalent to—but more geographically inclusive than—the European Economic Community. The military equivalent to the Comecon was the Warsaw Pact, though Comecon's membership was significantly wider. These accounts then totally disprove the ideas presented in the assigned reading. I don’t know where the idea that any countries (including the soviet union) refusing to cooperate with the brutal American world police would suffer consequences, was derived from the actual happening where the soviets simply flat out denied the Marshall plan and made the conscious choice to continue the consolidation of military forces. This type of buildup was the main protagonist for the entire event.
Last but not least I would like to address the idea behind the term revisionism. How can you be so critical of the accepted teachings of the events of the cold war? It is of course written by the experiences of all those in the US involved in the war. Just because there is not a wealth of information concerning the post cold war effects in Eastern Europe doesn’t mean we were undermining the wars importance. The United States has no motive to try to reshape the actual events. There is no concrete proof that it has happened before, and I was surprised to see the lack of references to other events such as the Chinese rape of Nanking and the batan death marches, which were true cases of revisionism. If King/Cox had cited those as prime examples of revisionism their thesis may have been partway believable.
In conclusion I agreed with absolutely none of the ideas put forth in the Analysis and found the two main ideas of, the US being land hungry imperialists, and conspiracies to downplay the significance of historic events, to be totally false. I would be so bold as to suggest that this tripe not be used again in the Modern European History curriculum for the year 2009.
History is a unique subject in that it is open for interpretations. Because of this, aspects of history, such as the Cold War, are constantly being debated and reassessed. The fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 rekindled Cold War debates because previously classified Soviet documents were released to the public. These new documents fuel the analysis that “The Tragedy of American Diplomacy: Rethinking the Marshall Plan” gives of the Soviet-US relationship and the Marshall Plan. Cox and Kennedy-Pipe use Soviet documents to show the Soviet perspective of the Cold War, one that was previously just inferred. The myth that the Cold War was a simple case of Soviet expansionism and American reaction is adequately disproved in the article. An understanding of the Soviet side is critical to fully comprehend the circumstances of the Cold War. Other arguments made in the article, however, are insufficiently supported and are easily disproved in Marc Trachtenberg’s “The Marshall Plan as Tragedy.” One such argument is the emphasis placed by Cox and Kennedy-Pipe on the United States’ desire to eliminate the influence of the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe.
Cox and Kennedy-Pipe create a thesis that hopes to look at the Cold War from the Soviet perspective and challenge the simplistic view of the war as a case of Soviet expansionism and American reaction. This thesis is well supported by many arguments made in the article. First, newly available documents show that the US was trying to break away from the USSR, while the Soviets were looking for a better relationship. As stated by George Elsey, an aide to President Truman in a CNN interview, “There was never any thought that the Soviets would join [the Marshall Plan].” Other high ranking US officials had similar feelings about the Soviet’s involvement in the Plan, detailed in the Kennedy-Cox article. They were pursuing a containment of Russia as opposed to any friendly relationship. While these ideas were forming in the US, the Soviets were making an effort to create a form of détente with the West. They hoped to have more of a relaxed and pleasant relationship with America. The United States, even after recognizing the lessening of Soviet aggression, did not waver on their stance of the containment of communism. This argument supports Cox and Kennedy-Pipe’s thesis very well because it disproves the simplistic view of the Cold War.
Amongst the strong arguments made by Cox and Kennedy-Pipe, there are weakly supported ideas that are easily refuted in Trachtenberg’s article. One of the main points made in the Cox-Kennedy article was the disparities in what each country wanted for the relationship, outlined above. This argument, however, contains a key weakness. The type of relationship that was being pursued by the Soviets was one that was purely economic, with no other strings attached. This type of relationship would have never been accepted by the United States, which undermines Cox and Kennedy-Pipe’s argument. Another weak argument made by Kennedy-Pipe and Cox is the American desire for a communist-free Eastern Europe. They argue that the US never accepted the loss of Eastern Europe, and did everything short of war to eliminate Communist influence in the region. As described by Trachtenberg, the US had little opposition to accepting the area as a Soviet sphere of influence.
Overall, the article does a great job of showing the Soviet side of the Cold War. The use of this principle, previously ignored, outweighs any weaknesses in the article. The authors accurately supply new information to the reader even though arguments made in the analysis may have been somewhat weak.
The argument put forth in the Tragedy of American Diplomacy?: Rethinking the Marshall Plan is very strong. It is an example of history at its best. This is not because I agree with everything in the article or that it was a great article. It is simply because this article represents what history is all about. History isn't just cut and dry facts, history is the way people analyze and interpret situations. Caroline Kennedy-Pipe and Michael Cox showed a whole other side of the Cold War that Americans rarely hear about. They analyzed the Soviet side, criticizing the United States. They did a good job because it forces you to look at two sides of history instead of just the American side. We gain more knowledge of the world through reading articles that show different points of view. The article posed new ideas and questions about the Cold War that I have never heard before.
The main strength of the article was representing the Soviets. Kennedy-Pipe and Cox's article shows the world that the Soviets solely viewed the Marshall Plan as an attack. It makes the Soviet Union look like a normal country trying to gain power. It shows that the Soviets were vulnerable and did see the Marshall Plan as a threat to their country. Normally, when we hear of the Cold War and the Soviets it seems like the Soviets were ruthless and evil. This article brings up the point that the Soviets could have just been acting this way as a response from the threat by the United States. The article not only shows the Soviet side, but it also criticizes the American side. It presents the idea that the real tragedy was in the U.S. not keeping the Open Door Policy going on for longer. It says that if the U.S had tried to keep the door open to Moscow longer instead of shutting it so abruptly, the intensity of the Cold War could have been decreased.
The article did also have a main weakness which was being bias in favor of the Soviets. In order for this article to be better, it could have talked about both the Soviet and U.S. opinions. It was okay that they judged America, but they also should have given background as to where the Marshall Plan was coming from and how Americans felt. The article describes the Soviet reaction to the Marshall Plan, but fails to address the background information. The article would have been much more successful if they further explained where the plan was coming from and what it was a result of.
The other article, The Marshall Plan as Tragedy by Trachtenberg is a great follow up to Kennedy-Pipe and Cox's article. This is because it explains the start of the Cold War. It says that the U.S. played a leading role in the Cold War because it never recognized Moscow's security needs. This point backs up the other article's belief on extending the Open Door Policy. Trachtenberg's article also brings up the fact that the U.S. cared more about bringing down Communism than helping to save Eastern Europe.
Given the strengths and weaknesses it is clear that Kennedy-Pipe and Cox successfully represented the Soviet Union. They did a great job analyzing the time period and drawing conclusions. They show another side of history.
Michael Cox and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe researched and found that historians have generated new evidence on the cause of the Cold War and come up with the conclusion that the United States should be blamed for the conflict that arose. The U.S. Open Door Policy was restricting all countries to adhere to United States rules or else there would be consequences. Since the Soviets were bringing communism to life in Europe, the United States would have to punish them. The article also brings up the point of the division of Europe. Cox and Kennedy-Pipe wrote about how Stalin least desired the division of Europe but other historians think differently. In his review, Marc Trachtenberg thought that the authors were saying that the Soviets wanted aid for the United States with no strings attached. If they wanted to cooperated, they would receive the aid, but not have to deal with the regulations of the Marshall Plan. Cox and Kennedy Pipe say that the way the Soviet leaders dealt with the United States is by cooperating and respecting the Soviets spheres of influence in Western Europe while the Soviets respect the United States influence. What Trachtenberg is saying is that the Soviets saw a divided Europe between the Soviets and the United States.
Personally, I don’t find closure out of this new argument Cox and Kennedy want to bring up. They say that the U.S. began conflict out of the communism crisis happening in Europe when they were just trying to help with millions of people starving and living in poverty because of the governmental and economic conditions. They criticized the Marshall Plan by saying it was “primarily defensive” (135) to Western Europe and not Eastern Europe. Maybe it was more partial to the West, but U.S. officials from this era have nothing but great things to say about the Marshall Plan and its achievements. Clark Clifford explained that Truman wanted to strengthen his historic allies to defeat communism from inside Europe, not just with America. He also adds that this time period, “was one of the proudest periods in the history of our country. Because in my opinion the United States under Truman's leadership saved the free world” (CNN.com) Theodore Geiger also makes a good point. He explains in Marshall’s speech that he commanded that it was Europe’s initiative to get together and decide what their needs are. They need to start to form the alliance and ask for the aid that they want. This being said, the Eastern countries most definitely could have asked for aid since they are part of the European continent, which Marshall urged to work together. Geiger also goes on to say that it was the Soviet’s idea to divide Europe with this plan since they didn’t participate. They wouldn’t cooperate if they had strings attached to U.S. regulations, so they didn’t act within the coalition of European countries who wanted aid, therefore making their supposed allies agree with them too. This split the West and the East and caused the division of Europe.
I’m sure Cox and Kennedy-Pipe have researched and studied way more than I ever have or will, but I think they were trying to blame the Cold War on America, when Truman and Marshall were only making decisions to help those who were suffering. The economic status of the European countries was rapidly deteriorating and someone needed to help. Britain backed out of Greece and Turkey so America stepped in with the Truman Doctrine, helping to maintain a stable area in both countries. They set up the Marshall Plan to aid all those who were suffering, and finally things started to get better. I think they have many valid points to take up in this article and they have researched everything quite thoroughly, and they did what all historians should do, which is reassess and rethink all aspects, but not all fingers should be pointed at America’s Open Door Policy.
To be biased is to be human- it is part of our nature to form an opinion as an independent person. However, all opinions are swayed by a number of things. A person’s home country, their upbringing, their heritage, their education, and many other things can influence whatever bias they may choose. In this sense, history too is very much like a human child. It is very hard for history to ride the middle line of neutrality- it is inevitable that it will be influenced by many outside forces. The victors in wars, the recorders of events, the countries and people from which information is available are all things which will cause history to be passed down with a bias.
Hence, the purpose of the article by Cox and Kennedy-Pipe is an honorable one. By the nature of the Cold War, its recorded history was bound to have a bias in favor of the United States. In the beginning, the United States had the primary control of recording the events as the world would be allowed to see them- and so, in their own view, all strikes against communism were heroic. In this view, which the article considered to be the older view, the Martial Plan was a defensive act for the United States. However, this was the view as created with only a certain selection of resources. This selection excluded a particularly important source. This is not the fault of the recorder- the source was not available to them. Yet, this source was important to history because it was the Soviet Union. In order to help history run the middle line of neutrality, it is imperative that there be resources from the major sides- nor matter whether they are the victors or the defeated. In the case of the Cold War, these major sides were the United States and the Soviet Union. The purpose of the article was to shed some light on the side of the Soviet Union, as from the materials that were not previously available. Their purpose was also their strong point- they achieved their goal of refuting the old opinion of the Martial Plan. However, Cox and Kennedy-Pipe were not immune to bias. They did not erase the bias of the old views, nor did they help history become more neutral, although they had plenty of information with the potential to do so. Cox and Kennedy-Pipe were not able to do this because their article itself was so completely biased in favor of the Soviet Union. This bias could have been eased had the article included more information about the previous opinion of the United States instituting the Marshall Plan defensively. Without a deep enough background included on this matter, the authors wrote as if they would wish to erase old views of the Marshall Plan and replace these views with solely their own; however, the authors needed to expand their own horizon of writing in order to effectively display the complexity of the Marshall Plan and its delicate balance in history upon a variety of views and a variety of sources.
Michael Cox and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe obvious had the clear intentions when writing the article "The Tragedy of American Diplomacy?". First, the authors tried to present a second side to the Marshall Plan during the Cold War. This view not only gives the readers a clear understanding of how the Soviets felt about the policy and the United States. Moreover, the article debunks the idea that the Cold War was just "a simple case of Soviet expansionism and American reaction." The article explains that the main purpose of the American implementation of the Marshall Plan was to prevent the Eastern European countries from falling deeper into the communist hole. The Soviets had initially tried to work closely with the United States to form a mutual relationship in which both countries can live without much tension but after the announcement of the Marshall Plan, the Soviets "reluctantly" continued with the Cold War. This article has some major strength in that it provided another side to this conflict and that it provide some solid evidence to support its thesis of the Soviets wanting to be nice to the US and the US only wanted to win over the Eastern Bloc Nations. Thus, it is this thesis that sheds light on the view that there may be more than just a simplistic view of the Cold War. However, these two authors' article does have some weakness in its arguments. One is that like some opinionated papers they fail to not only portray two sides fairly but also fail to portray the unspoken third side. This third side is the Eastern European nations the two authors failed to present the ideas and comments of the Eastern Bloc nations of how they felt about Soviet rule and the Marshall Plan. In addition, some of the article’s claims were had very little support, and later were disproved by Trachtenberg. Overall though the article was refreshing in the sense that it proves a clear and intriguing side to the Cold War crisis, the Soviet version. Though there maybe some issues they do not outweigh the main thesis provided by the two authors.
It’s unlikely that a wall as thick and nearly tangible as the ‘Iron Curtain’ was constructed by one man and from only one side soon after negotiations broke down after WWII. More likely, it took two to build the wall. Perhaps even more than that.
Michael Cox and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe’s written assessment of Soviet Actions after WII, ‘The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? : Rethinking the Marshall Plan’, puts forth the idea that the Soviet Union was simply another ideology and another power defending their own position from outside offenders. In this case, the particular threat was capitalism, exemplified by the potential ‘United States of Europe’ and the allies they were boosting in western Europe, namely France and Britain. While prior historians often labeled the Communist bloc as a negative and hostile presence reclusive to the positive effects of Capitalism, this article points out the often neglected other side: Stalin acted in reaction to what he viewed as imperialistic and dangerous motives of the United States. If this capitalistic, democratic power were accepted via the Marshall Plan, USSR was essentially admitting its inferiority of it submission to an ideology very different from socialist communism. The impending weakness it would infuse the country with was unfavorable, logically, for any nation trying to build power and prestige. I quote from the article: “However, as we shall attempt to argue, the way that U.S. aid was originally conceived under the Marshall Plan not only limited Soviet options but propelled the Soviet Union into a more antagonistic and hostile stance, including the establishment of its own economic and political bloc, for which it was then held exclusively responsible.” It takes two to build the wall. The USSR may have upheld their end of the barrier building, but the American stance may just have been the factor that eventually pushed both sides of the Cold War into many years of brutal static antagonism.
This outlook of events seems logically reasonable enough. The authors back it with evidence such as Peace Conferences that never seemed to work out, as well as the viewpoints and quotations of notable figures from both the west and east during the time. Certainly, it seemed that France and Britain and the rest of the western coalition had never much intended to let the USSR into the Marshall deal in the first place—even if Stalin had directly requested economic aid via the plan. There were so many prerequisites for eastern bloc nations to be eligible for the aid that it is plausible common sense and strategic diplomacy played as much into the rejection of the Marshall Plan as what the U.S. believed to be a feeling akin to enmity. The exemplary points of this article lie in the new perspective it provides and the rationale to back it. Anyone can guess at the malevolent will of Joseph Stalin behind his Iron Curtain. Strip away all the prior judgment and put yourself in his shoes. Would you have accepted an economic plan that carried bundles of stipulations made to bind countries whose ideals are seemingly hostile to your own nation’s existence? Put away the right and wrong. Would it have been smart?
Another strength besides the articles initial fresh outlook and reasonable ground backing it is the historical context it places all of Stalin’s actions in. While further analysis of the motives of the USSR during the war that led into the after could have given even better historical perspective, it is understandable that the authors devote the bulk of their explanation talking about ideology during peace talks near the end and after the war, as well as a comparison of Russia’s economic sector to that of America’s. Not only do politics play into the mix. Times also call for agricultural issues, and the health of a nation’s economy determines its overall stability. Incredibly ironic is the argument that perhaps Russia’s economy was facing problems far more severe than any predicted American recession. This seems to allow the audience the opportunity to ponder whether Americans have been a little too eager to jump to conclusions about their own problems and victimization when the perpetrators have never, ever been clear from the start.
The thesis is interesting and generally fine as is, providing adequate backing is behind it. Michael Cox and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe have to row upstream in defending their case as well as attacking an old assumption. To improve the argument, there could be general demand for statistics or such detailing the crises of the USSR in comparison of those with other European nations, especially those western ones which did accept the Marshall Plan. Just how much did Stalin need money and loans, from primary data? How much was he giving up and being stubborn in order to hold onto a piece of pride and logical reasoning? And how did his situation compare statistically to other nations in the eastern and western blocs? Of course, an abundance of this data may be wishful thinking on my part.
Overall, this article was insightfully written. The way in which the topic of the Cold War and the Marshall Plan was broached allowed readers to sneak into ‘enemy camps’ and see what the view may have looked like from there. Instead of believing the actions of the Soviets to be self-motivated, the idea that the Cold War may have been a phenomenon stemming from fearful reactions seems to be a slap in the face to U.S. policy.
I quote: “Faced with such an adversary, Stalin may have felt that he had little choice but to retreat into his political lair, draw in his security blanket in the shape of a newly created Communist Eastern
Europe, mobilize his external support…United States had more consistently pursued an Open Door strategy—the very strategy that the radical historian William Appleman Williams had always
insisted was the basic cause of the Cold War—it is possible that the East- West conºict might have been less intense or, perhaps, might have been avoided altogether. This surely was the real tragedy of American diplomacy in the year 1947”.
Then, we may have been the ones supporting the Cold War, and to a certain extent, purposefully…? The thesis presented by both authors seems to lead to this roundabout, or not so very, conclusion. As the article progresses and examples are brought to the table, this new thought definitely grows and succors strength.
The Tragedy of the Marshall Plan?
History is very special. It is one of those rare areas were even though you know occurrences definitely happened they can still be debated. They can be looked at in many different ways because historians aren’t the ones who lived through the events, they are the ones analyzing them and interpreting them. In this case with the Cold War people are obviously going to take one of two sides, either support the actions of the United States or the actions of the Soviet Union. There are many different ways to determine what the real reasons were for what went on in Europe and you must look at both sides of the story before you can decide which you agree with.
When Michael Cox and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe wrote the article "The Tragedy of American Diplomacy?" they were trying to validate an idea that was influenced by their feelings and thoughts. The article seems to push the idea that the Cold War wasn’t a case in which the Soviets wanted to expand in to Eastern Europe in due to that the Americans stepped in and reacted to the situation. It tries to say that the only reason that the Americans were involved in Europe was the instill the Marshall Plan so that they could in fact stop the Eastern European states from falling totally under control of the communists and Soviets. The Soviets felt that the Americans wanted complete influence over all of Europe, including the east, to help the states from becoming one hundred percent communist controlled.
The Soviets knew that the Americans already had influence in the west, so the was no reason to try to push for that but all the more reason for them to strongly try to gain dominance in the east. The article makes a good point when it says that the Americans were more in favor of a divided Europe than the Soviets were. But that wasn’t the only reason for wanting to put the Marshall Plan in to action. The nations in Europe needed to reestablish themselves and they weren’t going to be able to do that if right away another superpower comes breathing down their necks. The U.S. was merely looking out for the countries and helping the countries that were trying to get back on their feet. Although the division wasn’t the intention of the Americans it did work out better for them than it did for the Soviets. It stated in the article that although Stalin knew that the division of Europe was a strong possibility, it was the least desired. With the nations divided it would be much more difficult for the Soviets to gain influence of all the countries. The main issue that I disagree with in the article is the idea that the Marshall Plan was a way for the Americans to gain control of Europe, especially Eastern. The Soviets were so blinded by the idea that they wouldn’t be able to expand their walls that they figured any kind of American help was to down play the efforts of the Soviets, when in fact the Marshall Plan did much more the countries of Western Europe than it did for Eastern.
Overall, this is just another instance when history is beaten to death. Just as the men of the time fought, the historians battle it out to try to give the right interpretation of the past and in doing so they bring in their personal feelings in to the process. To truly analyze the past you must look at it for what is was at the time and not what it could be now. This article is two peoples idea of what happened and they have all the right to state their ideas because others will agree. It was written to try to understand the past it has allowed ones to see on part of that history.
The saying goes that hindsight is twenty-twenty. What never even occurred to the figures of the past seems so incredibly obvious to us. But perhaps it is this perfect vision that gives historians the most trouble. For with this hindsight, one issue ceases to have only one explanation, cause or logic. There are suddenly a million paths, reasons and consequences to explore, a thousand different angles and dimensions to one subject. In the end, though different historians accept different explanations as truth, history is based on individual perception as much as it is on facts. It is for this reason that “The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan” has come under so much controversy. It is exceptionally well-written, well-research and well-argued. The authors, Michael Cox and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe, cite supporting documents for every postulation; they explain and defend with surprising ease. “The central purpose of this article,” they say, “is to question the increasingly influential thesis that new evidence does indeed bear out old truths about the Cold War.” They refer to past studies on the subject; they quote experts and officials from both the Soviet Union and the United States—it is, in every way, a brilliant and convincing piece of writing. It does however, have a fatal mistake, one that perhaps has encourage such condemnation and criticism. In an effort to prove their point, the authors forgot that history does have many different perspectives and they refuse to make concessions to other perceptions of the issue. It is not so much that one expects them to support the other claims; this would defeat the purpose of a thesis paper. But good historians cannot so definitively dismiss the different views of others, since all of them bear truth. In hoping to disillusion the belief of “’a clear and unambiguous view of the Cold War’”, the authors merely replace that former, unequivocal belief with their own, and do not seem to accept the possibility that perhaps every opinion might have some accuracy. History is too expansive to be limited to one viewpoint, one thesis. For the purpose of writing a paper, Cox’s and Kennedy’s argument is perfect; for the purpose of writing history, however, it limits itself far too much. The past cannot be decapitated in such a manner.
We do not know whether or not Kennedy and Cox are ‘right’, so to speak. We will never know. Hindsight is supposedly twenty-twenty, but in many aspects, it is blind. “Rethinking the Marshall Plan” is a strong article, that will attract many supporters. But it will also encourage many critics, and perhaps this is right. If we all agreed that only one view of a situation was the only correct one, then we would lose something indefinable. The historical process is one of looking and reviewing, from many different perceptions. And out of each perception, there is born a different past—one that is as true as any other.
To fully understand history, especially the Cold War, we have to understand that a story needs to be examined from both sides. When Cox and Kennedy-Pipe wrote, “The Tragedy of American Diplomacy: Rethinking the Marshall Plan,” they wanted to make sure that people were aware of the Soviets’ side of the story. I agree that designing this thesis was essential, because nobody really knows how the Soviets truly felt. Instead, the Soviets are always depicted as our adversaries during the war and were always trying to harm the U.S. Thus, Cox and Kennedy-Pipe’s greatest strength was how they portrayed the Soviets’ perspective of the Marshall Plan. For once, the Soviets were not depicted in a negative light. Cox and Kennedy-Pipe’s thesis explained how the Soviets were trying to form a stronger, more amicable relationship with the U.S. However, while the Marshall Plan had good intentions in financially aiding Europe, it also was used as a defense mechanism by the U.S. to make the Soviets appear antagonistic. Throughout the Cox-Kennedy article, the two authors wanted to make sure that people recognized Soviets’ perspective of the Cold War before they formed their own opinion. Now, I realize the Soviets were more reluctant to the Marshall Plan, because the U.S. was threatening them by trying to appeal more to the satellite states. It was not that the Soviets disrespected American influence on Western Europe altogether, but rather how America was intolerant of Soviet influence (communism) on Europe. This is what started the Cold War. Without including Soviet opinion we would have a diluted interpretation of this historical account. People are now forced to look at the Cold War from both sides of the coin and really think about it.
While the Cox-Kennedy article did have strengths, there were weaknesses as well. While it was imperative to show the Soviets’ perspective, Cox and Kennedy-Pipe did not incorporate enough of the American perspective. There was very little information supporting the U.S. and their viewpoint regarding the Marshall Plan. What Cox and Kennedy-Pipe failed to recognize was that the creation of the Marshall Plan was crucial to Europe. Marc Trachtenberg’s “The Marshall Plan as Tragedy,” was a response to the Cox-Kennedy article, and he accuses them of being biased towards the Soviet opinion, because they failed to regard the American views and contributions.
Having said this, although Cox and Kennedy-Pipe didn’t mention as much information as they could have about the U.S., they did not completely eliminate U.S. opinions. Now historians can continue to study the Cold War in a new approach, and historians will think twice before making the Soviets out to be the antagonists of the Cold War. Old views regarding the Cold War will not be as significant as they once were, because they were so biased in supporting America. With the help of Kennedy-Pipe and Cox, we are capable of seeing why the Soviets felt threatened by the Marshall Plan and how they really did not want to create such a hostile relationship between the United States along with Western Europe. After the Cold War had come to an end, information was revealed about how the Soviets were not reluctant to American influence in Europe. With this being revealed Cox and Kennedy-Pipe had now proven themselves to other historians and challenged the old views of the Cold War. They managed to create a new understanding of the Cold War; one that did not entirely blame the Soviets, but gave a certain amount of fault to everyone, including the U.S., who is usually portrayed as the country who is innocently trying to ameliorate everything in the world.
Overall, I think that Cox and Kennedy-Pipe had more strengths than weaknesses in their article, because they successfully managed to analyze the Cold War and Marshall Plan from the Soviet side and made historians re-evaluate prior theories.
Cate Victory Euro 5
History is one of the forums most open to debate, simply because there are no complete recounts of any event that retell the event with all points of view given, all thoughts shown, and remains neutral throughout the piece. Michael Cox and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe had a goal when writing this piece of rethinking the circumstances that contributed and lead to the Cold War while making sure to portray both sides of the argument in order to not construct a one sided document. It is imperative that when recounting events in history that one remains neutral and unbiased. To interpret something one way without looking at it from another’s point of view would be irresponsible and any credibility that the research might have held would be diminished. Fortunately both Cox and Kennedy-Pipe were intelligent enough to understand the validity of the Soviet accounts and used them in their writing. Although most of the research that has been done by Americans on the Cold War has been relatively one sided, by taking into account historians points of views that were in direct contrast to what American’s have been taught, the credibility of this document has risen. By analyzing the new information that surfaced after the end of the Cold War from the Soviets a different and more complete story was formed, and I believe that the author’s purpose was well researched and represented in the essay.
In my opinion the essay was very strong and credible. The sources that were used to form the author’s conclusions were collected from both sides of the spectrum and it is clear at many points that even though Cox and Kennedy-Pipe did use quotes from certain pieces, it by no means implied that they held the same point of view. By remaining mostly neutral throughout the piece not only did their credibility rise, but the picture that was create was also much more complete than any one sided argument that had been made prior. Some historians refuse to believe certain ideas because they contradict what the were taught, but the authors understand and acknowledge that while it is important to remember what you have learned in the past, it is also important to be open to new ideas and new interoperations on the same events.
Although this piece was fair in interpretation, some argue that it did not portray enough of the American point of view. Essentially the old point of view was strongly biased and based upon American documents only, but with the new documents that were released the authors had a choice to remain biased on the topic, but chose not to, which drew criticism. Historians of the past have looked at the Marshal Plan as a defensive mechanism of the United States, which this piece of work fails to mention. Cox and Kennedy-Pipe’s article focuses solely on how the Marshall Plan was a threat to the Soviets and doesn’t even come close to writing as in depth about the fear that American’s had and the communism scare. One of the more important reasons that American’s agreed to the Marshall plan so whole-heartedly was due to the fact that they were all petrified of being attacked by the communists. While the Cox and Kennedy Pipe did discuss a large majority of the information available, there were certainly areas that needed further investigation and interpretation.
Overall I believe that the authors did an extremely good job in demonstrating the new ideas that spawned form the newly released information. They also kept a fairly neutral attitude throughout the piece while still managing to portray their own personal feelings. Without considering both points of view in a matter, one can never truly understand the past. Cox and Kennedy-Pipe knew this and successfully reinterpreted the situation that lead to the Cold War.
I feel the argument put forth by the readings is a very good one. They did a very good job at presenting new evidence that the people of that era were not “allowed” to know. In one reading it stated that now the people know too much information about the topic rather then just being able to piece together their own ideas from a few small facts. I don’t agree with this because the more evidence you have, the closer you will get to finding out the real truth and not what the government wants you to think.
One thing that I feel will make people less open to the ideas in the articles is that for many years now people have known certain ideas about the Cold War and the events surrounding it. This article puts some of the blame on others as well and some people might possibly be offended by that.
I did like that the article presented new ideas which some people may not have thought of, and could help nations in future times.
I thought it was good that the authors showed the war from a different perspective, rather then a very shallow minded one because this way you are actually able to piece the truth together.
One argument I feel you could make is that although the article does propose new and different ideas, it does not use very specific examples with proof to back it up. I think that had it done this, it would have made the article a more reliable source, and better proved its point.
The last thing that I feel is wrong with this article is that it clearly stated that it did not want to get into great detail about some of the topics. Well, if you don’t get into detail how can you truly explain them with providing all the facts. Even if it made the article much longer, it would be easier to accept the ideas in it if it includes all the facts.
History is facts from the past and therefore questioning what actually happens is going to lead to debate among others in the field. Michael Cox and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe question what caused the Cold War and if certain events didn’t occur Russia would not have been led to do all that occurred. They question whether or not the Cold War was actually “a simple case of Soviet expansionism and American reaction.” In fact the two authors believe that it was the Marshall Plan was as much as a cause than the Soviets’ actions that led to the division of Europe and of course then to the development of the Cold War.
Kennedy-Pipe and Cox believe that the United States antagonized the Soviet Union so much that they were driven to become more hostile. They question if the United State’s policy makers had a different approach the Cold War wouldn’t have happened. So all in all they are blaming the United States for starting the Cold War yet history’s facts shows us clearly that it was the Soviet Union’s fault. They believe that the Soviet Union became so paranoid the Western allies were trying to undermine the Soviet’s influence by taking advantage of the USSR’s weak economic control over the area and thus the western allies were trying to entice the eastern European countries.
Marc Trachtenberg states his qualms with the thesis of The Tragedy of American Diplomacy – Rethinking the Marshall Plan; he believes that the United States did not antagonize the Soviet Union and in thinking so would be wrong. He thinks that there is no way that the United States was trying to gain control of the East Europe because the United States was too weak to try to liberate the area.
Trachtenberg also believes that Kennedy-Pipe and Cox downplayed Stalin’s true intentions. He states that Stalin was not trying to just keep his country bound together but he was trying to take over all of Europe. He also did want to become friendly with the United States but only if was just economic support and no other strings attached.
Overall Trachtenberg believes that it is hard enough for a historian to study the past but when historians like Kennedy-Pipe and Cox try to judge what happens everything gets muddled. The Tragedy of American Diplomacy – Rethinking the Marshall Plan might be a well though out paper but in the end they just have too many holes in their ideas.
I feel that the argument put forth in “The Tragedy of American Dimplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan,” was accurate but placed a harsh critical view on the American decision to enact it. This policy did put the Soviets in a situation in which they did not have many options, and they tried to make the best decision for their safety when they rejected the plan. It was imperative that Stalin tighten his hold over Eastern Europe after the United States began supplying financial aid to the West because when the satellite states saw the prosperous West, the people would begin to want the same things. The Soviet Union did not have the supplies or money to undergo a similar policy in Eastern Europe. However, the satellite states were seen as a necessity to protect the Soviet Union and Stalin was forced to do everything in his power to retain them.
In this way the Marshall Plan indirectly caused the separation of Eastern and Western Europe, but I do not think it is correct for Cox and Kennedy-Pipe to place all the blame on the United States. The Americans did not force the Soviets to reject the policy; they simply made a situation in which it would be impossible for the Soviets to accept. It is true that the Marshall Plan was designed in a way which benefited the Americans, but an immense amount of money was donated to Europe that it would have been a mistake for the United States to lend so much in exchange for nothing. The authors of this article shine an extremely negative light on the decisions that were made in Washington regarding this plan, but I believe that the United States had legitimate reasons to enact it. It helped not only the economy of the United States, but also those of Western Europe. The plan was also put in place because it was believed that countries with more stable economies would be less prone to communism. The Marshall Plan was put in place during the Red Scare, so it calmed the people in the country. It also weakened the Soviet Union, who was the enemy of America at the time. The authors make it seem as though the sole purpose of the Marshall Plan was to hurt the Soviet Union, and it caused the blocs made between East and West, but there were other reasons that it was a beneficial policy.
After hearing the interviews from Clark Clifford and Vladimir Yerofeyev reveal that it really was in the best interest of the United States to put the Marshall Plan into action. They were fearful of the communist nations in Europe and felt that Churchill was correct when comparing the separation to an iron curtain. The United States wanted to aid the countries in the West from falling under this influence. The Soviet really did have little choice afterward, as explained by Vladimir Yerofeyev. Stalin wanted to keep good relations with the West but it would not be possible if they rejected the plan and kept tighter control of the countries in the East. However, they also knew they could not accept the plan with the demands of the United States. They made the only choice they could.
Overall, both Stalin and Truman made the best decisions they could for their countries. It is difficult to say if one in particular caused the Cold War because the absence of either decision may have resulted in different events. The Cold War occurred because of the choices each leader made, so it is not right to blame only one, as the authors of this article seemed to do. The thesis presented in the article did have accurate information and was supported by a plethora of evidence. However, I believe the United States played only a small part in the separation of Europe leading to the Cold War. The Soviet Union made the decision to keep the “iron curtain” strong after the Marshall Plan was put into action. The Soviet Union made the decision to reject the plan and place a tighter grip on its satellite nations, which also had an effect on the way history played out and should not be seen as insignificant.
Historical interpretation is not a simple process, nor is it an easy one. Along with profound psychoanalysis of historical figures and cognitive analysis of events, history much also be examined with empathy, the apex of historical analysis. One cannot correctly judge history, if favoritism, or any type of bias, or outstanding emotions contradicts logic and understanding. Thus, it is essential for historical events; especially conflicting events, at times, to be examined by both sides of conflict.
The Cold War, is the epitome of American conflict in the 1990s and is considered one of the most racially, and nationally biased conflict of American History. Where ever you go, Americans will blame the “Red Communists” for the conflict, while Russians would no doubt point their fingers at the capitalistic Yankee Doodles. Likewise, to completely understand the event, an all encompassing approach of balanced and equal examination of both sides must be taken. Specifically for the Cold War, documents that instills “The Tragedy of American Diplomacy: Rethinking the Marshall Plan”
In these documents, Cox and Keenedy Pipe finally brings Soviet perspective up to notch, by disproving the common conundrum and perennial dictum of “American Retaliation and Soviet Provocation” In this article, such arguments are not the case, for Cox and Kennedy both expresses Soviet fears of American expansion, and indeed felt an “aggression on the American side”.
To understand this argument, allow me to elucidate the goal and the effect of the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan was a plan of financial aid and conciliation to the war shattered European Nations from the United States, after World War II. Nations such as Britain, France, Soviet Union, and the Germans were devastated by the War, often having have to rebuild their entire infrastructure and economy. The Americans jumped at the opportunity, lending money to the Europeans to technically “help out “ the European nations. Such aim were, however, not the only ones. Obviously the chief importer and buyers of the American goods are the European Nations, thus allowing them to recover from the war meant additional financial gain for the American economy. Plus, by binding these powerful nations to America through debt and loans, Americans can in the end, get a stronger cause against the Soviets. Thus, American loan of money, also was meant for bait for small satellite states around Soviet Union, which in the end, provoked the Soviets to retaliate in such a harsh and isolationist way, covering the entire east sector of the Soviet Union in the all famous Iron Curtain.
Another evidence that supports Soviet passiveness during the Cold War was its initial attempt to create a solely economic relationship with the United States and create a détente to the west. Americans ignored such gestures however, and failed to acknowledge Soviet’s existence and etc.
These documents are indeed deep and analytical pieces of evidence supporting the Soviet side of the Story. Although obviously not without fault, the Soviet Union has been judged unfairly by the biased American Public and in the end, the Winner of the War. Perhaps the Term, “Winner Writes History” has overshadowed the truth of the Cold War.
The Cold War, and specifically the Marshall Plan, is a time period that is viewed with much controversy and debate. The argument put forth by Michael Cox and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe was that historians in the past have viewed the Cold War and the Soviet response incorrectly. To them, there is a considerable academic deficit in the world’s understanding of the Soviets and Eastern Europe. The central purpose of their article is to say that it was American policies and actions (perhaps more so than the Soviets), that led to the division of Europe and the Cold War, and that the Soviets responded as such. However some aspects of their argument are somewhat unsupported, and can be rebuffed by many different sources on the Cold War, noticeably by Marc Trachtenberg.
Probably Cox and Kennedy-Pipe’s strongest argument was about the Marshall Plan. The issue Cox and Kennedy-Pipe brought up was that Russia and the Russian controlled Eastern Europe were not able to receive this aid because of United States policy. They believe that they way this aid was devised under the Marshall Plan greatly limited Soviet options for economic relief, and in doing so the Soviet Union become hostile to the United States. They are able to strongly support that fact that after WWII, the Soviet Union was far less free to choose an economic course than America, because Russia had severe war debt while the United States economy was fairly dynamic. The idea that America is to be blamed for the Cold War does have some merit here. Russia had just lost 27 million people; there was widespread famine and nationalist insurgencies. Therefore the idea the United States was to blame for hostile relationships because of economic can be viewed as plausible.
However there are many weak areas to their arguments, namely the issue of Soviet security and the division of Europe. Cox and Kennedy-Pipe blame US policymakers on the division of Europe as opposed to Russia. Their main thesis here is that a division of Europe was probably the outcome least desired by Stalin. They justify this claim with the idea that Stalin was still committed to cooperation with the West because Russia would never be able to compete with America in the long run. Also they claim that there was a “security dilemma” and fear of US aggression. However Trachtenberg refutes this view. The issue of a fear of US aggression cannot be supported because he says the United States had little problem in accepting the Soviet sphere of influence, and points out the United States was relatively weak, not building up a massive army for a takeover of Russia. “The United States was much too weak to pursue a true rollback policy in the late 1940s; the U.S. government at the time even questioned its ability to keep Communist influence at bay on its side of the line of demarcation in
Europe.” (pg 3). The United States was even too weak to intervene on behalf of Italy to stop communism. Therefore the idea that Russia felt threatened by the United States is unwarranted.
The idea that Stalin was opposed to the division of Europe is also relatively unsupported. Trachtenberg claims that if the Soviets wanted aid to Eastern Europe with no strings attached, then they were already in the mindset of wanting a divided Europe. If the two sides were to avoid “undue interference in each others’ spheres of influence”, it can be interpreted that the Soviet government wanted two blocs in Europe, and this outcome was not least desired by Stalin. This is backed up by the CNN episode 2, where they state that comments made by Stalin alarmed the west; it wasn’t the west that alarmed Stalin in the beginnings of the Cold War. Stalin was on the offensive, not the defensive. Paul Nitze, in the episode states (of Stalin’s speech against capitalism), “"I read the speech with care and interpreted it as being a delayed declaration of war against the United States. There wasn't any doubt about it, if you read the text carefully, what he was talking about." Therefore it seems that Stalin’s way of thinking was already for a breaking off with the Western powers and a capitalist system for a communist sphere of influence.
The issue of who was responsible for the Cold War is more of interpretation of information than actual fact. However, Trachtenberg is able to refute most of the views defended by Cox and Kennedy-Pipe. While Cox and Kennedy-Pipe have an interesting point of view, it is, for the most part, unsupported by fact.
Michael Cox and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe make arguments that show an utterly new understanding of the Cold War. They reassess, or as they claim, “revise” the motives for the Cold War. Because history can be interpreted from so many differing viewpoints, one can have a completely opposing opinion from someone else on this issue, and there would never be a clear winner. In this situation, Cox and Kennedy-Pipe have a very unique viewpoint on the Cold War, and I disagree with it. I do not believe that they are wrong; I just believe that their statements have some flaws in them. However, the two authors also made some very good points.
To start off, their thesis was that the Marshall Plan was not a defensive act made by the US government but rather a belligerent move to stop communism in Eastern Europe. It is hard to believe that, after suffering devastating amounts of soldiers in World War 2, that a country would want another war. Looking back at the past two world wars, the US never provoked either of them, but instead fought to maintain good ties with Europe. After a second world war, clearly the US did not want another. The US wanted to keep its economy booming and wanted to revitalize Western Europe because the effects of the war were most evidently shown in Europe. Furthermore, they wanted to contain the communism that was spreading by aiding Western Europe, and not cause anger among the members of the USSR.
Furthermore, another weakness presented in this article was that it focused way too much on the Soviet perspective. It is true that their main focus of the article was to see how the Marshall Plan was indeed detrimental to the world, yet it never quite talked much about the US point of view. Instead it offered a very biased account, one that, at a quick glance of the article, seems unrealistic.
There are some positive aspects to the article by Cox and Kennedy-Pipe as well, though. For example, they presented the effects that the Marshall Plan brought upon the USSR very well. Many times when people learn about the Cold War, they tend to underestimate the fact that even though Americans suffered a possible threat on their lives, the Soviets did too. The two authors do an excellent job in defining the negative aspects that the Marshall Plan brought to the USSR.
One can certainly not be capable of comprehending or understanding history if viewed from minimal perspectives displayed by few historians. However, an individual can truly comprehend historical events through the study and analysis of diverse view points relating to events being investigated. The writings of both Michael Cox and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe within the article, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan certainly reflects the perspective of the Soviet Union regarding their view of the Marshall Plan. Both Cox and Kennedy-Pipe went on further to display the ideas of various other historians who did not accept or believe in certain views of the Cold War.
The article The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan certainly has both strength and weaknesses in many ways. The article may have certainly been viewed as a baised document due to many reasons. Initially, the article certainly circles around the idea of the Marshall Plan and it being a direct threat towards the Soviet Union. Though this argument may have certainly been accurate due to the attractive offer the United States made towards neighboring nations of the Soviet Union, both Cox and Kennedy-Pipe should have perhaps included more information from both the perspectives of the United States and the Soviet Union regarding this issue. Both authors overlooked American reasoning for the implementation of the Marshall plan which weakened the argument presented within the article due to the lack of perspectives displayed.
Although the authors of the article were determined to present a different perspective of the impact of the Marshall Plan, both Cox and Kennedy-Pipe could have certainly created a more effective argument if they displayed both sides of the situation regarding the Marshall Plan.
I certainly believe that both Cox and Kennedy-Pipe attained their objective through writing this article. Both expressed ideas on the Cold Wars outbreak from a different perspective that was certainly not investigated in the past. One can certainly comprehend the precise reason as to why the Soviet Union certainly disagreed with the Marshall Plan due to its negative impact upon Communist initiatives. The Soviets felt the Americans were attempting to threaten communism and the Soviet Union through influencing its satellite states. The Marshall Plan led to both the nations of Soviet Union and the United States towards the breaking of international relations and even further division amongst themselves upon certain issues. Thus leading to the outbreak of the Cold War, both Cox and Kennedy Pope were able to present and display the responsibility the United States held in causing the outbreak of the Cold War and that all the blame shouldn’t be placed upon the Soviet Union for various reasons.
In summation both Cox and Kennedy Pipe successfully proved that the Soviet Union was attempting to grow and establish itself like every other nation trying to recover after the conclusion World War II. Both Cox and Kennedy-Pipe effectively displayed the Soviet view on the Cold War and the Marshall Plan.
I think that Michael Cox and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe put forth a very persuasive argument in “The Tragedy of American Diplomacy?” They made some very valid points; however some of the issues they brought up I believe were incorrect.
In the article they say that “the new evidence might prove many things…but the one thing it does not do is provide us with a clear and unambiguous view of the Cold War” (Page 101). I think this was one of the weaker points they made. In saying this, it seemed to me that it discredited much of their future argument. How could they state that there is no clear way to view the Cold War and then go on to try to state their views on it as truth? They also went on to challenge many traditional views of the Marshall Plan and Cold War. “[The] deferential attitude toward the Marshall Plan and U.S. policy has meant that Cold War historians have merely been pouring fine new empirical wine into some fairly old conceptual bottles” (Page 103). In other wards, Cox and Kennedy-Pipe stated that although many new primary sources on the subject had been released for research use, historians tended to continue returning to the views seen previously. These two argued many of these, and to me they seemed fairly weak.
One traditional view that they challenged was to the extent that the Soviet desired the division of Europe. It has been traditionally thought that this was favorable to Moscow after the war. Cox and Kennedy-Pipe argued that it was actually the outcome he least desired. This is an outrageous statement to make. For one thing, as Marc Trachtenberg stated in a response to their article, the traditional view was not that the Soviets wanted a divided Europe, but that they wanted all of it. Stalin was not interested in merely being in charge of his piece of land, nor was he solely interested in good relations with the U.S. If this was the case the Cold War would have been avoided and the Soviet Union would have been much more likely to pursue the option of accepting itself into the Marshall Plan.
One strength I felt that the article had was in portraying the fact that there were numerous purposes for having the Marshall Plan. “The primary aim was to stabilize Western Europe through economic and political reconstruction and in so doing, to create a pan-national framework in which the West European countries could look forward to sustained growth, deeper cooperation, and an end to the nationalist conflicts that had so scarred the continent for the past century” (Page 109). While the primary aim of the U.S. was most likely one of an individual gain both economically and politically, the stabilization was certainly a main aim of the plan. It also was created to reduce the Communist influence throughout Europe. I felt that the points mad on this subject were made especially well.
All in all this article had some very strong points. However, I felt that that many of the arguments made throughout it were completely off from the truth.
In The Tragedy of American Diplomacy: Rethinking the Marshall Plan Michael Cox and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe discuss their view on the Marshall plan very well. They do a good job of discussing and supporting their argument. Cox and Kennedy-Pipe showed a different side of the Marshall Plan than the one that is usually discussed. They discussed the Cold War more in favor of the Soviets than Western Europe and the United States. They did a very good job with their argument, but they did have some weaknesses.
Cox and Kennedy-Pipe did a very good job with their argument. They used an opinion that was very different than ones that have been expressed before. Cox and Kennedy-Pipe discussed the Cold War and how the United States did contribute to the start of the Cold War. They argue about how the Marshall Plan was not just that of aid, because aid had already been given to Europe for around two years. The opinion that they discussed is unlike other opinions because it puts blame on the United States. They do successfully support and explain their argument.
A weakness that Cox and Kennedy-Pipe have in their article is that their argument is one that puts blame on the United States and puts the Soviet Union in a better light. They used evidence that supports mainly one side, the side that supports the soviets. The article describes mainly the Soviets reaction to the Marshall Plan. By using only evidence from one side it made their argument seem like it was missing something.
In The Tragedy of American Diplomacy: Rethinking the Marshall Plan, Michael Cox and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe did a good job of discussing the Soviets view and reaction of the Marshall Plan. They showed a different side of the Marshall Plan that many people have never thought of.
Throughout this year so far, it has been made evident that history within itself is subjective. There is not necessarily one interpretation of an event in history, because many people approach each part of history through his or her own unique perspective. Such subjectivity is clearly seen within the article “The Marshall Plan as Tragedy” in which Michael Cox and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe deviate from the orthodox way of perceiving the Cold War by devising their own thesis that harbors both strengths as well as weaknesses.
Cox and Kennedy present an argument that re-evaluates the American role in the division of Europe as well as the origins of the Cold War. According to them, it would be sophomoric to view the Marshall Plan only as a document passed simply to reconstruct the economies of a Europe greatly decimated from the Second World War. To them the Marshal Plan was more of an offensive act rather than a defensive act in that it was used to eradicate all Communist influence in Eastern Europe. But this argument does have its weaknesses as expressed by their top critic Marc Trachtenberg who rejects the notion that the U.S. was in actuality trying to rid Eastern Europe of Communist influence.
Trachtenberg rejects his thesis by stating that although the U.S. did not welcome Soviet control over Eastern Europe, there has been little implication that the U.S. actually wanted to eliminate Communist influence. Even though Gregory Mitrovich and Peter Grose presented “roll back” operations, Trachtenberg expresses the hesitation to implement “roll back” operations and little was done to further the policy at the time, which he uses to expose a weakness in the argument of Cox and Kennedy.
It is also essential to note that the idea of containment expressed within the Marshall Plan was originated by George Kennan, who himself stated that containment was an ideology that even though it wanted to obstruct the spread of Communism never really portrayed any want to completely eliminate it as Cox and Kennedy purport. Neither does Clark Clifford, who was in closer proximity to Truman’s thought than Cox and Kennedy, express that it was in any intention of Truman to eliminate Communism. In fact, Clifford exposed Truman’s thought to be more defensive against Communism rather than attempting to surmount it.
Other than this, one should applaud the fact that Cox and Kennedy devised an argument that is aberrant in that it deviates from the original orthodox view of the Cold War. They strengthen their thesis strongly but not necessarily always accurately with information and analysis of other ambassadors from European countries at the time and devise a view of the Cold War that has otherwise never really been addressed by many historians.
The arguments of Michael Cox and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe in “The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan,” discuss the other side of the Marshall Plan, in terms of the relationship between the Soviets and the U.S. The Marshall Plan has always been viewed as the plan created by the U.S. government as an effective way of creating a stronger foundation for the allied countries of Europe, and avoiding the power of communism in Eastern Europe. In this argument, Cox and Kennedy-Pipe criticize the American government for establishing the Marshall Plan, and focus solely on the Soviet perspective.
Cox and Kennedy-Pipe argued that the separation of Europe was caused by U.S. policies. They argue that the Marshall Plan was enacted only for the benefit of the U.S. This seems wrong, since the Marshall Plan was beneficial to the recipient countries of Western Europe. The economies of these countries were given the much needed jump start after the war, which helped all of Europe. The U.S. intention was also to oust communism, which would be more easily achieved if the countries were economically stable.
While their opinions and research show a side that is rarely viewed when studying the Marshall Plan and the Cold War, their reasoning is flawed. Cox and Kennedy-Pipe completely blame the U.S. for the separation of Eastern and Western Europe. Their views are very biased and would be more appealing if they discussed views of the U.S., rather than only speaking from the Soviet point of view. They misinterpret the Soviet intention of a relationship with the U.S., because the Soviets only wanted a business relationship.
“The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan” allows for readers to understand the Soviet perspective of the Marshall Plan. Cox and Kennedy-Pipe’s research allows readers to see a side of the Cold War that is normally overlooked.
History is a special subject in that it is open for interpretations. This leaves various takes on what happened and why it did. The fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 started Cold War debates once again because previously classified Soviet documents were released to the public. Cox and Kennedy-Pipe use these new Soviet documents to show the Soviets perspective of the Cold War. This view used to be unknown and the arguments held little support. This view gives the readers a clear understanding of how the Soviets felt about the policy and the United States. Moreover, the article derails the idea that the Cold War was just "a simple case of Soviet expansionism and American reaction." This article also brings up the point of the division of Europe. Cox and Kennedy-Pipe wrote about how Stalin least desired the division of Europe but other historians feel differently. Marc Trachtenberg believed that the authors were saying that the Soviets wanted aid for the United States with no commitments or obligations. They wanted to cooperate, but they would receive the aid and have to deal with the regulations of the Marshall Plan. They stated that the powers ended up having to respect each others spheres of influence and created a divided Europe. What Trachtenberg is saying is that the Soviets saw a divided Europe between the Soviets and the United States.
Amongst the strong arguments made by Cox and Kennedy-Pipe, there are weakly supported ideas that are easily disproved by Trachtenberg’s article. One of the main points made in the Cox-Kennedy article was the extremity in what each country wanted for the relationship, outlined above. The type of relationship that was being pursued by the Soviets was one that was purely economic. He explains in Marshall’s speech that he demanded that it was Europe’s job to get together and decide what their needs are. They need to start to form the alliance and ask for what they needed. The Eastern countries almost certainly could have asked for aid since they’re part of the European continent, which Marshall urged to work together. Geiger also goes on to say that it was the Soviet’s idea to divide Europe with this plan since they didn’t participate. This split the West and the East and caused the division of Europe.
Overall, the article does a great job of showing the Soviet side of the Cold War. The fact that they use this point of view for their argument outweighs most of the weaknesses of it. The authors readily supply this newer information to the reader even though arguments made in its wake may have been somewhat weak.
In the tragedy of American Diplomacy by Michael Cox and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe the authors bring forth solid arguments for their point that blame should be equally shared between the US and the USSR for Cold War aggression. However, the points do not truly look at the real reason of the cold war. This real reason is ideology. In my opinion the east and the west were at irreconcilable ends of the spectrum. There is nothing that either the Soviet Union or the United States could do to change the cold war. As the USA held superiority economically and paraded that to the Soviets via the Marshall plan, the Soviets felt compelled to keep up. If the Soviets had not attempted to go beyond what they could handle the Cold War would be avoided as the need to compete would not be present. Stalin’s refusal of the Marshall plan was not caused by his distrust of the west but by his total distaste for Capitalism. Stalin plain and simple just did not like Americans. That is just how he was built to function.
One of the biggest problems with the essay was the lack of support given by the authors for the idea that the US would not give money to the Soviets. There is little to no solid evidence presented that suggests the US would not follow through with their promise. Another problem I had was that the essay seemed to condemn the US for even putting the Marshall Plan out there. It seemed that the authors tended to be slightly biased against the US. The Marshall plan was indeed a plan that looked to help Europe. It did provide amazing help within the Western part. It would also have helped the Soviets and Eastern Europe had they chosen to accept it. The authors failed to look at the positive points of the Marshall plan. The tremendous aide that was given to the nations helped reconstruct a devastated economy. It might have been self serving on the part of the US, who was looking for trade partners, but it still did a very good job helping hurting nations.
The article also fails to look at the Soviet Union from the point of view of the people. The people were starving and devastated under Stalin’s rule. The US’ attempt on helping them was denied by the distrusting leaders not by the hurting people of the nation. If the US was really trying to pull apart Communist leadership by appealing to the people, what is wrong with that. What is wrong is an authoritarian government that does not protect the basic needs of a people. Soviet leadership was truly evil. Although America may not have been perfectly right in every situation, they are certainly better than any of the Soviets.
The argument put forth by Cox and Kennedy-Pipe seems to me to be more of the opposite side of the same coin that they argue against. The authors feel that the widely accepted view of the Marshall plan as a somewhat altruistic , or at least neutral, move made in order to improve economic stability in Europe is a flawed one. They feel that the Marshall plan was in fact an attempt by the United States to improve their own economy, a ploy to get the European nations to buy up American goods and services. This argument is, I think, rather flawed. Who else would the financially destitute European nations turn to for goods and services to rebuild their nations? Their equally stricken neighbors? Their only viable option would have been America, not through some sinister plot, but simply because America was more well-off financially. Would this help America as well? Of course. But since when is it evil to want to provide jobs for out of work soldiers and other citizens? I am not trying to say that the United States is completely free of blame for the entire cold war, but rather just that in the isolated case of the Marshall Plan the United States was not attempting to take away from the Satellite Nations of the Soviet Union.
The Marshal Plan. A misinterpretation?
by William Si
History, unlike other subjects is both controversial and open to different interpretations. Thus, to actually study and understand history, it is important to find the different points of view of an event that one wants to know about. As others have thought and probably explored, the Cold War is a difficult topic to study as most sources only explain the events from the American side. For Michael Cox and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe, they decided to write an article rethinking the Marshall Plan, an important part of the cold war in the light of the Soviet’s view. The two found it important to include the different factors denying the accepted views of society. However, even if it is an important article, it still contains weaknesses that others exploit such as the ones written in Marc Trachtenberg’s article.
Creating this article, Cox and Kennedy-Pipe worked to overthrow the simple ideas that it was only a case of Soviet expansionism and the reactions from America. Well written, they went in-depth to research which lead them to which supported their claims and arguments. New documents and other evidence from different documented things provide a fresh look on the events of the Marshal Plan. From this we can see that it is not only the idea Soviets that want to expand but of America wanting to appeal to satellite states.
As I said before, we need to find the different viewpoints in history. However, arguing their own points, they left out some other interpretations of a confusing part of history. The reason papers such as “The Marshall Plan as Tragedy” are being written is because others left out the different information. With information lacking from one side, history tends to get distorted while other authors try to be effective by adding onto an argument from a different side.
In the end, this paper presented an argument that was different than what we have learned. As its title says, it is a rethinking of the Marshall Plan and the views of it in history. Cox and Kennedy-Pipe achieved their point and with a strong argument, they will gather supporters and other critics. Though showing us the side from the Soviets, they may have left it short on the American side even if they gave some of the unwanted credit of escalating the Cold War. After all, we were just trying to recover from a World War.
Like most aspects of history, the Cold War has been interpreted in numerous ways, and has been debated to a great extent. One of the most controversial parts of the Cold War is the Marshall Plan. While many people overlook the plan as a simple act of generosity toward America’s allies, Cox and Kennedy-Pipe prove otherwise. Cox and Kennedy-Pipe believe that the Cold War was not caused primarily by Soviet expansionism but by American Policies. They believe that the Marshall Plan caused the divide in Europe, and the tensions among European nations. They suggest that had America pursued an Open Door strategy, the conflict of the division of Europe would’ve been much less severe. In The Tragedy of American Diplomacy: Rethinking the Marshall Plan, Cox and Kennedy-Pipe use Soviet documents to bolster their thesis. By using Soviet documents, they show a view of the Marshall Plan from a different perspective than what we are used to. This is very unique considering that these documents were released when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. While Cox and Kennedy-Pipe provide ample evidence supporting their thesis, there are some weaknesses in their analysis regarding America’s intentions.
Cox and Kennedy-Pipe disprove the common belief that the Marshall Plan was an act of generosity. They explain how America was only thinking of how it would benefit from this plan. Clark Clifford, a former member of the Special Counsel to President Truman, supports Cox and Kennedy-Pipe’s thesis by describing America’s desire to strengthen their allies in case a war escalated. George Elsey explained how Truman didn’t even expect the Soviets to accept the money. He said, “…should by some miracle the Soviets themselves join, or some of their satellite countries, we would have welcomed them in it. But we didn't think that was a realistic possibility.” Using Soviet documents, Cox and Kennedy-Pipe prove that the Cold War was not “a simple case of Soviet expansionism and American reaction” (101). They explain that America was not seeking a friendly relationship with the Soviet Union. They were able to argue that the Soviet Union was actually trying to create a friendly relationship with America, but were being denied that relationship. They believe that the United States wanted to isolate the Soviet Union and in fact were not seeking any relationship with them. This thesis challenges the common believe of the Cold War as a war caused solely by Russia’s expansionistic policies. The reason the US did not want to become friendly with the Soviets was because they did not want communism to spread. They wanted it to be contained to Eastern Europe. This leads to one of Cox and Kennedy-Pipe’s major weaknesses. Cox and Kennedy-Pipe believe that America wanted to free Eastern Europe of communism. They believe that America tried to eradicate Eastern Europe of communism as much as possible without starting a war. While they attempted to support that theory, I find it excruciatingly flawed. In fact, the US had almost no opposition to communism in Eastern Europe. America accepted Eastern Europe as the Soviet Union’s sphere of influence. America’s only concern was that communism would spread to Western Europe. I also believe that Cox and Kennedy-Pipe are exaggerating the Soviet position during the Cold War. The Soviet Union did not want an alliance with the US just to have a friendly relationship. In reality, the Soviet Union wanted a relationship in order to gain more power. The relationship was intended solely for the benefit of themselves.
I can speculate that the reasons why The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? has some flaws in its analysis is because Cox and Kennedy-Pipe don’t take enough perspectives into account when preparing their position. If various viewpoints were taken into consideration when the book was written, it would have been more accurate. For example, many leaders of the Soviet Union had different thoughts about the Marshall Plan. While Molotov thought the US, “should be greeted [warmly]”, Stalin said, “They want the European countries; they want to infiltrate.”
The line of reasoning discussed by Michael Cox and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe in the article, Rethinking the Marshall Plan, was very well thought out and adequately disproved the common misconception that the Cold War was a simple case of communist expansion in the Soviet Union. The Cold War is a war that is opened to interpretation, constantly being debated and reassessed, and it is not very often that people look at it from the point of view of the Soviets. The release of previously classified documents to the public in 1991 supported the belief of Cox and Kennedy-Pipe that historians need to examine all sides of an argument, especially those that go against the common viewpoints of the time. One of the main points of the article talks about how the Soviets viewed the Marshall Plan as a threat. They were looking to create peaceful and friendly relations with Western nations and it was obvious from the Marshall Plan that the American’s were not looking to do the same. Rather they were more focused on trying to break away from the USSR and remove the Soviet’s influence from Eastern Europe. The Soviets were often viewed as evil, power hungry people who were looking to use their influence to overrun lesser nations and control them with their own communist ideas. In reality, the Soviets were behaving just as other nations would, trying to take advantage of an opportunity to improve their status with the countries around them. An understanding of the Soviet’s side is critical in fully comprehending the events surrounding the Cold War and was one of the main strengths of Cox and Kennedy-Pipe’s thesis.
A weakness of the article was the fact that while the Soviet’s point of view was well represented, the American’s side of the argument was not discussed very thoroughly. The main belief expressed throughout the article was that historians needed to look at all points of view of a situation, but in this case they didn’t provide enough information about the American side of the story. The authors seemed to have a bias toward the Soviets goals and aims during the Cold War, and in order to increase the validity of the article they should have made sure to include both the Soviet and American points of view. It is alright that Cox and Kennedy-Pipe judged the Americans but they should have included more background information about the Marshall Plan to increase awareness as to why the United States acted in the manner that they did. They also forgot to include the views of the third party, which would be the Eastern European nations that were affected by the spread of Russian communism.
Overall, I feel that the strengths of Cox and Kennedy-Pipe’s thesis outweigh the weaknesses and that their article provided good insight into a side of the Cold War that is often overlooked. It is revitalizing to hear historians looking at events from all-points of view so that we can learn the true motives of countries during wartime situations.
The Cold War is a very interesting time period to study. This “war” is constantly being debated and re-discussed, even though it occurred over fifty years ago. Often times, Americans are only taught or informed of our country’s side during the Cold War and the planning of the Marshall Plan. However, Michael Cox and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe decided to shed light on the Soviet’s side of the creation of the Marshall Plan. During the Cold War, the Soviets were depicted as America’s enemy because the Soviet Union was a Communist country. By allowing the Soviet Union to take part in the Marshall Plan, America felt that the Soviets would gain control over Eastern Europe. During the Cold War, America’s goal was to limit the Soviet Union’s control over Eastern Europe. The Soviets had been portrayed as a violent and ruthless nation under the leadership of Stalin, but they still wanted to cooperate with Western Europe and America. Stalin realized that the Soviet Union was unable to compete with America. Even so, Stalin felt it was his job to make sure that Eastern European countries did not accept the US’s terms in the Marshall Plan. The United State’s terms would compromise the Soviet Union’s security interests. Cox and Kennedy-Pipe say that the United States didn’t actually prevent the Soviet Union to take part in the Marshall Plan, but they emphasized that they would not change the terms and that they would go ahead with the plan, with or without the Soviets.
I feel that this article has few weaknesses. Since the article is regarding a very controversial matter, there will always be many who criticize it and the authors. One of the weaknesses is that the United States used the Marshall Plan for mainly defensive purposes. Cox and Kennedy-Pipe wrote that the United States created the Marshall Plan to attempt to stop the spread of Communism throughout Europe. By keeping the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries out of the Marshall Plan, the United States felt that they would be able to eventually rid Europe of communism. Kennedy-Pipe and Cox focus so much on the Soviet Union’s views of the Marshall Plan and the Cold War that it seems that the authors have forgotten all about the United State’s views on the Marshall Plan and the Cold War as well. This is a very important factor that, had Kennedy-Pipe and Cox not forgotten it, the thesis would have been different.
This article also has some strengths to compensate for its weaknesses. One of the main strengths is that is focuses on Stalin’s views toward America and Western Europe. Stalin did not want to create bad relations between the Soviet Union and the United States. He did not want to exclude Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union from Western Europe. However, Stalin felt that the Soviet Union was being excluded and “pushed away” from the Marshall Plan on purpose. Cox and Kennedy-Pipe’s main goal of this article was to try and explain how and why the Cold War started. I feel that they achieved their goal. By focusing on not only the United State’s views but also the Soviet Union’s views, the readers were presented with both sides of the story. Having both countries’ viewpoints helps to paint the picture of how the Cold War really started. The authors didn’t try to make the Soviets seem like the “bad guys” but like a normal country looking out for itself. They also didn’t try to make the United States seem like a hero to Europe.
History cannot be fully appreciated or accurately analyzed if we as a society interpret the events throughout history through one perspective. We learn and can progress from history, yet if we are learning through one mindset, we will not advance at all. Challenging current ideas and thinking up new possibilities is the only way that society can learn from its mistakes and those mistakes can now be avoided. The article The Tragedy of American Diplomacy?: Rethinking the Marshall Plan? does just this by challenging other historians viewpoint on the Cold War, and presents new interpretions that no other historian had yet to do. I applaud the authors, (Michael Cox and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe) for defending a position that was new and which is hardly supported by any other historian, and for challenging the “status-quo” arguments concerning the Cold War and the Marshall Plan. However, I personally believe that their arguments throughout the article could easily be refuted.
Some strengths throughout the article is that the authors were able to accurately present the opinion of the Soviet Union. It is evident after reading the article that in order to fully understand history, we must look at all sides of a situation. Up until this article, one could not have fully understood the reactions or resoning to the Soviets response to the Marshall Plan. We came to conclusions based on an “American” perspective, and no one attempted to defend the Soviet’s actions after the Marshall Plan. I think the article accurately depicted the Soviets “Open Door Policy” that they envisioned, which summarizes the attitude the Soviets had towards America. This article does a good job of proving its thesis that a country should analyze all perspectives and understand where a country is coming from before getting involved in a major conflict with them.
On the contrary, weaknesses be seen throughout the article when the authors lack support for some arguments on the viewpoints of the Americans concerning Eastern Europe. Ideally the U.S. did not want communism to spread throughout Eastern Europe, but they were not willing to start a war over if communism did indeed spread to this area of Europe. It is also evident that the U.S. would not “doing all they could, short of war to eliminate Coomunist influence.” The U.S. was not buidling up its military trying to prepare for war, and U.S. government officials understood and accepted the fact that the Soviets had a strong influence within Eastern Europe. The authors try to claim within their article that the Marshall Plan was for defensive purposes. However, even though the effects of the Marshall Plan would trickle down and positively affect America, the main focus of this document was to help rebuild the Western European countries which were suffering after WWII. The Marshall Plan was simply a document to aid these suffering countries, not a document to try and play mind games with the enemy, the Soviets.
By comparing this article which contained the Soviet’s stance, with how the Cold War conflict is usually taught which mainly contains the American stance, it is evident as to why a conflict between the Soviet Union and America even started. It is evident that this conflict was based upon different approaches/attidudes which resulted from lack of undersanding and communication. Then proceeding to give the other nation the “cold shoulder” did not help the situation, which further escalated the Cold War. This article does a good job of showing the opinion and mindset of the Soviets during the Cold War. It clearly shows that if historians had the opportunity to also analyze the Soviets’ interpretations, instead of just focusing on America’s viewpoint of the Cold War, that new and more accurate conclusions would have been made about this situation.
As time progresses more and more history unravels. As history is reviewed and studied historians begin to notice all of the different perspectives of certain events and time periods. The authors of “The Tragedy of American Diplomacy?: Rethinking the Marshall Plan,” Michael Cox and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe, wrote this piece to show everything that played a part in the Cold War and the views of both sides of the conflict.
I definitely agree with the argument put forth by the authors in their article. This is because I believe it imperative to learn all sides of a story before being to effectively truly analyze any situation. Without the thoughts and beliefs of the Soviets on the Marshall plan the people of the world are lacking the facts and can’t honestly form a justified opinion. However, despite the fact that I agree with the general idea of this article, there are also a few things that I disagree with.
The first problem I have with the article is that it doesn’t adequately show America’s side of the situation. I can see that maybe the article was written with the purpose of demonstrating that the Soviet’s views are important too as well as being under the assumption that America’s side is already well known, but still, to truly argue a point of emphasis such as not being biased, then both sides of a story have to be well represented.
Another weakness of the article is some of the accusations against America. They accuse America of doing everything other than war to eliminate communism however I feel that America could have done a lot worse if it absolutely had to rid the world of communism. The last weakness, although very minor, I still find necessary to bring up. There was not too much background information given on the Marshall plan. I figured that more primary sources could be used to understand how the Russian population felt directly from a Russian citizen.
Despite these weaknesses though, I believe that the article is extremely well written and it provides a very good representation of the Russian side of the Cold War. People must remember that there are many sides to a war whether it is a physical war or just one such as the Cold War. To truly understand situations people can not be given one side of the confrontation they need to be given all of them. In this case the authors did a very good job at showing the little known side of this war and successfully changed my view of the USSR. I still question many of the country’s actions and beliefs but I definitely don’t view the nation as the chief instigator of the conflict rather just one part of the two part problem.
History is a problematic topic overall due to the fact that so many different people with so many different points of view that there is no way to tell what is the “truth” without another opinion getting in the way. When an American historian writes about the a topic such as the Cold War, they will naturally develop a bias from where they are from, and from the lack of the ability to interview as many people with the opposing point of view. Because of this most writing on this topic (the Cold War) and many like it are completely biased towards America and its point of view. This allows for those who write from an opposing point of view or one “equally portraying both sides” to shine. This seems to be the place of The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan? This seems to be what the authors Cox and Kennedy-Pipe worked for, to write about the Cold War and Marshall Plan without the American bias. These two used various sources from both sides of the issue, both American and Soviet ideals. They made an attempt to represent each side fully and completely, which is more than most authors on the subject can say about their writings. Although Kennedy-Pipe and Cox attempted to remain “neutral” in order to show both sides of the issue at certain points, the title for example, showed a sort of bias towards the Soviet side.
It would seem that although the authors attempted a neutral point of view they were relatively biased towards the Soviets. Although this seems unreasonable, it can be justified merely by pointing out that first it is one of the most neutral on the subject, and also with so many other writings biased towards the American point of view, one of the Soviet point of view is somewhat refreshing, even if it is just barely biased that way. This article focuses mainly on the effects that the Marshall Plan would have on the Soviet Union, as opposed to focusing on the Communism scare in most Democratic societies, as most articles would, or the Democracy scare in the Soviet Union and satellite states. Without these two distractions we are shown a clearer view of what happened, and shown better why the Soviets acted out so harshly against the Marshall Plan. Other writers supported the Marshall Plan for the exact same clouded reasons that Cox and Kennedy-Pipe did not include in their writings, the Communism scare, and how due to this we should completely and absolutely support this plan. This is ridiculous this articles lack of this irrelevant evidence, can show much more clearly both sides, particularly the communist side of the Marshall plan and the devastating effects it could have on the Soviet Union.
This article was better than most that would be read due to its near neutrality and view from the Soviet side. At worst this article can be seen as a fresh perspective; from the Communist bias, and at best it can be seen as a nearly completely neutral article also maintaining a fresh perspective; the Soviet point of view. This article could have used more from the American point of view but it is almost irrelevant because the vast majority of other articles written have this bias it would be overly redundant. Overall this seems well written and more neutral than any author writing on such a controversial topic could be expected to be and therefore this article seems to be well written and researched and has the points of view needed, while emitting the useless ones.
History is an area of study that is always being analyzed and reassessed. Much of the thought process in history, is left up to interpretation and opinion based on observation and evidence. Michael Cox and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe created their article The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? : Rethinking the Marshall Plan completely different than the “orthodox” interpretations of the Cold War history. After the Cold War ended in 1991, new documents had been released to revamp the entire cold war argument. Both authors stray from the traditional thoughts on the Cold War and begin to analyze the new documents that have changed some opinions on how the Cold War started and what the Soviets views on the Marshall Plan really were. They came to the conclusion that America was not simply the protagonist, defending Europe from Communism but an antagonist, with the use of the Marshall plan. As for this thesis it has weaknesses, but that is overcome by many strengths that are evident throughout the document.
The argument that Cox and Kennedy-Pipe presents, is very strong, but heavily biased. They used very little information given about the United States’ position on the Marshall Plan. They only supported many of their own claims with The Soviet’s options and opinions on the matter. Cox and Kennedy did not explain the background of the Marshall Plan and the American reason for it to be put into effect in Western Europe. If this article were able to show how the original idea of the Marshall Plan was supporting the fact that they were forcing the Soviet Union into the cold war, this article would present an undeniably stronger case than what was already presented.
The strengths of this article clearly outweigh its weaknesses. This article does a great job and discussing how the Soviets reacted to the Marshall Plan and how it forced them to enter in this Cold War with the U.S. Cox and Kennedy do a great job showing the Soviets as the defensive country rather than the offensive country that many historians believed they were. One key component to this argument was the fact that the U.S. was trying to spread its influence over seas and trying to keep a strong hold of influence in Europe. With America impeding in European affairs it left the Soviets’ with the “undesirable” option of challenging America for dominance in Europe. As a result, The Cold War was brought upon by America according to Cox and Kennedy.
All and all, Cox and Kennedy do an excellent job at portraying the Soviet side to The Cold War. Soviet opinions have usually not been added to analysis, because a lot of that information was not available. With the recent release of new information, Cox and Kennedy tread on unchartered territories with the “new” views on the Cold War. It is the nature of history to reassess current views of the past and Kennedy and Cox really did a good job in doing so.
Matthew Madore
AP European History
Kirby
2 May 2008
The Failure of the Marshall Plan: Viewing History from a Blasphemous View
The title of my response may be a little extreme, but it seems highly irrational to be viewing something as influential as the Cold War from the perspective of the Soviets and the USSR. This is probably due to my up-bringing and my educational experiences telling me that the Soviets were “evil,” but the Cold War was orchestrated as a race between the United States and the USSR. I feel the desire to center a thesis around the view of the Russians as being potentially “correct” in the situation faced with The Marshall Plan as ridiculous. Had the USSR not initiated a race against the United States to have the most successful nuclear armaments, then there would be no need to decide which side had a better argument.
An argument that is used quite well is that the United States never fully intended for the USSR to join into the Marshall Plan. This shows how blatantly anti-Soviet the Truman cabinet truly was. The Soviets were simply reacting to the United States' problems with having them join in the Marshall Plan. So, instead, the Soviets continued to spread and build ties to other countries.
Another point that is brought up in the article is the different motives behind each of the two opposing forces. The biggest difference would have to be the United States' desire to sever all ties with the Soviets while, at the same time, almost completely obliterating any Soviet threat. The USSR and Soviets, however, wanted to build new economic ties between other nations. This goal, although more ambitious, helped to begin a world-wide conflict between two very stubborn nations. It can also be seen as pretty naive, considering there are no political or social ties involved with that ideal.
The article, however, did show a unique way to look upon the Cold War; one that has not been adequately discussed before. As I mentioned before, I do not feel that this is a valid argument to make, mainly because the perpetuating forces behind each force were completely opposite and the USSR was naive in going about their plan. The article is written in such a way that it is still a very educational reading and it helps to show some otherwise unknown thoughts in the USSR during the Cold War.
History is constantly being debated. Historians often re review topics and constantly debating on issues. The Cold War is a very controversial time during the United States History. When the Cold War ended in 1991 documents that were before deemed classified was now available to the public eye. This fueled new debates and reanalysis of the history of the cold war. The article “The Tragedy of American Diplomacy: Rethinking the Marshall Plan” gives information on the Soviet-Us relationship and the marshall plan. The authors Cox and Kennedy-Pipe use the documents to show the USSR mindset on the Cold War. Another articled called “The Marshall Plan as Tragedy” by Marc Trachtenberg’s. These two articles show the essence of the Cold War.
The Cox and Kennedy Pipe challenges the conventional view of the Americans and proposes the Soviet view on the War, Soviet expansion. This article made the soviets in a good light. The article showed the soviets as people just trying to gain land and power. The soviets felt that the marshal plan was huge threat to the USSR. The soviets were just trying to react according to the USA workings and actions. Usually when we perceive the Russia during the Cold War, we view them as cold, bloody, communist, and pigs. Through this article we see that Soviets were just defending themselves from the Americans. It also criticizes US on the Open Door Policy. The Article believed that if the open door policy wasn’t closed then the cold War would’ve ended sooner. The Other Article explained the start of the Cold War. In this article it talks about how The US played a huge role in the Cold War because the US never recognized the Moscow Security Issue. It also addresses the issue that US cared more about bringing down communism then helping Eastern Europe.
Overall these two articles gave some insight on a topic that is so heavily debated. These articles also gave another view on Soviet Side of the War.
I personally disagree with almost everything that is said in the article. From an American perspective, the Marshall Plan was a success and that is really all that matters to us, because we are American. First, it helped better the economy of western europe. This, in turn, helped us. Western Europe are our allies, so the stronger they are, the better. To have weak countries on the edge of the Soviet Bloc would be dumb. Second, it showed how powerful we were to become in the next decades. We flexed our muscles as the most powerful contry in the world. Also, it helped the American economy. By having Americans get contracts to help reconstruct Europe, it helped transition the economy from war-time to peace-time. It also helped Americans get jobs, when the job market was flooding with returning vets who needed work.
In “The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan,” Cox and Kennedy-Pipe offer an alternative perspective on the Marshall Plan and the development of the Cold War. They argue that the United States played a major role in bringing about the Cold War with the Marshall Plan, which was designed to create two blocs in Europe, rather than the “orthodox” view that the Marshall Plan was an act of generosity from the U.S. and that it was the Soviets who caused the division in Europe.
Cox and Kenney-Pipe’s thesis is very well supported and argued. If we accept the fact that America’s goal was to curb Communism, naturally they would not want to aid the USSR, a Communist state. Thus, the Marshall Plan was intended to shut out Eastern Europe, and Congress was certain that they would not accept it. Also, since the goal of the U.S. was to eliminate Communism, so it stands to reason they wished to create a bloc of prosperous Western nations against the Soviets, where Communism would be unable to spread. Stalin would have been able to do anything but reject the Marshall Plan because it would have undermined his goal of control over Eastern Europe. Also, the USSR’s economy was not as strong as that of the U.S., so they were unable to compete with the U.S. Thus, Stalin would not have wanted a divided Europe where he had to compete against the Western bloc.
Cox and Kennedy-Pipe say that the U.S. “did everything it could short of war to eliminate Communist influence in [Eastern Europe].” However, I think that Cox and Kennedy-Pipe should reconsider the lengths to which the U.S. would go to fight Communism. If the U.S. was so keen on stopping Communism and removing Eastern Europe from Soviet influence, why did they not help the Hungarians when they revolted against the USSR in 1956? Surely this shows that the United States was not so eager to destroy Soviet control of Eastern Europe if they were not willing to help such a revolt, this represents a flaw in Cox and Kennedy-Pipe’s argument.
Also, as Trachtenberg says, “The events of 1947 are thus part and parcel of the larger story of the Cold War. These events played a major role, but it would be a mistake to exaggerate their significance. The bloc system in Europe took years to develop, and the
Marshall Plan was just one part of the story.” Cox and Kennedy-Pipe, I think, focus too much on the Marshall Plan as the perpetrator of the development of the two-bloc system. There were definitely other factors that also contributed to it, so perhaps the Marshall Plan cannot be blamed as much as Cox and Kennedy-Pipe would lead us to believe.
By its very nature history is subjective since it is essentially the recording and interpretation of historical events and facts through the eyes of individuals. Therefore it is imperative that different points of views are considered and that no one view dominates the interpretation of an event.
Michael Cox and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe, two British scholars, reexamined the Marshall Plan and its relationship to the Cold War in their article. The end of the Cold War in 1991 resulted in the availability of new archival materials from Communist sources. Cox and Kennedy-Pipe argue that this new documentation does not support traditional views regarding the origins of the Cold War. They assert that it was American policies in concert with the actions of the Soviets that resulted in the division of Europe and the ensuing Cold War. They question the belief that the Cold War was inevitable because of Stalin’s tyrannical rule of the Soviet Union. They concur that while Stalin bears much of the blame for the destiny of Eastern Europe, the structure of aid from the United States under the Marshall Plan provoked the Soviet Union to assume a defensive position and establish its own bloc of Eastern European countries. Cox and Kennedy-Pipe wonder “whether a different approach by U.S. policymakers could have led to a different outcome for the peoples of East and Central Europe.” (p.134). They contend that Stalin’s preference was not the partition of Europe and that he was open to collaboration with the U.S. Stalin knew that ultimately the Soviet Union was not in any shape to compete with the U.S. after its long and costly war with Germany. Further the British and French were as intent as the United States in excluding the Soviet Union from participating. The authors believe that the primary objective of the Marshall Plan was not its economic aid to Western Europe, but rather the containment of Communist power within Europe.
The Marshall Plan was designed to help rebuild the countries of West Europe after World War II. The U.S. government offered $13 billion of American financial aid to ensure the economic recovery of war-ravaged Europe. It was also intended to prevent communism from spreading within the weakened war-torn countries. Cox and Kennedy-Pipe never mention that the Marshall Plan offered the same aid to Japan and its allies.
Cox and Kennedy-Pipe do offer valuable insight into the Soviet perspective regarding the intentions of the Marshall Plan. There is merit to their argument that the United States, Britain, and France did not endorse the participation of the Soviet Union in the Marshall Plan. This led to increased tensions between the Soviet Union and the West. I think there is some value to suggest that without the British and French influence, the United States might have considered a more diplomatic approach to its discussions with the Soviet Union and this might have impacted the Cold War.
However, some of the arguments positioned by Cox and Kennedy-Pipe have inherent weaknesses. They did not elaborate on Stalin’s brutal reputation nor acknowledge his expansionist policies within Eastern Europe that existed before the Marshall Plan. There was justified concern that the Soviet Union might have an agenda to ultimately invade countries in Western Europe.
Marc Trachtenberg’s article offers a rebuttal to many of the points raised by Cox and Kennedy-Pipe. He argues that “The U.S. government may not have welcomed Soviet control of Eastern Europe, but from the start it had little problem in practice in accepting that area as a Soviet sphere of influence.” (p. 136). I agree with Trachtenberg that the U.S. government was not in any position to pursue a military solution to liberate Eastern Europe after just emerging from World War II. Trachtenberg contends that the “bloc system in Europe took years to develop and that the Marshall Plan was just one part of the story.” (p. 140).
The Cold War was inevitable given the rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union. During World War II the United States and the Soviets were united in their common goal of defeating the enemy, the Axis powers. Once the war concluded and this goal was attained, the ideological differences between the Soviets and Americans resurfaced and it was apparent that their political ambitions were irreconcilable due to the differences in the capitalist and communist ideologies. The need for self-preservation encouraged the two countries to bury their differences temporarily during WW II.
Cox and Kennedy-Pipe offer a valid historical perspective of the Marshall Plan and the Cold War from the Soviet view and offers us unique insight. While I don’t agree with all their arguments, their point of view encourages us to reexamine previous theories. In reality, the question of who bears the responsibility for the Cold War will continue to be debated as more information comes to light.
After reading “The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan”, I think Michael Cox and Caroline and Kennedy-Pipe are full of crap. To me the entire article was a joke. These may be bold statements and I may not have done as much research or know as much about the Cold War as they do, but I think that basically saying that America was responsible for bringing about the Cold War is absolutely ridiculous. I am in complete agreement that you can’t just listen to one side of a story and that when new research is discovered you must analyze and take into account what impact it may have on general opinion. Although I may think the article is a joke, there are some things that I agree with that are stated.
Cox and Kennedy-Pipe say that America needed to stop the spread of Communism and that the US “did everything it could short of war to eliminate communist influence in the region.”(105). I do agree with the fact that the United States wanted to stop the spread of communism because to this day America wants to stop the spread of communism especially when South America is being taken over by communism and that communism might be right at our boarder in the future. Of course America didn’t want Communism to spread and with Britain pulling financial aid from Greece, America needed to act and so the Marshall Plan was created. I don’t agree with the statement of everything short of war. I think short of war is kind of stretching the truth a little bit.
Another statement that Cox and Kennedy-Pipe made was that the last thing that the USSR wanted the division of Europe and that the Americans made the Marshall Plan so unappealing to the soviets that it was almost impossible for them to accept it. In an interview with Theodore Geiger, Greiger says that it was the Soviet’s idea to divide Europe with this plan since they didn’t participate. Of course the USSR wasn’t going to accept the Marshall Plan, why do you ask? Because the Soviets wanted the aid without any strings attached, in other words they wanted to have their cake and eat it too. With the statement that the Marshall Plan was basically made for Western Europe maybe true, the fact is that the Marshall Plan was created to help Europe get back on its feet and try and help the countries that were experiencing a recession. In a quote by Giovanni Agnelli he explains what the Marshall Plan did to help out Europe,
“In the immediate postwar years, the whole of Europe was in a recession. So first of all, it helped us step out of a recession; it gave a certain amount of speed to the economy. But that was the first step. The second real step was that it [brought us closer to] this European Community. ... It bought us toward what has been considered the Atlantic community, it brought [us] toward NATO and it brought the European countries toward a European integration.”
I think that Russia was just so mad that they weren’t getting any financial aid from the United States and Europe was being rebuilt that it made the United States look like a strong and compassionate country and everyone liked the Unites States, I think Russia became jealous. Saying that Russia was jealous of America may sound stupid but I honestly think that Stalin was mad that everyone liked America and not Russia. When countries such as Czechoslovakia thought of accepting the Marshall Plan, Russia felt so threatened that all of the countries they supposedly controlled were thinking of going along with the Marshall Plan, Russia had to threaten them to withdraw from the acceptance.
I think the article had more weaknesses than strengths. I feel that all the statements that were made by Cox and Kennedy-Pipe were strictly opinion and not enough facts to back up what they were saying. Sure they quoted things such as the rollback operations in the 1940’s. but as Marc Trachtenberg says
“The authors cite the works of Gregory Mitrovich and Peter Grose about the “rollback” operations that began in the late 1940s, but, in reading those books, one is struck by how little was actually done and by how long it took to implement a “rollback” policy”(136).
It seems to me that Michael Cox and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe can talk the talk but when it comes time to walk the walk, they just can’t. That article is a bunch of bologna, I agree with Marc Trachtenberg on basically his entire criticism of Cox and Kennedy-Pipe’s article of the Marshall Plan.
Unlike Math or Science, history is an evolving art that is constantly changing its course. As time progresses, we learn more and more about certain events in the past. It is imperative to understand that history is written by the winners. It is naïve to say that history is always objective, because it is always difficult to provide both sides with proper representation. The Marshall Plan is a historical event, whose implications were huge, but its interpretation is still dubious. The Marshall Plan had a very positive response immediately after its implementation and even years after it. However, as more information came out regarding the Marshall Plan, the traditionalist view of the Marshall Plan has been questioned by revisionists. Cox and Kennedy-Pipe are in the school of thought that believes that America is just as responsible for the Cold War as the Soviet Union. It would be easy to disregard Cox and Kennedy-Pipe’s theory as completely wrong and un-American, however that would be ignorant. History is not black and white; there are many shades of gray. I do believe that both sides had its hand in causing the Cold War, though many of the ideas put forward in Cox and Kennedy-Pipe’s article I disagree with.
Cox and Kennedy-Pipe brought up some very interesting issues in dealing with America’s true intentions in the Marshall Plan. They pointed out that it seemed as though the plan was clearly made out to exclude the Soviet Union and the Eastern Europe. The plan was more beneficial for Western Europe. They also tried to display the fact that Stalin and the Soviet Union did not immediately refuse the Plan. Cox and Kennedy-Pipe tried to make it look as if Stalin was in fact trying to create a better relationship with America and the rest of Western Europe. Another point of Cox and Kennedy-Pipe was if the true intentions of The Marshall Plan was to help Europe, or to create allies and in essence a western bloc to counteract the Soviet Bloc.
Some of the point of Cox and Kennedy-Pipe were good and well-developed through documents and archives but other was very weak and lacked evidence. Marc Trachtenberg very easily destroyed some of Cox and Kennedy-Pipe’s major ideas. One point of Trachtenberg was that, Stalin did agree to the Marshall Plan because he wanted financial aid without any strings attached. He believed that there was no intention of cutting out Eastern Europe. I believe that even though some points in Cox and Kennedy-Pipe were good, they underplayed the paranoia and suspicion that Stalin had with the Western world. For America, communism was a threat that they believed was very harmful, and they had full reason to believe that. Stalin was in fact a very cruel leader and participated in some very grave misdeeds. Under Stalinism, communism would be dangerous to the rest of the world. Cox and Kennedy-Pipe said that Stalin and the Soviet Union had all rights to protect themselves from invasion, and to them the Marshall Plan seemed to be a manipulative way from America to commit financial imperialism. This may seem true; however I believe that Stalin overplayed the threat of America just as much as America overplayed the Soviet threat. Both countries had just finished a war, and it would seem unlikely for both countries to take part in another world war so quickly after the last. In the end, both the Soviet Union and America are both responsible for the Cold War; however, the Soviet Union should have a larger portion of the blame because they were much more aggressive in their tactics. The Marshall Plan’s primary motives were to help Europe and create a more peaceful continent. There were secondary motives such as gaining allies; however they weren’t necessarily allies against the Soviet Union. Also, America is looking out for themselves, and Stalin was a very conniving leader who had the capabilities of being a very real threat. America should be allowed to protect themselves against such a threat. The invasion of the satellite states around the Soviet Union was something that displayed their true paranoia and aggression. It is right for the Soviet Union to fear invasion and they should be able to have buffer zones to protect themselves, however the way in which they created such zones were very inappropriate and because of these invasions, those states did not receive any benefits from the Marshall Plan.
History is a very interesting topic because is an ever-changing subject. No event in history will be fully explained as it is impossible to objectively understand the reasons and reactions of all the sides involved in an issue. The Marshall Plan is an issue that will be studied for a very long time and more and more documents and evidence will be found. More theories will be created and older theories discarded. It is important that each theory be looked upon with seriousness because even theories that are unpopular and revolutionary, maybe the right one. It is important to remember that at one point, the smartest people in the world thought the world was flat. Even when the proper theory was introduced, it took many years for it to be accepted into history. Cox and Kennedy’s article was an admirable attempt at trying to better explain a world event. Though there were many good points, there were too many flaws and leave the desirable conclusion dubious at best.
As time passes by it becomes necessary to reevaluate the “history” that has been written with a tone of self-justification and self-righteousness. This is the valid central argument put forth by Cox and Kennedy-Pipe in their article “Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan.” Their focus is of course the Cold War and the Marshall Plan, and they attempt to include a deeper Russian point of view than has been traditionally considered.
The Cold War has been described and for the most part taught to us as being the result of Soviet instigation and “inevitable because of Stalin.” Basically with their own intentions of power and expansion, the Russians brought the Cold War upon the world. Kennedy-Pipe and Cox argue against this traditional view of events. Their weakness is probably being wholeheartedly biased against the traditional view and overstating the Soviet defensive nature. In rethinking the pivotal events of history one cannot throw the accepted view of things out the window.
That being said, the article presents valid points that battle the typical view championing the American democratic cause against the demon Soviets. Kennedy-Pipe and Cox cite internal Soviet documents, hitherto inaccessible, that expose how the USSR acted in response to Western threats rather than set out to create a threat of their own. They logically argue that the Soviets realistically did not expect to be successful in taking on an advanced and economically superior West. Therefore purposefully creating an Iron Curtain and turning their back on the rest of the world should have been last on Stalin’s agenda. According to this article, the Marshall Plan was an antagonistic piece of policy aimed directly to defy the USSR. Hence, a stark difference in ideology was cemented between East and West. Rather than bow his head and accept the aid of an anticommunism sphere and be subject to financial imperialism, what would a man like Josef Stalin do? So it is argued that merely in keeping with his policies and denouncing the Marshall Plan as “a plot to interfere in the domestic affairs of other countries” Stalin sparked the Cold War.
The pillar of this argument is that the Marshall Plan was indeed a form of financial imperialism and purposefully agitating towards the Soviets. Marshall himself declared that “our plan is not directed against any country or doctrine but against hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos.” Kennedy-Pipe and Cox provide evidence to the contrary. Their opinion is a relatively new and fresh challenge to authority. It is a matter of individual opinion to decide the success or divisive results of the Marshall Plan. Personally, I still believe that the Plan was more of an act of goodwill than a strategic policy to confront Stalin and the Soviets. However, this article does an excellent job in presenting the alternate side of things.
With this article Cox and Kennedy-Pipe have done their part to balance the study of the Cold War in “post-revisionist” fashion. History boils down to a subjective analysis of events and everyone knows that the winners write the history books. We learn more by considering and appreciating the other side and examining evidence that doesn’t necessarily fit into the mold of commonly accepted thought.
In the media, the classroom, or even in daily reading or conversation finding the unbiased take on the events that ensued during a certain historic event is close to impossible. Many believe that depending on where they live in the world and to whom their home nation is allied makes an impression on how they are taught history. In some ways this is true, and getting both sides of the story does not necessarily compensate for an unbiased view. There are, in fact, hundreds of versions to the same story so the safest way to approach a topic is by simply stating the facts: numbers, names, dates, etc. However, this does not make for a good story, which is what history is.
This brings us to the Cox Kennedy-Pipe article. The authors obviously wanted to shine a new light on the issue of the beginning of the Cold War, but they it feels as though they want so badly to change the views of many Americans that they inadvertently take a Soviet stance on the issue. The Marshall Plan was simply an OPTIONAL donation to countries which needed it to fight Soviet oppression and takeover. It isn't like America was absolving these countries into their empire, only their political spectrum. Although they are providing a Soviet bias they rely on other works praising the Marshall Plan to even out the scale, instead of writing a piece themselves. In fact, the Soviet bias was the strong point of this essay. The article did indeed serve its purpose, though. It piqued the interest of many other journalists and authors, the result being articles bashing “Tragedy of American Diplomacy?”.
The authors make it sound as if the Soviet Union was the one being pushed into the corner when in fact they were the ones cornering other nations into “joining” their soviet empire. The only thing the Marshall plan revealed were which nations in western europe did not want to join the Iron Curtain. If they had wanted to, then they wouldn't have taken our nation's bribe. This wasn't a call to arms, simply a way of defining who was on who's side. There were countries that didn't swing either way, too. It was a brilliant strategy designed to gain support recognition for the U.S.A. in farther reaches of the earth such as central and eastern Europe. The authors made it seem as if we were trying to create two great factions of the world. The weakest point the authors present is their lack of American perspective and their surplus of Soviet input.
Although this is a well presented and factual article, the very tone and format of the arguments make it seem as if the United States shoved sacks of money down Europe's throat and threatened the Soviets. Cox and Kennedy-Pipe lead a factual one-sided attack on the United States and this is just another one of those articles that proves that you can only learn history if you teach yourself. Don't let people like these fill your head with ideas without referencing others.
Post a Comment