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 6/8.
35 comments:
The source “The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan” has a thesis that is fundamentally flawed. Michael Cox and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe argue that the American establishment of the ERP was an aggressive move to attempt to weaken the Soviet’s power and influence. This source practically places blame on America, but fails to include important information concerning the ways in which the Soviet Union was at fault. It is near folly to claim that the sole purpose of the ERP was to undermine the Soviet Union. Cox and Kennedy-Pipe argue that America was not solely interested in providing financial aid to other countries, but this argument is inaccurate considering that America just finished fighting a war with totalitarian, fascist states. The politicians at the time were also aware that an economically, desperate country (like Germany after War World I) could result in a similar conflict. Therefore, it was in their best interests to provide monetary aid to ensure that war didn’t arise again.
The journal is also quick to place Stalin as a victim. This action is borderline outrageous. It is something that could even be considered a cruel farce, comparable to Kim Jong Il singing “I’m So Lonely” in the movie Team America, but I digress. America had every right to be suspicious of Stalin and his intentions, for he was a dictator who was power-hungry, basically incapable of accepting criticism, and the epitome of Hobbes’s definition of a man who is “nasty, poor, brutish, and short.” Stalin was a ruler who executed Trotsky over arguments of semantics, and imprisoned hundreds of thousands of people in labor camps in order to “purge” his nation of anything that “threatened” communist doctrine. There is a fine line between victim and aggressor, and Stalin can blatantly be categorized as an aggressor.
Cox and Kennedy-Pipe are correct in placing blame in America’s unwillingness to negotiate, and there were times when America was overtly aggressive in their attempt to “contain” the scourge of Communism (the Korean War and the Vietnam War are both cases in point). However, it is foolhardy to claim that America was aggressive during the ERP talks. They may have not desired the Soviet Union to join in these discussions, but they weren’t necessarily aggressors. I understand Cox and Kennedy-Pipe attempting to be unbiased judges, but there are risks when one tries to play Devil’s advocate without all the facts.
"The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan," makes an argument based on an incorrect bias. The idea the Soviet's had less diplomatic options may very well be correct, however, (assuming this is correct) American policy had to be based on the idea that Soviets had great power. The reasons for this are that the Soviets put forth an appearence that they were strong enough to compete with any and all western countries, the nation-wide psychological scare imposed by the "Soviet Threat," and the very battleground the cold war fought on, ideas.
Soviet Russia had to appear strong to the western countries in order to have even a ghost of a chance in competing witht hem. This was simply because as a communist country, they were viewed as an ideological threat to western capitalism. By appearing strong (and potentially stronger than they were), the Soviets forced America either defensively or aggressively, but never friendly. America chose an intriguing mix of passive-agressiveness. By offering the Soviet's the same deal they offered all other countries they were able to appear friendly to the Soviet's while still alienating them. They were thus able to move ahead with the Marshall Plan, which attempted to bring communist countries closer to capitalism. thus the aggressive nature of the Plan seemed nice and friendly for Soviet Russia.
America may have had more options at the start of the Cold War, however, a giant threat seemed to be on the edge of Europe, Soviet Russia. Soviet Russia may not have been as realistic a threat as many Americans believed, but in human action, what one believes is absolute knowledge is often more important than the actual absolute knowledge. As a result of belief in a threat, America acted as such. This psychological idea of a Soviet monster was helped by the size of Soviet Russia and their imperialistic moves in Eastern Russia.
(there is more to this post)
(this is the rest of the post)
Lastly, the most important factor was the idealistic battleground that was the stage of the Cold War. Americans had a strong belief in representative democratic-republicism and capitalism while the Soviet's had a totalitarian communist state. Both found themselves at opposite ends of one another. They were placed as natural enemies and naturally at odds with one another. As a result, BOTH moved with the idea that the other was the enemy. Perhaps if one of them had reached out a friendly hand, the entire Cold War would have been avoided. However, neither could stop thinking of the other as the enemy, both acted against the other, and as a result true diplomacy was never reached. America could have accepted that other countries can do their own thing and that democracy means letting people choose their government, even if it is not democracy, then America could have helped. If Soviet Russia could have realized America was different and that examples of things done in Soviet Russia were not done in America, the Cold War could have potentially been averted. Here is a list of some things that are done differently in Soviet Russia:
In Soviet Russia, car drive you
In Soviet Russia, TV watches YOU!!
In Soviet Russia, function calculate derivative of YOU!!
In Soviet Russia, Soulja Boy crank YOOOOUUUUU!
In Soviet Russia, immigrants deport YOU!
In Soviet Russia, Mudkipz liek YOU!!
In Soviet Russia, lazer charges YOU!
In Soviet Russia, lion gets in -- JESUS CHRIST IT'S A CAR GET IN THE LION!!!
In Soviet Russia, lulz did it for YOU!
In Soviet Russia, 1) Profit! 2) ???? 3) YOU!!
In Soviet Russia, cheezburger can haz YOU!
In Soviet Russia, music downloads YOU!
In Soviet Russia, pet feed YOU!
In Soviet Russia, 9,000 over YOU!
In Soviet Russia, Hadouken fire YOU!
In Soviet Russia, card crushes YOU!
In Soviet Russia, condom breaks YOU!!
In Soviet Russia, Urinal pees on YOU!!!
In Soviet Russia, pages moves Grawp
In Soviet Russia, Waldo finds YOU!
In Soviet Russia, horse rides YOU!
In Soviet Russia, Big Brother watches YOU!
In Soviet Russia, babies eat YOU!
In Soviet Russia, government has a say in YOU! (No, RLY.)
In Soviet Russia, goddamn door closes YOU!
In Soviet Russia porn watch you!
In Soviet Russia, babby has you!
In Soviet Russia, party find you!
In Soviet Russia, Soviet Russia makes joke about you!
"In America you can always find party, in Russia Party always find you!" - Long live Yakov Smirnoff!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y5hEKfxm4M
The article “The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan” brought about some interesting points about the Cold War. Although the article addressed a completely new outlook on the Cold War, I am not one-hundred percent sure that this is an accurate take on it. The article mentions the fact that Stalin might have had more choices than the United States. I do not believe this point. I believe that since the United States was holding all of the cards during the Cold War Era, they clearly had more choices that the Soviets’ did. Although the U.S. was held back by Congress, the USSR was a struggling nation at this time they had a minimal economy and not many people left in the country. The majority of the population had been killed during the Russian Revolution and World War II. The regards to the Marshall Plan, it was offered to Russia under the pretenses that Stalin would not accept the treaty. However, the Marshall Plan would have been beneficial to the Republic because of the poor state that the economy was in at the time. Stalin did not want to agree to the terms that the United States was offering to the Soviets, although they were extreme demands, the country could have benefited from all of the money that the Marshall Plan would have placed into Russia. The United States had no plan of accepting the Russians into the plan, so they made incredible demands, which was not the best idea for the U.S. If the U.S. had tried to compromise with Russia instead of just making matters worse, than the Cold War might have been avoided. This article entertains this possibility, which I believe is a valid one. Since the Americans were so set on making a plan with the British and the French, the U.S. didn’t even think about making amends towards Russia, they just automatically took a hostile stance toward the country. This I believe was the ultimate mistake that was made by the Americans. If we have just been open to compromise with Stalin, they the Cold War might have never happened. This can also be argued that if the Cold War had never happened, what would the world be like today? Would Communism have spread throughout the world if a compromise was made? This is something that will never be known for sure, but it is a distinct possibility that this would have happened. Without the Cold War, the world today could be quite a different place from what it is today. This fact makes the issue of the Cold War a very interesting one that will be continuously studied throughout time.
I feel as though the “The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan” achieves in establishing a thesis and providing information which defends the argument proposed. The writers of this article argue that American policies, most notably the Marshall Plan, had at least as much influence as Soviet actions in regards to causing division in Europe and the Cold War. In terms of purely arguing their beliefs, the writers of this article do a very good job in providing research and analysis of events that supporting their thesis. Their argument is based upon conclusive evidence and the analysis of primary sources, both of which are vital for a well-supported argument. The entire article maintains focus and displays the argument in a persuasive manner. While the authors do not analyze any opposition with any thoroughness, I do not believe that they needed to in order to. In terms of proving their thesis, the writers did exactly what they needed to do; they stated an argument and defended it with facts and information.
While the thesis appears to be defended well, there are certainly flaws in the organization of the argument presented. For one, while the authors do recognize arguments which oppose their thesis, they do not recognize any potential validity in them. When an opposing thesis does not agree with the authors’ own thoughts they state it is completely incorrect, which is not only disrespectful but makes it appear as though they have not put ample time into researching the ideas behind opposing theses. This displays ignorance and damages their own arguments. The authors offer very little toward explaining the arguments portrayed in other theses as well, which only adds to the idea that they have not put much time into examining the arguments of the opposition. In order for a thesis to be wholly conclusive, all sides of an argument must be presented and analyzed and it must be displayed that the thesis being presented is the most logical explanation of an occurrence. This is not seen in this article, which damages the validity of the argument.
As for if I agree with this thesis or not, I do agree, but not based upon the arguments presented. While the authors do present valid arguments, the flaws in the presentation of their argument force me to question their validity. Because they do not give a well-rounded argument which acknowledges all sides of the issue, it is not possible to completely agree with their statement and recognize it to be true simply based on the facts they presented. However, with that being said, I do agree with their thesis, at least in part. In order to have a conflict such as the Cold War, both sides need to contribute to the angst. Thus, both the actions of the United States and the Soviet Union equally contributed to the development of the Cold War.
Noah I don't know if I'm tired or what but your second post was hilarious to me.
In The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, Michael Cox and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe put forward a number of postulations as to what faction was most to blame for, or was the greatest instigator of, the Cold War. I believe that some portions of the thesis they put forward have merit, especially their assessment of the position Soviet leaders were placed in by the creation of the Marshall Plan. However, other parts of their thesis seem to be weaker, such as in the end they slip in the possibility of avoiding the conflict by keeping an “Open Door”, which seems to be merely wishful thinking.
Providing insight as to the “double game” played by the French and British Prime Ministers, the thesis by Cox and Kennedy-Pipe paints a strong image of the political interest of the Western nations that dealt with the US. While they were previously known to have opposed to Soviet influence, Cox and Kennedy-Pipe
Show just how much more antagonistic and manipulative the United States and its Allies could be. France and Great Britain backed the Soviet Union into a corner by accepting the generous donations of the Marshal Plan, and the US architects who specifically backed the plan knew that it would not only be turned down by the Soviet Union so that they would never be aiding Communism, but that the plan would eventually divide Europe. The paper reveals the seeds of the Westerners that grew the distrust held by the Soviets for dealing with the US and its allies. I believe that Cox and Kennedy-Pipe do a fine job in addressing the myriad political moves, transparent or otherwise, that the West used to exclude the Soviets and start the ‘peaceful hostilities’ of the Cold War.
I also agree with the conclusion that the United States had the “greatest choices” to make after the war; the proud nation that was identifiable by so many European countries as liberators and fellow democratic-capitalists was able to passive-aggressively handout further monetary aide that couldn’t possibly be scrutinized by the public (as it was by the Soviet Politburo), putting them ahead of the Soviets in the hearts and minds of much of the Western world. Meanwhile, the Soviet Union, a nation with the greatest death toll of any war in the history of mankind as well as a famine, recession, and unfriendly Communist appearance, had to quickly forge weak and aggressive alliances to create the Warsaw Pact and utilize its neighboring states to buffer against the crushing might of the American economy. It is interesting to consider that, had the Soviets accepted, the Marshall plan would have caused unrest in Congress to the point of being rejected, and in turn “let down” many of the European nations that needed aid, who may have in turn been led to the Communist flock.
I disagree when it is said that by leaving the door open longer between the Soviet Union and the Western world, the Cold War could have been abated or avoided. After all, it was through that same door that capitalism would cross to do battle with the Communist ideology of the USSR, which could have brought further destabilization and estrangement not between factions of states, but between the very people of the Communist and Capitalist nations. The Cold War may have been altered, but by leaving that same door open, a greater destabilization of Europe may have resulted in a ‘hot’ war as capitalist tycoons may have attempted to reign in profit and take advantage of the Soviet states.
In the article entitled "The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan" introduced a variety of interesting issues surrounding the overall history of the Cold War. The main focus of this article was to discuss the complex reasoning behind the Cold war between the Soviet Union and the United States. The two authors of this article, Michael Cox and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe create a logical and well supported thesis which states that American politics as well as Soviet actions were the ultimate cause for division within Europe and thus the Cold War between these two nations. I felt that although this thesis is a very controversial one it did bring up a variety of important points that are often not discussed within American history. The authors incorporated a wide range of primary and secondary sources within their articles and supported their unpopular thesis incredibly well. The authors definitely demonstrated that the Marshall Plan limited the options of the Soviet Union as well as antagonized them and forced them to become angry and hostile. I believed, however, that the main defect of this article was that it contained a relatively large amount of bias towards American actions during the Cold War. I found this particularly ironic and odd because they continuously complained about American history's bias towards the events that led up to and ensued throughout the course of the Cold War. I felt as though although the article provided a great deal of information supporting the effects of American policies such as the Marshall Plan it did not include much information demonstrating the Soviet's influence on the situation.
In the article, “The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan”, the authors Michael Cox and Caroline Kennedy-pipe discuss how the Marshall Plan was the cause of internal strife in Europe; a threat to its structure. Their argument, in my opinion, makes sense; America’s obsession with being the superman of the world had a profoundly negative effect on European internal relations, which caused the citizens of Soviet Russia, under Stalin, to experience pure hell. The United States created the Marshall Plan to help rebuild Europe after WWII, but also stop the spread of Communism, which is a “threat” to our holy system of democracy. The article pointed out that the Marshall Plan was not a nice gesture of American chivalry to help out in the world, but a deliberate attempt to hurt the Soviet Union. This theory is proven due to the fact that most of the aid sent over to Europe was received by the UK and France. There is also the fact that America looks down upon other forms of government due to our complex that democracy is the only acceptable form of government.
The United States created ERP without intending to include the Soviet Union, and aimed to rid their holdings in Eastern Europe from the powerful hand of Communism. This in turn, made the lives for people enclosed in the Iron Curtain a living hell. Thus, the divide between European nations was even more intense, this is what the authors of the article argue. IN turn, they present the fact that the Marshall Plan and the ignorant mindset of the USSR created the Cold War. The positive side of the article is the fact that both sides of the argument arise and are explained thoroughly, but at the same time, the downside to the article is that there is a strong American bias; while still managing to criticize the stupidity of the Marshall Plan and American actions. At some points in the article, it seemed that the authors were bipolar because they would jump emotions; criticizing the USSR while hailing the US for leaving the door open for Stalin to come through and get help. On the flip side, the authors state that it was the US who wouldn’t help; when Stalin was doing what he always thought was right. At times the article was confusing because their bias was always jumping around; but the overriding sense is that there is an American bias. This is expected because many Americans have the mindset that our government, its actions, and desires are of high quality and worth because it is democracy. However, this is not always the case; when we all look at history and the stupid mistakes that have occurred; including the Cold War, which held the world at stake.
I find myself largely in disagreement with the thesis presented in the article “The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan”. Authors Michael Cox and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe essentially argue that the Marshall Plan, which the United States presented to Europe to help destroyed nations rebuild their economies after World War II, was not a genuine effort to help. Instead, they view the plan as the first act of aggression against Soviet power and influence, which would soon lead to the Cold War. I feel that this article was unfairly biased against the United States. Although it is interesting to see a European viewpoint on the matter, I feel the views expressed in this article are that of only a small minority of extremists. The authors accuse America of being aggressive but fail to recognize the reasonable suspicions held against Stalin. Seeing as Stalin was a dictator who had his political enemy, Trotsky, executed, and who imprisoned anyone whom he believed posed a threat to communism, it does not seem too harsh for United States diplomats to be cautious when dealing with him. Also, one must keep in mind when reading this that the United States held a previous history of not supporting communist efforts. The article also mostly ignores the historical context surrounding the plan. Since there had just been such a large war, the United States had seen the terrible damage that can be done to a country’s infrastructure and economy. For this reason, how can the authors think they would possibly want to initiate another war? Perhaps the article is only correct in noting that the United States was unwilling to negotiate with Stalin. In my opinion, since America was providing help to nations desperately in need, the other countries would be foolish to try and negotiate some kind of “better deal” instead of just accepting the economic help offered. To try to gain a more realistic perspective on the matter, I looked up some general information about the Marshall Plan. The first few sources to come up were ones that mostly agreed with my argument supporting the Marshall Plan and denying any hidden aggressive intentions behind it. Statistically, the Marshall Plan provided benefits- and economic growth between 15% and 25% during the years of the plan for countries receiving aid. As another example, Winston Churchill was quoted as saying the plan was “the most unselfish act by any great power in history”. I agree much more with Churchill’s opinion than the radical and accusatory position taken by the authors of “The Tragedy of American Diplomacy”.
In the article “The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan,” the authors essentially discussed an extremely different view on the Cold War, and the Marshall Plan. In reviewing this document I have to say I completely disagree with what the authors were saying. Their thesis overall, claimed that the United States was not actually trying to help when they put forth the Marshall Plan to lend a hand to the European nations that were hurting after World War II. This argument I think is not valid. It would be a different story if the authors were trying to claim the Marshall Plan has subsequent motives behind it, but to say the United States was not actually trying to help the hurting countries I think is crazy. These authors seem extremely prejudiced against the United States and do not have a valid point. Their argument is too conclusive and does not allow for any other reason to explain why the Cold War happened.
Though I do not agree with the thesis and think that it is a very biased paper against the United States, I will say that the authors of this article did a very good job in using evidence. I will not say that I agree but they do use it well. They discuss aspects of the plan and aspects of what happened that fully support their argument. However I do not believe they are always using the whole picture when discussing these items. When using sources it is very easy to twist words around and work them into what you want to say even if it is not actually what the document is about. I feel like that is a great strength of this article. They downplay a lot of the arguments against their thesis but only mentioning it and never elaborating on the things that disagree with their case.
The authors of the article also failed to accurately portray what was happening during this time period. As Charles Maier refuted in his article, the authors of “The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan,” used the fact that the United States divided Europe interchangeably with the start of the Cold War. However, this is not the case. The division of Europe did indeed happen due to the United States, but this cannot be said to also be the cause and source of the Cold War. The “facts” put forth are very misleading, and were only used because they were able to support the thesis created by these very biased authors of the article.
The article “The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan,” presents a new idea about the Marshall Plan that I had never thought of before. Usually when I think of the Marshall Plan I associate it with thoughts on how America offered help to those nations that were devastated after World War II. This was what I was taught in my history classes, and it seemed like a self-less act that America was doing towards the European nations. However, this is not what the thesis of the article is about. The authors of the article feel as if the United States had other motives for putting forth the Marshall Plan, which I strongly disagree with. The authors do not seem to understand, or if they do they fail to elaborate on why diplomats of the United States used precaution when dealing with Stalin. Also how the United States has never supported communism. Even with these issues, I do feel that the United States could have tried a little more to negotiate with Russia and try to make amends with them, which ultimately could have lead to there being no Cold War. While I do not agree with the thesis in this article, I do believe that they did a nice job of gathering facts that they then used to represent their thesis. They used an array of primary and secondary sources in efforts to help prove their point, which is something that any thesis driven work should included. The only problem with a lot of their information was that it was vary biases. They only focused on agreements that pertained to their side of the thesis to help to prove it. The authors completely failed to mention the other side of their argument. By doing this I feel that the article was not quit as credible as it could have been. This is because I feel that in a thesis paper, such as this article both sides should be presented as a way to show that you fully researched your topic, and even with contradicting evidence, you were still able to find enough information to prove your thesis.
As indicated by the title of their journal, "The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan?", Michael Cox and Kennedy-Pipe clearly disapproved of the Marshall Plan.
The Marshall Plan, as studied in history, was a plan created by the countries of Western Europe to repair the damages that had resulted from World War II. In addition, the plan was proposed to stem the pervasiveness of of communism and to solidify the emergence of political democracy.
One of Cox and Pipe's opinions was that the Marshall Plan was an aggressive move devised by the United States to debase the Soviet Union's power. It is a common criticism made today by historians--that though, the Plan was created for the betterment of the countries, it was an ulterior move that was meant to supply the United States with more power.
Also, Cox and Pipe stated that the US had caused Europe to become more divided. The Cold War was then a product of the faults of the Marshall Plan. Cox and Pipe takes a more or less different view and makes the Soviet Union a victim of the Marshall Plan.
The authors' arguments were slightly solidified by the amount of sources they had used to support or refute. Using sources to help their case allowed the readers to know where they were coming from in their argument. However, Cox and Pipe seemed to skate over the oppositions which faced their argument. If they had only stretched and attempted to call out their adversaries and succeeded then the readers would have been more likely to consider the authors' opinions.
The article “The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan” in my opinion makes for an absurd and biased article. The tone of the publication is obviously hostile to America, and places the blame of the cold war, and strained relations with the Reds, almost solely on America. This is frankly just plain nonsense. The best part is that they try to make Stalin seem like the innocent one! We’ve learned about how Stalin was quite similar to Hitler as a leader, when we take into account the different types of governments they were trying to direct. The claim that the ERP was our plan of action against the Reds is probably just an over exaggeration of what it was actually meant to do. If we take a quick look back in history, we can see that after the First World War, our failure to actually assure a financially strong and well off Germany creates a very weak state. Poverty, debt, and hyperinflation tend to be perfect breeding grounds for a need of radical change and more importantly, for angered sentiments towards whoever inflicted it upon them. The ERP was made to ensure that these sorts of things would not happen, and to avoid another conflict with the Germans, the thought that we should make friends with them. It worked splendidly, but according the article, we started the Cold War.
Trying to set Stalin as an innocent bystander is “NUTS!” Lets take a look at Mr. Stalin’s record: He killed off a large number of his officer core because he felt that they were influential and could be a threat to his power, he demoted and tried to lessen the roles of several influential members of the military (during world war two, namely the general who commanded the Soviets in the Battle of Berlin), he killed a large, unknown quantity of Poles and other races, was a brutal leader, and generally not the most innocent person in the world. To try and say that America would be the reason why there were strained relations with Russia is a bad joke.
"The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan" provides an interesting view of the events leading up to and during the Cold War. The thesis put forth by the authors seems flawed to me. I don't believe that the Soviet Union had more options than the United States, and that the Marshall Plan was more an act of aggression rather than one of peace. The purpose of the Marshall Plan was to provide economic aid at the end of World War II, which most European powers were in desperate need of. The Marshall Plan did create conflicts between the two powers of the United States and the Soviet Union. The United States did not expect an agreement from the Soviet Union when the treaty was first offered. The Soviet Union did not want to stray for their communist government by accepting the Marshall Plan and moving towards capitalism. The article also tries to prove that the Soviet Union had more options prior to and during the Cold War than the United States did. In a time of severe unrest in Russia, especially after the events of World War II and the Russian Revolution, the Soviets were not prepared to do much of anything. The Americans were in the position of peacekeeper in providing aid to those countries greatly affected by the events of the war. There is some strength to the thesis though in undermining American intentions. After fighting a war against fascist states, it would be difficult to come to friendly terms with a major world power with an communist dictator. The Soviet Union also has to be put at fault, though, as they had no intentions of coming to an agreement with the United States. Both powers are at fault in this case. The United States did not extend their own brand of aid in a serious manner to the Soviet Union, and they in turn did not make efforts to establish a peace with the U.S. The Cold War probably could have been averted if both powers made efforts to attain peace. The argument put forth in the article is, in my opinion, full of faults, as the validity of it is in question and contains obvious flaws. The Americans had more options prior to the Cold War than the Soviets, and the Marshall Plan was not necessarily an act of aggression as much as an unlikely attempt at peace.
In their article, “Tragedy of American Diplomacy: Rethinking the Marshall Plan”, the authors Michael Fox and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe make several claims opposing the view of the Marshall Plan by the United States. It is not surprising that I find their claims to be extremely ridiculous and biased. Fox and Kennedy-Pipe argue that the Marshall Plan was not an attempt to help the struggling nations due to World War II, rather it was a selfish act by the United States to further their power; according to the authors, this act and the United States in general were entirely responsible for the Cold War and created more problems in Europe than they solved. I can not deny that the United States may have wanted to spread their influence and power; however they did so by assisting failing economies of countries. Yes, the United States could have avoided the Cold War, but so could have the Soviet Union. Yes, the United States could have withheld all assistance to the European nations and made no attempt to impose capitalism on the Eastern nations, but then the spread of communism would have been imminent (which I would very much dislike). I find it comical that the authors criticize the United States’ actions but do not condemn that of Stalin. If there is one thing I learned from my fourth quarter research paper on the Soviet Union, it was that Stalin was a total “arschloch” (thank you emma).
Fox and Kennedy-Pipe support their thesis as well as any other extremely biased author may support their thesis. For obvious reasons, they do not provide alternative beliefs regarding the Marshall Plan; they found every possible primary and secondary source article regarding the so-called negative intentions of the United States. To someone who didn’t already have an opinion on the subject matter of the article, they would probably believe the evidence that Fox and Kennedy-Pipe presented. However, neither I nor anyone else who supported the Marshall Plan could be per swayed by their plethora of resources; it would have been much more beneficial for them to recognize other possible beliefs, discuss why people hold them, and then state why they are incorrect, rather than not even recognizing their existence. It’s a good thing the Fox and Kennedy-Pipe live today in their socialist England rather than United States during the Red Scare; to them, I say stay in the UK; the United States doesn’t want you.
After reading this article, I found the thesis apparent. The Marshall plan was a program to bring economic aid and relief to European countries. Yet, it was also a facilitator of the Cold War. While the US supported giving this aid to most European countries, it was opposed to the inclusion of the Soviet Union. The Soviets had sought to develop a cooperation with the US; however, it was agreed upon by the policymakers of the West that the USSR should not be included. The US had no intention of including the USSR, and this was an integral part of their policy toward the USSR. The authors are presenting a thesis that the Marshall plan played a vital role in creating the divide in Europe that marked the Cold War. The authors theorize that by attempting to create the ERP in Europe without the USSR's inclusion, the US helped force the Soviets to abandon their hopes of cooperation with the West and tighten control over Eastern European countries in order to maintain their sphere of influence, which was being compromised by the ERP. The Soviets worried that the ERP's aid program could lure certain countries away from their sphere of influence, and thus had to tighten their hold over these countries while at the same time moving away from their endeavors to cooperate with the West. The authors fundamentally hold that the Marshall plan was a move of aggression made by the US against the Soviets, which led to the worsening of the world situation and the growing of the "Iron Curtain". I can see the logic in this thesis. It makes sense and is well explained. They clearly support their position with evidence and sound arguments, and in fact this is an opinion that has been advanced by previous historians, that the US had other objectives besides giving aid to other countries--namely, improving its position of power. I agree and think this is probably true. However, I think their thesis is incomplete. I think it portrays the Soviet Union as a victim, almost, in saying that it tried to achieve cooperation with the West, but was rebuffed. It is saying that the USSR had no choice but to enforce their iron will over other countries and deepen the split in Europe--essentially excusing the Soviets and placing the blame at the feet of the Western countries. I don't buy into this. I believe all were responsible in some degree for the situation. The US may have worsened the situation with the Marshall plan, but it must be remembered that the Plan had plenty of positive effects. On the flip side, the Soviets were the ones who pulled the curtain all the way over, swallowing other countries up and subjecting millions to dictatorship and loss of freedoms. So to sum up, I think both sides were somewhat responsible, not just the US and not just the Soviets. The US could have been more cooperative, but they had a right to be untrustful of the USSR, while the USSR were neither victims nor 100% responsible. I think that this article, while advancing a valid argument, fails to address all sides of it.
P.S. Noah-nice post-funny.
In the article “The tragedy of American Diplomacy?, rethinking the Marshall Plan”, the authors present a very unique point of view about the Cold War. They feel that the efforts to make the Marshall Plan for other nations was not actually a generous gesture. According to them, this plan actually caused a bitter rift between the two nations and eventually was the cause of the cold war. I do not agree with that thesis at all, and feel that the article was had a negative bias against the United States. That is obviously because the authors have a European point of view, which is interesting to read since I could compare their feelings with ours. Another thing I do not agree with is the fact that the authors portray United States as some kind of an aggressive force that has some kind of a personal agenda. The United States never ever supported any communist regime and never planned on either. I think that it was actually a very stupid thing for the countries to refuse the economic help, and speculate other wise. The countries were looking for some sort of alternate deals to get themselves out of their economic trouble. According to me the Marshall Plan was by far one of the most selfless acts performed by the United States. I also think that the authors failed to portray the actual reality that took place at that time. I think that information provided in the article is inaccurate and false. There were many reasons for the Cold War, but I do not think that the Marshall Plan was a big reason behind it at all. The article also did not include a lot of information about the Soviets and therefore we do not really get to read about both sides together.
"The Tragedy of American Diplomacy" posits that it was American and Western diplomatic aggression, in the form of the implementation and economic maneuvering of the Marshall Plan in Europe, which precipitated the stratification and worsening of Western-Soviet relations and the concrete development of a defined Eastern bloc. The authors assert that, without ruthless American diplomatic instigation, a more balanced and less repressive system of political, economic, and diplomatic affairs that better accommodated the priorities of both of the major Cold War Powers could have taken place. Certainly, the authors argue many of their points with considerable analytical eloquence, providing extensive support for a number of their points. Through their citations of American, British, and French diplomatic documents, especially with relation to the Marshall Plan, they provide a strong basis for their assertions regarding the strong inclination of the West to facilitate, despite the demands of diplomatic maintenance, the alienation of the Soviet Union from the Marshall Plan, and likewise the loosening of Communist economic dominance in Eastern Europe. Certainly, it is evident both from the article's characterization of the Soviet response and common logic concerning the Soviet situation that any attempt to significantly weaken Soviet dominance within its sphere of influence within Eastern Europe or to stimulate Soviet concession to Western economic policies would have been received poorly by the Soviet Union. Furthermore, numerous example are provided of post-Marshall intensification of Soviet Cold War programmes, including Soviet initiatives among the Eastern European satellites to effect Marshall-esque economic programmes and defensive pacts as well as apparent increases in Soviet interventionism in Satellite governments and policies. Thus, the authors manage to solidly support a key element of their thesis- that of the unabashedly anti-Soviet nature of the Marshall Plan programmes and the obvious intolerability of such practices to Moscow. However, while the article presents and supports various individual points, it fails in plausibly uniting and cementing several proposals regarding the geopolitics of the era which are integral to the thesis of the authors responsible. Namely, that the post-Marshall Soviet doctrines were fundamentally a novel reaction on the part of an economically beleaguered Stalin to an increasingly invasive and threatening West, rather than a logical extension of past Soviet programmes. While the article cites several notable instances of seeming Soviet leniency in the pre-Marshall Cold War era, it largely ignores the overall conditions existing in many of the pre-Marshal l satellites. As Laszlo Borhi points out, and as I encountered in my own general research on the matter earlier this year, the pre-Marshall situation in many satellites, such as Hungary, was one of essential diplomatic and economic vassalage to the Soviet Union. Dedicated Stalinists loyal to Moscow dominated many of the pre-Marshall satellite state governments, Soviet-controlled agencies restricted communications, regulated economic activity, and dominated vital military and security agencies in the Satellites, and, indeed, the Soviet-controlled Communists frequently manipulated and plotted long-term usurpations with regards to political systems and elections in the Satellites prior to the implementation and rejection of the Marshall Plan. The Authors of the article do nothing to refute evidence pertaining to the existence of a definite progression towards division and stratification between Western and Soviet regions of Europe prior to the Marshall plan, or to properly substantiate its purportions regarding Stalin's interest in the maintenance of a more neutral, liberal, and cordial diplomatic scene in Europe between the West and the Soviet Union.
I believe that though Michael Cox and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe make some good points in the thesis of their article “The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan,” other points of their argument are flawed. In this paper, they argue that the Marshall plan was actually an aggressive move to undermine Soviet power in the east, and this contributed to the formation of communist and western blocs. They even go so far to suggest that if the US had not taken this action, the severity of the cold war could have been significantly lessened or even prevented altogether.
I believe that their examination of how the Marshall plan lead to increased divisions between east and west was fundamentally correct. The stipulations that the US placed on the reception of aid blatantly encouraged capitalist economic policies, which the Soviets would obviously disagree with. It is probable that the Soviet Union would have interpreted this policy as a deliberate attempt to pull Eastern European states away from Soviet power, and I am fairly certain that the US had some intention of using the Marshall plan to try and undermine some of Soviet Russia’s power.
However, I feel that Cox and Kennedy-Pipe placed too much significance on how the Marshall plan contributed to the face of the Cold War as a whole. Though it is evident that it increased divisions between Eastern and Western powers, these divisions had already been in place. It is difficult for me to believe that this one act of diplomacy was the most important factor contributing to aggression. Though the Marshall plan increased divisions, it was only one among many events that lead to the Cold War.
Also, I object to Cox and Kennedy-Pipe’s tendency to attribute blame for the Cold War to the US. In their paper, they attribute the Cold War to the fact that the West’s actions forced Soviet Russia, which had been previously trying for cooperation, to act aggressively in order to preserve their power. While I think this was part of the problem, I feel that Cox and Kennedy-Pipe neglect to address Soviet acts that prompted American aggression. In a conflict such as this one, one side or the other is rarely completely to blame. That Cox and Kennedy-Pipe argue that the Cold War was America and Western Europe’s fault means that their argument is one-sided, and therefore flawed
Reading “The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan”, I felt that the authors’ thesis was a bit of a stretch and contained bias. Yes, they make a convincing argument, but it is not one that I agree with. They do support their thesis well with evidence and analysis of primary sources (the end of every page is covered in footnotes), however they do a poor job of addressing the issue from other viewpoints. They don’t hold the Soviet Union to the same standard of comparison as they do the U.S. I think this really damages the authors’ credibility overall, because in any thesis-driven essay it is necessary to address both sides of the issue, otherwise it will be biased and unbalanced. It states in the beginning of the article that they wished to refute the view that Stalin made the Cold War inevitable.
While I think it would be naive to believe that the Cold War was “a simple case of Soviet expansionism and American reaction”, I do not think that the U.S. instituted the Marshall plan solely for reasons of power. They say “...it was American policies as much as (and perhaps more than) Soviet actions that anally led to the division of Europe and thus to the Cold War itself”. I don’t think there is a truly accurate way of measuring how much each side contributed to the Cold War, and if there is they have not instituted it. I find it hard to agree with their assertion that the U.S. spending $13 billion to help foster capitalism in developing countries was a purely selfish act. They address the “immense social, political, and economic burden on Moscow” but fail to judge the U.S. in the same way.
I think the authors Michael Fox and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe find it easy to criticize the Marshall Plan because they are not American, and they want to criticize it because it is an unorthodox and somewhat provocative view. After reading this article, I thought that they must have had a thesis formed in their minds before they started researching, and instead of analyzing the research with and open mind and then drawing conclusions, they simply plugged in the information to support their thesis.
“The Tragedy of American Diplomacy” does bring up some good points, such as the assertion that the Marshall plan further divided the east and west since the US encouragement of the growth of capitalistic economies blatantly went against the Russian’s (or Soviet’s) communist agenda. However, the article goes much too far in its thesis by asserting that the Marshall Plan was the main cause of the east-west division. Since the two regions were already separated by economic and political differences, the plan only served to widen the gap by throwing strong tension between eastern and western nations into the mix. There were so any other causes for the division, such as clashing economical and gubernatorial values; the Berlin/Germany split conflict, and the struggle for world power domination. To state that the Cold War would have been dramatically decreased in intensity if the Marshall Plan was not put in place is a very large stretch and a very unlikely scenario.
The fact that the article blames the US as the underlying culprit of the war is one that I also find displeasing. One must remember that Russia was just as hostile and fierce about controlling new nations under communism and building its power as the United States was for establishing democracy and increasing its own power. Due to political motives, both countries attempted to display their new powers in front of each other, causing larger tension and causing each other to work even harder to build a stronger sphere of influence and power. Such a thesis is automatically questionable in validity simply because the authors refuse to acknowledge the other side of the war and focus entirely on the stream of facts that solely point to United States aggression, when, in reality, far more documents exist pointing to the contrary. The truth of the matter is that both counties were equally at fault because both prompted aggression from the other.
The thesis behind “The Tragedy of American Diplomacy?” is an interesting one but while it might have some semblance of truth, the fact is that it is primarily incorrect. The beginning of the Cold War right after World War II was a confusing and difficult time as alliances were redrawn and the battlefield changed from the stomping grounds of soldiers to the realm of political policies and laws. The political rushing behind the confusion lead to the tensions that occurred through this long war primarily made up of words. While this article states the U.S. is primarily responsible for the Cold War the evidence proves that no one country was more responsible than the other for causing this conflict. Much of the evidence presented leans heavily towards a bias against the United States especially when presenting the evidence dealing especially with the Marshall Plan. The article makes the plan seem like a double-crossing spy, where it seems like the person is working against its homeland where in reality he is waiting to stab you in the back. In the case of the Marshall Plan it seems like the idea was for the Soviets to refuse the “bait” which would then allow for the growth of British, French and other West European sources. Despite all that however there is the simple possibility that it simply was just the United States helping out its embittered allies whom had lost so much in a costly world war. One has to remember that although they didn’t always get along the Soviet Union and America were allies for World War II and the Soviets were definitely the hardest hit of any of the countries, Where the Soviets were hurt the Americans gained since that same war catapulted the Americans out of the Depression they had been in for almost a decade back into a time of prosperity. So while many of the officials in the government did not want the Soviets to accept the plan, which they later did not, it seems like the Americans were genuinely offering this plan to them. Had the Soviets taken the plan the build-up of enemy capitalist countries might not have occurred in such a great amount but it is the Soviet Union’s own fault for not doing so. It must be mentioned however that the Marshall Plan was later used to obviously steer the Eastern Europeans towards the American side of the conflict. These countries would end up becoming economic burdens to the Soviet Union in its later years however so once again acceptance of the Marshall Plan might have actually helped. As countries like Britain and France grew stronger off American economic support the Soviets began to get increasingly worried about their enemies build-ups. The authors of the article try to use this information to make it seem like America and its capitalist allies were bloating themselves on increasing amounts of money so they could wage war and it left Stalin no choice to make the choices that he did. This is not true however because other evidence shows that he made many negative decisions like leading away from Lenin’s idea of a true form of communism and was constantly protecting his own back so he could keep the leadership role rather than give it to the people. It is not unusual that a man so power hungry would engage in a conflict when the “tactical build-ups” he saw in enemy nations were really just times of prosperity. It is true that the Marshall plan did try to lead the Eastern European nations astray which definitely caused tensions towards the Cold War but Stalin should have been taking better care of those countries, although he only had limited resources after the war. Overall you really can’t blame anyone specific nation because issues and mistakes from both sides, both intentional and unintentional, lead to the incredibly complex situation of the Cold War.
“The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan” is a source in which the authors discredit the orthodox belief of the purpose of the Marshall Plan. Their thesis on the causes of the Cold War was created with the use of both eastern and western sources, thus removing the western biases based on the limited amount of sources available. This thesis states that the Marshall Plan was not created with the intention to help the European countries recover economically after the war, but had other motives behind the seemingly ‘good will’ of the United States. That included debasing the Soviet power to ensure political democracy in Western Europe. This leads them to state that both the United States and the Soviet Union had equal parts to play in the beginning of the Cold War. The entire article seems to downplay the actions of Stalin and exaggerate the actions of the Untied States. Fox and Kennedy-Pipe’s thesis while biased, does make a good point in the fact that the United States actions were not entirely for their generosity to aid struggling countries. There was obviously some hope for gain in power over the Soviet Union in the creation of the Marshall Plan, since these were the two major powers after the war. But how can we blame the U.S. for doing this, for would we rather watch the European continent fall to the communist powers? Fox and Kennedy-Pipe also state that if the Marshall plan was not created the Cold War would not have turned out to be as large of a issue or even existed at all. This is preposterous because there were many other growing tensions between the two world powers at the time besides the United States aiding foreign countries. While this thesis-driven essay does have some credibility to it, it is hard to completely agree with due to the apparent bias shown towards the Soviet Union. While the Marshall Plan may have had a part to play in the creation of the Cold War it would be completely naive to disregard the Soviets aggression and actions that also led to the Cold War, which is what Cox-Kennedy-Pipe did in this article. They also do not analyze both sides of the argument with unbiased attitude, for any proof or source that discredits their thesis they claim to be ‘incorrect’. While the thesis was biased against the United States, I still feel that it brought up a valid point of the hidden purposes of political actions. But I honestly do not believe that the United States would throw away 13 billion dollars just to get into a war with the Soviet Union. The United States and the Marshall Plan are not entirely to blame for the start of the Cold War for its apparent that both sides had equal parts to play and other factors led up to the beginning of the Cold War.
The thesis presented in “The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan” has both strengths and weakness. Within this article, Michael Cox and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe essentially argue that the Marshall Plan was not a genuine effort to help war torn Europe but rather an act of aggression against the Soviet Union to undermine their power and prestige, eventually leading to the Cold War. Though these two authors successfully created an original thesis with an extensive amount of primary source documentation used as support, their argument is essentially biased and therefore more or less invalid. The Marshall plan has traditionally been viewed as peace offering by the United States to help destroyed nations rebuild their economies after the devastations of World War II. Naturally, as a United States citizen, I am prone to supporting this view of the Marshall Plan and viewing the article is biased. There are however, more than various views of history, dependent on whose “side” you’re on and what you support. This article however, in my opinion, expressed a very extreme and convoluted point of view. The authors are quick to blame America, overlooking the plausible reasons for America’s actions. American politicians realized that economically desperate countries were prone to fall under the hands of unsound leaders such as Germany following World War I. It was in their best interest as well as the world’s best interest to provide aid to these nations to prevent the outbreak of war. The article also overlooks the validity of America’s suspicions of Stalin, naming him a “victim” rather than the aggressor that he is. America had every right to be suspicious of Stalin. He had proved to be a power hungry dictator who mercilessly executed Trotsky and imprisoned untold numbers of population to clean out his nation of communism. Needless to say, “victim” is not the first word I think of when Stalin comes to mind.
This article, despite its flawed thesis, is correct in categorizing America as nation that was unwilling to negotiate at times and openly aggressive in containing Communism. This however does validate the claim that the United States was the sole nation at fault for the outbreak of the Col War. Though an interesting article to read, I believe it has little merit.
In “The Tragedy of American Diplomacy” the authors presented a fairly simple thesis: Though Stalin was the final cause of Eastern Europe’s fall, the United States’ aid under the Marshall Plan forced the Soviet into a more “hostile stance”. This thesis makes sense because the Plan was intended to strengthen Western European bonds by keeping communism out. Even though the same aid was offered to the Soviets as the Western Europeans, it would not have made sense for the Soviets to take it because they were Communist. This created a situation where it was Soviets vs. the rest of the Western World and, as in any situation of one vs. all, we cannot blame the Soviets for moving into the defensive. With that in mind, I think that the argument put forth in the article is a valid one. The United States created the hostile environment in which the Soviets felt the need to retaliate from.
A flaw of this thesis was that it seemed to over- exaggerate the amount of blame the US should receive. Though its intentions were “less than true”, the motivation to prevent the spread of Communism and Stalin ideals was a sufficient reason to turn the world against him. Take for example, how Czechoslovakia could not benefit from the American aid. That in itself shows the extent of Stalin’s power and why Marshall and the rest of American government attempted to stop Communism.
The thesis in “The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan” is clearly biased against the United States. Authors Michael Cox and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe blame America and leave out the faults of the Soviets. They argue that the Marshall plan was a major cause of the Cold War and the growing tensions between the United States and Soviet Russia. However, I think the Marshall Plan was just an extension of an already existing problem. Following the war, the two countries were took hostile positions against each other, viewing the other as the enemy and the aggressor. Both countries tried to “out-do” each other in their ambition for power and control, and their spreading of either communism or capitalism. With America’s introduction of the Marshall Plan, they offered to help desperate nations who were struggling economically. The USSR could have greatly benefited from this, as the condition of their state was poor; they had lost much of their population in the Russian Revolution and World War II and had a weak economy. If Russia hadn’t tried to make itself appear more strong and powerful than it really was, and simply accepted America’s aid, much of the conflict could have been avoided.
The authors were correct in noting that America was very unwilling to negotiate with Stalin. They were also somewhat correcting in stating that America’s effort in the Marshall Plan towards Soviet Russia wasn’t purely an act of charity for the country. It was an act of aggression toward Russia in making incredible demands; the Marshall Plan was initially intended to help other economically struggling nations but differed toward Russia in this aspect. Also, the Americans appear to be justified in their actions because of the already violent and aggressive nature established by Soviet Russia and its leader. As stated before, I also do not believe America’s actions began the Cold War, nor that the Marshall Plan was the sole source of the conflict, but rather that the already existing tensions were simply escalated by the plan. The Cold War most likely would not had been avoided with the absence of a Marshall Plan, because tensions would continue to increase between the opposing countries, although if the Marshall Plan had been conducted differently and induced a compromise between the United States and Russia, tensions may have been eased, thus avoiding such a conflict.
Although this thesis is well written and expressed, I disagree with some aspects of it. I believe that the Marshall plan rather than the cause of a great divide between the east and west was more of a catalyst, widening an already existing gap between the east and the west (one that would have eventually and inevitably widened with or without the Marshall Plan). The Soviet Union and the United States were comparable to oil and water, and let’s face it: oil and water just do not mix. The capitalist ideals of the United States and the communist views of the Soviet Union are in two totally opposite sides of the ideological spectrum, essentially being polar opposites of each other. The main focus of capitalism is the individual. The individual owns their own business, makes their own paycheck, spends it how they deem it necessary, and it is individuals who run the economy their way with as little government intervention as possible (in an ideal capitalist society following liaise faire views, this would mean no government intervention). Whereas the main focus of communism is economic growth and success for the community as a whole. The government owns all businesses and spreads wealth out evenly among the people. With such extreme differences in ideology, a gap between the east and west was clearly unavoidable and a long time in the makings, tracing its origins to the 1917 revolution in Russia and the establishment of the communist government in the Soviet Union. Desperation in an attempt to protect their ideologies on both sides further widened the gap. The red scare in the U.S. and the Soviet Secret police weeding out and exiling capitalists to Siberia are both examples of responses by both countries attempting to preserve their own ideologies while further distancing the other. Although the thesis makes a justified point in stating that the Marshal plan contributed to this great divide, I believe the evidence used to support the thesis backs my point of view that the Marshal Plan was merely the straw that broke the camel’s back, a straw that would have been placed on the camel regardless if the Marshall Plan was put into effect or not, due to the large number of differences that already existed at this time between the east and the west. Thus the Marshal plan was merely a catalyst to an already inevitably widening divide between the east and the west, rather than the sole cause of the divide, itself.
I would have to say that I completely disagree with the thesis put forth in “The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan?” The thesis that is presented is pretty much just dead wrong. In the article Michael Cox and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe mainly say that the Marshall Plan was not a authentic effort to help war torn Europe, but was actually an act of hostility towards the Soviet Union in affect to undermine their power and their community; eventually leading to the Cold War. The authors legitimized their thesis by presenting a wealth of primary source documents, however, I believe the argument presented was extremely biased against America. The large majority of historians would agree that the Marshall Plan was an outreach towards demoralized countries after World War II ruined their countries. It was a peace offering from the United States to the war stricken countries across Europe. However, in my opinion the article offered an extremely skewed view of what the Marshall plans intentions actually were. The authors seem to be condescending towards America; they don’t seem to grasp the reasons for America to do this.
The central thesis for the article “The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan” was that it was not just the Soviet’s actions that caused the Cold War; rather, American policies also led to the acceleration of the Cold War. Cox and Kennedy-Pipe justify their claim first by examining the goals of Stalin and the realities that came from these goals. They claim that Stalin did not intend on waging war with the US nor did he intend on completely shutting down relations with the West. It was due, in part, to the Marshall Plan that the Cold War started, not the sole responsibilities of the Soviets. In order to justify their claim, they examine the development of Soviet relations before and after the Marshall Plan. They show that the enmity towards the West and the turn towards the Cold War started after the Marshall Plan because the Soviet felt threatened by the US’s plan of undermining the Soviet’s control over Eastern European nations by taking advantage of the Soviet’s weak economy. Then, they examined how the US and its allies antagonized and excluded the Soviet from key conferences on European security. Finally, they discuss how the Marshall Plan was intended in blocking the Soviet’s economic powers over Eastern Europe and excluding the Soviets from European politics.
While this is an interesting outlook on the role of the US in aggravating the Cold War, especially when history classes tend to teach that it was the Soviets who initiated the war, I feel that the evidence that Cox and Kennedy-Pipe pose are not sufficient enough to justify their claims. While it was undoubtedly true that the US and its allies played a role in the unwillingness to negotiate with the Soviets, it is not sufficient claim that this unwillingness was the sole reason for the Cold War. The relationship between the Soviets and the US was already sour by the time the Second World War had ended and by the time of the Marshall Plan. Their difference in ideology undoubtedly contributed to this conflict between the East and the West, and led to a mutual distrust that contributed to the lack of negotiations between the East and the West. I believe the weakest point in Cox and Kennedy-Pipe’s argument is the claim that Stalin was willing to negotiate while the US was not. Though they do have evidence to support their claim, most of the evidence are hand-picked in order to fit their thesis, and in no way does it reflect the complete attitudes of the US and the Soviets in terms of diplomacy.
While Cox and Kennedy-Pipe were successful in claiming that the Soviets were not the sole perpetrators of the Cold War, their argument was not sufficient or sufficiently backed by evidence to show that the Marshall Plan was the main cause of the Cold War.
I believe there to be an importance as well as truths to the arguments made by Cox and Kennedy-Pipe in their essay “The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan?” One of the key parts is that Cox and Kennedy –Pipe put a majority of the blame onto America for the outcome of action taken during the diplomacy as well as accelerating the two groups into the cold war. Let me start off in saying that it is true that the united states may have been aggressive to an extent and most certainly would have liked to keep the communist ideas out of the west and this would have lead to the beginning of the division . However I do not believe it to be as direct or hostile of an act that Cox and Kennedy-Pipe make it appear to be. What I do believe is this ended up being the third best solution of those possible as stated by Maier in his counter argument. Ideally neither would be able to get their number one solution because that would be an utter defeat for the other. So why not their second best solution. The second best solution was that both had their own side but possessed influence in the other side. Well the second best solution was shot down by the Americans who did not allow the soviets any real influence in western Europe and this lead to the two being very closed off from each other which leads to division and thus the third best solution takes hold.
The thesis in “The Tragedy of American Diplomacy Rethinking the Marshall Plan” is essentially that the Marshall plan is as responsible in starting the cold war as Russian’s foreign policy and was done to undermine post-war USSR. Their thesis demonizes the United States and makes it the blame for the cold war. The authors, Michael Cox and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe, managed to prove their biased thesis the best they could: using traditional primary sources and historical evaluation. But in the end, their thesis failed miserably in convincing me that any of this is true because they do not explore alternative situations and their ignorance of many positive effects of the Marshall Plan.
The Marshall Plan is known as the Europe Recovery plan, not the Europe Division Plan. The plan was meant to help America’s allies whose population, economy, and infrastructure has essentially been destroyed by World War II. America’s goals were charitable and honorable, not aggressive by any means. America was not trying to undermine the USSR, in fact, if anything it was being rightfully cautious of whether or not the USSR was going to become a world power and create a palpable threat to global security.
Likewise, the United States is obviously not free from blame. The article claimed that they could have extended stronger help to the USSR and thus come to an agreement. But realistically, this is untrue, the Soviet Union was not going to come into terms with a capitalist country that is trying to help its allies from ruins. Saying the Soviet Union had no other choices than to expand their powers is senseless; of course they had other choices, but it was the Soviet paranoia that everyone is against them which inevitably causes them to distrust the West.
The authors in this article also do not consider the alternative. So if the US did not help its allies in war, there would have been no long term conflict with the USSR. And they would have definitely not tried to spread communism throughout Western Europe? By putting Stalin as the innocent bystander, they ignore some of the most horrible things done in human history by this so called innocent man. The USSR had many choices in the days prior to the cold war, and the tension that was created did not just come from the Marshall Plan.
I found that the thesis presented in the article “The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan,” by Michael Cox and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe did have its justifications, but was slightly biased and too finite to be an arguable thesis. In effect, the thesis of the article was that the United State’s Marshall Plan, which was made to “stabilize Western Europe through economic and political reconstruction” and “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 damaged Europe for the past one hundred years, was the primary reason for the increasing tensions between the east and the west, and the increasing hostility of the Soviet Union. While the Marshall Plan was certainly not well liked by European’s socialist and communist countries, it is not fair to mark it as the sole cause for the tensions that were about to erupt.
The main weakness that I find in this thesis is that it fails to address that the “east” and “west” were already politically, economically, and socially divided years before the Marshall Plan was put into place. If anything, it would have been fair for the authors to assert that the Plan was one of the many causes for the increase in this divide, due to the fact that there were many other conflicts erupting in Europe at the time, almost of all them revolving around the struggle for countries to become world powers, a force which would probably not have been dampened if the Marshall Plan was never put into place. In reality, the dictatorships under leaders such as Stalin would have found justifications for their actions with or without the “dreaded” Marshall Plan. Another strong weakness of this thesis is that is it every “one-sided” and fails to effectively show how the United States felt about all of this and why they felt that the Marshall Plan was a necessary and just arrangement to carry out. It is interesting to note that the Marshall Plan initially offered Eastern Europe the same recovery plan as Western Europe, however the east chose not to accept it, a point which the article fails to address. While the East’s decision was understandable due to the fact that the Marshall Plan was made to get rid of communism in Europe, it still proves to show that the U.S. was not just the “aggressive” nation that the article makes it out to be. Also, the Easter European countries themselves are just as responsible for their extreme hatred for the plan, as the United States. It is known that Stalin generated opposition throughout fellow communist countries by making extreme claims against the United States, stating that they were the reason for Communist losses in elections in France, Belgium, and Italy and that these countries must do everything they can to sabotage the plan if they want to remain a respectable power. It is much more valid to blame both countries (the U.S. and Russia) equally for the hostilities because they were simply two very different countries with opposing political views and conflicts would have been unavoidable.
If it's not in, it's too late!
Post a Comment