Welcome to Mr. Kirby's AP Euroblog. This site is for all CHS students and guest to comment on topics relating to AP Modern European history.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
The Marshall Plan
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? What are the main points criticised by other historians?
Due Tuesday MORNING
60 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Their thesis dictates that in relation to the studies on the cold war, western historians are severely lacking in their understandings of the accounts of eastern European states and despite the new sources available since the fall of the Soviet Union, there have been no new ideas speculating the roots of the Cold War. They also question the idea that the new sources from Russia will reveal the truth of the Cold War when in fact it proves many things but does nothing to clarify the views on the Cold War as well as identify America as the culprit provoking the Cold War. This is a strong thesis in the way that it reminds the reader that America was not entirely innocent however because of its basis on the discovery of new documents from Soviet Russia, the issue of bias arises. Pipe/Cox makes a good point when they reference the Marshall Plan in relation to the Truman doctrine, both are essentially the same as far as economic aid however if the Marshall Plan was an act of generosity and the Truman doctrine an effort to prevent Communism from entering Turkey and Greece than perhaps America did have a more significant role in instigating the Cold War. However these authors do not address the fact that the American’s view the split of Berlin and the creation of the iron curtain as being a clear division and step towards the Cold War. These authors criticize the fact that most historians tend to augment the so called impending threat of Soviet Russia. In relation to the works of Williams they explain that his main points of the US open door policy provoking the Soviets does not take into account the realistic interests of the United States. Overall this piece is well supported with the exception of the Soviet Bias in the new sources.
The authors of the article claim that the Marshall Plan was an act of aggression on the part of the United States towards the Soviet Union, and thus was one of the great catalysts of the Cold War. They claim that because of the Plan, as time passed, Stalin became more protective over Eastern Europe, which contributed to the Cold War. While other historians claim that Stalin was ready for a conflict with the West, the authors of this article recognize Stalin’s awareness of the impossibility of a victory for the Soviet Union. They also claim that the Soviet Union was justified in its actions because the US failed to recognize the security needs of the Union. Also, the drafters of the Marshall Plan failed to see how defensive and uncompromising the Plan would inevitably make the leaders of the Soviet Union. The Plan only succeeded in angering Eastern Europe and causing them to fear their entrance into the world of the West. Other historians disagree with Cox and Kennedy and say that the Marshall Plan was generous and a defense for the US’s economy. They say that Stalin had more options after the war in 1947 than Truman did. There was no other option for the US than to create the Marshall Plan to save Europe’s dying economy. Both sides of the argument have merit. The article recognizes that the Marshall Plan may have led to the inevitable Cold War by creating hostile feelings toward the US in Eastern Europe. While this is true, the Marshall Plan was the most realistic option for the US at the time, and feelings of resentment were already brewing on both sides of the conflict. This interesting and new take on the origins of the Cold War does posses some actual merit, but the Marshall Plan was not the sole cause or even main contributor to the War.
The authors of "The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan", Cox and Kennedy, believe that the Marshall Plan was a definite act of aggression when Soviet Union was still being cooperative. The decision to establish the European Recovery Program, without any real intention to include the Soviet Union, can be considered a catalyst to the Cold War. The Marshall plan was a threat to the Soviets security interests, with East European countries moving from the Soviet’s sphere of influence to the Western. They claim that this caused Stalin, to tighten his hold over Eastern Europe, which contributed to the Cold War. The authors of this article also speculate that Stalin was aware of how improbable victory would be against the United States. And point out that the US was not able to see how the Marshall Plan would affect the Soviet Union, and how they would react with fear and anger. However other historians disagree with these statements. One, they believe that Stalin was ready for a conflict with the United States. Two that the Marshall Plan did not hinder the Soviet Union, but was very generous and at the same time beneficial to the US economy. They have also claimed that without the Marshall Plan, Europe’s economy would have crashed and so would then the rest of the world would suffer. I believe, that both sides are right. Cox and Kennedy made a good point about how the Soviet Union saw the Marshall Plan as a threat, and how Stalin reacted to it. However, the Marshall Plan’s necessity cannot be denied. As Europe was failing, America would also soon fail, and this was the best option. This was an interesting topic because I had no idea that the Marshall Plan could have been an instigator for the Cold War, but I am also sure that it was not the only cause for it.
Cox and Kennedy-Pipe make many broad assertions and implications in their article “The Tragedy of American Diplomacy”. They claim Stalin would never have accepted the Marshall plan because of his fear of capitalism, but that if the US had used a better Open Door policy in their negotiations in 1947 then the Cold War wouldn’t have been as bad. They also seem to imply that the US thought it was doing everything it possibly could to reduce Communist influence throughout their negotiations. However, as other historians have pointed out, the US certainly was not attempting to do this, nor was it in any place to. The US was not doing everything possible to build up a military, which would be essential to an all-out prevention of communism.
This article goes on to argue that a divided Europe, which the authors seem to think was caused by the Marshall plan was the least desired outcome for the Soviets. This is an invalid argument, because it would be far worse for the Soviets to lose their grip on Eastern Europe. Also, the Soviets had envisioned a Europe of two coexisting spheres open to communication and negotiation, but completely separate in political philosophy.
The most faulty argument in this article is that the Marshall plan caused the division of Europe and in turn caused the Cold War. Other historians have also noted that the Marshall plan was not actually the turning point is has been made out to be. Europe had already begun to divide into the bloc system by this time, as the Soviets were being excluded by negotiations and political groups forming in post World War II Europe. Also, it would simply not have been natural for the US to make open agreements to give handouts to the Soviets when they were apparent adversaries wary of the others actions.
The division of Europe was not caused by the US’s poor negotiations in 1947, and furthermore, the division of Europe did not initiate the Cold War. When examining the causes of a war, the actions and intentions of the aggressors must be examined. While the negotiations and division contributed to tension and built up to things, it was not the turning point that made everything happen, but simply a contributing factor.
The Marshall Plan was an American plan to aid the Europeans through economic hardships in a time where communism was growing. Cox and Kennedy, the authors of this article, thought the Marshall plan caused tensions between the Soviet Union and the rest of Europe. It instigated the Cold War because it was perceived as a threat to the Soviets and made them tighten their hold on Eastern Europe. This aggressiveness was a factor in the Cold War, which the authors point out that America failed to see. Other historians argue with this, saying it was necessary for America to take this economy-boosting step and help suffering Europeans. If America had not stepped in, the situation in Europe would have worsened, and it was important to keep the continent from falling apart. They also stated that regardless, this tension would increase eventually anyways, as Stalin was prepared for conflict. Cox and Kennedy disagreed, saying that Stalin was conscious that such a victory was practically impossible. The plan catalyzed feelings of fear and hatred amongst the Soviets, who simply became more and more defensive. Both sides of this argument make an interesting analysis and important points, however, this plan did play some role in the Cold War. It may be seen as a major factor or not, but it definitely held some significance because it was seen as a practicality by America and a threat by the Soviets, creating an atmosphere of anxiety.
The European economic system was in shambles after the Second World War, communism was a growing threat and with the system in that state it could be easily over taken by the communist threat. The Marshall was devised to aid these European countries financial crisis in attempt to keep communism, America’s worst enemy from spreading. The authors of this article believed that the plan caused more problems that it worked to solved. The plan caused animosity between the Soviets and the European countries receiving the aid of the U.S.A. This caused the Soviets to attempt to gain a better control of these nations, and eventually not to long after this aggression caused the Cold War to start. America did not see that their aid would lead to more conflict they were merely trying to help.
The authors of this article feel that American plans and ideas, versus those of the Soviets, caused the start of the Cold War and the bad relations with parts of Europe. Although I feel this point has some merit, there are also apparent weaknesses. First of all, whenever there is some war or sour relations between two countries, it usually turns out that neither side is free of guilt. In the case of this article, the authors are mostly blaming the United States. The blame should not be put entirely on the U.S. because the Soviets did show some hostility towards the American ideas. Anyways, these authors blame the Marshall Plan for the terrible rule that ensued throughout much of Europe. There is absolutely no way that a plan to help give money to those in need would lead to communism in many places. Those are some of the weaknesses of this article's main idea. On the other hand, the authors were correct to not put all of the blame on one side because that is never the case. No one ever takes the side of the Soviets because they are always seen as "the common enemy." Hence, I feel that it was a positive of this article to leave some of the blame for the U.S. and not all on the Soviets. Some other main points that are criticized by other historians include that the authors write how the Soviets wanted countries in Europe to be separated from others, and Marc Trachtenberg tells how this was not the case. He describes how the Soviets were less innocent than these authors depicted them as. He told that the Soviets wanted to control various lands throughout Europe, showing their lack of innocence. In addition, Trachtenberg feels that the Marshall Plan was not the whole reason for the Cold War, as is what the authors of this article feel. In the end, there are many logical points that the authors make, but on the other hand, there are even more negatives than positives to their writings.
The authors of the first article declare that the US is just as much in fault of causing the Cold War as the Soviets are. They say that the Marshall Plan helped to induce this war. They claimed that because of the Marshall Plan the USSR tightened its grip on the east and it escalated the tensions between the two countries. They claimed that if the US had not implemented the Marshall Plan the worse of the Cold War could have been avoided. However, I believe they put too much blame on the US, rather than focusing on the wrongs of both sides. There are always at least two sides to a story. The authors of the first article chose to use biased source from recently available Soviet documents. Trachtenburg takes the stance against the first article. He states that the Marshall Plan cannot be blamed as the single contributor to the start of the Cold War. He states so fallacies in the first article; he points out that the Soviets did not support other countries from being separate from others. Also other historians argue that America was right is funding the feeble countries of Europe. America helped to rebuild Europe after the devastating WWII. If America had not stepped in, the situation in Europe would have worsened, and it was important to keep the continent from falling apart. In summation, the authors do point out a clear flaw in the current explanation of the reasons for the start of the Cold War. However, they cannot fully support their argument against the counter arguments; hence their thesis should be merely taken into account and further researched. Using less biased sources might help their case.
The analysis put forth in the argumentation of “The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan” was that the Marshall plan was not just a system of aid that the United States put forth as an effort to help out Europe after the war, but a planned attempt to divide up Europe, and to rally the western half of Europe under the American cause and away from Communist influence. The article begins by stating that historians are flawed in always viewing America as innocent or pure when it comes to the cold war, and that as new evidence emerges, it can be seen that America also had a hand in creating the cold war. The Marshall plan is called the most dedicated effort to reduce Communist influence. It notes that the Marshall plan was specifically designed to keep Russia out, because the inclusion or Russia would be a failure of the plan, which was intended to divide Communist and non-Communist nations. It was said that the issue of Moscow accepting the plan was raised, not because the United States wanted Russia to join, but because they were afraid that they would. Marshall was said to be sure that Russia would not join, and that satellite nations would either renounce Communism or would stick with Russia. Thus, Europe would be split in two. The United States supposedly did everything they could to keep Russia out, and other western countries, notably Britain, shared the animosity. The plan was said to be a big intentional catalyst for the cold war. Other sources have disagreed with this analysis. Many say that the Marshall plan was not a catalyst, but rather a confirmation of a rift that already existed. Others back up the United States, saying that Stalin’s actions were provocations. Another argues that the real goal of the United States was to eliminate communism, and called the Marshall plan the third best alternative which satisfied the USSR and the United States, rather than the goal of the United States.
The thesis of “The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan” contains an argument that is new to me. The authors Cox and Kennedy believe that the Marshall Plan was an aggressive act by the United States towards the Soviet Union (who was not included in the plan) and their national security. Josef Stalin believed that the US was trying to lure Eastern European States away from Soviet influence and the plan also kept the Soviet Union from having much involvement in Western Europe. Cox and Kennedy also argue that Stalin was ready for a conflict in the West, and the Marshall plan made it clear to him that the Soviet Union could never win. The Marshall Plan is said to have angered Eastern Europe which made them defensive and extremely unwilling to compromise with the big Western Powers. The strengths of this agreement are that yes the Marshall Plan most certainly upset the Soviet Union, but the weaknesses seem to be that they don’t address that there are other reasons why the Cold War broke out, and the Marshall Plan only added to existing tensions. Other historians would disagree with Cox and Kennedy because the Marshall Plan is most commonly seen to be a generous act by the United States, who helped save Europe’s failing economy after WWII. This plan not only helped the European and American economies, it also kept public morale up because people knew they were getting help and therefore would not become as upset about the conditions they were forced to live in after the war. The ideas put forth by Cox and Kennedy have some merit because the Marshall Plan was a catalyst in the commencement of the Cold War, but it is by no means the sole cause of the dispute.
The Marshall Plan provided monetary support for European countries after WWII. Cox and Kennedy-Pipe argued that the United State’s Marshall Plan directly threatened the Soviet Union. They claim that all information about the United States is biased and that historians view them American views as the correct ones. The Marshall Plan was purposely built so that the Soviet Union and the communist states would not participate in receiving aid. By providing aid only to western European states, the Marshall Plan forced Stalin to tighten control over the communist states (the western half of Europe), which created the long-term tension known as the Cold War. Two spheres of influence were created – the west was the United States’ and the east was the Soviet Union’s. Stalin didn’t want to divide Europe, because his goal was to control all of Europe, not have it split up into two parts. It was also aware that it could not decisively win against the United States, so it was forced into the response it took. But as Trachtenberg said, the United States was in a similar position. It was too weak militarily to defend the eastern countries from communism. With this information, it is somewhat conclusive to say that the United States was not looking forward to damage the Soviet Union with the Marshall Plan and that it was more of a defensive maneuver. There are also disagreements on the magnitude that the Marshall Plan affected the Soviet Union and the impact on the economies of the United States and the Soviet Union. However, I believe that one side cannot be taken, because both sides had justified reasons for their actions/reactions. The United States depended on the European states, so helping them rebuild was beneficial in the long run. The Soviet Union would obviously see that as a threat, and their reaction wasn’t too extreme. And in the end, I don’t believe that the Marshall Plan was the only reason that the Cold War started.
Cox and Kennedy suggest the Marshal plan as a step in the increasingly aggressive posture of the United States to the Soviet Union. They further this by saying the Soviets were still seeking cooperation with the U.S before the plan. Rather then create a union Stalin they implied felt it best to establish communist systems and tighten the hold over eastern Europe because of this plan. This seems a reasonable statement. The more the U.S tries to influence European countries the more Soviets will feel forced to retaliate. Furthermore as the U.S becomes more aggressive in pursuing their goals so the Soviets will become more defensive. If the Soviets were seeking cooperation then a broad step such as the Marshal plan without Russian consideration would be insulting. However what Cox and Kennedy do not acknowledge is the fact the Soviets were for the most part the opposite of Americans and conflict therefore would seem inevitable. That being the case the preliminary actions taken by the U.S, though there is little evidence supporting they were preliminary actions at all, were completely justifiable. The documents they use in their thesis show the bias of the Soviets. However these are just that bias and for the most part it can be said they shared equally in initiating this “cold war” both sides had their own bias accounts. Clearly from an broad view of the history of the period such as that of other historians this was not the main cause of the division of Europe nor latter military expansion. Even before the Marshal plan Soviets and other European countries had begun to divide Europe into communist and non-communist states this in no way lead to the separation which would have certainly happened any way. As for the military expansion this plan in my opinion and in the opinion of many scholars is no were near a main contributor. In conclusion though they present a supported and reasonable argument I doubt the war could have been averted at this point, furthermore I do not believe it was even the U.S intention to instigate conflict or turn the tide away from communism. Whether or not the U.S found a different route cooperation as suggested by the article in the long term would have been unlikely.
The authors Cox and Kennedy believe that the Marshall plan was a U.S. act of aggression against the Soviet Union. At this time they believe the Soviet Union was still being cooperative towards the United States in regards to both the rebuilding of Europe and in diplomacy between the two countries. Further they believe that intentionally not including the U.S.S.R. in the plan was a catalyst for the start of the Cold War. The Martial Plan was a threat to the Soviet Union and their interests and the Stalin believed that in order for the Soviet Union to remain powerful and have control over Easter Europe that they must tighten the hold of their Eastern European spheres of influence. The authors state that the U.S. did not foresee the Soviet response to the plan and how they reacted emotionally rather than politically as they had in the past. The other authors also claim that while the Martial Plan lead to increase tensions and then eventually the cold war they argue that Europe’s economy would have suffered and possibly failed cause a crash that would resonate around the world. This would not have only affected Europe but the U.S. so it was in their best interest to do the Martial Plan. The Martial Plan was the right way to proceed in Europe. It was obvious that tensions were rising between the East and West and that eventually a conflict like the Cold War would develop and that Europe needed an economic package. I believe that the U.S. government acted rationally by allowing this to proceed and not really caring about the Soviet response. Also, the failure of the European government would have also created a bad situation for the U.S. I believe that the Marshall plan was a cause for the Cold War but would have existed otherwise.
Cox and Pipe’s thesis “that it was American policies as much as (perhaps more than) Soviet actions that led to the division of Europe and thus to the Cold War itself,” holds some water. If not for the actions of the Americans, perhaps Europe would not have been pushed so far apart. However, it takes two to tango. And, as many historians would agree, the Soviets had a large part in Europe’s division. Soviet actions may have had a larger impact than Cox and Pipe give them credit for.
The truth to this thesis is that American policies exacerbated an already tense situation. The Soviet Union’s economy, policies, and ideals were all in complete opposition to American views. This led Truman to take a very anti-Soviet and communist stance. This anti-Soviet sentiment is highlighted by the Marshall Plan which did not even feign equal treatment of communist countries. The Marshall Plan provided aid to non-communist countries. This helped turn any potential communist countries against Soviet Russia. This of course pushed Europe further apart.
However this article wrongly evaluates the Marshall Plan as a crucial turning point. Most historians agree that it is the conflicting ideals and economies that led to the schism between communist and western Europe. For example, Western influence threatened the success of a Communist government. This led Stalin to try to keep out trade and the influences of the West. This largely contributed to the division of Europe. Meanwhile, the Cold War was more a result of Soviet Russia’s attempt to push away Western ideals. The Soviet Union attempted to expand their influence and promoted Communism in other parts of Europe. This threatened Western society by replacing Western ideals with those of Communism. Therefore, tensions were already high between the Soviets and America.
Although an interesting concept, the thesis of “The Tragedy...” falls short in many respects. It puts too much stock in what many historians consider a simple generous deed. The Marshall Plan may have kicked a little dirt on the Soviets, however the fight was inevitable. With such different ideals the cold war and division of Europe was unavoidable.
To some people, the Marshall Plan is seen as a smart diplomatic move by the United States as it tried to help Europe come back from a disastrous war. To other people however, the plan is viewed as a stepping stone into the Cold War. Cox and Kennedy, the authors of The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan, provide an interesting thesis. They believe that since the United States excluded the Soviet Union from the Marshall Plan, it created hostility that eventually contributed to the deteriorating relationship between the Americans and Soviets. America had offered its help to the countries who were ravaged by the war. The Soviets had lost a great deal and felt it deserved to have the aid of America. Cox and Kennedy emphasize that it was a direct insult to the Soviet Union by not recognizing the country in the Marshall Plan. Though not only was this an insult, it was also a threat. Was America planning something? Why had they not offered their help when the Soviets were trying to improve relations between the two countries? Stalin had seen this exemption as a security threat. America was increasingly trying to gain the favor of the European countries, diminishing the Soviet’s sphere of influence. Cox and Kennedy blame the Marshall Plan for a whole lot of negative effects. While I do believe that the plan increased hostility between the Soviets and America, I think the authors’ reaction to the plan is a bit extreme. The plan was necessary for Europe at that time. The United States was doing its best to be diplomatic during a time of great stress. Europe had been devastated by the war while America had come out of it in spectacular shape. The hostile relation between the Soviets and America was not solely because of the Marshall Plan. There are other factors; one being soviet resentment of American prosperity after the war. I believe that the relationship would have been negative even without the Marshall plan. Was the plan a contributing factor of Soviet hostility towards America? Definitely. Did it lead to the Cold War? No.
Cox and Kennedy, the authors of: The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan, present an interesting opinion and analysis of the Marshall Plan. They believe that the Marshall Plan was an act of aggression towards a cooperative Soviet Union. Although the United States claimed they created the Marshall Plan to aid the European countries through economic hardships to prevent the further spread of communism, Cox and Kennedy to not believe this. They believed the Marshall Plan created tensions between the Soviet Union and the rest of Europe. That the United State’s decision to establish the European Recovery Program with out any intensions to include the Soviet Union was a real contributing factor to the Cold War. The Marshall Plan was seen by the Soviet Union as a real threat because it threatened their security interests when Eastern European countries switching to the Western sphere of influence. This caused Stalin to tighten his hold over Eastern Europe. This aggressiveness was a factor in the Cold War, one that the United States failed to see according to Cox and Kennedy. However, other historians argue that it was necessary for America to help suffering Europeans because if they had not then the entire continent would have fallen under. It was their duty to prevent this. Other historians argue that Stalin was ready for conflict with the United States. However, Cox and Kennedy believe this is improbable and that Stalin was aware he could never win if conflict erupted between the two nations. And some historians even believe the Marshall Plan was generous and did not hinder the Soviet Union. Both sides are right to an extent. It is obvious that the Marshall Plan did cause the Soviets to become angry and fearful thus significantly contributing to the Cold War. However, if the Untied States did not create the Marshall Plan and support suffering European countries, would they have fallen to Communism? This are questions one should consider before deciding on if the Marshall Plan was necessary or not and if the impact it had was more positive or negative.
As both authors of "The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan" are well aware of, criticism of the American Marshall Plan is often not welcome. Our study of this important text in United States History revealed it in a positive light; it has been portrayed as an act of goodwill and generosity on part of the United States and as a valiant attempt to combat the spread of communism. Therefore, it is unsurprising that Cox and Kennedy Pine's assertions that the Marshall Plan had the reverse effect, of actually potentially aiding Stalin's iron grip on Eastern Europe, have come under fire. The strength of their argument lies in its beginning, in which they remind the reader that history is always shifting and changing with the passage of time, and that each issue deserves to be analyzed in light of new evidence. This is both a logical and a valid assertion, but the argument that follows it raises quite a few questions, from both myself and historians today. Cox and Kennedy-Pine set forth that the actions of Stalin were circumstantial rather than calculated. The pair does admit to the fact that Stalin is to blame for the Communist takeover of eastern Europe, but they also add that the Marshall Plan of the United States contained elements of aggression and can be faulted for some of the severity of Stalin's power struggle and the escalation to the Cold War. They further their thesis to include that the Cold War was not an unavoidable Soviet action, but rather a result of American actions. Cox and Kennedy-Pine's strength once again lies in their research abilities, and their conclusion that the United States' policies played a role in leading to the eventual Cold War is nearly unshakable. Their weakness however lies in their conclusion that America was acting with aggression when devising the Marshall Plan. This idea puts them in the ranks of great historical conspirators rather than analysts. Their claim is supported with evidence, but upon examination it is still simply speculation, and the further to come will probably provide the support they truly need or prove them wrong. Historians too take issue with the previously mentioned conclusion, especially because of the regard that surrounds the doctrine. Proclaiming the Marshall Plan a "tragedy" of American policy and diplomacy is surely an overstatement. Their thesis proves the Plan had flaws, but the intent to separate Eastern Europe was certainly not a part of it, and if the Soviet Union is being given a dispensation for its actions, the United States should too (but yet again the actions are still in question).
Initially, the authors of the article state that the Soviet and United States are at equal fault for causing the Cold War. They also state that the Marshall plan was the reason that the USSR tightened its hold on the Eastern Countries and escalated the tensions between East and West. I found this new and interesting because I had never before seen the Marshall plan as an aggressive attack by the United States on the Soviet Union. Stalin believed that the plan was created in order to entice many Eastern States away from the Soviet Union and into treaties with the West. Also, the plan strongly kept the states of Western Europe largely Soviet free. I found this argument very interesting and it had both strengths and weaknesses to it. One of its strengths is that it looked at the Marshall Plan from a different perspective, a Soviet perspective, which many people have not looked at it in. However, one of the weaknesses is that it did not address many other reasons for tensions in the Cold War, only the Marshall Plan. I believe that many other historians would disagree with Kennedy and Cox’s statement because most still see the Marshall Plan as a simply generous act by the Americans to Western Europe. The plan helped the economies of both Western Europe as well as that of their American counterparts, and prevented many of the conditions in Europe that started World War II. Cox and Kennedy have a very interesting thesis that has some merit to it, but other historian’s opinions should also be considered before weighting whether the Marshall Plan was a generous act towards Europe, or an aggressive attack on the Soviet Union.
The authors of the article seem to take a stance which is rather neutral and unbiased yet blaming both sides at the same time. Basically stating that both sides, the United States and the Soviet Union were in a see-saw effect where one would affect the other to have it’s ups and downs so to speak. Apparently according to the article neither side was at a distinct advantage. Stalin had no chance against the United States and Western Europe and was in fact reluctant to have to face them. Yet the United States provoked the Soviet Union forcing them into a competition through the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan, although a defensive action done by the U.S. to create stability throughout Western Europe, also put a stress on the Soviet Union by their rejection of communism and trying to knock it out of the smaller Soviet Satellites. This undoubtedly would cause turmoil and so the constant threats between the two nations unfurled upon each other causing close calls on both sides. In any case the article does not take any definite stand point on which side truly caused the Cold War, but it clearly shows how each side did help contribute to the fire.
In their essay “The Tragedy of American Diplomacy…”, the authors Cox and Kennedy, believe that the creation of the Marshall Plan was like the first steps in the Cold War. They think that the US’s policies of exclusion and patent anti-communist attitudes came at a time when the US and the USSR were still allies, now in the effort to rebuild Europe. Also, the Marshall Plan did not give any aid to the Soviet Union, the country that may have needed the most. This was seen by the authors as both a possible insult and a threat, as the US would not give aid to its ally in winning a horribly war. It could have been viewed as a threat by the Russians as a US attempts to keep them weak. This plan was seen as a way for the US to gain favor in Europe, and have the European countries lose favor with the USSR. I think that this is a weak thesis as it does not take into account the economic conditions that Europe was in. the Marshall plan was a way to bring an entire continent back onto its feet, something that the US wanted simply to help their economy. Soviet Socialism was and is the stupidest system anyone has ever tried to do economically, and it was in the world’s best interest for the US to prevent its spread. Other historians agree that this thesis is way too weak to be considered relevant.
I believe Cox and Kennedy’s arguments, put forth in "The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan," are very sensible. The Marshal Plan was designed to get Europe back on its feet, by giving tangible aid the hard hit countries, including Germany. What was left out of the European Recovery Program (ERP) was any aid for the Soviet Union, a strong allied power in World War II. The Soviets felt threatened by this action, and were justified in doing so (why would Germany be included but not the Soviet Union). Seeing the emotions rise up in the US against the Soviet Union and communism in general, as realized in the years following, this move was most likely intentional. The Soviets believed they had a right to the East European lands, and a lucrative recovery deal from the American capitalists would obviously be seen as a threat to its military and diplomacy interests. America had no intention of giving aid to the Soviets, a clear sign of aggression towards the communists, which lead to Soviets anger towards the US. As Cox and Kennedy argued, this can be seen as the initiating point of the Cold War. The US’s unwillingness to help the Soviet Union after the War, which took a brutal toll on its people and land, was a slap in the face of every person in the Soviet Union (cause in communism everyone is one, hehe). The Soviet Union retaliated by forcing communism on many of the East European countries, and the Cold War began. I believe that is reasonable to assume that the lack of aid in the European Recovery Program for the Soviets was a root cause of the Cold War. Other historians argue that the ERP was really a generosity act towards Europe, and the Soviets should not have been so angry about it. I think that it is understandable that the Soviets would want money from the Marshal Plan, seeing as even Germany (the bad guys) got money. Just as Germany was neglected aid after the First World War, a war started because the Soviet Union was denied aid. History repeats itself and this is why I believe Cox and Kennedy’s thesis that the Marshal plan was a catalyst for the Cold War.
The author of this article states that the Marshall Plan was not actually an attempt to help European nations but to antagonize the Soviet Union. The author states that under the Marshall plan the Soviet Union had limited options and that the United States was only out to get them with no real intentions of helping them get back on their feet. The strengths of his argument do involve the fact that he believes that America along with the Soviet Union are both at fault for the start of the Cold War. He reminds us that there are two sides and tells us which one his is taking. However, he makes it sound like a majority of the fault rests on the United States. He claims that the Marshall plan was what drove the Soviet Union into a protective shell of sorts and heightened suspicion. Other historians have analyzed the same evidence and would disagree with Cox and Kennedy-Pipe because the Soviet Union is equally at fault for the Cold War. Both countries were suspicious of each other and both countries took part in the arms race. Also, he states that history is constantly being reevaluated this could be seen as both a strength and a weakness. One could understand it as a strength in his argument because the author acknowledges that he may be proved long later. One could also interpret that as a weakness because it could weaken his argument if he begins his article by saying that interpretations of history are always different.
The authors of the article clearly see the United States' Marshall Plan as a clear act of aggression against the Soviet Union. They also feel that the plan was one of the great initiators of the Cold War that erupted between the United States and USSR. As the Marshall Plan was carried out, the authors claim that Stalin became more and more weary of outside influence into the Soviet Union. Making his political ideals change and shift with that sense of paranoia. This made an already capitalism fearing Stalin much more apprehensive about the maneuvers thats the US was making during this time, mainly with the Marshall Plan. I personally do not agree with these allegations mainly because the US was simply trying to do what it felt was its duty at the time, as a world super power. It wanted to fix the ailing European Nations by coming up with a plan to jump-start a recovery. This brings up a weakness of the thesis, that the plan was not in any means aggressive towards the USSR. Or any nations for that matter, the only possible way to view this plan in a negative fashion was to think that the plan was simply intrusive and that the US should stay within its own realm and not venture into European matters. Some main points that they criticize are the fact that many Western historians seem to implement a Soviet threat, that for the most part was non existent prior to this and the Cold War.
The Marshall Plan shows the new aggressive position of the US toward the Soviet Union. Cox and Kennedy say that United States was trying to convince the other european nations to not affiliate with the Soviet Union and lean away from the Soviet influence. This in turn had made the Soviet Union a lot less involved in western europe. Also, the marshall plan ensured that the Stalin would not engage in conflict because the marshall plan made the eastern powers more defensive and would not work with the western powers. So the marshall plan made the Soviet Union angry and rose the tensions between eastern and western europe. In the view of other historians the marshall plan was seen as an act of kindess from the US which helped save europe. Also, it helped the morale in europe because of the war and all of the devastation that the people had witnessed and were experiencing, the help kind of gave the citizens hope.
The authors of the article believed the Marshall plan although was put in place to ultimately end the spread of communism which was taken by the Soviets as a act of aggression which helped to cause the cold war. They believe that the plan was a failure because it created Stalin to become more protective over Eastern Europe, which was the opposite goal of the Marshall Plan. It was evident that the authors also believed that Stalin understood the small probability of possibly winning a war with America. Many other historians disagree with the statements made by Cox and Kennedy, but believe that the Marshall Plan was created by the U.S to protect the economy and also save Europe’s economy. Although I do understand why the Soviets would be very protective over Eastern Europe after the Marshall plan was created I ultimately agree that the United States had to create the Marshall Plan to save its own economy and also save Europe’s economies because without all of the Europeans economies being strong and the United States having a decent economy at this time the world would be in turmoil.
The authors of "The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan" opt to have the audacity to criticize the intentions and eventual repercussions of the American foreign policy post World War II, displeasing many critics. However, some of their argument holds a certain level of strength as the facts and quotes they include have merit and the points they have attempted to prove can be taken with some certainty. Upon analyzing this article, it has been determined that though Cox and Kennedy-Pipe attempt to verify their accounts of the Marshall Plan and both the Soviet and American foreign policies, they fall short as most of their information turns to speculation and changes their status to mere conspirators.
When their argument was first being established, the main points Cox and Kennedy-Pipe made about history itself started the article off with a positive bang. They point out that every new source of information or critique must be taken under fair consideration first, and that opinions are ever-shifting upon the discovery of hidden sources. This being the high point of the article, soon after it starts to decline as their opinions begin to lose merit as their final argument ends with the belief that America was acting with aggression when putting the Marshall Plan in place, one that in turn caused negative actions on the part of Stalin and the Soviet union. They included various extremes in their argument, claiming that intentions of separating parts of Eastern Europe from the Soviets as well as claiming the doctrine itself to be a "tragedy". All that Cox and Kennedy-Pipe managed to confirm was the fact that the Marshall Plan definitely did have flaws, without giving a necessary grant of strength to their own beliefs.
The author of “ The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan” claims that the Marshall Plan was not intended to aid European nations but rather to agitate the Soviet Union. Under the Marshall plan the author notes that the Soviet Union had restricted options and that the United States only had intentions of hurting them without helping them recover. His thesis is strong in his belief that both America and the Soviet Union were responsible for the start of the Cold War. He attempts to maintain an unbiased tone in mentioning that there are always two sides and perspectives to every conflict although, he seems to lean toward the United States as being the main antagonist. He holds the Marshall Plan responsible for the Soviet Unions defensive and suspicious nature. Furthermore he continues to say that history is constantly being reevaluated, which could be viewed as both a strength and weakness for his argument. It is strong in that he is acknowledging knowledge beyond himself but weak in that he is also recognizing that his argument is not the only possible argument. Other historians who have studied the same evidence concerning the instigators of the Cold War would most likely disagree with Cox and Kennedy- Pipe because they would argue that the Soviet Union is just as important as the United States in the start of the arms race. This is because both countries were suspicious of one another and fueled the others competitive and defensive nature, and they both continued to increase these feelings of tension for the other.
"The Tragedy of American Diplomacy" claims that the United State's aggressive foreign policy of attempting to weaken communism in Eastern Europe was a greater cause in starting the Cold War than Soviet aggression in Eastern Europe. The authors support their thesis with evidence that indicates the actions of the United States pressured the Soviet Union and forced it to create a Soviet bloc in Eastern Europe. They claim that alienating the United States was not in the Soviet Union's best interest because the Soviet Union could not compete with the United States in economic contributions to the recovery of Europe. Stalin created the Soviet bloc because he had no choice as the United States involvement in Eastern Europe threatened the Soviet Union. The Marshall Plan's ulterior purpose of enticing communist Eastern European nations into rejoining the capitalist camp supports the thesis. One of the Marshall Plan's stipulations was that in order for the nation to receive aid it had to realign itself from communism to capitalism. Also, the United States had no intention of allowing the Soviet Union to participate in the Marshall Plan. The United States was pressured by Congress, France, and Britain to not allow Soviet participation because of fear that the Soviet Union would attempt to kill off the plan. The failure of the Paris conference signaled the split of Europe into two blocs.
The thesis' weakness is that it places too much blame on the United States and does not analyze the Soviet Union's role in starting the Cold War. It does not address the effect of Soviet insecurity caused by the loss of 27 million people and a shattered economy. It also does not address the fact that the goal of the Marshall Plan was to rebuild Europe and foster European integration, not weaken the Soviet Union so Western nations can invade it. A more moderate view of the cause of the Cold War places blame on both the United States and the Soviet Union. The United States misunderstood the Soviet Union's political and economic situation and as a result created a policy that was viewed as a threat by the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union's insecurity and mistrust of the West caused it to take drastic actions to protect itself from a non-existent threat. Had the two superpowers negotiated more openly about each other's needs, the result might have been different.
Though making some case as to America's potential involvement in the formation of the communist bloc, the authors of this article have relied upon exaggeration to make their point; they have, in essence, made a mountian out of a molehill. Traditional historians argue that the Marshall plan was developed solely to get europe back onto its feet, and was merely a hercualean act of charity. This article does refute this to some extent, by describing how if the Americans had gotton eastern Europe to participate in the plan, they would have been able to lure them into capitalism. While this does hold some water, it should be noted that the "lures" the Unites States presented failed to attract these countries ot capitalism, or even to involvement. And rather than pursuing their cooperation after their refusal, the United States was quite content to leave them be; indeed, the future development of policies such as containment suggest that the USA had little problem with communism as it stood, and moreso with its potential to spread. furthermore, the claim that Stalin seriously considered participating in the Marshall plan is ridiculous. The offer by the United States for their involvement was merely a formailty; Stalin was sure to know that, and thus would have known to have been wary of accepting any help from the USA. Also, Stalin was recieving repaeration money form Poland, weakening his case for aid. Furthermore, stalin was not noted as being a man who cared for the general wellbeing of his people; therfore, as long as he was rich and comfortable, it is unlikely he would have sought money for the benfit of the general population. Therfore, many of the claims placed forth in this article are unlikely and implausible.
I think the thesis put forth in the article was interesting but rather unsupported. The main document seemed to have a few free-floating generalizations that were unsupported by the text. I noticed the authors had a lot of modern-day historian viewpoints and opinions cited, but supposed thoughts and feelings of people who lived during the day are bluntly stated with an almost matter-of-fact certainty, and not followed up with a direct citation proving they indeed thought in this manner. While it can be often assumed a viewpoint based on policy, we all know that assumptions are seldom fact, and even the declarations on what Stalin felt are more often then not from the opinions of other historians. I also see this essay as coming from the general and more popular approach nowadays that many take in which American policy and ideas are slandered against and torn down simply because they came from Americans. Oftentimes, for a reason that escapes me, Americans are being increasingly viewed as always in the wrong, and I feel that this point of view may be simply a continuation of that. Other articles were quick to find fault with this essay too, however. One pointed out that the Soviets had a history of aggression and censorship that proceeded this article. Saying the Americans pushed them towards something they had already been doing for years seems erroneous as a claim and casts much of the article in dispute. Another article argues the point that it was actually in Soviet interest to have divided countries. The only reason there was a block of two powers was to countercheck Soviet ambition, not prevent it. It would be unreasonable to give the other power everything they wanted for free, and indeed America didn’t dispute these territorial gains but accepted them with a sort of resignation. But it was not America’s fault in this instance for causing the Soviets to do this with the Marshal plan, because it was not their responsibility to allow the other government full of their enemies to be coddled and given full run over continental Europe.
It is interesting to see this event from a different perspective, from that of a Soviet. The authors address the Marshall Plan as an aggressive plan devised by the Americans, that ultimately caused the Cold War. After World War II tensions arose in every corner of Europe. The economy was doing terrible and every great nation was suffering. The Marshall Plan was establish merely to help aid these struggling European countries to prevent the spread of communism. A policy of containment. The Americans sought to do everything possible to prevent the spread of communist ideals, they never intended to cause greater conflict. The Soviets clearly took this as an act of aggression. The authors mention how this act, involving America and the countries receiving aid, proposed a threat to the Soviet Union. East and West conflict one again arose. The Soviets sought to take greater control of their land holdings. WHile also trying to expand their empire and gain ultimate control. The authors neglect to mention many other factors that played into the cold war. After WWII, United States and the Soviet Union were on the ice, with growing tensions and unstable relations. The cold war was pretty much inevitable. The Marshall Plan was not the only thing that caused the war. Pipe/Cox compare the Marshall Plan to the Truman Doctrine. They do find relation, however they don't take into account the Americans opinion on the split of Berlin. As well as factors like the iron curtain. They were bias in a sense. Overall America was not trying to cause any harm or cause any further hostility with the Marshall Plan. Further conflict between the two great nations were unfortunately inevitable. Thus, the cold war takes place.
The Marshall Plan has always been portrayed in a positive manner, for it was "altruistic" of the United States to help the nearly-destroyed Europe get back onto its feet and start anew. Yet, in "The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan", authors Cox and Kennedy provide another interpretation of the Marshall Plan: that it was an aggressive act by the United States towards the Soviet Union due to the fact that the plan did not include this communist power. Cox and Kennedy go as far as to suggest that by not including the Soviet Union in the Marshall Plan, the United States contributed to its deteriorating relationship with the Soviets. Stalin believed that the United States was trying to lure Eastern European States away from Soviet and communist influence, and planned to make the Soviets powerless in Western Europe. The Marshall plan was no doubt a slap in the face to Stalin and the Soviet Union; the Soviets was also affected by the destruction of the past two wars. The Marshall Plan also proved to be a great threat to Soviet Russia. What were the Americans planning by not including the Soviets in the Plan? This exclusion of Soviet Russia in the Marshall Plan inevitably caused more distrust, chariness, and further the split between the Soviet Union and the United States. Yet, to base the entire existence of the Cold War on the Marshall Plan would be a huge overstatement. At the time, the United States did not have any reason to help the Soviet Union. Why help a growing communist power? And why should the United States have to help a Union whose ideologies were so against their own? So though Cox and Kennedy do bring up a good point when stating that the Marshall Plan furthered the dichotomy between the Soviet Union and the United States, they did not emphasize the other differences that the two had that made hostility inevitable. But for me, I believe that the Marshall Plan was a key factor in unevenly distributing the wealth in the world, and perhaps made the difference between the "third world" countries, and the powerful nations of today.
The Marshall Plan was devised with several intentions. The main goal was to isolate the spread of communism by the Soviet Union in Europe. The United States feared that without financial aid, the European nations ravaged by the war would turn to the USSR for help, thus allowing Soviet influence over the nations. The authors, Cox and Kennedy provide different views on the Marshall Plan. Some believe the plan resulted in Stalin becoming defensive thus erecting the “Iron Curtain.” Stalin was determined to stay in power in nations such as Poland and Czechoslovakia. Officials in Washington never seriously considered including the Soviet Union in the European Recovery Program. Kennan believed that the Soviet Union would never accept help from the Marshall Plan anyways because it would require the Soviet Union to acknowledge their lack of finances in helping to rebuild Eastern Europe. The Soviets also feared the American influence over Eastern Europe. Vojtech Mastny, an American historian, acknowledges that the Soviet Union would not have fared well in a war with the United States. Later in the article, Cox and Kennedy imply that Stalin was fearful of a resistance from the communist occupied Eastern European countries. He worried that the countries would have to choose between their loyalties to the Soviet cause and national financial needs. In response to the Eastern European countries interest in the Marshall Plan, Stalin exerted political threats to the country leaders. The Czechoslovakian Foreign Minister, Jan Masaryk, was threatened with sanctions by the Soviet Union if his country pursued the Marshall Plan. Some historians argue that the Marshall Plan was only a benevolent act and not a calculated deed. This conclusion cannot be supported given the accounts of American officials over the Plan. The Marshall Plan inevitably forced the Soviet Union to create a union with the Eastern European countries. The Plan was one of the main factors that threw two of the world’s most power nations together in a secretive war for supremacy.
Cox and Kennedy theorized that The Marshall Plan, originally put into action to aid Eastern Europe’s economies, was in fact an act that sparked the Cold War. They believe that the plan showed too much involvement by the US in Europe, and Stalin was threatened by that. This presence of the US was taken as an attack on Soviet security, and an aggressive move that provoked a hostile reaction from Stalin. Stalin, in turn, tried to strengthen his hold on Europe, which only heightened the bitter tensions of the Cold War. Cox and Kennedy also revel that the Soviets knew how unlikely it would be to win over the US. They also say that the US was blindsided by the Soviet reaction and they didn’t even dream that the plan would actually instigate more conflict. However, some disagree. It is also theorized that Stalin was preparing for the conflict, and he used The Marshall Plan as a stepping-stone. Others think that the plan was very beneficial and not in any way a step towards more conflict. Those believe that the plan was simply a strategy of survival, and that Europe’s economy was headed towards collapse if the Marshall Plan hadn’t saved it. And if Europe’s economy went down it would precede the collapse of the US economy. While I believe that the Marshall Plan did have some small impact in the division of Europe in the Cold War, it was just one of many other factors that caused it.
The main argument put forth in "The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan?" was that The Marshall Plan was anything but an act of generosity by the United States, but rather they argue that it was an essential role in an increasingly aggressive position towards the Soviet Union by the United States. The Soviet Union was not initially seeking an aggressive standpoint against the United States, but as Cox and Pipe believe this was completely disregarded by the American government. With the Soviet Union still actively seeking an obliging relationship with the United States, the US decided to create and establish the European Recovery Program which to the Soviet Union looked as a posed threat to their security interests. The Marshall Plan was an attempt for the United States to divide up Europe with the intentions of eliminating the communist influence and reign over Eastern Europe with American and Western Europe ideology. Stalin obviously wanted to prevent the US from influencing the Eastern European countries, for he had them in his sphere of influence. The Marshall Plan intentionally and blatantly left Russia out of the agreements for the United States wanted Communism in no form to influence any other nations in Europe. This acted as a “slap in the face” for Stalin, and essentially drove him to further strengthen and motivate him to firmly grasp several Eastern European countries under his “Iron Curtain” of influence. The Marshall Plan was intended to free the countries of Eastern Europe from Communism but instead caused hardship life under tyranny, and a long term divide of the countries in the west and the east. Many historians believe the Marshall Plan to be a catalyst in the division and rise of the Cold War, whereas others believe that the Marshall Plan was an act of justice from the United States in the active resistance against communist society.
"The Tragedy of American Diplomacy" puts forth a very interesting argument that most of us as Americans don't like to consider. They accuse the Americans just as much as the Soviets for the division of Europe and the Cold War, revealing that many historians have ignored many aspects of what actually happened post World War II. This thesis is bold and respectable and without the bias of an American who fully supports their countries actions. Right in the beginning they brought forth a strong argument by acknowledging why they view previous certainties as wrong, creating a more trustworthy piece of work. Their proposition that different US policies would have changed the Soviets response really makes you think and connect the Soviets situation back to yourself in a way. When someone tries to take control and limit your options, you often times become more hostile towards them even if they meant no harm. The authors do a good job in making you think and acknowledge their argument. It also makes you sympathize in a way with the Soviets when they make the point that the Marshall plan gave them less opportunities for smoothing things over in the west. They make you think in a way that probably never came into your head before. However, oftentimes the authors would just put forth possibilities such as, the outcome could have benn different if...., and the article does seem to be a little bias in support of the Soviet Union. Other historians have argued that the real cause of the Cold War was the US pushing more consistently for an open-door policy and some denounce the Marshall Plan as being the turning point in the war. All of this just goes to show you that there will always be mysteries in history, but one thing is for certain; you can't change the past, only the present viewpoint.
The thesis that was put forth by in the article “The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan?" was a thesis that I was actually pretty intrigued by because of the points put forth by the scholars Michael Cox and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe. These two historians believe that the Marshall Plan instated by the US was more aggressive than I previously thought because they believe that not only did the US want to combat the spread of communism but also to remove the eastern European countries from Russia’s post war sphere of influence. Therefore this thesis I believe was pretty strong as a whole. However, there were some weaknesses to the article. In a war, such the “Cold War” that is being discussed, it is impossible to blame one side entirely for a war. Usually an act of aggression such as the US’s proposed Marshall Plan is followed by either an act of defiance by the other side or surrender. In the case of the Cold War, the US’s Marshall Plan was the act of aggression which is true and is pointed out by the two scholars who wrote this, and the act of defiance was the Soviets lack of acceptance towards the US’s proposed help. By denying the help that was given to the rest of Europe, the Soviets also joined the conflict and together both world powers joined to create the Cold War. The main points that were criticized by other historians that I gathered were summed up by Marc Trachtenberg. Trachtenberg proposed that while Cox and Kenned-Pipe say that the soviets were victims to the aggressive nature of the Marshall plan, the Soviets were really in search of more power and land so they were not exactly the victims that were shown in this article.
The Marshall Plan was the course of action that the United States took to help the devastated economies of post WWII Europe. Typically, historians look favorably on the Marshall Plan since it contributed thirteen billion dollars of aid and supposedly promoted an open door policy for trade among all European nations. When analyzing the events that follow and lead up to the Cold War, the Soviets are antagonized and are blamed for the cause of the conflict. "The Tradgedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan" utilizes new information on the Soviet side of the story and therefore proposes a new view point on the issue. This new view critcizes some of the ideas brought up by previous historians, such as the purpose of the plan. It was thought that the plan was supposed to help the economically struggling Europe, but in fact the plan was an American defense mechanism against Communism, against the Soviets, and was supported by Great Britain. When an invitation was extended to Western European countries to join, they were told that they had to break away from Soviet influence and side themselves with the united Europe. As stated in the work, the plan was trying to break down the Iron Curtain and remove the satellite nations from Soviet authority. This brings up another point of criticism, the blame for starting the conflict. It was believed by previous hisotrians that the USSR was to blame for starting the Cold War by intensifying their control on Eastern Europe instead of succumbing to the Marshall Plan and that Stalin had a wider range of courses of action than Truman did. However, the work points out that the USSR was economcially weaker than the US, so Stalin actually had fewer choices than Truman. Though the Soviets were offered participation in the plan, Stalin, for the defense of the USSR, chose to increase his hold on Eastern Europe since the plan was a direct attack on the Soviet institution, knowing all the while that it would create a conflict. Moreover, Stalin actually wanted to bridge Eastern and Western Europe and he actually was opposed to a conflict with the US since he was aware that the USSR could not survive long against an economcially superior opponent.
Basically what this work theorizes is that it was the Marshall Plan and not the Soviet's actions that were the cause for the Cold War. In this respect, the works proposition may have questionable merit. The evidence provided only changes the commonly held beliefs of the Marshall Plan. The evidence makes the Marshall Plan a contributer to the Cold War, but there were a number of other contributing factors that made the war inevitable.
Cox and Kennedy-Pipe’s thesis states that western historians fail to take into account newly available sources from the Soviet Union in order to speculate the causes of the Cold War. While there is some merit to their argument, their article also displays many weaknesses. Both nations had some part in the events that led to the Cold War, and it is unfair to claim that one side was solely responsible. In their article, the authors are blaming the United States, and more specifically the Marshall Plan, for the onset of the Cold War. In their article they focus on the Marshall Plan and all of its negative impacts on Eastern Europe, however they fail to take into account other points of view. Too much emphasis is placed on the United States’ perceived wrongdoings and not enough on anything the Soviets might have done to bring about the Cold War. That is one of the weaknesses of this article: the authors do not fully analyze both sides of this issue, instead they present a very biased view. In the second article, Trachtenburg refutes many of the arguments presented in the first article. He states that the United States actually did the right thing by implementing the Marshall Plan and assisting the weakened European nations. The situation in Europe would only have worsened had we not stepped in. While the first article has many flaws, the thesis is one that should be researched further. Were the article not so biased, and the arguments not so weak, this idea might be more valued.
Although Cox and Kennedy-Pipe do much to destroy the portrayal of the Cold War as “a simple case of Soviet expansionism and American reaction,” the article also discredits itself to a degree in its attacks and assumptions about the Marshall Plan's intentions. The writing asserts that the Marshall Plan, which provided financial aid to European nations in need of rebuilding, had ultimately ulterior motives behind its nearly “$13 billion.” These included drawing the support of eastern Europe away from the communist sphere of influence (and towards capitalism), as well as offering the European Recovery Program to the Soviets in a way that would force them to reject it. In turn, smaller eastern nations would be forced to side one way or the other, and the communist system would be splintered, and eventually destroyed. This “plan” is said to have been hatched so that the ERP would be passed in Congress, and the rebirth of a stronger international capitalist system could proceed as planned. This viewpoint portrays the British, French, and especially the Americans in a malevolent light. Additionally, the article attempts to cast the Soviet Union in an innocent light, where Stalin, knowing full well that “the Soviet Union was manifestly unable to compete with the United States over the long term,” and denied the possibility of western cooperation, was suddenly forced to form the Communist Bloc in a desperate cling to life. As countered by other articles, Stalin and the Soviets knew long ahead of time that conflict would arise between the capitalists and communists, and they were prepared to fight if need be. Thus, the Cold War was not an unexpected conflict between a cunning east and surprised west, but rather the meeting of two inevitably opposing forces. East and west had long been at odds, as conspicuously demonstrated in the division of Germany; larger fighting was only a matter of having a larger-scale reason to do so.
Other writings on the Marshall Plan also point out a fact conspicuously overlooked by Cox and Kennedy-Pipe: the economic advantages it gave to the USA. World War II left much of the European continent devastated both structurally and economically; it was in America's best interests to see these nations rebuild and reenter the world trading stage. Thus, I believe that Cox and Kennedy-Pipe ultimately give the USA too much credit; much more than attempting to check Soviet ambitions, America was looking out for its own economy by rebuilding its European allies, as well as attempting to draw others to its markets with the offer of free aid. The blame for the Cold War is not ultimately on the Marshall Plan, but rather both the USA and the USSR. The blocs having already begun to form, the Plan really served to exacerbate the divisions between east and west and force the Soviets' cards in an attempt to create a communist system competitive with western capitalism. American ambition pressured the Soviets into a conflict which they had been preparing to fight since they saw it in the distant horizon. Like nearly every other major conflict in history, the Cold War cannot be traced back to any one event, such as the Marshall Plan, but is rather the result of the combined effects of innumerable isolated, but related, issues.
The argument in "The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan?" is that the Marshall plan stressed the relationship between the Soviet Union and other European countries, causing a division. The two authors, Michael Cox and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe, believe that the Plan left Stalin with no choice but to close in on Eastern European countries with the Soviet lifestyle. I disagree with their beliefs as a whole, although their arguments are valid in some areas. I do think they had a good point when they describe how leaving the Soviet Union out of the Plan could have devastated the Soviets, and therefore caused Stalin to react in the way he did. Their country was in just as much need as others were for aid of some kind. Also, the authors had definitive evidence that outlined the United States' dislike for communist countries. At the same time, the Soviet Union is not completely scot-free because it is clearly not only the United States' fault the Cold War occurred; it takes two to tango. Other historians would argue that Stalin was poised and ready for a conflict with the States. In addition to that, I would say it is hard for me to believe that the United States would want to break up Europe into two sections. The idea is not impossible, sure, but is it probable that that was the underlying motivation of the Marshall Plan? I do not think so. Furthermore, the Cold War might have been prolonged if not for the "stepping stone" that is the Marshall Plan, but I really do not believe it could have been avoided entirely if the Plan was never carried out.
"The tragedy of American Diplomacy" certainly takes on a highly negative view on american ability to negotiate and foresee what their policies could bring about. The author is very critical of American intentions with the implementation of the Marshall plan and hinted that it was the United States that had wanted to provoke the coldness of the Cold War. He make some strong points in that much of the cold war was caused by unecessary American fear of communism and their want to push capitalism and democracy into communist countries. The United States were very forward and outspoken in their hatred for Communism (as shown by the Truman doctrin) and their wish to remove communism in the Eastern European countries could have been seen as a threat by Stalin. To a new rather unstable country like that of Stalin's the Marshall plan could have easily been seen as a threat and caused him to put up his own barricades against the rest of the European world. The author does touch on a lot of resonable points that suppor this arguement, but aside from a few disclaimers, he does not examine the Soviet side of the Cold war as much. The author seems to be heavily biased against the United States. He talks about how the Soviets were not left with much choices and were often impelled (placed into the article within parenthesis) to go along with new policies. He made America into a big bully (which although she was a bit pretentious, she was not bullying). He never considered why Stalin chose to imput such harsh laws and blockaded East and West Berlin. If he was the victim then why lash out in such an aggressive way? He made the Soviets out to be completely innocent victims, and Stalin to be a friendly and open negotiator who wanted to see peace among all when they really were not. The authors place all the blame on American shoulders saying that we were the instigators that wanted the cold war (one step down from an all out war) which is highly unfair and judgemental.
People from a country tend to look at their respective country's actions positively, and believe that they have done right by them. This is especially true for America, the land where justice reigns supreme. From the time of our birth we're instructed on the noble origins of our nation and the even more noble ideas that it was founded upon. The Marshall Plan was always shown as an act of kindness for the Americans, to help a war-torn and poverty-stricken Europe, in desperate need of aid. The claim that America was to blame for the Cold War, and that the Marshall Plan helped in bringing it about, no matter how delicately or discreetly stated, could only cause controversy, which is exactly what Cox and Kennedy-Pipe's assertions did. However, their arguments and well-researched and have a solid foundation. These authors nearly qualify their arguments first however, saying that history is an ever-changing analysis of the past that shifts as new evidence is unearthed. Cox and Kennedy argue that essentially, the Marshall Plan aggravated the Soviet Union and forced its hand. Because the Marshall Plan was viewed as seemingly aggressive, the Soviet Union responded in kind. Stalin's actions were not planned, but were made based on the circumstances he had to deal with. However, despite the strength of their argument, I cannot agree with their conclusions. All of these controversial conclusions stem from one singular premise: that the Marshall Plan was meant as an aggressive act against the Soviet Union. Other historians will probably agree with me and say that the Marshall Plan, although also designed to stop the spread of communism, was primarily a stimulus act to Europe to help it recover from the devastating war that had beset it. There were no malignant intentions behind it, no agressive ones either (although capitalist intentions, possibly). This piece does put forth a damning argument of the US and does prove that we were at least partially at fault for instigating the Cold War
The Marshall plan was a strategic plan implemented by the Americans in an effort to aid Europe in rebuilding in a difficult post-war time. The Marshall Plan as described in an article authored by Cox and Kennedy titled “"The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan" contributed to the development of the Cold War by causing Josef Stalin to feel constricted, that his opportunities to spread communism were being taken away; this feeling made him tighten his grip on Eastern Europe and put him in the mind-set to fight for those opportunities. The Marshall Plan is supposed to have served the purpose of aiding Europe financially after WWII, to enable the rebuilding of the many cities and countries that were essentially destroyed during the vicious war. However, Cox and Kennedy argue that the Soviets viewed the plan as a threat, a threat against their communist cause. It is feasible that the Soviet government, Stalin especially, would have felt this way, taking into account the anti-communist sentiment in the US, and the fact that Stalin was known to be heavily paranoid. The authors of the article argue that the USSR perceived the plan as a threat and subsequently strengthened their hold on Eastern Europe to protect their cause from this threat. The authors of articles that conflict with the aforementioned believe that the Marshall Plan was necessary for Europe to be able to rebuild after WWII and that tensions would have risen between the Soviets and Americans regardless of whether the plan was ever implemented or not; due to the conflicting governments of the two, combined with the increasingly equal level of power between them. They were constantly trying to out-do each other, this conflict would have occurred eventually anyway. I must concur with the findings of those who see that the Marshall Plan had little bearing upon the Cold War. Perhaps it may have affected the speed of development of the war, but I believe that the war would have occurred with or without the Marshall Plan. I do see that the Marshall Plan was a necessity for the success of Europe, and I contend that not implementing the Marshall Plan would have eventually exacerbated the conflict between the USA and the USSR. I say this because without any plan to ensure economic security long enough for Europe to get back on its feet, Soviet Russia may have had an easier time taking control of Europe and may have been able to take control over more area than they ended up taking due to the economic instability of more countries that would have resulted from the lack of a plan. If they had been able to take over more than the had, the US would have been more discontent and the war could have been ugly, it could have easily turned from a Cold War to a very hot one, if it had involved more territory; the Soviets would have seemed much more threatening to the US, especially given the history of Nazi Germany and its takeover just behind us.
The historians that wrote the first article claim that the US was at just as much fault as the Soviets were in causing the Cold War. They claim that the Marshall Plan was instrumental in helping to escalate tensions between the two super powers, and caused the Soviets to tighten their grip on the eastern European countries that formed the Iron Curtain. The authors claim that if the US had not adopted the Marshall Plan, the brunt of the Cold War could have been avoided. However, they put too much emphasis on the wrongs performed by the US, rather than taking a neutral stance on the issue. There are always to sides to every story, and the authors of the first article chose to turn a blind eye to one side of the story, as they chose to use biased sources.
The author of the second article takes a stance against the first article. He claimed that the Marshall Plan can not be pointed out as the single contributor to the start of the Cold War, as there were many other underlying causes that led to the tensions between the US and the USSR. Other historians believe that America was correct in helping rebuild the economically devastated countries of Europe. Had the Marshall Plan not been implemented, the situation in Europe would have continued to deteriorate rapidly, and a major concern would have been the stability of Europe.
In conclusion, the authors of the first article do produce a fair point regarding the current reasoning on the start of the cold war, however, their failure to acknowledge other possible causes dooms their thesis. It should merely be acknowledged and then researched upon, but not accepted as fact. Using less biased sources and expanding the scope of the causes of the Cold War would help their thesis.
The argument put forth by the authors, Cox and Kennedy, in “The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan?” is interesting. The authors see the Marshall Plan as an act of aggression on the part of the United States towards Soviet Russia. They believe that the Marshall Plan was the reason the Cold War started and that is why Europe was divided. They state that the Marshall Plan was the reason why Josef Stalin became protective of Eastern Europe. They also highlight the fact that Stalin knew that a war against USA would not lead to victory. It was impossible for them to defeat the United States. Cox and Kennedy also mention how the United States did not take into account the reaction of Soviet Russia before putting forward the Marshall Plan.
Other historians disagree with Cox and Kennedy. They do not see the Marshall Plan as the instigator of the Cold War. Historians believe that Stalin was ready for a conflict with the United States and that could be seen from the rising tension between them. In addition, they believe that the Marshall Plan was not only necessary but an important factor in the revival of the United States economy after the World War II.
I agree with Cox and Kennedy when they say that the Marshall Plan was the reason why Stalin became protective of Eastern Europe but I disagree with them on everything else. The Marshall Plan was needed to rebuild Europe. After World War II, the Europe civilization had been destroyed. Cities had disappeared. 25 million people in Germany were homeless and needed food. Infrastructure had been destroyed. The Marshall Plan was not the reason why Europe became divided but it was the reason why Europe did not divide further. Romania, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Latvia, and a couple other countries had already fallen to communism. If financial aid was not given to Germany, Great Britain, France, and others, they would also fall to communism. This could lead to another war which would cause universal destruction because of the modern weapons. The United States did know how Stalin would react because they were putting forward a plan to prevent the spread of communism. If the Marshall Plan had not come into existence, another war was still on the horizons. The Marshall Plan saved United States economy too. If Europe’s economy had failed, then the United States economy would have failed just as what had happened back in 1929. I completely disagree with Cox and Kennedy, that the Marshall Plan was the reason why the Cold War started.
It is interesting that the article discretely disdains the tendency of many historians to portray history as a struggle between 'good' and 'evil.' WWII particularly accentuated this viewpoint, as Hitler was universally viewed as a monster based on his treatment of the Jews in the concentration camps. It has been often said that history is written by the victors- that whoever survives and emerges victorious of a conflict dictates how its legacy is sung. Since the US won WWII, it was given latitude to portray the Soviet communists as the 'bad guys.' The Marshall Plan essentially donated money to countries suffering after WWII. This could easily be portrayed as a benign venture. The running opinion, quite synonymous with a satirical labeling as 'propaganda,' was that the money was to stave off the vicious Communistic powers seeking to overthrow democratic governments. Here the articles state that the Soviets' power was being vastly overestimated, and that they had far less of an ability to influence these governments. Of course the notion that these governments were choosing Communism for themselves was absurd, and as such it was never considered that the overestimation was intentional. The step back necessary to analyze the Cold War is essential to remove bias. The Open Door Policy could be seen as far more aggressive than any of the Soviets' movements. Certainly, the degree to which Democracy was 'defended' in Vietnam shows a certain measure of intention. However the Marshall plan sharpened tensions between the US and the Soviets, the article overstates the fault of the US in starting the Cold War. Following the invention and proliferation of nuclear weapons, it was somewhat inevitable that nations who controlled them would be forced to regard each other politically in some new light. It was just as possible for the US and the Soviets to become strong allies, were it not for their governmental differences. Because Democracy and Communism do not 'play nice' together, tensions were bound to escalate. Since nuclear weapons were the levers of choice in the conflict, it was inevitable they would be used as the main propagators of threats, with the fault evenly distributed to each nation.
The article argues that our information about Soviet Russia and the Cold War is extremely lacking. The fact that there have been three major revisions of the view on the Cold War means that the previous interpretations were assumed to be misunderstood. If the previous interpretations were correct, there would not have been a need for new ones. This lack of information leads to a general misunderstanding between the United States and Soviet Russia over some of the affairs of the Cold War. The article argues that in order to better understand the intentions and beliefs of the Soviet Union, the United States would need to acquire more intelligence about the Soviet Union. The article is overall blaming America for events of the Cold War because of America’s ineptitude to deal properly with the world’s problems. It points out the one-sidedness of previous interpretations of the Cold War due to the lack of information on both sides. It continues to explain the fact that despite new evidence, new interpretations of the Cold War cannot be reached because each country still kept their own opinion. America, even upon the third revision of the Cold War, still believed that they were the defender of justice responsible for defeating Communism, and the Soviet Union believed that America was just nosy and should keep to their own business. The article argues that America was not as innocent in its actions as it claimed to be, and that ultimately both countries were at fault for the conflict, not just the Soviet Union.
"The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan", authored by Cox and Kennedy, claims that the Marshall Plan was far from benign in relation to the onset of the Cold War, and that it did not function as it was intended. They argue that this American doctrine forced the Soviet Union to become protective over Eastern Europe, as well as view the Americans as aggressors, due to their anti-communist sentiments. These pressures forced the Soviets to create a Soviet bloc in Eastern Europe, although this action can be attributed to other prevalent causes as well. Cox and Kennedy also contend that the drafters of the Marshall Plan failed to see how uncompromising their doctrine would be on the Soviet Union, and for that, the blame falls on them. Criticisms of Cox and Kennedy, while their work is well-supported, stems from the authors’ focus of American-fault and lack of assessment of the Marshall Plan as a positive entity. Other historians view the MP as generous and beneficial to the United States as well as the European countries involved. The Soviet Union was never intended, nor ever was, integrated into this plan, and many argue that this played a minute, if any, role in the beginning of the Cold War. The historians also say that the Soviets had more options in this era, whereas the US had a slimmer set of choices, and that that brunt of the responsibility for the initiation of this War should be on the shoulders of the Soviet Union. All in all, both sides are well-supported and make many valid contentions. In my eyes, it would appear that the Americans were in the right to conduct the Marshall plan, to both promote their own economy as well as those of European countries, and to combat the spread of communism, despite the effects that ensued.
"The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan?" argues that the Marshall Plan deteriorated relations between the United States and the Soviet Union. Although on the surface, it started as a good, American, economic initiative, the Marshall Plan was truly used to separate the Soviet Union from the rest of Europe and the United States. George Kennan and Dean Acheson considered the plan the “most dedicated effort yet to reduce Communist influence in Europe.” They were confident that they had made it unappealing to Communist societies; the offer made to Moscow was considered “window dressing.” Ironically, the Soviet Union was interested in collaborating with the US. However, the Marshall Plan was not a bridge between the two but a catalyst to the widening chasm. Stalin was originally optimistic about the plan and thought he could obtain aid without any conditions attached. His views were supported by economist Evgenii Varga, who thought it was best for the Soviet Union and the United States to work together. Nevertheless, the Americans pursued the Marshall Plan, intent on shutting out the Soviet Union. Bevin and Bidault’s presentation revealed that in order to obtain aid, the country would have to change its internal policies to be dependent on Western Europe. Obviously, that was not an appealing idea to the Soviet Union. The fact that Bevin and Bidault also issued an invitation two 22 countries, which later became the Western bloc, further angered the Soviet Union. Fox and Kennedy-Pipe contends that the Marshall Plan worsened relations between the United States and the Soviet Union. The thesis is strong overall, with plenty of historical support.
The writers of the first article are relatively passionate that the US was just as much the reason for the Cold War as the Soviet Union was. They said that the Marshal Plan put stress on the Soviets and made them to increase their influence in the east and it further increased the problems between the US and the Soviets. Basically, the authors say the the Marshal Plan was in its entirety the main cause of the Cold War, that it was mainly all the fault of the United States. I think they are totally making it out to seem like it is all the Americans’ fault. I think that they are ignoring the negatives on the side of the Soviet Union. The writers are thoroughly biased and in favor of the Soviet side. In the second article, Trachtenburg, takes the complete opposite side. He stands to defend America and the Marshal Plan. He points out that the Soviets did not believe in smaller countries, where as America wanted to help and fund them. He feels the America really bettered and saved the situation. HE calls the Marshall Plan the “most dedicated effore to reduce Communist influence”. The United States was simply following its beliefs by trying to separate Communists and Non-Communists and further keep the Communists out. Though he disagrees, it has been said the the Marshall Plan was a major player in starting the Cold War. But other historians say that it was just a more thorough example of what was already happening.
Upon conclusion of World War II, the world’s economy was completely faltered. Europe was facing the worst economic depression known in its history. Nations were struggling to survive and the quality of life was near awful. To help solve this problem, the United States adopted the Marshall Plan. This plan was designed to provide aid to European nations to help eliminate depression. This plan used the surplus of United States funds to help spark economic recovery. Unfortunately, it only created problems within the nations not receiving aid from the plan. For this reason, the article blames the Marshall plan for the terrible rule and spread of communism throughout Europe. From the Marshall plan, it is said that the Cold war was sparked on behalf of the Soviets disgust from the lack of funding. Therefore, all of the blame can’t be put on the United States.
In their article "The Tragedy of American Diplomacy", authors Cox and Kennedy make several assertions about the Marshall Plan and its so-called "purpose". One of the claims made in this article states that the Marshall Plan was intended to cause problems with the Eastern Bloc because they were funding the "enemy". In reality, the U.S. offered millions of dollars to Josef Stalin and the Eastern Bloc but they righteously refused the offer. Because of this refusal, Western Europe was able to prosper from the money given to them in the Marshall Plan and as a result build a better, more stable economy and even government. This, Cox and Kennedy claimed, angered the Eastern Bloc, especially Stalin, deepening the schism of the Iron Curtain. Although some historians do agree that the Marshall Plan further separated Eastern Europe from Western Europe, the bulk of historians do not agree that the Marshall Plan was actually one of the primary causes of the Cold War, as Cox and Kennedy do in their article. Of course, the Marshall Plan was most likely seen as a threat to the Soviets, as the article points out, but is such a threat significant to launch such a massive war? In my opinion, it is not. East and West Europe were splitting as a result of their political beliefs; West Europe adopted capitalism while East Europe adopted communism. Since the two ideologies were polar opposites, conflict arose. Therefore, the Marshall Plan was not indeed the turning point of the Cold War but instead a contributing factor. I disagree with Cox and Kennedy because I believe that the Marshall Plan was beneficial to Europe because of it boosted economies, trade, and government polices in the West. In turn, this provoked the Eastern Bloc to see how prosperous capitalist nations were becoming and therefore not have the urge to fight against them but rather become apart of them. Ultimately, this led to the end of the Cold War and the destruction of the Berlin Wall as Eastern Europe was no longer constricted to their communists oppressors. Overall, I, along with several other historians, disagree with several of the claims made by Cox and Kennedy criticizing the Marshall Plan and its "intentions" to dismantle Europe into two competing regions.
In the thesis presented in “The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan?” by Cox and Pipe, the United States had other notions when they proposed the Marshall Plan to the rest of the world. While some believed that this plan was an act of generosity that would benefit lesser countries, the authors of this paper believed that it was the United States plan to further sour relationship with the Soviet Union. Initially, the Soviet Union did not hold an aggressive viewpoint against the United States, but the Marshall Plan was an obvious strike against the Soviets by the United States. This initial neutrality of the Soviet Union against the Americans was completely disregarded by the Marshall Plan. With the Soviet Union still actively seeking a cooperative relationship with the United States, the Americans decided to create and establish the European Recovery Program. To the Soviet Union, it looked like a posed threat to their security interests. The United States proposed this plan in order to split up the communist regimes that were spreading across Eastern Europe. Stalin saw this as a military advance, as he did not want the United States to break up his spheres of influence in Eastern Europe. The United States purposefully left Russia out of the agreements proposed in the Marshall Plan, as they did not want communism to influence the other countries in Europe. This was a direct action against Stalin, and drove him to determinedly grasp several Eastern European countries under his “Iron Curtain” of influence. The Marshall Plan, therefore, did not achieve its primary goal, as the countries now under the control of the Soviet Union were now living a life of tyranny. It also led to a long term divide of the eastern and western countries in Europe. As Cox and Pipe see it, this plan was a catalyst in the ongoing Cold War between Soviet Union and the United States. To others, it was an act of justice against these communist regimes. I believe that it was just the United States expanding its power base after its role in World War II.
The marshal plan was a strategy used by the US to keep Europe in tact after the second world war at the advent of the cold war.The authors of this article, Cox and Kennedy claimed that this plan led to further aggression from the soviet union towards the US and in fact led to many problems of the cold war. The Marshal plan aggravated the soviets because they felt it threatened their security needs and impaired their abilities to act as they would like in protecting their borders. Many historians disagree with the authors and feel that the marshal plan only worked to save Europe from an almost inevitable economic collapse and that it was one of the few choices that the US had. But the marshal plan still could have led to hostilities and caused a more aggravated Soviet union and a more ferocious cold war. Both sides of the argument may be correct, the US could have done the marshal plan as an aggressive act against the soviet union or they could have done it to keep Europe afloat in a turbulent time and because of such strong sentiments on both sides at the time it could be hard to see which side of the argument is correct. Europe needed the money but the Soviet Union needed peace of mind and the marshal plan didn't help the soviets attain that. Also the US was not pro communist government at the time and they wanted to prevent the spread of Soviet ideas and the only way they could do that in their opinion was to give money so both could be at fault for being paranoid but they had a good reason to be so paranoid with all the bad sentiments on both sides.
The newly opened Soviet archives provide a wealth of information for historians to analyze, but should not necessitate a spontaneous change in opinion on the Cold War. Cox and Kennedy-Pike assert in their article that the Cold War and division of Europe are the fault of the United States and the Marshall Plan, and were only later aggravated by Soviets in a logical reaction. Their claim is, however, apparently unsound. Cox and Kennedy-Pike protest that the giving of charity to the tune of $13 billion was actually an act of spite by the capitalistic United States designed to hurt its enemies in Eastern Europe. However, the United States offered such charity to any country in Europe, including the Soviet Union. The authors claim that the United States’ offer to Stalin was, however, almost taunting, with both side knowing that the other had no intention of following through. As deep as the rivalry between these countries may have been, the fact that the Soviet Union was offered such charity is by no means an indication of the United States’ spite. Cox and Kennedy-Pike also accuse the United States of selfishness and ulterior motives in necessitating the money’s spending on United States products. However, this by no means undermines the generosity of the Marshall Plan. With a multi-billion dollar charity program, it only makes sense that the United States would want some boon; and products needed to be bought, whether they were American or not. The necessities were still covered, and the west prospered after World War II. The division of Europe should more appropriately be attributed to the Soviets, whose symbolic Berlin Wall represented their xenophobia and anti-capitalist sentiments. It seems that, in the words of Gaddis, with “Stalin running the Soviet Union a Cold War was unavoidable.”
The weakness of the tragedy of American diplomacy is that it is not aware of Soviet policy. It states that the Russians only did what they did because of aggressive US policy. However one of the soviet's biggest policies was that of inciting revolution around the world, to convert it to communism. The Marshall plan has a lot of strengths and only one weakness. The strengths is that it rebuild Europe form the ashes of WWII. Also it improved the US economy and made it the richest nation in the world. The one weakness is that it lead to the European Union which restricted the sovereignty of Europe.
60 comments:
Their thesis dictates that in relation to the studies on the cold war, western historians are severely lacking in their understandings of the accounts of eastern European states and despite the new sources available since the fall of the Soviet Union, there have been no new ideas speculating the roots of the Cold War. They also question the idea that the new sources from Russia will reveal the truth of the Cold War when in fact it proves many things but does nothing to clarify the views on the Cold War as well as identify America as the culprit provoking the Cold War. This is a strong thesis in the way that it reminds the reader that America was not entirely innocent however because of its basis on the discovery of new documents from Soviet Russia, the issue of bias arises. Pipe/Cox makes a good point when they reference the Marshall Plan in relation to the Truman doctrine, both are essentially the same as far as economic aid however if the Marshall Plan was an act of generosity and the Truman doctrine an effort to prevent Communism from entering Turkey and Greece than perhaps America did have a more significant role in instigating the Cold War. However these authors do not address the fact that the American’s view the split of Berlin and the creation of the iron curtain as being a clear division and step towards the Cold War. These authors criticize the fact that most historians tend to augment the so called impending threat of Soviet Russia. In relation to the works of Williams they explain that his main points of the US open door policy provoking the Soviets does not take into account the realistic interests of the United States. Overall this piece is well supported with the exception of the Soviet Bias in the new sources.
The authors of the article claim that the Marshall Plan was an act of aggression on the part of the United States towards the Soviet Union, and thus was one of the great catalysts of the Cold War. They claim that because of the Plan, as time passed, Stalin became more protective over Eastern Europe, which contributed to the Cold War. While other historians claim that Stalin was ready for a conflict with the West, the authors of this article recognize Stalin’s awareness of the impossibility of a victory for the Soviet Union. They also claim that the Soviet Union was justified in its actions because the US failed to recognize the security needs of the Union. Also, the drafters of the Marshall Plan failed to see how defensive and uncompromising the Plan would inevitably make the leaders of the Soviet Union. The Plan only succeeded in angering Eastern Europe and causing them to fear their entrance into the world of the West.
Other historians disagree with Cox and Kennedy and say that the Marshall Plan was generous and a defense for the US’s economy. They say that Stalin had more options after the war in 1947 than Truman did. There was no other option for the US than to create the Marshall Plan to save Europe’s dying economy. Both sides of the argument have merit. The article recognizes that the Marshall Plan may have led to the inevitable Cold War by creating hostile feelings toward the US in Eastern Europe. While this is true, the Marshall Plan was the most realistic option for the US at the time, and feelings of resentment were already brewing on both sides of the conflict. This interesting and new take on the origins of the Cold War does posses some actual merit, but the Marshall Plan was not the sole cause or even main contributor to the War.
The authors of "The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan", Cox and Kennedy, believe that the Marshall Plan was a definite act of aggression when Soviet Union was still being cooperative. The decision to establish the European Recovery Program, without any real intention to include the Soviet Union, can be considered a catalyst to the Cold War. The Marshall plan was a threat to the Soviets security interests, with East European countries moving from the Soviet’s sphere of influence to the Western. They claim that this caused Stalin, to tighten his hold over Eastern Europe, which contributed to the Cold War. The authors of this article also speculate that Stalin was aware of how improbable victory would be against the United States. And point out that the US was not able to see how the Marshall Plan would affect the Soviet Union, and how they would react with fear and anger. However other historians disagree with these statements. One, they believe that Stalin was ready for a conflict with the United States. Two that the Marshall Plan did not hinder the Soviet Union, but was very generous and at the same time beneficial to the US economy. They have also claimed that without the Marshall Plan, Europe’s economy would have crashed and so would then the rest of the world would suffer.
I believe, that both sides are right. Cox and Kennedy made a good point about how the Soviet Union saw the Marshall Plan as a threat, and how Stalin reacted to it. However, the Marshall Plan’s necessity cannot be denied. As Europe was failing, America would also soon fail, and this was the best option. This was an interesting topic because I had no idea that the Marshall Plan could have been an instigator for the Cold War, but I am also sure that it was not the only cause for it.
Cox and Kennedy-Pipe make many broad assertions and implications in their article “The Tragedy of American Diplomacy”. They claim Stalin would never have accepted the Marshall plan because of his fear of capitalism, but that if the US had used a better Open Door policy in their negotiations in 1947 then the Cold War wouldn’t have been as bad. They also seem to imply that the US thought it was doing everything it possibly could to reduce Communist influence throughout their negotiations. However, as other historians have pointed out, the US certainly was not attempting to do this, nor was it in any place to. The US was not doing everything possible to build up a military, which would be essential to an all-out prevention of communism.
This article goes on to argue that a divided Europe, which the authors seem to think was caused by the Marshall plan was the least desired outcome for the Soviets. This is an invalid argument, because it would be far worse for the Soviets to lose their grip on Eastern Europe. Also, the Soviets had envisioned a Europe of two coexisting spheres open to communication and negotiation, but completely separate in political philosophy.
The most faulty argument in this article is that the Marshall plan caused the division of Europe and in turn caused the Cold War. Other historians have also noted that the Marshall plan was not actually the turning point is has been made out to be. Europe had already begun to divide into the bloc system by this time, as the Soviets were being excluded by negotiations and political groups forming in post World War II Europe. Also, it would simply not have been natural for the US to make open agreements to give handouts to the Soviets when they were apparent adversaries wary of the others actions.
The division of Europe was not caused by the US’s poor negotiations in 1947, and furthermore, the division of Europe did not initiate the Cold War. When examining the causes of a war, the actions and intentions of the aggressors must be examined. While the negotiations and division contributed to tension and built up to things, it was not the turning point that made everything happen, but simply a contributing factor.
The Marshall Plan was an American plan to aid the Europeans through economic hardships in a time where communism was growing. Cox and Kennedy, the authors of this article, thought the Marshall plan caused tensions between the Soviet Union and the rest of Europe. It instigated the Cold War because it was perceived as a threat to the Soviets and made them tighten their hold on Eastern Europe. This aggressiveness was a factor in the Cold War, which the authors point out that America failed to see. Other historians argue with this, saying it was necessary for America to take this economy-boosting step and help suffering Europeans. If America had not stepped in, the situation in Europe would have worsened, and it was important to keep the continent from falling apart. They also stated that regardless, this tension would increase eventually anyways, as Stalin was prepared for conflict. Cox and Kennedy disagreed, saying that Stalin was conscious that such a victory was practically impossible. The plan catalyzed feelings of fear and hatred amongst the Soviets, who simply became more and more defensive. Both sides of this argument make an interesting analysis and important points, however, this plan did play some role in the Cold War. It may be seen as a major factor or not, but it definitely held some significance because it was seen as a practicality by America and a threat by the Soviets, creating an atmosphere of anxiety.
The European economic system was in shambles after the Second World War, communism was a growing threat and with the system in that state it could be easily over taken by the communist threat. The Marshall was devised to aid these European countries financial crisis in attempt to keep communism, America’s worst enemy from spreading. The authors of this article believed that the plan caused more problems that it worked to solved. The plan caused animosity between the Soviets and the European countries receiving the aid of the U.S.A. This caused the Soviets to attempt to gain a better control of these nations, and eventually not to long after this aggression caused the Cold War to start. America did not see that their aid would lead to more conflict they were merely trying to help.
The authors of this article feel that American plans and ideas, versus those of the Soviets, caused the start of the Cold War and the bad relations with parts of Europe. Although I feel this point has some merit, there are also apparent weaknesses. First of all, whenever there is some war or sour relations between two countries, it usually turns out that neither side is free of guilt. In the case of this article, the authors are mostly blaming the United States. The blame should not be put entirely on the U.S. because the Soviets did show some hostility towards the American ideas. Anyways, these authors blame the Marshall Plan for the terrible rule that ensued throughout much of Europe. There is absolutely no way that a plan to help give money to those in need would lead to communism in many places. Those are some of the weaknesses of this article's main idea. On the other hand, the authors were correct to not put all of the blame on one side because that is never the case. No one ever takes the side of the Soviets because they are always seen as "the common enemy." Hence, I feel that it was a positive of this article to leave some of the blame for the U.S. and not all on the Soviets. Some other main points that are criticized by other historians include that the authors write how the Soviets wanted countries in Europe to be separated from others, and Marc Trachtenberg tells how this was not the case. He describes how the Soviets were less innocent than these authors depicted them as. He told that the Soviets wanted to control various lands throughout Europe, showing their lack of innocence. In addition, Trachtenberg feels that the Marshall Plan was not the whole reason for the Cold War, as is what the authors of this article feel. In the end, there are many logical points that the authors make, but on the other hand, there are even more negatives than positives to their writings.
The authors of the first article declare that the US is just as much in fault of causing the Cold War as the Soviets are. They say that the Marshall Plan helped to induce this war. They claimed that because of the Marshall Plan the USSR tightened its grip on the east and it escalated the tensions between the two countries. They claimed that if the US had not implemented the Marshall Plan the worse of the Cold War could have been avoided. However, I believe they put too much blame on the US, rather than focusing on the wrongs of both sides. There are always at least two sides to a story. The authors of the first article chose to use biased source from recently available Soviet documents.
Trachtenburg takes the stance against the first article. He states that the Marshall Plan cannot be blamed as the single contributor to the start of the Cold War. He states so fallacies in the first article; he points out that the Soviets did not support other countries from being separate from others. Also other historians argue that America was right is funding the feeble countries of Europe. America helped to rebuild Europe after the devastating WWII. If America had not stepped in, the situation in Europe would have worsened, and it was important to keep the continent from falling apart.
In summation, the authors do point out a clear flaw in the current explanation of the reasons for the start of the Cold War. However, they cannot fully support their argument against the counter arguments; hence their thesis should be merely taken into account and further researched. Using less biased sources might help their case.
The analysis put forth in the argumentation of “The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan” was that the Marshall plan was not just a system of aid that the United States put forth as an effort to help out Europe after the war, but a planned attempt to divide up Europe, and to rally the western half of Europe under the American cause and away from Communist influence. The article begins by stating that historians are flawed in always viewing America as innocent or pure when it comes to the cold war, and that as new evidence emerges, it can be seen that America also had a hand in creating the cold war. The Marshall plan is called the most dedicated effort to reduce Communist influence. It notes that the Marshall plan was specifically designed to keep Russia out, because the inclusion or Russia would be a failure of the plan, which was intended to divide Communist and non-Communist nations. It was said that the issue of Moscow accepting the plan was raised, not because the United States wanted Russia to join, but because they were afraid that they would. Marshall was said to be sure that Russia would not join, and that satellite nations would either renounce Communism or would stick with Russia. Thus, Europe would be split in two. The United States supposedly did everything they could to keep Russia out, and other western countries, notably Britain, shared the animosity. The plan was said to be a big intentional catalyst for the cold war. Other sources have disagreed with this analysis. Many say that the Marshall plan was not a catalyst, but rather a confirmation of a rift that already existed. Others back up the United States, saying that Stalin’s actions were provocations. Another argues that the real goal of the United States was to eliminate communism, and called the Marshall plan the third best alternative which satisfied the USSR and the United States, rather than the goal of the United States.
The thesis of “The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan” contains an argument that is new to me. The authors Cox and Kennedy believe that the Marshall Plan was an aggressive act by the United States towards the Soviet Union (who was not included in the plan) and their national security. Josef Stalin believed that the US was trying to lure Eastern European States away from Soviet influence and the plan also kept the Soviet Union from having much involvement in Western Europe. Cox and Kennedy also argue that Stalin was ready for a conflict in the West, and the Marshall plan made it clear to him that the Soviet Union could never win. The Marshall Plan is said to have angered Eastern Europe which made them defensive and extremely unwilling to compromise with the big Western Powers. The strengths of this agreement are that yes the Marshall Plan most certainly upset the Soviet Union, but the weaknesses seem to be that they don’t address that there are other reasons why the Cold War broke out, and the Marshall Plan only added to existing tensions.
Other historians would disagree with Cox and Kennedy because the Marshall Plan is most commonly seen to be a generous act by the United States, who helped save Europe’s failing economy after WWII. This plan not only helped the European and American economies, it also kept public morale up because people knew they were getting help and therefore would not become as upset about the conditions they were forced to live in after the war. The ideas put forth by Cox and Kennedy have some merit because the Marshall Plan was a catalyst in the commencement of the Cold War, but it is by no means the sole cause of the dispute.
The Marshall Plan provided monetary support for European countries after WWII. Cox and Kennedy-Pipe argued that the United State’s Marshall Plan directly threatened the Soviet Union. They claim that all information about the United States is biased and that historians view them American views as the correct ones. The Marshall Plan was purposely built so that the Soviet Union and the communist states would not participate in receiving aid. By providing aid only to western European states, the Marshall Plan forced Stalin to tighten control over the communist states (the western half of Europe), which created the long-term tension known as the Cold War. Two spheres of influence were created – the west was the United States’ and the east was the Soviet Union’s. Stalin didn’t want to divide Europe, because his goal was to control all of Europe, not have it split up into two parts. It was also aware that it could not decisively win against the United States, so it was forced into the response it took. But as Trachtenberg said, the United States was in a similar position. It was too weak militarily to defend the eastern countries from communism. With this information, it is somewhat conclusive to say that the United States was not looking forward to damage the Soviet Union with the Marshall Plan and that it was more of a defensive maneuver. There are also disagreements on the magnitude that the Marshall Plan affected the Soviet Union and the impact on the economies of the United States and the Soviet Union. However, I believe that one side cannot be taken, because both sides had justified reasons for their actions/reactions. The United States depended on the European states, so helping them rebuild was beneficial in the long run. The Soviet Union would obviously see that as a threat, and their reaction wasn’t too extreme. And in the end, I don’t believe that the Marshall Plan was the only reason that the Cold War started.
Cox and Kennedy suggest the Marshal plan as a step in the increasingly aggressive posture of the United States to the Soviet Union. They further this by saying the Soviets were still seeking cooperation with the U.S before the plan. Rather then create a union Stalin they implied felt it best to establish communist systems and tighten the hold over eastern Europe because of this plan. This seems a reasonable statement. The more the U.S tries to influence European countries the more Soviets will feel forced to retaliate. Furthermore as the U.S becomes more aggressive in pursuing their goals so the Soviets will become more defensive. If the Soviets were seeking cooperation then a broad step such as the Marshal plan without Russian consideration would be insulting. However what Cox and Kennedy do not acknowledge is the fact the Soviets were for the most part the opposite of Americans and conflict therefore would seem inevitable. That being the case the preliminary actions taken by the U.S, though there is little evidence supporting they were preliminary actions at all, were completely justifiable. The documents they use in their thesis show the bias of the Soviets. However these are just that bias and for the most part it can be said they shared equally in initiating this “cold war” both sides had their own bias accounts. Clearly from an broad view of the history of the period such as that of other historians this was not the main cause of the division of Europe nor latter military expansion. Even before the Marshal plan Soviets and other European countries had begun to divide Europe into communist and non-communist states this in no way lead to the separation which would have certainly happened any way. As for the military expansion this plan in my opinion and in the opinion of many scholars is no were near a main contributor. In conclusion though they present a supported and reasonable argument I doubt the war could have been averted at this point, furthermore I do not believe it was even the U.S intention to instigate conflict or turn the tide away from communism. Whether or not the U.S found a different route cooperation as suggested by the article in the long term would have been unlikely.
The authors Cox and Kennedy believe that the Marshall plan was a U.S. act of aggression against the Soviet Union. At this time they believe the Soviet Union was still being cooperative towards the United States in regards to both the rebuilding of Europe and in diplomacy between the two countries. Further they believe that intentionally not including the U.S.S.R. in the plan was a catalyst for the start of the Cold War. The Martial Plan was a threat to the Soviet Union and their interests and the Stalin believed that in order for the Soviet Union to remain powerful and have control over Easter Europe that they must tighten the hold of their Eastern European spheres of influence. The authors state that the U.S. did not foresee the Soviet response to the plan and how they reacted emotionally rather than politically as they had in the past. The other authors also claim that while the Martial Plan lead to increase tensions and then eventually the cold war they argue that Europe’s economy would have suffered and possibly failed cause a crash that would resonate around the world. This would not have only affected Europe but the U.S. so it was in their best interest to do the Martial Plan. The Martial Plan was the right way to proceed in Europe. It was obvious that tensions were rising between the East and West and that eventually a conflict like the Cold War would develop and that Europe needed an economic package. I believe that the U.S. government acted rationally by allowing this to proceed and not really caring about the Soviet response. Also, the failure of the European government would have also created a bad situation for the U.S. I believe that the Marshall plan was a cause for the Cold War but would have existed otherwise.
Cox and Pipe’s thesis “that it was American policies as much as (perhaps more than) Soviet actions that led to the division of Europe and thus to the Cold War itself,” holds some water. If not for the actions of the Americans, perhaps Europe would not have been pushed so far apart. However, it takes two to tango. And, as many historians would agree, the Soviets had a large part in Europe’s division. Soviet actions may have had a larger impact than Cox and Pipe give them credit for.
The truth to this thesis is that American policies exacerbated an already tense situation. The Soviet Union’s economy, policies, and ideals were all in complete opposition to American views. This led Truman to take a very anti-Soviet and communist stance. This anti-Soviet sentiment is highlighted by the Marshall Plan which did not even feign equal treatment of communist countries. The Marshall Plan provided aid to non-communist countries. This helped turn any potential communist countries against Soviet Russia. This of course pushed Europe further apart.
However this article wrongly evaluates the Marshall Plan as a crucial turning point. Most historians agree that it is the conflicting ideals and economies that led to the schism between communist and western Europe. For example, Western influence threatened the success of a Communist government. This led Stalin to try to keep out trade and the influences of the West. This largely contributed to the division of Europe. Meanwhile, the Cold War was more a result of Soviet Russia’s attempt to push away Western ideals. The Soviet Union attempted to expand their influence and promoted Communism in other parts of Europe. This threatened Western society by replacing Western ideals with those of Communism. Therefore, tensions were already high between the Soviets and America.
Although an interesting concept, the thesis of “The Tragedy...” falls short in many respects. It puts too much stock in what many historians consider a simple generous deed. The Marshall Plan may have kicked a little dirt on the Soviets, however the fight was inevitable. With such different ideals the cold war and division of Europe was unavoidable.
To some people, the Marshall Plan is seen as a smart diplomatic move by the United States as it tried to help Europe come back from a disastrous war. To other people however, the plan is viewed as a stepping stone into the Cold War. Cox and Kennedy, the authors of The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan, provide an interesting thesis. They believe that since the United States excluded the Soviet Union from the Marshall Plan, it created hostility that eventually contributed to the deteriorating relationship between the Americans and Soviets. America had offered its help to the countries who were ravaged by the war. The Soviets had lost a great deal and felt it deserved to have the aid of America. Cox and Kennedy emphasize that it was a direct insult to the Soviet Union by not recognizing the country in the Marshall Plan. Though not only was this an insult, it was also a threat. Was America planning something? Why had they not offered their help when the Soviets were trying to improve relations between the two countries? Stalin had seen this exemption as a security threat. America was increasingly trying to gain the favor of the European countries, diminishing the Soviet’s sphere of influence. Cox and Kennedy blame the Marshall Plan for a whole lot of negative effects. While I do believe that the plan increased hostility between the Soviets and America, I think the authors’ reaction to the plan is a bit extreme. The plan was necessary for Europe at that time. The United States was doing its best to be diplomatic during a time of great stress. Europe had been devastated by the war while America had come out of it in spectacular shape. The hostile relation between the Soviets and America was not solely because of the Marshall Plan. There are other factors; one being soviet resentment of American prosperity after the war. I believe that the relationship would have been negative even without the Marshall plan. Was the plan a contributing factor of Soviet hostility towards America? Definitely. Did it lead to the Cold War? No.
Cox and Kennedy, the authors of: The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan, present an interesting opinion and analysis of the Marshall Plan. They believe that the Marshall Plan was an act of aggression towards a cooperative Soviet Union. Although the United States claimed they created the Marshall Plan to aid the European countries through economic hardships to prevent the further spread of communism, Cox and Kennedy to not believe this. They believed the Marshall Plan created tensions between the Soviet Union and the rest of Europe. That the United State’s decision to establish the European Recovery Program with out any intensions to include the Soviet Union was a real contributing factor to the Cold War. The Marshall Plan was seen by the Soviet Union as a real threat because it threatened their security interests when Eastern European countries switching to the Western sphere of influence. This caused Stalin to tighten his hold over Eastern Europe. This aggressiveness was a factor in the Cold War, one that the United States failed to see according to Cox and Kennedy. However, other historians argue that it was necessary for America to help suffering Europeans because if they had not then the entire continent would have fallen under. It was their duty to prevent this. Other historians argue that Stalin was ready for conflict with the United States. However, Cox and Kennedy believe this is improbable and that Stalin was aware he could never win if conflict erupted between the two nations. And some historians even believe the Marshall Plan was generous and did not hinder the Soviet Union.
Both sides are right to an extent. It is obvious that the Marshall Plan did cause the Soviets to become angry and fearful thus significantly contributing to the Cold War. However, if the Untied States did not create the Marshall Plan and support suffering European countries, would they have fallen to Communism? This are questions one should consider before deciding on if the Marshall Plan was necessary or not and if the impact it had was more positive or negative.
As both authors of "The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan" are well aware of, criticism of the American Marshall Plan is often not welcome. Our study of this important text in United States History revealed it in a positive light; it has been portrayed as an act of goodwill and generosity on part of the United States and as a valiant attempt to combat the spread of communism. Therefore, it is unsurprising that Cox and Kennedy Pine's assertions that the Marshall Plan had the reverse effect, of actually potentially aiding Stalin's iron grip on Eastern Europe, have come under fire. The strength of their argument lies in its beginning, in which they remind the reader that history is always shifting and changing with the passage of time, and that each issue deserves to be analyzed in light of new evidence. This is both a logical and a valid assertion, but the argument that follows it raises quite a few questions, from both myself and historians today. Cox and Kennedy-Pine set forth that the actions of Stalin were circumstantial rather than calculated. The pair does admit to the fact that Stalin is to blame for the Communist takeover of eastern Europe, but they also add that the Marshall Plan of the United States contained elements of aggression and can be faulted for some of the severity of Stalin's power struggle and the escalation to the Cold War. They further their thesis to include that the Cold War was not an unavoidable Soviet action, but rather a result of American actions. Cox and Kennedy-Pine's strength once again lies in their research abilities, and their conclusion that the United States' policies played a role in leading to the eventual Cold War is nearly unshakable. Their weakness however lies in their conclusion that America was acting with aggression when devising the Marshall Plan. This idea puts them in the ranks of great historical conspirators rather than analysts. Their claim is supported with evidence, but upon examination it is still simply speculation, and the further to come will probably provide the support they truly need or prove them wrong. Historians too take issue with the previously mentioned conclusion, especially because of the regard that surrounds the doctrine. Proclaiming the Marshall Plan a "tragedy" of American policy and diplomacy is surely an overstatement. Their thesis proves the Plan had flaws, but the intent to separate Eastern Europe was certainly not a part of it, and if the Soviet Union is being given a dispensation for its actions, the United States should too (but yet again the actions are still in question).
Initially, the authors of the article state that the Soviet and United States are at equal fault for causing the Cold War. They also state that the Marshall plan was the reason that the USSR tightened its hold on the Eastern Countries and escalated the tensions between East and West. I found this new and interesting because I had never before seen the Marshall plan as an aggressive attack by the United States on the Soviet Union. Stalin believed that the plan was created in order to entice many Eastern States away from the Soviet Union and into treaties with the West. Also, the plan strongly kept the states of Western Europe largely Soviet free. I found this argument very interesting and it had both strengths and weaknesses to it. One of its strengths is that it looked at the Marshall Plan from a different perspective, a Soviet perspective, which many people have not looked at it in. However, one of the weaknesses is that it did not address many other reasons for tensions in the Cold War, only the Marshall Plan.
I believe that many other historians would disagree with Kennedy and Cox’s statement because most still see the Marshall Plan as a simply generous act by the Americans to Western Europe. The plan helped the economies of both Western Europe as well as that of their American counterparts, and prevented many of the conditions in Europe that started World War II. Cox and Kennedy have a very interesting thesis that has some merit to it, but other historian’s opinions should also be considered before weighting whether the Marshall Plan was a generous act towards Europe, or an aggressive attack on the Soviet Union.
The authors of the article seem to take a stance which is rather neutral and unbiased yet blaming both sides at the same time. Basically stating that both sides, the United States and the Soviet Union were in a see-saw effect where one would affect the other to have it’s ups and downs so to speak. Apparently according to the article neither side was at a distinct advantage. Stalin had no chance against the United States and Western Europe and was in fact reluctant to have to face them. Yet the United States provoked the Soviet Union forcing them into a competition through the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan, although a defensive action done by the U.S. to create stability throughout Western Europe, also put a stress on the Soviet Union by their rejection of communism and trying to knock it out of the smaller Soviet Satellites. This undoubtedly would cause turmoil and so the constant threats between the two nations unfurled upon each other causing close calls on both sides. In any case the article does not take any definite stand point on which side truly caused the Cold War, but it clearly shows how each side did help contribute to the fire.
In their essay “The Tragedy of American Diplomacy…”, the authors Cox and Kennedy, believe that the creation of the Marshall Plan was like the first steps in the Cold War. They think that the US’s policies of exclusion and patent anti-communist attitudes came at a time when the US and the USSR were still allies, now in the effort to rebuild Europe. Also, the Marshall Plan did not give any aid to the Soviet Union, the country that may have needed the most. This was seen by the authors as both a possible insult and a threat, as the US would not give aid to its ally in winning a horribly war. It could have been viewed as a threat by the Russians as a US attempts to keep them weak. This plan was seen as a way for the US to gain favor in Europe, and have the European countries lose favor with the USSR. I think that this is a weak thesis as it does not take into account the economic conditions that Europe was in. the Marshall plan was a way to bring an entire continent back onto its feet, something that the US wanted simply to help their economy. Soviet Socialism was and is the stupidest system anyone has ever tried to do economically, and it was in the world’s best interest for the US to prevent its spread. Other historians agree that this thesis is way too weak to be considered relevant.
I believe Cox and Kennedy’s arguments, put forth in "The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan," are very sensible. The Marshal Plan was designed to get Europe back on its feet, by giving tangible aid the hard hit countries, including Germany. What was left out of the European Recovery Program (ERP) was any aid for the Soviet Union, a strong allied power in World War II. The Soviets felt threatened by this action, and were justified in doing so (why would Germany be included but not the Soviet Union). Seeing the emotions rise up in the US against the Soviet Union and communism in general, as realized in the years following, this move was most likely intentional. The Soviets believed they had a right to the East European lands, and a lucrative recovery deal from the American capitalists would obviously be seen as a threat to its military and diplomacy interests. America had no intention of giving aid to the Soviets, a clear sign of aggression towards the communists, which lead to Soviets anger towards the US. As Cox and Kennedy argued, this can be seen as the initiating point of the Cold War. The US’s unwillingness to help the Soviet Union after the War, which took a brutal toll on its people and land, was a slap in the face of every person in the Soviet Union (cause in communism everyone is one, hehe). The Soviet Union retaliated by forcing communism on many of the East European countries, and the Cold War began. I believe that is reasonable to assume that the lack of aid in the European Recovery Program for the Soviets was a root cause of the Cold War. Other historians argue that the ERP was really a generosity act towards Europe, and the Soviets should not have been so angry about it. I think that it is understandable that the Soviets would want money from the Marshal Plan, seeing as even Germany (the bad guys) got money. Just as Germany was neglected aid after the First World War, a war started because the Soviet Union was denied aid. History repeats itself and this is why I believe Cox and Kennedy’s thesis that the Marshal plan was a catalyst for the Cold War.
The author of this article states that the Marshall Plan was not actually an attempt to help European nations but to antagonize the Soviet Union. The author states that under the Marshall plan the Soviet Union had limited options and that the United States was only out to get them with no real intentions of helping them get back on their feet. The strengths of his argument do involve the fact that he believes that America along with the Soviet Union are both at fault for the start of the Cold War. He reminds us that there are two sides and tells us which one his is taking. However, he makes it sound like a majority of the fault rests on the United States. He claims that the Marshall plan was what drove the Soviet Union into a protective shell of sorts and heightened suspicion. Other historians have analyzed the same evidence and would disagree with Cox and Kennedy-Pipe because the Soviet Union is equally at fault for the Cold War. Both countries were suspicious of each other and both countries took part in the arms race. Also, he states that history is constantly being reevaluated this could be seen as both a strength and a weakness. One could understand it as a strength in his argument because the author acknowledges that he may be proved long later. One could also interpret that as a weakness because it could weaken his argument if he begins his article by saying that interpretations of history are always different.
The authors of the article clearly see the United States' Marshall Plan as a clear act of aggression against the Soviet Union. They also feel that the plan was one of the great initiators of the Cold War that erupted between the United States and USSR. As the Marshall Plan was carried out, the authors claim that Stalin became more and more weary of outside influence into the Soviet Union. Making his political ideals change and shift with that sense of paranoia. This made an already capitalism fearing Stalin much more apprehensive about the maneuvers thats the US was making during this time, mainly with the Marshall Plan. I personally do not agree with these allegations mainly because the US was simply trying to do what it felt was its duty at the time, as a world super power. It wanted to fix the ailing European Nations by coming up with a plan to jump-start a recovery. This brings up a weakness of the thesis, that the plan was not in any means aggressive towards the USSR. Or any nations for that matter, the only possible way to view this plan in a negative fashion was to think that the plan was simply intrusive and that the US should stay within its own realm and not venture into European matters. Some main points that they criticize are the fact that many Western historians seem to implement a Soviet threat, that for the most part was non existent prior to this and the Cold War.
The Marshall Plan shows the new aggressive position of the US toward the Soviet Union. Cox and Kennedy say that United States was trying to convince the other european nations to not affiliate with the Soviet Union and lean away from the Soviet influence. This in turn had made the Soviet Union a lot less involved in western europe. Also, the marshall plan ensured that the Stalin would not engage in conflict because the marshall plan made the eastern powers more defensive and would not work with the western powers. So the marshall plan made the Soviet Union angry and rose the tensions between eastern and western europe. In the view of other historians the marshall plan was seen as an act of kindess from the US which helped save europe. Also, it helped the morale in europe because of the war and all of the devastation that the people had witnessed and were experiencing, the help kind of gave the citizens hope.
The authors of the article believed the Marshall plan although was put in place to ultimately end the spread of communism which was taken by the Soviets as a act of aggression which helped to cause the cold war. They believe that the plan was a failure because it created Stalin to become more protective over Eastern Europe, which was the opposite goal of the Marshall Plan. It was evident that the authors also believed that Stalin understood the small probability of possibly winning a war with America. Many other historians disagree with the statements made by Cox and Kennedy, but believe that the Marshall Plan was created by the U.S to protect the economy and also save Europe’s economy. Although I do understand why the Soviets would be very protective over Eastern Europe after the Marshall plan was created I ultimately agree that the United States had to create the Marshall Plan to save its own economy and also save Europe’s economies because without all of the Europeans economies being strong and the United States having a decent economy at this time the world would be in turmoil.
The authors of "The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan" opt to have the audacity to criticize the intentions and eventual repercussions of the American foreign policy post World War II, displeasing many critics. However, some of their argument holds a certain level of strength as the facts and quotes they include have merit and the points they have attempted to prove can be taken with some certainty. Upon analyzing this article, it has been determined that though Cox and Kennedy-Pipe attempt to verify their accounts of the Marshall Plan and both the Soviet and American foreign policies, they fall short as most of their information turns to speculation and changes their status to mere conspirators.
When their argument was first being established, the main points Cox and Kennedy-Pipe made about history itself started the article off with a positive bang. They point out that every new source of information or critique must be taken under fair consideration first, and that opinions are ever-shifting upon the discovery of hidden sources. This being the high point of the article, soon after it starts to decline as their opinions begin to lose merit as their final argument ends with the belief that America was acting with aggression when putting the Marshall Plan in place, one that in turn caused negative actions on the part of Stalin and the Soviet union. They included various extremes in their argument, claiming that intentions of separating parts of Eastern Europe from the Soviets as well as claiming the doctrine itself to be a "tragedy". All that Cox and Kennedy-Pipe managed to confirm was the fact that the Marshall Plan definitely did have flaws, without giving a necessary grant of strength to their own beliefs.
The author of “ The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan” claims that the Marshall Plan was not intended to aid European nations but rather to agitate the Soviet Union. Under the Marshall plan the author notes that the Soviet Union had restricted options and that the United States only had intentions of hurting them without helping them recover. His thesis is strong in his belief that both America and the Soviet Union were responsible for the start of the Cold War. He attempts to maintain an unbiased tone in mentioning that there are always two sides and perspectives to every conflict although, he seems to lean toward the United States as being the main antagonist. He holds the Marshall Plan responsible for the Soviet Unions defensive and suspicious nature. Furthermore he continues to say that history is constantly being reevaluated, which could be viewed as both a strength and weakness for his argument. It is strong in that he is acknowledging knowledge beyond himself but weak in that he is also recognizing that his argument is not the only possible argument. Other historians who have studied the same evidence concerning the instigators of the Cold War would most likely disagree with Cox and Kennedy- Pipe because they would argue that the Soviet Union is just as important as the United States in the start of the arms race. This is because both countries were suspicious of one another and fueled the others competitive and defensive nature, and they both continued to increase these feelings of tension for the other.
"The Tragedy of American Diplomacy" claims that the United State's aggressive foreign policy of attempting to weaken communism in Eastern Europe was a greater cause in starting the Cold War than Soviet aggression in Eastern Europe. The authors support their thesis with evidence that indicates the actions of the United States pressured the Soviet Union and forced it to create a Soviet bloc in Eastern Europe. They claim that alienating the United States was not in the Soviet Union's best interest because the Soviet Union could not compete with the United States in economic contributions to the recovery of Europe. Stalin created the Soviet bloc because he had no choice as the United States involvement in Eastern Europe threatened the Soviet Union. The Marshall Plan's ulterior purpose of enticing communist Eastern European nations into rejoining the capitalist camp supports the thesis. One of the Marshall Plan's stipulations was that in order for the nation to receive aid it had to realign itself from communism to capitalism. Also, the United States had no intention of allowing the Soviet Union to participate in the Marshall Plan. The United States was pressured by Congress, France, and Britain to not allow Soviet participation because of fear that the Soviet Union would attempt to kill off the plan. The failure of the Paris conference signaled the split of Europe into two blocs.
The thesis' weakness is that it places too much blame on the United States and does not analyze the Soviet Union's role in starting the Cold War. It does not address the effect of Soviet insecurity caused by the loss of 27 million people and a shattered economy. It also does not address the fact that the goal of the Marshall Plan was to rebuild Europe and foster European integration, not weaken the Soviet Union so Western nations can invade it. A more moderate view of the cause of the Cold War places blame on both the United States and the Soviet Union. The United States misunderstood the Soviet Union's political and economic situation and as a result created a policy that was viewed as a threat by the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union's insecurity and mistrust of the West caused it to take drastic actions to protect itself from a non-existent threat. Had the two superpowers negotiated more openly about each other's needs, the result might have been different.
Though making some case as to America's potential involvement in the formation of the communist bloc, the authors of this article have relied upon exaggeration to make their point; they have, in essence, made a mountian out of a molehill. Traditional historians argue that the Marshall plan was developed solely to get europe back onto its feet, and was merely a hercualean act of charity. This article does refute this to some extent, by describing how if the Americans had gotton eastern Europe to participate in the plan, they would have been able to lure them into capitalism. While this does hold some water, it should be noted that the "lures" the Unites States presented failed to attract these countries ot capitalism, or even to involvement. And rather than pursuing their cooperation after their refusal, the United States was quite content to leave them be; indeed, the future development of policies such as containment suggest that the USA had little problem with communism as it stood, and moreso with its potential to spread. furthermore, the claim that Stalin seriously considered participating in the Marshall plan is ridiculous. The offer by the United States for their involvement was merely a formailty; Stalin was sure to know that, and thus would have known to have been wary of accepting any help from the USA. Also, Stalin was recieving repaeration money form Poland, weakening his case for aid. Furthermore, stalin was not noted as being a man who cared for the general wellbeing of his people; therfore, as long as he was rich and comfortable, it is unlikely he would have sought money for the benfit of the general population. Therfore, many of the claims placed forth in this article are unlikely and implausible.
I think the thesis put forth in the article was interesting but rather unsupported. The main document seemed to have a few free-floating generalizations that were unsupported by the text. I noticed the authors had a lot of modern-day historian viewpoints and opinions cited, but supposed thoughts and feelings of people who lived during the day are bluntly stated with an almost matter-of-fact certainty, and not followed up with a direct citation proving they indeed thought in this manner. While it can be often assumed a viewpoint based on policy, we all know that assumptions are seldom fact, and even the declarations on what Stalin felt are more often then not from the opinions of other historians. I also see this essay as coming from the general and more popular approach nowadays that many take in which American policy and ideas are slandered against and torn down simply because they came from Americans. Oftentimes, for a reason that escapes me, Americans are being increasingly viewed as always in the wrong, and I feel that this point of view may be simply a continuation of that. Other articles were quick to find fault with this essay too, however. One pointed out that the Soviets had a history of aggression and censorship that proceeded this article. Saying the Americans pushed them towards something they had already been doing for years seems erroneous as a claim and casts much of the article in dispute. Another article argues the point that it was actually in Soviet interest to have divided countries. The only reason there was a block of two powers was to countercheck Soviet ambition, not prevent it. It would be unreasonable to give the other power everything they wanted for free, and indeed America didn’t dispute these territorial gains but accepted them with a sort of resignation. But it was not America’s fault in this instance for causing the Soviets to do this with the Marshal plan, because it was not their responsibility to allow the other government full of their enemies to be coddled and given full run over continental Europe.
It is interesting to see this event from a different perspective, from that of a Soviet. The authors address the Marshall Plan as an aggressive plan devised by the Americans, that ultimately caused the Cold War. After World War II tensions arose in every corner of Europe. The economy was doing terrible and every great nation was suffering. The Marshall Plan was establish merely to help aid these struggling European countries to prevent the spread of communism. A policy of containment. The Americans sought to do everything possible to prevent the spread of communist ideals, they never intended to cause greater conflict. The Soviets clearly took this as an act of aggression. The authors mention how this act, involving America and the countries receiving aid, proposed a threat to the Soviet Union. East and West conflict one again arose. The Soviets sought to take greater control of their land holdings. WHile also trying to expand their empire and gain ultimate control. The authors neglect to mention many other factors that played into the cold war. After WWII, United States and the Soviet Union were on the ice, with growing tensions and unstable relations. The cold war was pretty much inevitable. The Marshall Plan was not the only thing that caused the war. Pipe/Cox compare the Marshall Plan to the Truman Doctrine. They do find relation, however they don't take into account the Americans opinion on the split of Berlin. As well as factors like the iron curtain. They were bias in a sense. Overall America was not trying to cause any harm or cause any further hostility with the Marshall Plan. Further conflict between the two great nations were unfortunately inevitable. Thus, the cold war takes place.
The Marshall Plan has always been portrayed in a positive manner, for it was "altruistic" of the United States to help the nearly-destroyed Europe get back onto its feet and start anew. Yet, in "The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan", authors Cox and Kennedy provide another interpretation of the Marshall Plan: that it was an aggressive act by the United States towards the Soviet Union due to the fact that the plan did not include this communist power. Cox and Kennedy go as far as to suggest that by not including the Soviet Union in the Marshall Plan, the United States contributed to its deteriorating relationship with the Soviets. Stalin believed that the United States was trying to lure Eastern European States away from Soviet and communist influence, and planned to make the Soviets powerless in Western Europe. The Marshall plan was no doubt a slap in the face to Stalin and the Soviet Union; the Soviets was also affected by the destruction of the past two wars. The Marshall Plan also proved to be a great threat to Soviet Russia. What were the Americans planning by not including the Soviets in the Plan? This exclusion of Soviet Russia in the Marshall Plan inevitably caused more distrust, chariness, and further the split between the Soviet Union and the United States. Yet, to base the entire existence of the Cold War on the Marshall Plan would be a huge overstatement. At the time, the United States did not have any reason to help the Soviet Union. Why help a growing communist power? And why should the United States have to help a Union whose ideologies were so against their own? So though Cox and Kennedy do bring up a good point when stating that the Marshall Plan furthered the dichotomy between the Soviet Union and the United States, they did not emphasize the other differences that the two had that made hostility inevitable. But for me, I believe that the Marshall Plan was a key factor in unevenly distributing the wealth in the world, and perhaps made the difference between the "third world" countries, and the powerful nations of today.
The Marshall Plan was devised with several intentions. The main goal was to isolate the spread of communism by the Soviet Union in Europe. The United States feared that without financial aid, the European nations ravaged by the war would turn to the USSR for help, thus allowing Soviet influence over the nations. The authors, Cox and Kennedy provide different views on the Marshall Plan. Some believe the plan resulted in Stalin becoming defensive thus erecting the “Iron Curtain.” Stalin was determined to stay in power in nations such as Poland and Czechoslovakia. Officials in Washington never seriously considered including the Soviet Union in the European Recovery Program. Kennan believed that the Soviet Union would never accept help from the Marshall Plan anyways because it would require the Soviet Union to acknowledge their lack of finances in helping to rebuild Eastern Europe. The Soviets also feared the American influence over Eastern Europe. Vojtech Mastny, an American historian, acknowledges that the Soviet Union would not have fared well in a war with the United States. Later in the article, Cox and Kennedy imply that Stalin was fearful of a resistance from the communist occupied Eastern European countries. He worried that the countries would have to choose between their loyalties to the Soviet cause and national financial needs. In response to the Eastern European countries interest in the Marshall Plan, Stalin exerted political threats to the country leaders. The Czechoslovakian Foreign Minister, Jan Masaryk, was threatened with sanctions by the Soviet Union if his country pursued the Marshall Plan. Some historians argue that the Marshall Plan was only a benevolent act and not a calculated deed. This conclusion cannot be supported given the accounts of American officials over the Plan. The Marshall Plan inevitably forced the Soviet Union to create a union with the Eastern European countries. The Plan was one of the main factors that threw two of the world’s most power nations together in a secretive war for supremacy.
Cox and Kennedy theorized that The Marshall Plan, originally put into action to aid Eastern Europe’s economies, was in fact an act that sparked the Cold War. They believe that the plan showed too much involvement by the US in Europe, and Stalin was threatened by that. This presence of the US was taken as an attack on Soviet security, and an aggressive move that provoked a hostile reaction from Stalin. Stalin, in turn, tried to strengthen his hold on Europe, which only heightened the bitter tensions of the Cold War. Cox and Kennedy also revel that the Soviets knew how unlikely it would be to win over the US. They also say that the US was blindsided by the Soviet reaction and they didn’t even dream that the plan would actually instigate more conflict. However, some disagree. It is also theorized that Stalin was preparing for the conflict, and he used The Marshall Plan as a stepping-stone. Others think that the plan was very beneficial and not in any way a step towards more conflict. Those believe that the plan was simply a strategy of survival, and that Europe’s economy was headed towards collapse if the Marshall Plan hadn’t saved it. And if Europe’s economy went down it would precede the collapse of the US economy. While I believe that the Marshall Plan did have some small impact in the division of Europe in the Cold War, it was just one of many other factors that caused it.
The main argument put forth in "The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan?" was that The Marshall Plan was anything but an act of generosity by the United States, but rather they argue that it was an essential role in an increasingly aggressive position towards the Soviet Union by the United States. The Soviet Union was not initially seeking an aggressive standpoint against the United States, but as Cox and Pipe believe this was completely disregarded by the American government. With the Soviet Union still actively seeking an obliging relationship with the United States, the US decided to create and establish the European Recovery Program which to the Soviet Union looked as a posed threat to their security interests. The Marshall Plan was an attempt for the United States to divide up Europe with the intentions of eliminating the communist influence and reign over Eastern Europe with American and Western Europe ideology. Stalin obviously wanted to prevent the US from influencing the Eastern European countries, for he had them in his sphere of influence. The Marshall Plan intentionally and blatantly left Russia out of the agreements for the United States wanted Communism in no form to influence any other nations in Europe. This acted as a “slap in the face” for Stalin, and essentially drove him to further strengthen and motivate him to firmly grasp several Eastern European countries under his “Iron Curtain” of influence. The Marshall Plan was intended to free the countries of Eastern Europe from Communism but instead caused hardship life under tyranny, and a long term divide of the countries in the west and the east. Many historians believe the Marshall Plan to be a catalyst in the division and rise of the Cold War, whereas others believe that the Marshall Plan was an act of justice from the United States in the active resistance against communist society.
"The Tragedy of American Diplomacy" puts forth a very interesting argument that most of us as Americans don't like to consider. They accuse the Americans just as much as the Soviets for the division of Europe and the Cold War, revealing that many historians have ignored many aspects of what actually happened post World War II. This thesis is bold and respectable and without the bias of an American who fully supports their countries actions. Right in the beginning they brought forth a strong argument by acknowledging why they view previous certainties as wrong, creating a more trustworthy piece of work. Their proposition that different US policies would have changed the Soviets response really makes you think and connect the Soviets situation back to yourself in a way. When someone tries to take control and limit your options, you often times become more hostile towards them even if they meant no harm. The authors do a good job in making you think and acknowledge their argument. It also makes you sympathize in a way with the Soviets when they make the point that the Marshall plan gave them less opportunities for smoothing things over in the west. They make you think in a way that probably never came into your head before. However, oftentimes the authors would just put forth possibilities such as, the outcome could have benn different if...., and the article does seem to be a little bias in support of the Soviet Union. Other historians have argued that the real cause of the Cold War was the US pushing more consistently for an open-door policy and some denounce the Marshall Plan as being the turning point in the war. All of this just goes to show you that there will always be mysteries in history, but one thing is for certain; you can't change the past, only the present viewpoint.
The thesis that was put forth by in the article “The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan?" was a thesis that I was actually pretty intrigued by because of the points put forth by the scholars Michael Cox and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe. These two historians believe that the Marshall Plan instated by the US was more aggressive than I previously thought because they believe that not only did the US want to combat the spread of communism but also to remove the eastern European countries from Russia’s post war sphere of influence. Therefore this thesis I believe was pretty strong as a whole. However, there were some weaknesses to the article. In a war, such the “Cold War” that is being discussed, it is impossible to blame one side entirely for a war. Usually an act of aggression such as the US’s proposed Marshall Plan is followed by either an act of defiance by the other side or surrender. In the case of the Cold War, the US’s Marshall Plan was the act of aggression which is true and is pointed out by the two scholars who wrote this, and the act of defiance was the Soviets lack of acceptance towards the US’s proposed help. By denying the help that was given to the rest of Europe, the Soviets also joined the conflict and together both world powers joined to create the Cold War. The main points that were criticized by other historians that I gathered were summed up by Marc Trachtenberg. Trachtenberg proposed that while Cox and Kenned-Pipe say that the soviets were victims to the aggressive nature of the Marshall plan, the Soviets were really in search of more power and land so they were not exactly the victims that were shown in this article.
The Marshall Plan was the course of action that the United States took to help the devastated economies of post WWII Europe. Typically, historians look favorably on the Marshall Plan since it contributed thirteen billion dollars of aid and supposedly promoted an open door policy for trade among all European nations. When analyzing the events that follow and lead up to the Cold War, the Soviets are antagonized and are blamed for the cause of the conflict. "The Tradgedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan" utilizes new information on the Soviet side of the story and therefore proposes a new view point on the issue. This new view critcizes some of the ideas brought up by previous historians, such as the purpose of the plan. It was thought that the plan was supposed to help the economically struggling Europe, but in fact the plan was an American defense mechanism against Communism, against the Soviets, and was supported by Great Britain. When an invitation was extended to Western European countries to join, they were told that they had to break away from Soviet influence and side themselves with the united Europe. As stated in the work, the plan was trying to break down the Iron Curtain and remove the satellite nations from Soviet authority. This brings up another point of criticism, the blame for starting the conflict. It was believed by previous hisotrians that the USSR was to blame for starting the Cold War by intensifying their control on Eastern Europe instead of succumbing to the Marshall Plan and that Stalin had a wider range of courses of action than Truman did. However, the work points out that the USSR was economcially weaker than the US, so Stalin actually had fewer choices than Truman. Though the Soviets were offered participation in the plan, Stalin, for the defense of the USSR, chose to increase his hold on Eastern Europe since the plan was a direct attack on the Soviet institution, knowing all the while that it would create a conflict. Moreover, Stalin actually wanted to bridge Eastern and Western Europe and he actually was opposed to a conflict with the US since he was aware that the USSR could not survive long against an economcially superior opponent.
Basically what this work theorizes is that it was the Marshall Plan and not the Soviet's actions that were the cause for the Cold War. In this respect, the works proposition may have questionable merit. The evidence provided only changes the commonly held beliefs of the Marshall Plan. The evidence makes the Marshall Plan a contributer to the Cold War, but there were a number of other contributing factors that made the war inevitable.
Cox and Kennedy-Pipe’s thesis states that western historians fail to take into account newly available sources from the Soviet Union in order to speculate the causes of the Cold War. While there is some merit to their argument, their article also displays many weaknesses. Both nations had some part in the events that led to the Cold War, and it is unfair to claim that one side was solely responsible. In their article, the authors are blaming the United States, and more specifically the Marshall Plan, for the onset of the Cold War. In their article they focus on the Marshall Plan and all of its negative impacts on Eastern Europe, however they fail to take into account other points of view. Too much emphasis is placed on the United States’ perceived wrongdoings and not enough on anything the Soviets might have done to bring about the Cold War. That is one of the weaknesses of this article: the authors do not fully analyze both sides of this issue, instead they present a very biased view. In the second article, Trachtenburg refutes many of the arguments presented in the first article. He states that the United States actually did the right thing by implementing the Marshall Plan and assisting the weakened European nations. The situation in Europe would only have worsened had we not stepped in. While the first article has many flaws, the thesis is one that should be researched further. Were the article not so biased, and the arguments not so weak, this idea might be more valued.
Although Cox and Kennedy-Pipe do much to destroy the portrayal of the Cold War as “a simple case of Soviet expansionism and American reaction,” the article also discredits itself to a degree in its attacks and assumptions about the Marshall Plan's intentions. The writing asserts that the Marshall Plan, which provided financial aid to European nations in need of rebuilding, had ultimately ulterior motives behind its nearly “$13 billion.” These included drawing the support of eastern Europe away from the communist sphere of influence (and towards capitalism), as well as offering the European Recovery Program to the Soviets in a way that would force them to reject it. In turn, smaller eastern nations would be forced to side one way or the other, and the communist system would be splintered, and eventually destroyed. This “plan” is said to have been hatched so that the ERP would be passed in Congress, and the rebirth of a stronger international capitalist system could proceed as planned. This viewpoint portrays the British, French, and especially the Americans in a malevolent light. Additionally, the article attempts to cast the Soviet Union in an innocent light, where Stalin, knowing full well that “the Soviet Union was manifestly unable to compete with the United States over the long term,” and denied the possibility of western cooperation, was suddenly forced to form the Communist Bloc in a desperate cling to life. As countered by other articles, Stalin and the Soviets knew long ahead of time that conflict would arise between the capitalists and communists, and they were prepared to fight if need be. Thus, the Cold War was not an unexpected conflict between a cunning east and surprised west, but rather the meeting of two inevitably opposing forces. East and west had long been at odds, as conspicuously demonstrated in the division of Germany; larger fighting was only a matter of having a larger-scale reason to do so.
Other writings on the Marshall Plan also point out a fact conspicuously overlooked by Cox and Kennedy-Pipe: the economic advantages it gave to the USA. World War II left much of the European continent devastated both structurally and economically; it was in America's best interests to see these nations rebuild and reenter the world trading stage. Thus, I believe that Cox and Kennedy-Pipe ultimately give the USA too much credit; much more than attempting to check Soviet ambitions, America was looking out for its own economy by rebuilding its European allies, as well as attempting to draw others to its markets with the offer of free aid. The blame for the Cold War is not ultimately on the Marshall Plan, but rather both the USA and the USSR. The blocs having already begun to form, the Plan really served to exacerbate the divisions between east and west and force the Soviets' cards in an attempt to create a communist system competitive with western capitalism. American ambition pressured the Soviets into a conflict which they had been preparing to fight since they saw it in the distant horizon. Like nearly every other major conflict in history, the Cold War cannot be traced back to any one event, such as the Marshall Plan, but is rather the result of the combined effects of innumerable isolated, but related, issues.
The argument in "The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan?" is that the Marshall plan stressed the relationship between the Soviet Union and other European countries, causing a division. The two authors, Michael Cox and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe, believe that the Plan left Stalin with no choice but to close in on Eastern European countries with the Soviet lifestyle. I disagree with their beliefs as a whole, although their arguments are valid in some areas.
I do think they had a good point when they describe how leaving the Soviet Union out of the Plan could have devastated the Soviets, and therefore caused Stalin to react in the way he did. Their country was in just as much need as others were for aid of some kind. Also, the authors had definitive evidence that outlined the United States' dislike for communist countries.
At the same time, the Soviet Union is not completely scot-free because it is clearly not only the United States' fault the Cold War occurred; it takes two to tango. Other historians would argue that Stalin was poised and ready for a conflict with the States. In addition to that, I would say it is hard for me to believe that the United States would want to break up Europe into two sections. The idea is not impossible, sure, but is it probable that that was the underlying motivation of the Marshall Plan? I do not think so.
Furthermore, the Cold War might have been prolonged if not for the "stepping stone" that is the Marshall Plan, but I really do not believe it could have been avoided entirely if the Plan was never carried out.
"The tragedy of American Diplomacy" certainly takes on a highly negative view on american ability to negotiate and foresee what their policies could bring about. The author is very critical of American intentions with the implementation of the Marshall plan and hinted that it was the United States that had wanted to provoke the coldness of the Cold War. He make some strong points in that much of the cold war was caused by unecessary American fear of communism and their want to push capitalism and democracy into communist countries. The United States were very forward and outspoken in their hatred for Communism (as shown by the Truman doctrin) and their wish to remove communism in the Eastern European countries could have been seen as a threat by Stalin. To a new rather unstable country like that of Stalin's the Marshall plan could have easily been seen as a threat and caused him to put up his own barricades against the rest of the European world. The author does touch on a lot of resonable points that suppor this arguement, but aside from a few disclaimers, he does not examine the Soviet side of the Cold war as much. The author seems to be heavily biased against the United States. He talks about how the Soviets were not left with much choices and were often impelled (placed into the article within parenthesis) to go along with new policies. He made America into a big bully (which although she was a bit pretentious, she was not bullying). He never considered why Stalin chose to imput such harsh laws and blockaded East and West Berlin. If he was the victim then why lash out in such an aggressive way? He made the Soviets out to be completely innocent victims, and Stalin to be a friendly and open negotiator who wanted to see peace among all when they really were not. The authors place all the blame on American shoulders saying that we were the instigators that wanted the cold war (one step down from an all out war) which is highly unfair and judgemental.
People from a country tend to look at their respective country's actions positively, and believe that they have done right by them. This is especially true for America, the land where justice reigns supreme. From the time of our birth we're instructed on the noble origins of our nation and the even more noble ideas that it was founded upon. The Marshall Plan was always shown as an act of kindness for the Americans, to help a war-torn and poverty-stricken Europe, in desperate need of aid. The claim that America was to blame for the Cold War, and that the Marshall Plan helped in bringing it about, no matter how delicately or discreetly stated, could only cause controversy, which is exactly what Cox and Kennedy-Pipe's assertions did. However, their arguments and well-researched and have a solid foundation. These authors nearly qualify their arguments first however, saying that history is an ever-changing analysis of the past that shifts as new evidence is unearthed. Cox and Kennedy argue that essentially, the Marshall Plan aggravated the Soviet Union and forced its hand. Because the Marshall Plan was viewed as seemingly aggressive, the Soviet Union responded in kind. Stalin's actions were not planned, but were made based on the circumstances he had to deal with. However, despite the strength of their argument, I cannot agree with their conclusions. All of these controversial conclusions stem from one singular premise: that the Marshall Plan was meant as an aggressive act against the Soviet Union. Other historians will probably agree with me and say that the Marshall Plan, although also designed to stop the spread of communism, was primarily a stimulus act to Europe to help it recover from the devastating war that had beset it. There were no malignant intentions behind it, no agressive ones either (although capitalist intentions, possibly). This piece does put forth a damning argument of the US and does prove that we were at least partially at fault for instigating the Cold War
The Marshall plan was a strategic plan implemented by the Americans in an effort to aid Europe in rebuilding in a difficult post-war time. The Marshall Plan as described in an article authored by Cox and Kennedy titled “"The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan" contributed to the development of the Cold War by causing Josef Stalin to feel constricted, that his opportunities to spread communism were being taken away; this feeling made him tighten his grip on Eastern Europe and put him in the mind-set to fight for those opportunities.
The Marshall Plan is supposed to have served the purpose of aiding Europe financially after WWII, to enable the rebuilding of the many cities and countries that were essentially destroyed during the vicious war. However, Cox and Kennedy argue that the Soviets viewed the plan as a threat, a threat against their communist cause. It is feasible that the Soviet government, Stalin especially, would have felt this way, taking into account the anti-communist sentiment in the US, and the fact that Stalin was known to be heavily paranoid. The authors of the article argue that the USSR perceived the plan as a threat and subsequently strengthened their hold on Eastern Europe to protect their cause from this threat.
The authors of articles that conflict with the aforementioned believe that the Marshall Plan was necessary for Europe to be able to rebuild after WWII and that tensions would have risen between the Soviets and Americans regardless of whether the plan was ever implemented or not; due to the conflicting governments of the two, combined with the increasingly equal level of power between them. They were constantly trying to out-do each other, this conflict would have occurred eventually anyway.
I must concur with the findings of those who see that the Marshall Plan had little bearing upon the Cold War. Perhaps it may have affected the speed of development of the war, but I believe that the war would have occurred with or without the Marshall Plan. I do see that the Marshall Plan was a necessity for the success of Europe, and I contend that not implementing the Marshall Plan would have eventually exacerbated the conflict between the USA and the USSR. I say this because without any plan to ensure economic security long enough for Europe to get back on its feet, Soviet Russia may have had an easier time taking control of Europe and may have been able to take control over more area than they ended up taking due to the economic instability of more countries that would have resulted from the lack of a plan. If they had been able to take over more than the had, the US would have been more discontent and the war could have been ugly, it could have easily turned from a Cold War to a very hot one, if it had involved more territory; the Soviets would have seemed much more threatening to the US, especially given the history of Nazi Germany and its takeover just behind us.
The historians that wrote the first article claim that the US was at just as much fault as the Soviets were in causing the Cold War. They claim that the Marshall Plan was instrumental in helping to escalate tensions between the two super powers, and caused the Soviets to tighten their grip on the eastern European countries that formed the Iron Curtain. The authors claim that if the US had not adopted the Marshall Plan, the brunt of the Cold War could have been avoided. However, they put too much emphasis on the wrongs performed by the US, rather than taking a neutral stance on the issue. There are always to sides to every story, and the authors of the first article chose to turn a blind eye to one side of the story, as they chose to use biased sources.
The author of the second article takes a stance against the first article. He claimed that the Marshall Plan can not be pointed out as the single contributor to the start of the Cold War, as there were many other underlying causes that led to the tensions between the US and the USSR. Other historians believe that America was correct in helping rebuild the economically devastated countries of Europe. Had the Marshall Plan not been implemented, the situation in Europe would have continued to deteriorate rapidly, and a major concern would have been the stability of Europe.
In conclusion, the authors of the first article do produce a fair point regarding the current reasoning on the start of the cold war, however, their failure to acknowledge other possible causes dooms their thesis. It should merely be acknowledged and then researched upon, but not accepted as fact. Using less biased sources and expanding the scope of the causes of the Cold War would help their thesis.
The argument put forth by the authors, Cox and Kennedy, in “The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan?” is interesting. The authors see the Marshall Plan as an act of aggression on the part of the United States towards Soviet Russia. They believe that the Marshall Plan was the reason the Cold War started and that is why Europe was divided. They state that the Marshall Plan was the reason why Josef Stalin became protective of Eastern Europe. They also highlight the fact that Stalin knew that a war against USA would not lead to victory. It was impossible for them to defeat the United States. Cox and Kennedy also mention how the United States did not take into account the reaction of Soviet Russia before putting forward the Marshall Plan.
Other historians disagree with Cox and Kennedy. They do not see the Marshall Plan as the instigator of the Cold War. Historians believe that Stalin was ready for a conflict with the United States and that could be seen from the rising tension between them. In addition, they believe that the Marshall Plan was not only necessary but an important factor in the revival of the United States economy after the World War II.
I agree with Cox and Kennedy when they say that the Marshall Plan was the reason why Stalin became protective of Eastern Europe but I disagree with them on everything else. The Marshall Plan was needed to rebuild Europe. After World War II, the Europe civilization had been destroyed. Cities had disappeared. 25 million people in Germany were homeless and needed food. Infrastructure had been destroyed. The Marshall Plan was not the reason why Europe became divided but it was the reason why Europe did not divide further. Romania, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Latvia, and a couple other countries had already fallen to communism. If financial aid was not given to Germany, Great Britain, France, and others, they would also fall to communism. This could lead to another war which would cause universal destruction because of the modern weapons. The United States did know how Stalin would react because they were putting forward a plan to prevent the spread of communism. If the Marshall Plan had not come into existence, another war was still on the horizons. The Marshall Plan saved United States economy too. If Europe’s economy had failed, then the United States economy would have failed just as what had happened back in 1929. I completely disagree with Cox and Kennedy, that the Marshall Plan was the reason why the Cold War started.
It is interesting that the article discretely disdains the tendency of many historians to portray history as a struggle between 'good' and 'evil.' WWII particularly accentuated this viewpoint, as Hitler was universally viewed as a monster based on his treatment of the Jews in the concentration camps. It has been often said that history is written by the victors- that whoever survives and emerges victorious of a conflict dictates how its legacy is sung. Since the US won WWII, it was given latitude to portray the Soviet communists as the 'bad guys.'
The Marshall Plan essentially donated money to countries suffering after WWII. This could easily be portrayed as a benign venture. The running opinion, quite synonymous with a satirical labeling as 'propaganda,' was that the money was to stave off the vicious Communistic powers seeking to overthrow democratic governments. Here the articles state that the Soviets' power was being vastly overestimated, and that they had far less of an ability to influence these governments. Of course the notion that these governments were choosing Communism for themselves was absurd, and as such it was never considered that the overestimation was intentional.
The step back necessary to analyze the Cold War is essential to remove bias. The Open Door Policy could be seen as far more aggressive than any of the Soviets' movements. Certainly, the degree to which Democracy was 'defended' in Vietnam shows a certain measure of intention.
However the Marshall plan sharpened tensions between the US and the Soviets, the article overstates the fault of the US in starting the Cold War. Following the invention and proliferation of nuclear weapons, it was somewhat inevitable that nations who controlled them would be forced to regard each other politically in some new light. It was just as possible for the US and the Soviets to become strong allies, were it not for their governmental differences. Because Democracy and Communism do not 'play nice' together, tensions were bound to escalate. Since nuclear weapons were the levers of choice in the conflict, it was inevitable they would be used as the main propagators of threats, with the fault evenly distributed to each nation.
The article argues that our information about Soviet Russia and the Cold War is extremely lacking. The fact that there have been three major revisions of the view on the Cold War means that the previous interpretations were assumed to be misunderstood. If the previous interpretations were correct, there would not have been a need for new ones. This lack of information leads to a general misunderstanding between the United States and Soviet Russia over some of the affairs of the Cold War. The article argues that in order to better understand the intentions and beliefs of the Soviet Union, the United States would need to acquire more intelligence about the Soviet Union. The article is overall blaming America for events of the Cold War because of America’s ineptitude to deal properly with the world’s problems. It points out the one-sidedness of previous interpretations of the Cold War due to the lack of information on both sides. It continues to explain the fact that despite new evidence, new interpretations of the Cold War cannot be reached because each country still kept their own opinion. America, even upon the third revision of the Cold War, still believed that they were the defender of justice responsible for defeating Communism, and the Soviet Union believed that America was just nosy and should keep to their own business. The article argues that America was not as innocent in its actions as it claimed to be, and that ultimately both countries were at fault for the conflict, not just the Soviet Union.
"The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan", authored by Cox and Kennedy, claims that the Marshall Plan was far from benign in relation to the onset of the Cold War, and that it did not function as it was intended. They argue that this American doctrine forced the Soviet Union to become protective over Eastern Europe, as well as view the Americans as aggressors, due to their anti-communist sentiments. These pressures forced the Soviets to create a Soviet bloc in Eastern Europe, although this action can be attributed to other prevalent causes as well. Cox and Kennedy also contend that the drafters of the Marshall Plan failed to see how uncompromising their doctrine would be on the Soviet Union, and for that, the blame falls on them.
Criticisms of Cox and Kennedy, while their work is well-supported, stems from the authors’ focus of American-fault and lack of assessment of the Marshall Plan as a positive entity. Other historians view the MP as generous and beneficial to the United States as well as the European countries involved. The Soviet Union was never intended, nor ever was, integrated into this plan, and many argue that this played a minute, if any, role in the beginning of the Cold War. The historians also say that the Soviets had more options in this era, whereas the US had a slimmer set of choices, and that that brunt of the responsibility for the initiation of this War should be on the shoulders of the Soviet Union. All in all, both sides are well-supported and make many valid contentions. In my eyes, it would appear that the Americans were in the right to conduct the Marshall plan, to both promote their own economy as well as those of European countries, and to combat the spread of communism, despite the effects that ensued.
"The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan?" argues that the Marshall Plan deteriorated relations between the United States and the Soviet Union. Although on the surface, it started as a good, American, economic initiative, the Marshall Plan was truly used to separate the Soviet Union from the rest of Europe and the United States.
George Kennan and Dean Acheson considered the plan the “most dedicated effort yet to reduce Communist influence in Europe.” They were confident that they had made it unappealing to Communist societies; the offer made to Moscow was considered “window dressing.”
Ironically, the Soviet Union was interested in collaborating with the US. However, the Marshall Plan was not a bridge between the two but a catalyst to the widening chasm. Stalin was originally optimistic about the plan and thought he could obtain aid without any conditions attached. His views were supported by economist Evgenii Varga, who thought it was best for the Soviet Union and the United States to work together.
Nevertheless, the Americans pursued the Marshall Plan, intent on shutting out the Soviet Union. Bevin and Bidault’s presentation revealed that in order to obtain aid, the country would have to change its internal policies to be dependent on Western Europe. Obviously, that was not an appealing idea to the Soviet Union. The fact that Bevin and Bidault also issued an invitation two 22 countries, which later became the Western bloc, further angered the Soviet Union.
Fox and Kennedy-Pipe contends that the Marshall Plan worsened relations between the United States and the Soviet Union. The thesis is strong overall, with plenty of historical support.
The writers of the first article are relatively passionate that the US was just as much the reason for the Cold War as the Soviet Union was. They said that the Marshal Plan put stress on the Soviets and made them to increase their influence in the east and it further increased the problems between the US and the Soviets. Basically, the authors say the the Marshal Plan was in its entirety the main cause of the Cold War, that it was mainly all the fault of the United States.
I think they are totally making it out to seem like it is all the Americans’ fault. I think that they are ignoring the negatives on the side of the Soviet Union. The writers are thoroughly biased and in favor of the Soviet side.
In the second article, Trachtenburg, takes the complete opposite side. He stands to defend America and the Marshal Plan. He points out that the Soviets did not believe in smaller countries, where as America wanted to help and fund them. He feels the America really bettered and saved the situation. HE calls the Marshall Plan the “most dedicated effore to reduce Communist influence”. The United States was simply following its beliefs by trying to separate Communists and Non-Communists and further keep the Communists out. Though he disagrees, it has been said the the Marshall Plan was a major player in starting the Cold War. But other historians say that it was just a more thorough example of what was already happening.
Upon conclusion of World War II, the world’s economy was completely faltered. Europe was facing the worst economic depression known in its history. Nations were struggling to survive and the quality of life was near awful. To help solve this problem, the United States adopted the Marshall Plan. This plan was designed to provide aid to European nations to help eliminate depression. This plan used the surplus of United States funds to help spark economic recovery. Unfortunately, it only created problems within the nations not receiving aid from the plan. For this reason, the article blames the Marshall plan for the terrible rule and spread of communism throughout Europe. From the Marshall plan, it is said that the Cold war was sparked on behalf of the Soviets disgust from the lack of funding. Therefore, all of the blame can’t be put on the United States.
In their article "The Tragedy of American Diplomacy", authors Cox and Kennedy make several assertions about the Marshall Plan and its so-called "purpose". One of the claims made in this article states that the Marshall Plan was intended to cause problems with the Eastern Bloc because they were funding the "enemy". In reality, the U.S. offered millions of dollars to Josef Stalin and the Eastern Bloc but they righteously refused the offer. Because of this refusal, Western Europe was able to prosper from the money given to them in the Marshall Plan and as a result build a better, more stable economy and even government. This, Cox and Kennedy claimed, angered the Eastern Bloc, especially Stalin, deepening the schism of the Iron Curtain. Although some historians do agree that the Marshall Plan further separated Eastern Europe from Western Europe, the bulk of historians do not agree that the Marshall Plan was actually one of the primary causes of the Cold War, as Cox and Kennedy do in their article. Of course, the Marshall Plan was most likely seen as a threat to the Soviets, as the article points out, but is such a threat significant to launch such a massive war? In my opinion, it is not. East and West Europe were splitting as a result of their political beliefs; West Europe adopted capitalism while East Europe adopted communism. Since the two ideologies were polar opposites, conflict arose. Therefore, the Marshall Plan was not indeed the turning point of the Cold War but instead a contributing factor. I disagree with Cox and Kennedy because I believe that the Marshall Plan was beneficial to Europe because of it boosted economies, trade, and government polices in the West. In turn, this provoked the Eastern Bloc to see how prosperous capitalist nations were becoming and therefore not have the urge to fight against them but rather become apart of them. Ultimately, this led to the end of the Cold War and the destruction of the Berlin Wall as Eastern Europe was no longer constricted to their communists oppressors. Overall, I, along with several other historians, disagree with several of the claims made by Cox and Kennedy criticizing the Marshall Plan and its "intentions" to dismantle Europe into two competing regions.
Not in, not good!
In the thesis presented in “The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan?” by Cox and Pipe, the United States had other notions when they proposed the Marshall Plan to the rest of the world. While some believed that this plan was an act of generosity that would benefit lesser countries, the authors of this paper believed that it was the United States plan to further sour relationship with the Soviet Union. Initially, the Soviet Union did not hold an aggressive viewpoint against the United States, but the Marshall Plan was an obvious strike against the Soviets by the United States. This initial neutrality of the Soviet Union against the Americans was completely disregarded by the Marshall Plan. With the Soviet Union still actively seeking a cooperative relationship with the United States, the Americans decided to create and establish the European Recovery Program. To the Soviet Union, it looked like a posed threat to their security interests. The United States proposed this plan in order to split up the communist regimes that were spreading across Eastern Europe. Stalin saw this as a military advance, as he did not want the United States to break up his spheres of influence in Eastern Europe. The United States purposefully left Russia out of the agreements proposed in the Marshall Plan, as they did not want communism to influence the other countries in Europe. This was a direct action against Stalin, and drove him to determinedly grasp several Eastern European countries under his “Iron Curtain” of influence. The Marshall Plan, therefore, did not achieve its primary goal, as the countries now under the control of the Soviet Union were now living a life of tyranny. It also led to a long term divide of the eastern and western countries in Europe. As Cox and Pipe see it, this plan was a catalyst in the ongoing Cold War between Soviet Union and the United States. To others, it was an act of justice against these communist regimes. I believe that it was just the United States expanding its power base after its role in World War II.
The marshal plan was a strategy used by the US to keep Europe in tact after the second world war at the advent of the cold war.The authors of this article, Cox and Kennedy claimed that this plan led to further aggression from the soviet union towards the US and in fact led to many problems of the cold war. The Marshal plan aggravated the soviets because they felt it threatened their security needs and impaired their abilities to act as they would like in protecting their borders. Many historians disagree with the authors and feel that the marshal plan only worked to save Europe from an almost inevitable economic collapse and that it was one of the few choices that the US had. But the marshal plan still could have led to hostilities and caused a more aggravated Soviet union and a more ferocious cold war. Both sides of the argument may be correct, the US could have done the marshal plan as an aggressive act against the soviet union or they could have done it to keep Europe afloat in a turbulent time and because of such strong sentiments on both sides at the time it could be hard to see which side of the argument is correct. Europe needed the money but the Soviet Union needed peace of mind and the marshal plan didn't help the soviets attain that. Also the US was not pro communist government at the time and they wanted to prevent the spread of Soviet ideas and the only way they could do that in their opinion was to give money so both could be at fault for being paranoid but they had a good reason to be so paranoid with all the bad sentiments on both sides.
The newly opened Soviet archives provide a wealth of information for historians to analyze, but should not necessitate a spontaneous change in opinion on the Cold War. Cox and Kennedy-Pike assert in their article that the Cold War and division of Europe are the fault of the United States and the Marshall Plan, and were only later aggravated by Soviets in a logical reaction. Their claim is, however, apparently unsound. Cox and Kennedy-Pike protest that the giving of charity to the tune of $13 billion was actually an act of spite by the capitalistic United States designed to hurt its enemies in Eastern Europe. However, the United States offered such charity to any country in Europe, including the Soviet Union. The authors claim that the United States’ offer to Stalin was, however, almost taunting, with both side knowing that the other had no intention of following through. As deep as the rivalry between these countries may have been, the fact that the Soviet Union was offered such charity is by no means an indication of the United States’ spite. Cox and Kennedy-Pike also accuse the United States of selfishness and ulterior motives in necessitating the money’s spending on United States products. However, this by no means undermines the generosity of the Marshall Plan. With a multi-billion dollar charity program, it only makes sense that the United States would want some boon; and products needed to be bought, whether they were American or not. The necessities were still covered, and the west prospered after World War II. The division of Europe should more appropriately be attributed to the Soviets, whose symbolic Berlin Wall represented their xenophobia and anti-capitalist sentiments. It seems that, in the words of Gaddis, with “Stalin running the Soviet Union a Cold War was unavoidable.”
The weakness of the tragedy of American diplomacy is that it is not aware of Soviet policy. It states that the Russians only did what they did because of aggressive US policy. However one of the soviet's biggest policies was that of inciting revolution around the world, to convert it to communism. The Marshall plan has a lot of strengths and only one weakness. The strengths is that it rebuild Europe form the ashes of WWII. Also it improved the US economy and made it the richest nation in the world. The one weakness is that it lead to the European Union which restricted the sovereignty of Europe.
Post a Comment