Talk:Marshall Plan

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eliannalandau (article contribs). Template:Vital article

Public opinion data on the Marshall Plan

Eliannalandau (talk)

"Most reject the idea that..."

The sentence "Most reject the idea that it alone miraculously revived Europe since the evidence shows that a general recovery was already underway" appears 3 times in different sections of the article. A bit redundant, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:C108:8F00:A0E2:231D:8B31:90DF (talk) 20:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

It also applies to section of "Modern criticism", it could use a sentence how some critics miss the point saying that free market reforms and economic cooperation and Ludwig Erhart were more important, when in fact, the Marshall plan outright demanded opening of the markets, economic cooperation between countries, planning of international railroad and highway networks, and that each recipient of the money must also lower trade barriers and deregulate, etc. Immediately after hearing the Mashall plan speech on the radio, the french and british ministers had a phone call about it, how are they going to make plans. The purpose of the Marshall plan was to, quote "give hope", and hope for a better future is what drives the economy. As far as Germany goes, it was the Marshall plan which DOUBLED the German steel quotas and pushed for coal mining to drive industries of the whole europe, it also SAID that economically strong Germany was key to the stability of Europe (Germany being the source of specialist and high-tech industry and machinery), and exactly that has happened. In the end, the announcement and existence of the Marshall plan helped Czechoslovakia and Poland, who were driven to make advance plans for their economies, latter of which received huge support from the Soviet Union because of later public rejection of the plan. They wouldn't have got it if it were not for the plan. There was also the soviet response with their own plan later, which also would have not existed were it not for the original. And once more about the Germany: Ludwig Erhart was also a part of the Marshall plan, he was executing the whole idea behind it. It was the Marshall plan that ended the previous punitive measures, which would cause 25 million more people to be out of jobs. But I guess some critics like to forget that. The previous measures limited food to 1000-1500 calories a day, Marshall plan was what ended it, and let me tell you, being fed well is what gives you strength to build the economy.

Marshall Plan

German economic miracle

Neutral Point Of View

This entire article does not use original sources. For example, if Molotov made a statement, they should say, "Molotov said," ________". Instead, they use this source: Wettig, Gerhard (2008). Stalin and the Cold War in Europe. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-0-7425-5542-6.

However, this source is not trustworthy with regards to the USSR since he has appeared in multiple CIA conferences including this one on Disinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eshaparvathi (talk • contribs) 16:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Eshaparvathi, See WP:RS. Wikipedia works from reliable independent secondary sources, not primary sources, and that is by design. This is a book from a reputable publishing house and appears to be by a respected author (we don't have an article here but there's de:Gerhard Wettig). Guy (help!) 16:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

JzG Are you saying that a SECONDARY SOURCE that cites the exact words of Molotov is less reliable than an interpretation of what Molotov felt? This is objectively insane.

Anti-USSR Bias

This entire article is written from the western point of view and assumes that the western sources are unbiased.

Non-Neutral Language

Marshall's direct statement is there.

After the adjournment of the Moscow conference following six weeks of failed discussions with the Soviets regarding a potential German reconstruction, the United States concluded that a solution could not wait any longer. To clarify the American position, a major address by Secretary of State George Marshall was planned. Marshall gave the address at Harvard University on June 5, 1947. He offered American aid to promote European recovery and reconstruction. The speech described the dysfunction of the European economy and presented a rationale for US aid. The modern system of the division of labor upon which the exchange of products is based is in danger of breaking down. ... Aside from the demoralizing effect on the world at large and the possibilities of disturbances arising as a result of the desperation of the people concerned, the consequences to the economy of the United States should be apparent to all. It is logical that the United States should do whatever it is able to do to assist in the return of normal economic health to the world, without which there can be no political stability and no assured peace. Our policy is not directed against any country, but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos. Any government that is willing to assist in recovery will find full co-operation on the part of the United States. Its purpose should be the revival of a working economy in the world so as to permit the emergence of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist.

However, Molotov's direct statement is missing. Therefore, it favors one side over the other.

This is Molotov's statement:

Therefore, the question of American economic aid of which indeed nothing definite is yet known has now provided an occasion for the British and French Governments to seek the creation of a new organization standing over and above the countries of Europe and interfering in their internal affairs down to determining the line of development to be followed by the main branches of industry in these countries. Furthermore, Great Britain and France together with the countries close to them are laying claim to a predominant position in this organization or in the so-called “Steering Committee” for Europe as it has been named in the British draft.

Verbal reservations are now being made to the effect that this organization would allegedly not intervene in the internal affairs of these states and would not encroach upon their sovereignty. But it clearly follows from the tasks which are being set before this organization or before the “Steering Committee” that the European countries would find themselves placed under control and would lose their former economic and national independence because it so pleases certain strong powers

Shouldn't the side which opposed the Marshall plan also be included with the side that supported it? Or else, it paints the USSR as ridiculously villanous.