The Divide:
By the time the European Recovery Program was put into place, it’s clear to say that Europe was in fact, already divided. By 1946, the Soviet Union had clearly descended upon Europe and Winston Churchill’s’ ‘Iron Curtain’ was clearly visible.
Europe was divided physically, ideologically, economically in to half. The Marshall plan was put in to place to arguably affect only one of these variables, the economies of the nations involved.
As previously noted however, economical influence was not stand-a-lone, along with this economic aid came ideological pressures as the US looked to halt the Soviet advance in Europe. Without conflict, the most effective way of denouncing communism was to instill the capitalist way of thinking, free markets and open democracy.
Retrospectively this was made evident upon US Secretary of State, George Marshall’s visit to Europe whereby the following are attributed to him: “Europe is a breeding ground for hate” During this era the two US Political buzz words were ‘Quarantine’ and ‘Containment’ both illustrate the manner in which the US and indeed the West in general under the US financial umbrella would look to combat communism without conflict and were coined in this context by another key man behind the ERP, George F. Kennan.
In terms of the actual divide itself, midway through the length of the Marshall plan scheme, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) came into effect and the Soviet based Warsaw pact soon followed, further emphasizing any division in Europe.
Even though the Marshall plan scheme had ended by 1951, the economical infrastructure had been put in place, the US was providing goods and services to a resurgent Europe. During the Marshall plan, 1948-1950 in particular, Europe saw its fastest period of growth ever
US did at least appear at the very least to offer entrance to the Marshall Plan to the USSR, which during the Three Powers talks in Paris, 1947, Molotov on behalf of Stalin declined. Roy Gardner in the ‘Marshall Plan:Fifty years later’ believes that this not only proved to be a massive propaganda victory for the US but also further defined the existing divide in Europe.
Gardner refers to the US’ move to do so as a ‘Calculated invitation’ in which through the USSR declining the invitation, only highlighted on a global stage their ‘refusal to participate in the rebuilding in Europe’
Furthermore, Gardner goes on to explain just how this decline may have greatened the European divide. If The USSR had accepted the invitation, it would have been subject to several caveats, namely the loss of control of their satellites In Eastern Europe, several of which, Hungary and Czechoslovakia and Poland ( all three were already to agree to the offer subject to Moscow’s approval.) and most important as Gardner states ‘the rebuilding of Germany as a revanchist American ally, which would of course guaranteed Germany followed the western Social model and the now the fiscal model that the US was promoting as part and parcel of the Marshal Plan.
He further supports the claim that the US invite to the USSR was merely lip service by stating ‘The probability of acceptance is very small (0.5%)’ Never the less, the USSR’s rejection to the plan set the tone for the treatment of the satellite states under the Soviet Unions power.
Economically and Ideologically at the time, it did not make sense for the US to invite and Soviet state to the Marshall plan as they would not conform with the socio-economic structures the US imposed upon any member states. Former Soviet Foreign minister Vladimir Yerofeyev stated that even though on some level the US made an offer to several satellite states, they would never have become members due to the previously listed western pressures conflicting with the existing ideologies of the Soviet Union.
Yerefeyev said “"They understood what it meant. So at the last moment they were prevented. Nine countries refused to take part in the conference. Sixteen agreed. The Soviet Union and the socialist-oriented countries stayed away. So did Finland”
"The US never really wanted the Soviet Union and its satellites to benefit from Marshall aid. They made no further effort to persuade them to take part."
This is further reasoning to the belief that whilst perhaps the Marshall plan did not directly consolidate the divide in Europe, it forced either the Soviets or Countries that possibly, whilst neutral weren’t protected under peace treaties, such as Finland in difficult positions.
US historian, David Ellwood, instead claims that these difficult decisions and the implications of which may have greatened the divide of Europe were solely the choices of the relevant nations and Marshall Plan was pushed upon Europe with the sole intention of ‘Expanding the sphere of influence’ Initially many of the ERP members knocked back the original plans, with reservations over dismantling colonies in return for free trade as the Dutch did refuting for the immediate need for import and export amongst member states as Italy did.
He goes on to support my earlier claim that possibly socio-economic pressures were more powerful weapons than conventional weapons in the case of refuting communism in Europe, referring to the ERP scheme as ‘Psychological warfare’
He goes on to identify the one of the most basic yet powerful needs, the ‘consumerist nature, regardless of class’ which appeal to ‘all Europeans of all classes and regions’.
Richard M. Bissell, who at one point was acting Administrator for the European Recovery scheme added support to this notion in his writings’ ‘Foreign Affairs’ (1951) in which declared there was no viable alternative to this in redeveloping western Europe post World war II.
Almost immediately after refusal, the CEEC emerged (Committee of European Economic Cooperation) so in 1947, you now had member states of the Marshall plan becoming members of CEEC – this allowed for 16 states of Europe to coordinate Economic resources as they sought to rebuild more potentially and on a more symbiotic scale than ever seen before. Five of these member states met a year later, forming a military pact which later leads to the formation of NATO, further deepening any existing European divide.
All of these alliances, treaties and pacts being formed throughout Europe all indicated the the end of Isolationism throughout Europe, initially but soon after also spreading throughout Asia. Hogan, in The Marshall Plan, America. . . infers that all of these instruments of cold war democracy sparked the beginning of ‘The American Century’
Ellwood elaborates that whilst ERP held nowhere as radical as it was in draft during it’s inception at Harvard some years previous, in initiated the spark that occur throughout Europe during the Economic boom of the 1950’s.
However at the very least its clear that the Marshall plan lead to total polarization of Western socio-economic manners between The West and Soviet controlled states in the 1950’s, based on the US pre-conception that only a prosperous Europe could denounce communism, thus further consolidating the divide.
Peter J Duigan illustrates this point in The Marshal Plan: Fifteenth anniversary of the greatest voluntary transfer of resources from one country to another’ stating: “ Ten years after the end of the greatest war in history, Western Europe had not only fully recovered but had become far more productive and prosperous than before” Through doing it this way the western states had also guaranteed relative economical and social prosperity in the long run.
The general consensus amongst historians is that the fact that Britain could no longer sustain the financial support it was providing to Greece and Turkey in 1947 was part of
On a national Level:
So far the impact of the Marshal plan on the European divide on a continental level has been assessed but on a national Level, Germany was changed at Inter-state level. Germany epitomized the Struggle Europe faced, with the Soviets sharing control of country with the West.
Western Germany was rejuvenated by the Marshall plan funding, in total receiving 1.4 billion dollars which helped finance the large reparation payments West Germany had to make. Again, it ensured that another state, could regain economic and social stability, even for just short-medium term and remain part of the western-capitalist system.
Conclusion:
In summary I believe its fair to state that the majority of historians and sources believe that whilst The Marshall plan itself did not consolidate the division, it forced both participating and non-participating states into either the Western or Communist camps.
However, It’s difficult to say what state Europe would be in now, or would have been in the for the duration of the Cold war, had the Marshall plan not been put in to place under the Truman presidency, as there was in fact much opposition against the ERP in the US, there is scope for suggesting that the Marshall plan was not only responsible for rejuvenating the economies of former power states in Europe post World War II but also responsible for the inception of the European Union as we know it today,.
As Previously noted part of the brilliance of the Marshall Plan, from the US perspective at least was that it totally removed any of the decision making from themselves, this ultraistic act, handed over all responsibility to the Soviets; either accept Capitalist values and integrate them into society or denounce them and ensure any divide remained, regardless of whether the US Olive branch was genuine or not. It is impossible to argue otherwise, which would only really be possible if Vladamir Molotov did accept the Marshall Plan caveats put forward at the three powers conference it would have undoubtedly put the onus onto the US.
Bar China, Korea and Finland, all relevant party states had been assigned a side in the Cold war, Charles S Miers supports this thinking “The Marshall plan, in effect, was the single most important policy in confirming but not initiating the division of Europe.”
Bibliography:
I find it impossible to disagree with the notion that the Marshall plan only set in stone that which was pre-determined and in fact find myself far more inclined to be of the opinion that the Communist dismissal of the Marshall Plan leading to the satellite states falling further behind, than they would have otherwise done, more responsible for creating and consolidating the divide than otherwise.
Word count: 2059
Bibliography:
Noam Chomsky, The Umbrella of US Power [Pg.21]
The Marshall Plan: fifty years on
Historians on America, David Ellwood
The Marshall Plan: America, Britain and the reconstruction of Western Europe 1947-1952 [pg 1-3]
Charles S Miers, The Marshall Plan and the division of Europe [Pg.4]
Vladimir Yerofeyev,What Really Happened [pg.1]
