Opinion of the Marshall Plan

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

it was designed to build the post-WW2 Europe business interests wanted to see.  barring interference, parties loyal to Stalin may have been democratically elected (and almost were in Italy, and may have been without CIA interference).

if it was done simply out of good nature they would've given money to the USSR too, which sustained almost incomprehensible losses during WW2.

I don't believe this; the rebuttal to this stupid argument is in the post literally above yours.

[DC Al Fine]

it was designed to build the post-WW2 Europe business interests wanted to see.  barring interference, parties loyal to Stalin may have been democratically elected (and almost were in Italy, and may have been without CIA interference).

if it was done simply out of good nature they would've given money to the USSR too, which sustained almost incomprehensible losses during WW2.

I don't believe this; the rebuttal to this stupid argument is in the post literally above yours.

Lots of bad history on this thread

[Blair]

Anyone who opposes the actions of the World Bank, the IMF or NAFTA should oppose the Marshall Plan. It's been wrapped up as America saving Europe, and being the hero of Europe but in fact it imposed unregulated capitalism on Europe when it least needed it. The Marshall Plan benefited US companies, and forced traditionally state owned industries to be sold off and opened up. Countries like Finland, who turned down the funding did just as well.

[ingemann]

Anyone who opposes the actions of the World Bank, the IMF or NAFTA should oppose the Marshall Plan. It's been wrapped up as America saving Europe, and being the hero of Europe but in fact it imposed unregulated capitalism on Europe when it least needed it. The Marshall Plan benefited US companies, and forced traditionally state owned industries to be sold off and opened up. Countries like Finland, who turned down the funding did just as well.

Yes it's why hundred of thousands of Finns emigrated to Sweden as guest workers in the 50ties. Even today Finland lies significant lower GDP per capita-wise than Scandinavia (10 000$ per capita lower than Denmark and Sweden, 40 000$ below Norway).

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Horrible Plan.

Ok I'll assume you don't really know much about it.

Some vague notion of America *actually* being the bad guy some how. Stay home, intervention is evil.

We didn't destroy Europe, we shouldn't have had to rebuild it. The worst part was the offer to give money to the Soviets (which thankfully they rejected). Not only did we just dump the money onto Europe, but we didn't even allow the European governments to administer the funds on their own, and instead acted through a governmental administration. As noted by Senator Blair in the post below, it basically was a form of economic imperialism.

[Antonio the Sixth]

but in fact it imposed unregulated capitalism on Europe when it least needed it.

Yeah, I forgot about the great wave of economic deregulation and welfare cuts that swept across Europe in the post-WW2 era.

[© tweed]

it was designed to build the post-WW2 Europe business interests wanted to see.  barring interference, parties loyal to Stalin may have been democratically elected (and almost were in Italy, and may have been without CIA interference).

if it was done simply out of good nature they would've given money to the USSR too, which sustained almost incomprehensible losses during WW2.

They. F'ing. Did. Offer. Aid. To. The. USSR.

because it wasn't a blank check.  it came with conditions.

[© tweed]

it's more complicated than that.  here's a good essay on the situation, which makes used of recently declassified Soviet and American documents.

http://wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/ACFB73.pdf

[© tweed]

Americans: ... and you must at least trade with us, which seems fair.

you don't see how this was a massive issue?  allowing 'free trade' between E. Europe and the West, essentially interlocking E. Europe with global capitalism would carry high risk if not utter certaity of 'destabilization' of the region from Stalin's perspective.  and that's exactly why the Americans insisted on it.

[© tweed]

Americans: ... and you must at least trade with us, which seems fair.

you don't see how this was a massive issue?  allowing 'free trade' between E. Europe and the West, essentially interlocking E. Europe with global capitalism would carry high risk if not utter certaity of 'destabilization' of the region from Stalin's perspective.  and that's exactly why the Americans insisted on it.

So you basically want the US just to hand them money for no reason?

why not, if the Americans are/were as good hearted as you suggest?  without the USSR's unfathomable sacrifice during WW2 there would be no Europe to haggle over.

[© tweed]

..as did the West.  do you have no sympathy for the victims of the Blitzkrieg?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Freedom Plan (normal).