I take now the Marshall plan as example of historical events, where in my opinion depending on the author, there are different interpretations and visions, wanted or not, of the same reality, which can alter seriously, again in my opinion, the vision about that event.

I saw for instance some days ago a French documentary about the Marshall plan, with the controversial title: "le plan Marshall a sauvé l'Amérique" (The Marshall plan has saved the US)...
It's in French I know, but I want to take it only as a coincidental example about the question of two different interpretations in documentaries of the same event...

First the mentioned documentary:
https://www.arte.tv/fr/videos/079409-003-A/les-coulisses-de-l-histoire/
And the author:
https://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2011/10/02/1181665-bernard-george-realisateur.html

And second I saw another documentary about the same event, but in my opinion under a different angle:



The second one put much more the emphasis on the war with the Communism directed from Stalin and the Soviet-Union than the first one, which points to the gains for the US as dominating at the end the world economy and the distribution of consumerism and the American way of life in the households.

I was perhaps too young in the Belgium of immediate post-WWII society, but nevertheless by the sayings of my parents and yes at school, I still remember about the pro-American attitudes and the fear for Communism as happened in Czecho-Slovakia.
And most were thankful that the US helped with the struggle against Communism and especially in the North of Belgium for the investments in the industry and that the US became the world economic distributor was in most eyes preferable above those evil Communist regimes...
As Dirk Marinus lived in the Netherlands during WWII and perhaps up to the Fifties, I wonder how it all was seen by the Dutch of that time?
And I personally am still grateful to the US for the help and especially the aid that they brought against that dictatorial Communism of Soviet sign of that time.
And yes what is the opinion about the Marshall plan from the Anglo-Saxon side at the other side of the Channel?

And as I have now seen the two documentaries I find the first one with a, I suppose, French bias against the Americans, who helped us really to redress after the devastation of WWII and even more important as a bullwark against Communism/Stalinism. And in my opinion is the second documentary more equilibrated and to the point as about the reality.

PS: Can someone say what this "h" television of the second documentary is about? Not have had time yet to seek about it...

Paul mentioned in his above post:

"As Dirk Marinus lived in the Netherlands during WWII and perhaps up to the Fifties, I wonder how it all was seen by the Dutch of that time?
And I personally am still grateful to the US for the help and especially the aid that they brought against that dictatorial Communism of Soviet sign of that time."


Yes Paul, as from about 1947 there was indeed a fear amongst  people in Holland about Russia.
There was also a Communist political party (CPN) and a Communist newspaper( De Waarheid)with quite a following.
As a matter of fact the fear of communism and the worries about a Russian invasion of Western Europe was still evident in the late 1960"s.

And of course the Marshall help after WW2 did help enormously to rebuild the infrastructure and economy and was appreciated by the population.


Dirk

Dirk,

thank you for the immediate reply and yes, I see now that the post WWII attitudes in The Netherlands weren't different from Belgium and I am nearly sure from the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg too.
Perhaps was it quite normal, as they had a bit the same way passed the Nazi occupation during WWII and even during WWII had prepared among the exiled governments of the three countries in London already a blueprint for post war cooperation: the Benelux...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benelux

Paul.

Paul ,



As you are aware the Queen and her government left Holland May 13 1940 to continue as a government in exile.

But all the senior civil servants , their staff and provincial representatives were still in office when General Winkelman signed the surrender documents.

Hitler appointed an Austrian Nazi Arthur Seyss-Inquart as a so-called Reichscommisar ( Rijkscommissaris) in the Netherlands and Seyss -Inquart was allowed to appoint/choose two of his “General-Kommissare”.

Both were also Austrians and Dr Hans Fischböck was appointed Financial and Economic Commissar and a Dr Frierich Wimmer as Chief Justice Commissar.

None of them were military but purely civil servants al be it from a foreign country.

Himmler of course appointed his favourite for the safety of German army etc and that was Brigadefuhrer H.A Rauter.

Seyss- Inquart was actually stiving what he called “Aufsichtsverwaltung” and therefore allowed the Dutch civil servants and provincial representatives to run the country.

Of course the senior civil servants had been given instructions by the now government in exile ministers before they left the country and in addition to that they were following a procedure which was actually agreed and signed in 1937 in case of an emergency.

Thus cutting a long story short . The now in exile government in England would over the next 5 years work out what to do when they would return to power when the war was finished while during the same 5 years civil servants and minor government officials including the provincial representatives would do the same whilst at the same time run the country to the best of their ability.

Thus after the surrender of Germany a lot of the planning thought about and made out during 1940-1945 was in place and could be implemented immediately.

　

　

Dirk

Dirk,

thank you for this survey. And indeed in the Netherlands a "civil government" and in Belgium a German military government...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium_in_World_War_II
"Belgium was run by a German military government under General Alexander von Falkenhausen and Eggert Reeder until July 1944,"

They explained to me that that difference made a big difference as about the deportations of Jewish people in The Netherlands and in Belgium. (more deportations in The Netherlands than in Belgium). I understood it in the time, but now see no logic anymore?

History writing is a difficult job, as many times nationalistic bias colours and disturbs honest history...
As I now just mentioned to LiR in the "café" about the "King's question". 
https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Royal_Question

I have studied it nearly to death and for instance in this thread about Leopold III during WWII no mentioning that Spaak and PM Pierlot in Vichy France wanted to return to Belgium. But Leopold refused and Hitler wouldn't certainly allowed it. And it was only under pressure of Jaspar and others exiled in England and who threatened to form in England a Belgian government in exile supported by Britain that they reluctantly escaped from Vichy France via Spain to England in October 1940.
I already proved what I mentioned on several fora, but I think most of this will never mentioned in "official" Belgian history. And nevertheless I learned it all from "official" sources and books as the   https://www.cegesoma.be/

A source that I found today and which gives it nearly correctly in my opinion:
but I don't find the source...thus no source, no reliabilty...? Can someone more knowledgeable about the "web" help me about the source...?
http://www.owlapps.net/owlapps_apps/articles?id=27436973&lang=en

NB: excuses to the other members for the Benelux aside. And has some British one rememberings about the attitudes to the Marshall plan and Communism in Britain after WWII.? And yes I would forget!: in the Republic of Ireland?

Paul.

PaulRyckier wrote:

NB: excuses to the other members for the Benelux aside. And has some British one rememberings about the attitudes to the Marshall plan and Communism in Britain after WWII.? And yes I would forget!: in the Republic of Ireland?

"And yes I would forget!: in the Republic of Ireland?"

OOPS I suddenly realized that Ireland was neutral during WWII...it remembers me how less I know about the history of the Irish Republic...although I knew it, even from films, that the Republic was neutral it points to my background ignorance that I didn't realize it in the context of the Marshall plan...and to enlighten my lack of knowledge, I did some quick research this morning...and see...and even in the frame of "nationalistic bias", it is in my opinion, quite "neutral"... ...

https://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/adopting-the-american-way-ireland-and-the-marshall-plan-1947-57/ From the link:
Against this economic and financial background, and with Irish political and diplomatic energies directed at rehabilitating an international reputation damaged by neutrality, Ireland had little choice but to participate in the ERP.

And now I learned that the "ERP" was the Marshall Plan...
https://www.marshallfoundation.org/marshall/the-marshall-plan/foreign-assistance-act-1948/the-european-recovery-program/
From the link:
"The Soviet Union was invited to the conference, but declined. The Soviets pressured Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Hungary, also invited, to stay away from the meeting. The 16 countries which attended were Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, and the UK."
And above Ireland, there is also Austria, Sweden and Switzerland

And even being "neutral" in WWII:
https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/ireland-ww2/
And I think I learned it in the time from nordmann about the Irish volunteers in the British army...
https://journals.openedition.org/etudesirlandaises/4451?lang=en

PaulRyckier wrote:

I take now the Marshall plan as example of historical events, where in my opinion depending on the author, there are different interpretations and visions, wanted or not, of the same reality, which can alter seriously, again in my opinion, the vision about that event.

I saw for instance some days ago a French documentary about the Marshall plan, with the controversial title: "le plan Marshall a sauvé l'Amérique" (The Marshall plan has saved the US)...

I don't think the Marshall Plan needs to be viewed in such a way that it either saved Europe, or that it saved the USA: these views are just different aspects of the whole since the Marshall Plan actually achieved both. This was clearly understood by the US administration at the time. While the European states could really only play the role of supplicants, going cap in hand for whatever aid they might get, the US knew it had a choice in the matter. Nevertheless from the US point of view, providing financial and material aid to Europe had many advantages and few disadvantages.

Not only would the Marshall Plan facilitate the recovery of Europe's national economies, it would stabilize Europe politically against Soviet influence and so reduce the likelihood of communist takeovers in countries bordering Russia's sphere of influence. The plan would also encourage the development of liberal-democratic systems of government in Europe, particularly in Germany which had no recent positive experience of democracy. This 'new Europe' would then see a political economy that was based on open markets and free trade, rather than the protectionism and self-interest that had largely existed before WW2, and this which would allow American exporters to enter European markets far more easily than had ever been possible before the war. Indeed American corporations built networks and established trade links in Europe that continued for many years after the Plan had run its course. Most of the resources and goods purchased with Marshall Plan funds would inevitably come from the US itself which had obvious benefits for American exporters and domestic industries, accordingly the Marshall Plan directly prompted a rapid recovery in the US economy from the post-war economic slump of 1946-7, and it then went on to enjoy a period of sustained economic boom. There was also of course great propaganda value in the Marshall Plan and it was cleverly marketed by the American government as a generous and visionary policy to rebuild Europe, even going so far as to offer aid to the Soviet Union and Soviet-bloc countries (whilst knowing that the conditions attached to the aid would make it impossible for them to accept).

Marshall himself explained all this in his key 1947 speech:

"Aside from the demoralising effect on the world at large and the possibilities of disturbances arising as a result of the desperation of the [European] 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 of America. 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."

Nevertheless there was some American opposition and attempts were made to block the passage of the Marshall Plan through Congress. Many resented the expenditure of American taxpayers’ money on foreign countries, some of which had been enemy powers, while several allied states had already defaulted on their wartime debts to the US. Some American businesses weren’t keen on reconstructing European industries that might then grow to compete with their own. The left-wing in America condemned the Marshall Plan as an attempt to strengthen the grip of US-led capitalism on Western Europe, while a few economic isolationists objected simply because the plan represented a significant interference in European markets. Accordingly there were suggestions that only food and materials be given, with no financial aid offered. But despite these objections Congress finally approved the Plan, although it was by no means a 'blank cheque' for European governments. The US was determined to fund essential areas of development only and so rigorous conditions were set, reserving the right to cease any funding if recipient nations did not follow certain directives.

In financial terms the UK received by far the biggest share of American aid, but as we have previously discussed in some detail, Britain's overall experience of the Marshall Plan in support of Europe's post-war recovery was that it was rather a mixed blessing, if not actually a poisoned chalice. See Res Historica: Post WW2 Britain & Europe - austerity, rationing & reconstruction.

Thank you MM for your thoughtful reply and answering on my questions. I had forgotten about your thread of 2017 and read this insightful discussion again in full length.

And yes you have answered there my questions about the Marshall plan in the UK, but nevertheless I still think that as I mentioned about the second French documentary in my OP that on the background the Cold War and the fear for the Communist disturbance was already present? Truman?
Especially in the UK, while Churchill was pragmatic as long as WWII. If I recall something like: If we have to ally with the devil (Stalin) to defeat the Nazis then that is better than the alternative? Or something like that...
But in 1946 already his speech about the "Iron Curtain":
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Iron-Curtain-Speech

But once the Nazis defeated he rapidly and perhaps the first saw the reality of the coming Cold War with the Communists, which reached its culmination point in the Italian elections of 1948 and yes when it appeared that they had recuperated the democratic Czecho-Slovakia from the interwar period...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Italian_general_election

Kind regards, Paul.

Meles meles wrote:

Not only would the Marshall Plan facilitate the recovery of Europe's national economies, it would stabilize Europe politically against Soviet influence and so reduce the likelihood of communist takeovers in countries bordering Russia's sphere of influence. The plan would also encourage the development of liberal-democratic systems of government in Europe, particularly in Germany which had no recent positive experience of democracy.

The Marshall Plan was also seemingly unique in world history. Previously defeated countries in war would have been expected to pay reparations. The reparations which Germany, Italy, Hungary, Finland and Rumania etc could have been expected to pay after the Second World War would have been absolutely colossal. Although Germany did lose huge swathes of territory such as East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia etc and although defeated countries did indeed pay varying levels of reparations, what the Marshall Plan did was not only minimize the economic pain which the payment of war reparations might have had upon the economies of Germany and Italy but also offset the loss of income which other countries in Europe may have felt with a reduced receipt of reparations from them.

Indeed, and it required immense statesmanship by Truman's administration to steer it through Congress and get it approved. All credit to them. In 1947 the US really didn't need to bail out Europe ... but thankfully they did.

I can't imagine the last inhabitant of the White House having that sort of sensible, practical, magnanimous, long-term vision. Unlike the meaningless MAGA slogans, I think that the Marshall Plan really did make America great in the eyes of the world and gave it considerable 'soft' credit for years after.

Meles meles wrote:

Indeed, and it required immense statesmanship by Truman's administration to steer it through Congress and get it approved. All credit to them. In 1947 the US really didn't need to bail out Europe ...  but thankfully they did.

I can't imagine the last inhabitant of the White House having that sort of sensible, practical, magnanimous, long-term vision. Unlike the meaningless MAGA slogans, I think that the Marshall Plan really did make America great in the eyes of the world and gave it considerable 'soft' credit for years after.

 
Indeed, MM, fully agree.
Regards, Paul.