Soviet Containment & Marshall Plan

Discussions on every day life in the Weimar Republic, pre-anschluss Austria, Third Reich and the occupied territories. Hosted by Vikki.
User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Soviet Containment & Marshall Plan

Post by Scott Smith » 04 May 2003 11:11

From this thread:

The Red Army's Treatment to the SS.

POW wrote:
witness wrote:I think that after the war most nations cared pretty much for themselves given the degree of destruction and human losses.
At the same time I think Americans with their Marshall plan helped Germans to rebuild their economy and infrastructure quite a bit
I am curious what our Amercan Isolationist (SS) thinks about it.
Scott was the Marshall plan a bad idea ? From your Isolationist perspective ..?
I guess it would not be too compatible with each other -to like Germany and preach the ideas of American Isolationism in this case... :)
Weird ahh ?
http://www.marshallfoundation.org/about ... l_plan.htm

After the war the Americans did't had the intensions to help Germans. There was no plan to rebuild the economy as well. The sudden charity the Germans received they have to thank to the atomic bomb and the iron courtain. However the Marshall plan made only a difference of a few percent to the entire remaining German economy it was a good idea of course.

This is an oversimplification but the Truman Doctrine was a Cold War policy intended to help nations who were "resisting Communist expansion" and it helped them militarily and later economically in order to contain Soviet Communism. There was no WWIII but it took 45 years to defeat the Soviet Union. Never did the establishment fear that theymight lose this war, which never became hysterical as did the containment of Nazi Germany.

This began with the Forrestal Plan, after the Secretary of the Navy and later the first Secretary of Defense (1947) where Greece and Turkey were given foreign aid. At first the Truman Administration took a fairly hardline with a Rightwing Democrat, James Bynes as Secretary of State. But Truman was a fiscal conservative who wanted to control military costs so he gutted the armed forces. Then the Internationalist Democrats like Dean Acheson began to take over the Administration representing a new spirit of "labor finance-capitalism," which would not choke and crush the Soviet Union but would alternately contain and appease it in whatever manner to promote global Democracy-Capitalism and world markets. Secretary of State/Defense Marshall borrowed Forrestal's idea with broader economic assistance to rebuild shattered European commerce. These countries would learn to become good consumers with strong capitalistic economies in order to fight the appeal of totalitarian socialism, and the aid sent would be financed by the U. S. taxpayers but the goods would be produced by the American heartland and purchased by the U.S. Government, which made it very popular program. Financial markets would grow, a Win/Win situation.

Contrary to popular belief, the lion's share of the Marshall Plan aid did not go to Germany but to other countries in war-torn Europe including England. Some charity which prevented millions from starving to death came from religious organizations like the Quakers, however. One of these experts in international relief efforts was former President Herbert Hoover who had been in charge of an enormous relief project following the First World War, most of which did not go to the defeated enemy.

The rearmament of West Germany and its admittance into NATO in the mid-fifties had nothing to do with the Marshall Plan. The West German German economic miracle stems from monetary policies enacted after 1949 (the year the Soviets exploded their atomic bomb) and the complete lifting of repressive occupational policies that can be collectively but erroneously called the Morgenthau Plan because of its draconian nature intended to keep Germany economically prostrate.

You ask what I think about the Marshall Plan? Well, Senator McCarthy was a strong critic of Secretary Marshall. The Cold War begins with Churchill's Iron Curtain speech in Truman's native Missouri in 1946. The United States was not reaping the fruits of its great global crusade and McCarthy longed for an American Churchill. McCarthy represented the Rightwing of the Republican party which was composed of ultra-nationalists like McCarthy and Isolationists like Senator Taft and the usual conservatives and moderates. McCarthy was unhappy with the phony Pax Americana following the great American victory in WWII and essentially argued that the victory had been sold to the highest bidder for a mess of pottage.

Internationalist groups like the UN where the Soviets carried a veto power had more say on foreign affairs than the United States Senate! Not only did the United States not have a hegemonic position in the world but Communism was on march everywhere. China had gone Red in 1949, after all this talk about freeing China from colonialism, it was now a Soviet satellite (in theory).

On the other hand, Senator Taft had been critical of American Interventionism and Globaloney since the Roosevelt Administration had embarked on an adventurous foreign policy in 1937. Lend-Lease was passed in March, 1941, essentially making the United States all but an open belligerent in the European civil-war. Roosevelt had sold Lend-Lease to Congress on the idea that if your neighbor's house is on fire you will be a good neighbor and Lend or Lease him your firehose. Taft astutely observed that Lend-Lease was like lending chewing gun--you don't want it back!

So while McCarthy would have favored a traditional imperialistic American World Superpower, Taft had been a critic of Wilsonian Globaloney and Interventionism from the outset and all of the problems that came with it, including the march of Communism in the first place, of which both saw the Marshall Plan as a mere bandaid. When the Soviet Union exploded their own atomic bomb in 1949, McCarthy's strategy was to whip-up the very real fears of Communist infiltration at home in order to drive American foreign policy to the right. How could the Soviets get the atomic bomb when it was the most closely-guarded secret of the war? And why was the United States fighting a UN war in Korea that it didn't even intend to win for fear of escalating a war in Asia that would leave Europe open to Soviet expansion? For a time McCarthy was very successful with his tactic of tarring liberals with the Communist brush and helped to oust the Democrats in 1952.

Taft was dying of cancer so Eisenhower ran for President on the Republican ticket. McCarthy would have preferred an American Churchill or a Teddy Roosevelt imperialist to the bland and almost apolitical Eisenhower. MacArthur had been discredited politically for his role in the Korean War and could not hope for high office.

When McCarthy tried to drive the moderate Eisenhower Republicans to the Right by investigating misconduct in the Army, the Republicans were divided and started investigating McCarthy and the antics of his overzealous assistant, attorney Roy Cohn. The Senate voted to Censure McCarthy in 1954 and this shut him up; the second Red Scare was at its close. With the end of the Cold War and the opening of Russian archives it has been shown that McCarthy was essentially correct, that the government and especially the State Department was riddled with Communist agents; he just couldn't prove it. And his ulterior goal was to change foreign policy not to clean out government anyway.

Subsequently, Kennedy was able to capitalize of the national paranoia engendered by the Russian launching of Sputnik in 1957 and narrowly beat Vice President Nixon for the election in 1960 by criticizing a supposed (but nonexistent) missile-gap, due to Eisenhower's refusal to develop rocket and space technology, which he had seen as an escalation of the Cold War. Upon leaving office Eisenhower warned of a Military-Industrial Complex that was driving arms spending for its own sake. The U.S. Army had developed Sputnik technology from captured German scientists for ten years before launching old V-2s into space and devekloping the Redstone and Jupiter missiles. My father went into aerospace engineering due to the effects of Sputnik. Universities actively recruited mechanically-inclined men from rural communities and encouraged them to go into engineering. The new arms-race lasted until 1971 when the space program was drastically cut.

With resentment from the middle classes over conscription, and the failure of American policies in Vietnam, despite American military victories in a war-of-attrition and containment, critics of Internationalism from the Right wondered why a war was being fought at all ostensibly against Communism in Asia when they remained huge trading partners elsewhere. We never even blockaded North Vietnam nor did we declare war. Vietnam wasn't Munich at all, like the "Best and Brightest" of the Liberal-Interventionists had believed. Therefore, Nixon used the Kissinger strategy of divide-and-rule by playing the Red Chinese off against the Soviet Union. Nixon had been a McCarthyite and had become an expert in proactive foreign affairs; he recognized that Communism was not monolithic indeed and that the Chinese and Russians were not even natural allies but superpowers with strategic considerations of their own. The United States had at last gained some small measure of Internationalist expertise that Hitler had forseen that America lacked with its inexperience in foreign affairs and traditional antipathy to useless Interventionism.

With the destabilizing of the Islamic revolution in Iran and the resultant Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, the Carter Administration adopted the Brzezinski doctrine of supporting Islamic radicals against the multinational Soviet Empire and effectively turned the war in Afghanistan into Russia's Vietnam. Furthermore, in 1983 Reagan upped the ante by restarted the arms-race on a technological plane that was difficult for the Soviets to match with Star Wars, originally called High Frontiers, officially called the Strategic Defense Initiative. Its intent was to bankrupt the Soviet Union, which had been in an arms-race from 1928-53 under Stalin and from 1964-1991 under Brezhnev and his successors. Andropov and Gorbachev had tried to end this race with internal reforms and arms-control treaties but were unsucessful.

So that is a brief and oversimplified version of Soviet containment from 1946-1991. Ain't Globaloney great...

You want McFreedom Fries with that?
:)

User avatar
witness
Member
Posts: 2279
Joined: 21 Sep 2002 00:39
Location: North

Post by witness » 04 May 2003 14:01

Thanks for the interesting and detailed review of the cold war Scott.
However you probably misunderstood my question.
I didn't enquire about the motivations behind the Marshall plan.
What I was interested in is your attitude as an Isolationist (with quite the conspicuous sympathies for the Nazi Germany 8O ) to this plan per ser .
As I take your position- this plan must be condemned from your non-interference point of view .
So again this boils down to a rather simple question - was this plan a bad idea in your opinion or not ?
Should the U.S.just have left the old Europe to it's own faculties ?
Also this claim that "the lion's share " of the Marshall plan went to the other then Germany countries ( mostly to England )was quite a suprise for me.
Not that I contest this assertion but it might be useful to know what numbers are behind it. For example - how much Germany was given vs. England in the U.S dollars ? And over what period ?
I never claimed that Americans were influenced by some non pragmatic driving force ( such as some moral considerations ). But I do think that
this plan was very useful to rebuild as you said "shattered European commerce".
In General I agree that America represents a new world empire and as every empire in history seeks to expand it's influence by every means possible.
However a question arises - is it necessarily bad ?
Was there any period in history whence the world was not dominated by one or more empires ? What would happen if this empire niche became absolutely vacant ?
IMO it is like in the animal kindom - some dominant power would sooner or later appear which would try to influence its' neighbours through violence or a threat of violence.
IMHO the world without empires is a rather utopian vision and therefore out of the equation.
The more essential question is -what values this or that empire represents.
There are a lot of negative American values such as mass culture uniformity, propaganda of individual violence etc. However there are quite a few positive values as well by which American society ( and not only )stands for - such as respect for human freedom and rights . Could this positive American input be simply dismissed out of hand by the word "Globaloney "?
And if America had followed you Isolationist script in what world would we have lived today ?
What empire (and what values ) would have dominated the world scene now ?

User avatar
witness
Member
Posts: 2279
Joined: 21 Sep 2002 00:39
Location: North

Post by witness » 04 May 2003 17:36

I just found the stat numbers on the Marshall plan ( in the same link I provided .It just had escaped my attention initially :oops: )
Scott Smith wrote
Contrary to popular belief, the lion's share of the Marshall Plan aid did not go to Germany but to other countries in war-torn Europe including England.

Hmm .." Lion's share "
Let's have a look
Marshall Plan Expenditures

Economic Assistance, April 3, 1948 to June 30, 1952
(in millions of dollars)

COUNTRY Total Grants Loans
Total for all countries $13,325.8
Austria 677.8 --
Belgium-Luxembourg 559.3
Denmark 273.0
France 2,713.
Germany, Federal Republic of 1,390.6
Greece 706.7
Iceland 29.3
Ireland 147.5
Italy (including Trieste) 1,508.8
Netherlands (*East Indies)c 1,083.5
Norway 255.3
Portugal 51.2
Sweden 107.3
Turkey 225.1
United Kingdom 3,189.8


http://www.marshallfoundation.org/about ... l_plan.htm

Seems like Germany did get quite a share in this "Lion's share "

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Post by Scott Smith » 05 May 2003 02:34

witness wrote:Seems like Germany did get quite a share in this "Lion's share"

Figure it out per-capita and see me again.
:D

The motivation for the Marshall Plan was to build a coalition for Soviet containment. Germany became crucial to that strategy. Prior to 1948 the Allied policy was to keep Germany down. Your own figures show that Germany was not at the top of the list for rebuilding despite its crucial importance.
:)
Last edited by Scott Smith on 05 May 2003 19:11, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Post by Scott Smith » 05 May 2003 02:46

witness wrote:What I was interested in is your attitude as an Isolationist (with quite the conspicuous sympathies for the Nazi Germany ) to this plan per ser .

I am against intervention in the first place, witness. That is not necessarily the same as Nazi sympathy. I am for a Fortress America and a well-armed non-Intervention.

witness wrote:As I take your position- this plan must be condemned from your non-interference point of view .

We created the problem in the first place by intervening to pull Albion's chestnuts out of the fire and to save Stalin's Great Socialist "experiment." But like I said, Marshall aid was only a band-aid and its purpose was the prosecution of the Cold War, not in any way altruistic. If the starvation of millions of Germans worked to advance the Democracy-Capitalist goals of the London-New York plutocracy then this would have happened. Most people confuse the Marshall Plan with other humanitarian relief efforts. The Marshall Plan did not even begin until the 1948 when the last vestiges of the Morgenthau Plan were dropped to fight the Cold War. Prior to that the objective was to keep Germany down, even though this actually made occupation more difficult.

So again this boils down to a rather simple question - was this plan a bad idea in your opinion or not ?

Well to employ the Munich logic with the Soviet Union, a better plan would have been to wipe-out Soviet Communism while the Army was over there. The same arguments used against Germany could have been applied to the Soviet Union except that Albion had nothing to fear from the Russians because she was not a viable seapower, whereas Germany had posed a commerical and maritime threat since 1871 and particularly with the Kaiser's naval expansion. So the Anglophile elite were willing to contain Russia while they had do destroy Germany unconditionally in order to bring her markets back to the service of international Democracy-Capitalism.

Should the U.S.just have left the old Europe to it's own faculties ?

Yes, in 1917. America had no business Intervening in that idiotic war.
:)
Last edited by Scott Smith on 05 May 2003 19:18, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
witness
Member
Posts: 2279
Joined: 21 Sep 2002 00:39
Location: North

Post by witness » 05 May 2003 02:50

Scott Smith wrote
The motivation for the Marshall Plan was to build a coalition for Soviet containment. Germany became crucial to that strategy. Prior to 1948 the Allied policy was to keep Germany down. Yur own figures show that Germany was not at the top of the list despite its crucial importance.


Why should it have been ? But Germany got enough not to starve to death, did not she ?
And you are dodging the question again Scott.
Why could not you as Isolationist just to say honestly that the Marshall plan was baaad.? Because it was INTERFERING .Why didn't they just let em Europeans quitely die out. ..Including Germans.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Post by Scott Smith » 05 May 2003 03:57

witness wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:The motivation for the Marshall Plan was to build a coalition for Soviet containment. Germany became crucial to that strategy. Prior to 1948 the Allied policy was to keep Germany down. Yur own figures show that Germany was not at the top of the list despite its crucial importance.

Why should it have been ?

Germany was of geopolitical importance to the containment of Communism and the control of Europe.

But Germany got enough not to starve to death, did not she ?
And you are dodging the question again Scott.

Not from the Marshall Plan, which was not as altruistic as is pretended. And nobody did anything except enable the expulsion of millions of Germans from the eastern provinces of Germany in an ethnic-cleansing Holocaust that few even know about today, inclduing the Genocide of up to two-million.

Why could not you as Isolationist just to say honestly that the Marshall plan was baaad.?

I never said it was bad, and I'm not opposed to interfering in our own kettles of fish. That is why we can't (unfortunately) abandon Iraq now; it would just turn into another fundamentalist Islamic state thanks to our intervention and the unlearned idiocy of Junior Bush and his Zionist cronies.

Because it was INTERFERING .

I'm suspicous of Foreign Aid in general but not to the same degree as military Intervention. And I don't have any problem with humanitarian relief efforts as long as they are well-administered.

Why didn't they just let them Europeans quitely die out. ..Including Germans.

That would have happened under the original Morgenthau Plan. But it was realized from the outset with the no-less draconian proposals of the State Department and the War Department that competed with the Treasury Secretary's famous proposal that more booty could be extracted by building German industry and hauling away goods instead of gutting German industry as booty. The important point today is that from the standpoint of Democracy-Capitalism it doesn't matter if you call it Daimler or Chrysler as long as the same financiers own the stock. And it doesn't matter if the factories are in Red China using prisoner labor as long as plutocratic investors have shares.

Both Capitalism and Communism are Internationalist movements. I am against Globaloney in any form. But I am also cosmopolitan in outlook. "Isolationist" is only the rubric invented by our enemies, which we happily embrace, though it is inaccurate. We don't hide from the world; we just just want to tell it what to do. (And we don't want it telling us what to do.)

In happier times this was called the Spirit of '76, the "shot heard 'round the world." Once we stood opposed to old-stryle European colonialism. Now we have adopted that mantle in another form. We are the Ugly Americans. And the world loves us and hates us accordingly, sometimes at the same time. We should have followed the advice of John Quincy Adams and held to our values of "not seeking Monsters to Destroy." Crusades are motivated by zealotry and that is seldom good.

I would rather be respected and loved, not hated and aped; and failing that, respected and feared by the world. As Machiavelli said, a Prince cannot control who loves him but he can control who fears him. Nonintervention, however, means "Don't Tread on Me." It doesn't mean "Make the World Safe for Democracy" (Wilson). Washington and Hamilton (the most modern industrial economist of his day) warned of "entangling alliances." They were right! If we had continued to follow their advice we would be loved and admired today but also respected and feared when crossed; we would have minded our own business instead of pursued a policy of Globaloney.

Hated and aped is the way the world sees us now. Globaloney sucks.
:)

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 05 May 2003 12:07

Scott Smith wrote: I am against intervention in the first place, witness. That is not necessarily the same as Nazi sympathy. That is not necessarily the same as Nazi sympathy.


But in the case of Smith it seems to be a thin disguise for Nazi sympathy and hatred for the hook-nosed "Zioinists" influencing Junior Bush and leveling monstrous "accusations" against "Gentiles in general and Germany in particular", apart from an outlet for his frustrations.

witness wrote:Why didn't they just let em Europeans quitely die out. Including Germans.


Smith wrote:That would have happened under the original Morgenthau Plan.


The wording of the original Morgenthau Plan was the following:

Morgenthau-Plan

TOP SECRET
Program to Prevent Germany from
starting a World War III
1. Demilitarization of Germany.
It should be the aim of the Allied Forces to accomplish the complete demilitarization of Germany in the shortest possible period of time after surrender. This means completely disarm the German Army and people (including the removal or destruction of all war material), the total destruction of the whole German armament industry, and the removal or destruction of other key industries which are basic to military strength.

2. New Boundaries of Germany.
a) Poland should get that part of East Prussia which doesn't go to the U.S.S.R. and the southern portion of Silesia. (See map in 12 Appendix.)
b) France should get the Saar and the adjacent territories bounded by the Rhine and the Moselle Rivers.
c) As indicated in 4 below an International Zone should be created containing the Ruhr and the surrounding industrial areas.

3. Partitioning of New Germany.
The remaining portion of Germany should be divided into two autonomous, independent states, (1) a South German state comprising Bavaria, Wuerttemberg, Baden and some smaller areas and (2) a North German state comprising a large part of the old state of Prussia, Saxony, Thuringia and several smaller states.
There shall be a custom union between the new South German state and Austria, which will be restored to her pre-1938 political borders.

4. The Ruhr Area. (The Ruhr, surrounding industrial areas, as shown on e map, including the Rhineland, the Keil Canal, and all German territory north of the Keil [sic] Canal.)
Here lies the heart of German industrial power. This area should not only be stripped of all presently existing industries but so weakened and controlled that it can not in the foreseeable future become an industrial area. The following steps will accomplish this:
a) Within a short period, if possible not longer than 6 months after the cessation of hostilities, all industrial plants and equipment not destroyed by military action shall be completely dismantled and transported to Allied Nations as restitution. All equipment shall be removed from the mines and the mines closed.
b) The area should be made an international zone to be governed by an international security organization to be established by the United Nations. In governing the area the international organization should be guided by policies designed to further the above stated objective.

5. Restitution and Reparation.
Reparations, in the form of future payments and deliveries, should not be demanded. Restitution and reparation shall be effected b-y the transfer of existing German resources and territories, e.g.,
a) by restitution of property looted by the Germans in territories occupied by them;
b) by transfer of German territory and German private rights in industrial property situated in such territory to invaded countries and the international organization under the program of partition;
c) by the removal and distribution among devastated countries of industrial plants and equipment situated within the International Zone and the North and South German states delimited in the section on partition;
d) by forced German labor outside Germany; and
e) by confiscation of all German assets of any character whatsoever outside of Germany.

6. Education and Propaganda.
a) All schools and universities will be closed until an Allied Commission of Education has formulated an effective reorganization program. It is contemplated that it may require a considerable period of time before any institutions of higher education are reopened. Meanwhile the education of German students in foreign universities will not be prohibited. Elementary schools will be reopened as quickly as appropriate teachers and textbooks are available.
b) All German radio stations and newspapers, magazines, weeklies, etc. shall be discontinued until adequate controls are established and an appropriate program formulated.

7. Political Decentralization.
The military administration in Germany in the Initial period should be carried out with a view toward the eventual partitioning of Germany. To facilitate partitioning and to assure its permanence the military authorities should be guided by the following principles:
a) Dismiss all policy-making officials of the Reich government and deal primarily with local governments.
b) Encourage the re-establishment of state governments in
c) each of the states (Lander) corresponding to 18 states into which Germany is presently divided and in addition make the Prussian provinces separate states.
d) Upon the partitioning of Germany, the various state governments should be encouraged to organize a federal government for each of the newly partitioned areas. Such new governments should be in the form of a confederation of states, with emphasis on states" rights and a large degree of local autonomy.

8. Responsibility of Military for Local German Economy.
The sole purpose of the military in control of the German economy shall be to facilitate military operations and military occupation. The Allied Military Government shall not assume responsibility for such economic problems as price controls, rationing, unemployment, production, reconstruction, distribution, consumption, housing, or transportation, or take any measures designed to maintain or strengthen the German economy, except those which are essential to military operations. The responsibility for sustaining the German economy and people rests with the German people with such facilities as may be available under the circumstances.

9. Controls over Development of German Economy.
During a period of at least twenty years after surrender adequate controls, including controls over foreign trade and tight restrictions on capital imports, shall be maintained by the United Nations designed to prevent in the newly-established states the establishment or expansion of key industries basic to the German military potential and to control other key industries.

10. Agrarian program.
All large estates should be broken up and divided among the peasants and the system of primogeniture and entail should be abolished.

11. Punishment of War Crimes and Treatment of Special Groups.
A program for the punishment of certain war crimes and for the treatment of Nazi organizations and other special groups is contained in section 11.

12. Uniforms and Parades.
a) No German shall be permitted to wear, after an appropriate period of time following the cessation of hostilities, any military uniform or any uniform of any quasi military organizations.
b) No military parades shall be permitted anywhere In Germany and all military bands shall be disbanded.

13. Aircraft.
All aircraft (including gliders), whether military or commercial, will be confiscated for later disposition. No German shall be permitted to operate or to help operate any aircraft, including those owned by foreign interests.

14. United States Responsibility
Although the United States would have full military and civilian representation on whatever International commission or commissions may be established for the execution of the whole German program, the primary responsibility for the policing of Germany and for civil administration in Germany should be assumed by the military forces of Germany's continental neighbors. Specifically these should include Russian, French, Polish, Czech, Greek, Yugoslav, Norwegian, Dutch and Belgian soldiers.
Under this program United States troops could be withdrawn within a relatively short time.


Not exactly a noble endeavor, but would it have "let em Europeans quitely die out"?

Morgenthau Plan

In August 1944 the American finance minister Henry Morgenthau jr. had a plan for the treatment of Germany after its defeat prepared. Morgenthau was under the impression that both the entities responsible in the USA for Germany policy and the relevant British politicians were pursuing too soft a line. In the memorandum that Morgentau submitted at the beginning of September 1944 a dismemberment of Germany was propagated. After extensive territorial cessions there were to be created three German states, while the economic regions at the Rhine and Ruhr as well as the North Sea Coast were to be internationalized. Besides the total disarmament of Germany and huge reparations (also through forced labor) the Morgenthau – Plan foresaw the total dismantling of industrial installations and the closing down and destruction of mines. A control over the whole economy over 20 years would turn Germany into an agrarian state that would no longer be in conditions to carry out aggression policies.
The plan contained, in the respective most radical form, all suggestions and measures that had already been discussed in the debate about the goals of the war. Morgenthau’s suggestions were meant to correct the moderate plans for Germany entertained by the Allied Supreme Command under Eisenhower, the inter-allied European Advisory Commission and the professional departments in Washington and London.
Morgenthau, who was a friend of US-president Roosevelt, seemed to be successful when at the British-American conference in Quebec on 15 September 1944 Premier Minister Churchill and President Roosevelt initialed an (already softened) version of the Morgenthau plan. But Cordell Hull, the American foreign minister, as well as his British colleague Anthony Eden protested against the plan already on the following day, and the American war minister Stimson called the program "a crime against civilization". When the Morgenthau Plan reached the public due to a deliberate indiscretion on 21 September 1944, the reaction was so negative that even Roosevelt distanced himself from the plan. The Morgenthau Plan disappeared in the drawers already at the end of September 1944 without ever having been formally discussed by the competent bodies.
For the later policy of occupation and in regard to Germany the Morgenthau Plan was without any significance. But Goebbels and Hitler had used the "Jewish murder plan" for the "enslavement of Germany" with such success in support of their hold-out propaganda that many were led to believe that the program had been implemented in 1945. In publications of the extreme right the Morgenthau Plan plays this role until the present day.
Morgenthau, by the way, was an adherent of agrarian romanticism. The de-industrialization of Germany he propagated would under this aspect not only have been a measure for punishing Germany and preventing another world war.


I translated the above from: Wolfgang Benz, in: Benz et al, Legenden, Lügen, Vorurteile, 12th edition Munich 2002, pages 154/155

User avatar
witness
Member
Posts: 2279
Joined: 21 Sep 2002 00:39
Location: North

Post by witness » 05 May 2003 12:31

Thanks you very much for the translation work Roberto.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 05 May 2003 13:44

witness wrote:Thanks you very much for the translation work Roberto.


Glad you liked the translation. It’s an old one from my archives. The topic has been discussed more than once on this forum:

Adenauer on the Morgenthau Plan and restitution to Jews
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopi ... 10514e97bb

Churchill and Unconditional Surrender
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopi ... 10514e97bb

On the latter thread, have a look at the assessment of the Morgenthau Plan by US Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson in a memoradum for President Roosevelt written on 15 September 1944, transcribed in my post of Tue Oct 29, 2002 5:50 pm under

http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopi ... 10514e97bb

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Post by Scott Smith » 05 May 2003 19:40

Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote: I am against intervention in the first place, witness. That is not necessarily the same as Nazi sympathy. I am for a Fortress America and a well-armed non-Intervention.

But in the case of Smith it seems to be a thin disguise for Nazi sympathy and hatred for the hook-nosed "Zioinists" influencing Junior Bush and leveling monstrous "accusations" against "Gentiles in general and Germany in particular", apart from an outlet for his frustrations.

Well my fine-feathered friend thinks that yours is the philo-Semitic poseur talking. But anyway, I've explained before that most Zionists are not even Jews. I would say they are probably fundamentalist evangelical Christians in the Bible Belt of the good old U.S. of A. In any case, the important thing is not ethnicity or brand of "ism" but the fact that Capitalism is an Internationalist movement, so expanding financial markets is where the bread is buttered regardless of what is the vehicle. The Chinese for example might be Communists but that doesn't matter as long as the financial markets of the plutocracy have access to "a billion consumers." Then it is "Democracy."

Roberto wrote:
Smith wrote:
witness wrote:Why didn't they just let em Europeans quitely die out. Including Germans.

That would have happened under the original Morgenthau Plan.

The wording of the original Morgenthau Plan was the following: [...]
Not exactly a noble endeavor, but would it have "let em Europeans quitely die out"?

The Morgenthau Plan was less Genocidal than the plans of Kaufmann and Schmitt, but the source of German power came from unification and industrialization in the latter 19th century. Morgenthau would have returned Germany to the situation of 1648, only without modern industry she would not have been able to support her modern population nor export to the rest of Europe. Millions would have perished. The other draconian plans of the War and State departments (Hull and Stimson) indended to use German industry to produce "reparations." Germans would have been slaves for some period of time but not deindustrialized. Either way, the center of gravity of Europe would have shifted to Moscow and London, or Moscow and Washington. Hence it would not have favored Europe, as Germany is crucial to Europe's future, even if Russia, England, and America may not be.
:)

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 05 May 2003 20:18

Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote: I am against intervention in the first place, witness. That is not necessarily the same as Nazi sympathy. I am for a Fortress America and a well-armed non-Intervention.

But in the case of Smith it seems to be a thin disguise for Nazi sympathy and hatred for the hook-nosed "Zioinists" influencing Junior Bush and leveling monstrous "accusations" against "Gentiles in general and Germany in particular", apart from an outlet for his frustrations.

Well my fine-feathered friend thinks that this is the philo-Semitic poseur talking. But anyway, I've explained before that most Zionists are not even Jews. I would say they are probably fundamentalist evangelical Christians in the Bible Belt of the good old U.S. of A. In any case, the important thing is not ethnicity or brand of "ism" but the fact that Capitalism is an Internationalist movement, so expanding financial markets is where the bread is buttered regardless of what is the vehicle. The Chinese for example might be Communists but that doesn't matter as long as the financial markets of the plutocracy have access to "a billion consumers." Then it is "Democracy."


It’s always funny to see what picturesque sermons from Smith a few poignant remarks bring forth. :lol:

Smith wrote:The Morgenthau Plan was less Genocidal than the plans of Kaufmann and Schmitt,


A remark for my list of Smithsonian quotes. Guess why.

Smith wrote:but the source of German power came from unification and industrialization in the latter 19th century. Morgenthau would have returned Germany to the situation of 1648, only without modern industry she would not have been able to support her population nor export to the rest of Europe. Millions would have perished.


Morgenthau himself seems to have expected the consequences of his plan to be less dramatic, as the agrarian romantic thought an increase of farm labor would result in Germans having enough food for both home consumption and exportation in exchange for "such products of heavy industry as they will need". On page 62 of his book Germany is Our Problem,

Morgenthau wrote:[…]The application of 55 per cent more labor to German farms, as proposed here, will not increase this food supply by 55 per cent. But that will not be necessary. An extra 15 per cent would make Germany virtually self-sustaining, even on her high prewar diet. But more probably, Germans will eat a little less for they will have to export food as well as consumer goods in return for such products of heavy industry as they will need, the small amount of foodstuffs that will not grow in Germany and the rather large amount of nitrates and phosphates she will require to keep her soil productive.[…]


Whether these considerations were feasible or the outcome would have been disastrous is a matter of speculation, as the plan never came close to being implemented. These, as any rate, were the concerns of one of the plan’s fiercest critics, which contributed to it's being dropped at an early stage:

September 15, 1944

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT:

Since the meeting with you on September 9th attended by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Hopkins, and myself, I have had an opportunity to read the latest papers submitted to you by the Secretary of the Treasury on the treatment of Germany. There is no need to make any extended or detailed reply to these papers. My views have already been submitted to you in other memoranda. I merely wish to reiterate briefly that I still feel that the course proposed by the Treasury would in the long run certainly defeat what we hope to attain by a complete military victory, that is, the peace of the world, and the assurance of social, economic and political stability in the world.

The point of difference is not one of objective, - continued world peace - it is one of means. When we discuss means, the difference is not whether we should be soft or tough on the German people, but rather whether the course proposed will in fact best attain our agreed objective, continued peace.

If I thought that the Treasury proposals would accomplish that objective, I would not persist in my objections. But I cannot believe that they will make for a lasting peace. In spirit and in emphasis they are punitive, not, in my judgment, corrective or constructive. They will tend through bitterness and suffering to breed another war, not to make another war undesired by the Germans nor impossible in fact. It is not within the realm of possibility that a whole nation of seventy million people, who have been outstanding for many years in the arts and the sciences and who through their efficiency and energy have attained one of the highest industrial levels in Europe, can by force be required to abandon all their previous methods of life, be reduced to a peasant level with virtually complete control of industry and science left to other peoples.

The question is not whether we want Germans to suffer for their sins. Many of us would like to see them suffer the tortures they have inflicted on others. The only question is whether over the years a group of seventy million educated, efficient and imaginative people can be kept within bounds on such a low level of subsistence as the Treasury proposals contemplate. I do not believe that is humanly possible. A subordinate question is whether even if you could do this it is good for the rest of the world either economically or spiritually. Sound thinking teaches that prosperity in one part of the world helps to create prosperity in other parts of the world. It also teaches that poverty in one part of the world usually induces poverty in other parts. Enforced poverty is even worse, for it destroys the spirit not only of the victim but debases the victor. It would be just such a crime as the Germans themselves hoped to perpetrate upon their victims-it would be a crime against civilization itself.

This country since its very beginning has maintained the fundamental belief that all men, in the long run, have the right to be free human beings and to live in the pursuit of happiness. Under the Atlantic Charter victors and vanquished alike are entitled to freedom from economic want. But the proposed treatment of Germany would, if successful, deliberately deprive many millions of people of the right to freedom from want and freedom from fear. Other peoples all over the world would suspect the validity of our spiritual tenets and question the long range effectiveness of our economic and political principles as applied to the vanquished.

The proposals would mean a forcible revolution in all of the basic methods of life of a vast section of the population as well as a disruption of many accustomed geographical associations and communications. Such an operation would naturally and necessarily involve a chaotic upheaval in the people's lives which would inevitably be productive of the deepest resentment and bitterness towards the authorities which had imposed such revolutionary changes upon them. Physically, considering the fact that their present enlarged population has been developed and supported under an entirely different geography and economy, it would doubtless cause tremendous suffering involving virtual starvation and death for many, and migrations and changes for others. It would be very difficult, if not impossible, for them to understand any purpose or cause for such revolutionary changes other than mere vengeance of their enemies and this alone would strongly tend towards the most bitter reactions.

I am prepared to accede to the argument that even if German resources were wiped off the map, the European economy would somehow readjust itself, perhaps with the help of Great Britain and this country. And the world would go on. The benefit to England by the suppression of German competition is greatly stressed in the Treasury memorandum. But this is an argument addressed to a shortsighted cupidity of the victors and the negation of all that Secretary Hull has been trying to accomplish since 1933. I am aware of England's need, but I do not and cannot believe that she wishes this kind of remedy. I feel certain that in her own interest she could not afford to follow this path. The total elimination of a competitor (who is always also a potential purchaser) is rarely a satisfactory solution of a commercial problem.

The sum total of the drastic political and economic steps proposed by the Treasury is an open confession of the bankruptcy of hope for a reasonable economic and political settlement of the causes of war.

I plead for no "soft' treatment of Germany. I urge only that we take steps which in the light of history are reasonably adapted to our purpose, namely, the prevention of future wars. The Carthaginian aspect of the proposed plan would, in my judgment, provoke a reaction on the part of the people in this country and in the rest of the world which would operate not only against the measures advocated but in its violence would sweep away the proper and reasonable restrictive measures that we could justifiably impose.

I have already indicated in my memorandum of September 9, 1944, the lines along which I would recommend that we should go pending further light on other questions which can only be obtained after we have ac- quired greater knowledge of conditions and trends within Germany as well as of the views and intentions of our Allies.

Henry L. Stimson

Secretary of War


Source of quote:

http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/psf/box31/t297j06.html

User avatar
witness
Member
Posts: 2279
Joined: 21 Sep 2002 00:39
Location: North

Post by witness » 05 May 2003 20:44

Scott Smith wrote:In any case, the important thing is not ethnicity or brand of "ism" but the fact that Capitalism is an Internationalist movement, so expanding financial markets is where the bread is buttered regardless of what is the vehicle. The Chinese for example might be Communists but that doesn't matter as long as the financial markets of the plutocracy have access to "a billion consumers." Then it is "Democracy."

Thanks for this clarification Scott. You are not happy with Capitalism as well as with Communism.Now it becomes clear where your particular love to National Socialism is
originating from
Probably I was mistaken and the proponenets of American "Isolationism" don't support the idea of the free market Capitalism
and as a matter of fact their position approximates an American
variant of the Nazi party wells of thought .. :lol:

User avatar
witness
Member
Posts: 2279
Joined: 21 Sep 2002 00:39
Location: North

Post by witness » 05 May 2003 20:56

Roberto wrote:
Smith wrote:The Morgenthau Plan was less Genocidal than the plans of Kaufmann and Schmitt,


A remark for my list of Smithsonian quotes. Guess why.

Because the sentence is not ...hmmm ( for politeness sake ) say reasonable. ?
To put it very mildly ? :)

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Post by Scott Smith » 05 May 2003 21:09

witness wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Smith wrote:The Morgenthau Plan was less Genocidal than the plans of Kaufmann and Schmitt,

A remark for my list of Smithsonian quotes. Guess why.

Because the sentence is not ...hmmm ( for politeness sake ) say reasonable. ?
To put it very mildly ? :)

You'll have to throw me a bone here.
:?

Return to “Life in the Third Reich & Weimar Republic”