USSR and the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan is the most successful economic aid project in history.

The Second Ended World War. Its consequences for Europe were terrible. Tens of millions of people died, much of the housing stock was destroyed, and agricultural production barely reached 70% of pre-war levels.

The total economic losses, according to the most conservative estimates, amounted to 1,440 billion pre-war francs. Without outside support, countries affected by the war could not solve the problems that arose. What this assistance should be was determined by the Marshall Plan, named after its initiator, US Secretary of State and retired military man George Marshall.

Europe was divided into two parts, the eastern part was in the sphere of influence of the USSR, and the Stalinist leadership did not hide its hostility towards the free market system, as well as its intentions to establish a socialist order in all European countries.

Against this background, the forces that are commonly called “left” became more active. Soviet-backed communist parties began to gain ground and their popularity grew.

At this point, the United States began to feel the threat of the communists coming to power in the territory they controlled in Western Europe.

The Marshall Plan was the most successful economic aid in

The army general who became Truman's Secretary of State, J. Marshall, did not. The real fathers of the plan were J. Kennan and his group, they developed the main details of its implementation. They were simply given the task of developing measures to limit Soviet influence in Western Europe, where, if the communists came to power, the United States could lose the most important ones and, in the future, face a direct military threat.

As a result, the document developed by economists was called the “Marshall Plan”. During its implementation, sixteen European countries received total assistance worth $17 billion. However, the Marshall Plan did not simply provide for the distribution of food and the consumption of American money; assistance was provided subject to very strict conditions, such as reducing customs duties, refusal to nationalize enterprises and support market economic principles, only democratic countries could receive it. 17% of the funds received were to be spent on the purchase of production equipment.

During his Harvard speech on June 5, 1947, he himself expressed the essence of US government policy clearly in a military way. The fight against communism is impossible if Europe is weak.

The Marshall Plan was a successful attempt to restore the economies of war-stricken countries, and by 1950 all of them had exceeded pre-war levels of agricultural and industrial production.

Some of the assistance was provided free of charge, but mostly these were loans at low rates.

The Marshall Plan was criticized by the leadership of the USSR and the Eastern European countries of “people's democracy”, but the achievements achieved in just four less than four years spoke for themselves. The level of influence of the Communist parties began to rapidly decline, and America received a huge market for its goods.

In connection with the current financial crisis, the English word “bailout”, translated into Russian as “help to save the economy,” is on everyone’s lips.

The first large-scale bailout in history began 65 years ago. On July 13, 1947, the foreign ministers of 16 countries, meeting at a special conference in Paris the previous day, approved the American European Recovery Program, better known as the Marshall Plan.

The European economy was then in a much more dire situation than it is now. True, the reason was more serious: not excessive government spending and irresponsibility of bankers and borrowers, but the world war.

Over four years, the United States allocated $12.4 billion (about $600 billion in modern prices) to program participants from the federal budget free of charge. The funds were used primarily for the restoration and modernization of industry and infrastructure, as well as the repayment of external debt and social support for the population.

According to the almost unanimous assessment of historians and economists, the plan was a brilliant success and achieved all its goals.

The USSR refused American aid and forced the Eastern European states and Finland to do the same.

Subsequently, the Soviet Union liked to emphasize that the Marshall Plan turned out to be an instrument of American hegemony. This is true, but hegemony was established without violence and led the nations within its sphere to prosperity and freedom.

European industrial production in 1947 was 88% of the pre-war level, agricultural production - 83%, exports - 59%. These figures include Britain and non-belligerent states, and the rest of the world fared even worse.

Transport was especially affected, since roads, bridges and ports were the main targets of massive bombing.

According to some experts, the situation was partly reminiscent of the situation in the USSR during the NEP: the industry did not offer the market a sufficient amount of consumer goods, as a result of which the agricultural sector had no incentive to increase production. In addition, the winter of 1946-1947 turned out to be extremely harsh.

In the western sectors of Germany, agricultural production fell by a third, about five million houses and apartments were destroyed, and 12 million internally displaced persons arrived from Silesia, the Sudetenland and East Prussia, who needed to be provided with work and housing.

Even in Britain, until 1951, cards were retained for a number of goods, and in Germany, poverty reigned such that people picked up cigarette butts on the streets. As the famous economist John Galbraith later said, American soldiers As a joke, they wrote on the walls of German public toilets: “Please do not throw cigarette butts into the urinals - after that it is impossible to smoke them.”

There were not enough internal resources for restoration.

Poverty and mass unemployment led to political instability, strikes and the relative rise of the communists, who entered the governments of France and Italy.

In the United States, an opinion has formed that we should not repeat the mistake made after the First World War, when Europe was left to its own devices and, as a result, gave birth to Hitler’s totalitarianism.

On June 5, the world first learned about it from a speech given by US Secretary of State George Marshall at Harvard University.

In fact, the disbursement of aid began on April 4, 1948, since the preparatory work and approval of the program by the American Congress took several months. It was received by 16 countries participating in the Paris Conference (Austria, Belgium, Britain, Greece, Denmark, Ireland, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Turkey, France, Switzerland and Sweden), and also, after its formation in 1949 year, Germany and the now defunct Free Territory of Trieste.

The largest recipients were Britain ($2.8 billion), France ($2.5 billion), Italy ($1.3 billion), West Germany ($1.3 billion) and Holland ($1 billion).

Of the Western European countries, only Francoist Spain remained outside the Marshall Plan.

During its period, the economies of the participating states grew by 12-15 percent per year.

On December 31, 1951, it was replaced by the Mutual Security Act, which provided for the provision of both economic and military assistance to US allies.

American interest

The Marshall Plan was not pure charity.

The economic interest of the United States was to increase the welfare of Europeans and to obtain buyers for their goods in them. Political - in the revival of the European middle class, preventing social upheavals and destabilization of the Old World.

On the eve of and during the war, Franklin Roosevelt repeatedly pointed out that Americans would not be able to sit overseas and preserve their way of life if Eurasia was in the grip of “devil-possessed dictators.”

"This [provision of assistance] is necessary if we are to preserve our own freedoms and our own democratic institutions. Our National security"Deputy Secretary of State Dean Acheson said at the May 28 meeting.

The idea was that the Europeans would not just eat up the money they received, but also help themselves.

The Americans did not impose a liberal economic model on the participants of the Marshall Plan. In the practice of European governments at that time, the Keynesian doctrine of active government regulation prevailed. However, the allocation of assistance was subject to certain conditions: to encourage private entrepreneurship, create favorable conditions for investment, reduce customs tariffs, maintain financial stability, and be accountable for spending the money received. Relevant bilateral agreements were signed with all interested countries, except Switzerland.

To resolve practical issues, the Economic Cooperation Administration was created in the United States. European countries established the Committee on Economic Cooperation, from which the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development later grew.

The USSR became interested in the “Marshal Plan” but later categorically rejected it

The Soviet Union needed economic assistance more than anyone after the war.

According to official data that appeared at the Nuremberg trials, the country's material losses amounted to 674 billion rubles. Modern historian Igor Bunich calculated 2.5 trillion rubles in direct losses, plus 3 trillion in military expenses and indirect losses from the fact that the flower of the nation was separated from productive labor for four years.

On the eve of November 7, 1946, a number of regional committee secretaries turned to Moscow with an unprecedented request: permission not to hold holiday demonstrations due to the lack of decent clothing among the population.

After Marshall's Harvard speech, the leadership of the USSR showed some interest in the initiative.

On June 21, the Politburo, after hearing information from Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov, decided to participate in the negotiations. The next day, a telegram was sent to the Soviet ambassadors in Warsaw, Prague and Belgrade, which said: “We consider it desirable that the friendly allied countries, for their part, take the appropriate initiative to ensure their participation in the development of the indicated economic measures.”

From June 27 to July 2, Molotov in Paris preliminary discussed the “Marshall Plan” with his British and French colleagues Ernst Bevin and Georges Bidault.

The meeting ended in failure. The USSR refused to participate in the Paris Conference scheduled for July 12, and Britain and France announced their readiness to move on without his participation.

On the night of June 30 to July 1, Molotov telegraphed Stalin: “In view of the fact that our position is fundamentally different from the Anglo-French position, we do not count on the possibility of any joint decision on the substance of this issue.”

On July 5, the Foreign Ministry notified the Eastern European satellites of a change in the Soviet position and the undesirability of their participation in the conference.

Only Czechoslovakia, where a coalition government still existed, decided to object. Communist Prime Minister Klement Gottwald wrote that neither his partners nor the population would understand him.

Stalin summoned Gottwald and Foreign Minister Jan Masaryk to Moscow and gave them a dressing down.

“I went to Moscow as a free minister, and returned as a Stalinist farmhand!” - Masaryk told his friends, who died a few months later under suspicious circumstances.

Moscow’s position found support in the United States in the person of Henry Wallace, who served as Vice President from 1940-1944, who, by American standards, belonged to the extreme left, and became famous for the fact that, having visited Magadan and the Kolyma Territory during the war, he declared that There is no forced labor in the USSR.

However, in general, in Washington, Paris and London, the Soviet refusal was received with a poorly concealed sigh of relief. Georges Bidault called it "an utter stupidity."

An employee of the Foreign Ministry secretariat, Vladimir Erofeev (father of the famous writer), who was close to Molotov, subsequently said that it would be politically more advantageous to give consent in principle to participate in the “Marshall Plan”, and then nullify everything with private objections.

In addition, Republicans in Congress criticized the Marshall Plan from the standpoint of saving taxpayer money. If the question had turned to providing assistance to the USSR, the initiative could have failed as such, and all moral responsibility would have fallen on the United States.

The USSR wanted to decide not only for itself, but for the whole of Europe

Negative opinions on the Marshall Plan were given by Stalin's "economic guru", academician Yevgeny Varga, and the Soviet ambassador in Washington, Nikolai Novikov. In notes to Stalin and the Politburo, they especially emphasized that the plan was in the interests of the Americans (as if they could expect them to act to their detriment).

But, of course, it was not the reviews of Varga and Novikov that played the decisive role.

The “fundamental difference” that Molotov mentioned was, first of all, that Moscow wanted to receive money without any conditions or control, citing Lend-Lease as an example. Western interlocutors responded to this by pointing out that the war was over, therefore, relations should be built differently.

Moreover: the USSR wanted to decide not only for itself, but also for the whole of Europe.

“When discussing any specific proposals, the Soviet delegation must object to such terms of assistance that could entail an infringement of the sovereignty of European countries or a violation of their economic independence. The issue should be considered not from the point of view of drawing up an economic program for European countries, but from the point of view of identifying their needs. The delegation must not allow the ministerial meeting to stray towards identifying and testing the resources of European countries," the instructions to Molotov said.

Since the negotiations did not reach specifics, it is unknown what conditions the Americans would put forward to the USSR.

There are no signs that they would interfere in Soviet internal affairs and demand a change in the state system or the introduction of private property. But about Sovietization of Eastern Europe, arms race and development atomic bomb would probably have to be forgotten.

An analysis of the Soviet economy by independent experts and the disclosure of statistics would reveal the true extent of Soviet military spending and the role of prison labor.

Stalin, who knew history well, was afraid of the appearance of “new Decembrists” in the USSR - and, judging by the reports of MGB agents, not without reason. Even the leader’s favorite Alexei Tolstoy said in his circle that “after the war the people will not be afraid of anything.”

Participation in the "Marshall Plan" would have caused an increase in sympathy for the West and penetration of " iron curtain" information about real life under "decaying capitalism". Residents of Eastern Europe were even more concerned in this regard.

Having untied his hands, a year later Stalin finally brought the “countries of people's democracy” to the Soviet denominator, and in his own country launched a fight against “foreign sycophancy” and “rootless cosmopolitanism.” The recent ally began to be called “the monopoly capitalism of the United States of America, fattened on the people’s blood,” and the American military presence in Western Europe was equated with the Nazi occupation.

The Gulag administration used to classify prisoners into abbreviated categories such as "KRTD" ("counter-revolutionary Trotskyist activity") or "ChSIR" ("member of the family of a traitor to the motherland"). In the late 1940s, two new groups appeared: "WAT" and "VAD" ("in praise of American technology" and "in praise of American democracy").

“We are not afraid of anyone, and if the imperialist gentlemen want to fight, then there is no more suitable moment for us than this!”

Failed Apocalypse

In a war-torn country, where, according to some estimates, two million people died from malnutrition as a result of the 1946 drought, people huddled in barracks and dugouts and wore out front-line uniforms for many years, almost unlimited resources were allocated to create nuclear bomb. Even the Minister of Finance did not know how much money was spent.

If the atomic project can still be explained by the desire to obtain a means of deterring possible American aggression, then large-scale military construction in the extreme northeast of the USSR does not fit into any defensive logic.

To advance to the US rear through Alaska and Canada, the 14th Army was deployed in Chukotka, and military bases and airfields were built at an accelerated pace. From Salekhard along the coast of the Arctic Ocean, prisoners dragged railway, nicknamed "the road of death." Giant landing submarines were designed to covertly transport marines and armored vehicles to the shores of Oregon and California.

As evidenced by documents declassified years ago, American strategists overlooked this threat, concentrating all their attention on Europe and the Middle East.

Vyacheslav Molotov subsequently told the writer Felix Chuev: “Another 10 years and we would have put an end to world imperialism!”

It is possible that if not for the death of Stalin, Molotov would not have had to wait so long.

On January 8, 1951, at a meeting in the Kremlin, Chief of the General Staff Sergei Shtemenko demanded “proper deployment of the armies of socialist countries” by the end of 1953. Marshal Rokossovsky, who was then the Minister of Defense of Poland, noted that “they planned to have the army the creation of which Shtemenko proposed for Poland by the end of 1956.”

“If Rokossovsky can guarantee that there will be no war before 1956, then the original development plan can be followed, but if not, then it would be more correct to accept Shtemenko’s proposal,” Stalin said.

At the beginning of 1953, Foreign Minister Vyshinsky reported to the Presidium of the Central Committee about the inevitable sharp reaction of the West to the planned deportation of Soviet Jews to the Far East. Members of the leadership, one after another, began to speak out in support of him.

The usually cold-blooded Stalin broke into a scream, called Vyshinsky’s speech Menshevik, called his comrades-in-arms “blind kittens” and left without listening to their justifying babble.

Eyewitnesses remembered the phrase: “We are not afraid of anyone, and if the imperialist gentlemen want to fight, then there is no more suitable moment for us than this!”

“The old tiger was preparing for the last leap,” states Stalin’s biographer Edward Radzinsky, calling last years and the months of Stalin’s life were “the time of preparation for the apocalypse.”

It was to him that the USSR's participation in the Marshall Plan was sacrificed.

"Moscow is hardness itself!" - the laureate of six rejoiced Stalin Prizes Konstantin Simonov.

Quote: Archival materials declassified in the 1990s prove that Stalin started the Cold War

When the US, called a "forced participant" cold war, offered Russia some assistance under the Marshall Plan, which was intended to help rebuild war-torn Europe, Stalin mockingly refused. “Stalin was proud of the fact that he had succeeded in misleading the White House,” but the response to the offer of assistance under the Marshal Plan was unmistakable: it condemned the world to more than 40 years of rivalry and confrontation. The West did not overreact, but it remembered Stalin's provocations and his never-before-evident hostility and began to act accordingly. Guilt for the fruitless dead end from which world history could not get out for more than half a century, finally fell on the shoulders of the true criminal: this was Stalin’s curse.

Was the Marshall Plan an instrument of the Cold War with Russia?

He certainly wasn't originally, but later, of course, he became one. Not a conscious instrument, but it was some kind of alternative to Soviet development. This was Eastern Europe. With all the consequences, under Hungary in 1956, under Germany, and subsequently under Czechoslovakia. And here this real foundation was laid for the prosperity that, in general, Europe has achieved.

Has economic assistance to Europe helped improve the overall political situation in the region?

Undoubtedly. Because this assistance created a certain basis for the development of some kind of democratic processes, for a real multi-party system and competition between parties, and created the right to choose.

Not immediately, but then, of course, it hit, because when people began to understand what the Marshall Plan was and what the Soviet model was, it became completely obvious.

And when comparing any country, and this was most clearly in Germany, since eastern and western Germany were divided. And the standard of living was completely incomparable in western Germany and eastern Germany. Plus, of course, democratic freedoms. If eastern Germany was a vassal of the Soviet Union with a low standard of living, then western Germany prospered and very quickly began to gain momentum, and became the most powerful European economy so far.

The Marshall Plan is please help USA to Europe or American expansion?

This is probably a mutually beneficial project. By the way, not only Europe, but also Japan. The fact is that both Germany and Japan were enemies, opponents of the United States in World War II. They were defeated. Then we had to think like chess players, several steps ahead. And Marshall, a high-ranking American diplomat, came up with the idea of ​​how to make allies out of these enemies, and not just enemies, but enemies who killed hundreds of thousands of American troops. And this is an absolutely brilliant decision that justified itself. And from the enemies, both sides - both Germany and Japan - due to these investments, which later paid off handsomely, because American companies received markets, and this was not a charitable act. That is, at first it looks like a charity, but then it turned into a good investment not only in financially, but also in geopolitical terms.

results

The Marshall Plan is one of the most successful economic programs in history, as almost all of its goals were achieved:

• Industries that previously seemed hopelessly outdated and ineffective were restructured into short time and without changing the national economic policies of countries. As a result, the European economies recovered from the consequences of the war faster than could have been expected.
• European countries were able to pay off their external debts.
• The influence of the communists and the USSR was weakened.
• The European middle class, the guarantor of political stability and sustainable development, was restored and strengthened.

Countries received assistance:

1. Austria
2. Belgium
3. Great Britain
4. West Germany
5. Greece
6. Denmark
7. Ireland
8. Iceland
9. Italy
10. Luxembourg
11. Netherlands
12. Norway
13. Portugal
14. Free Territory of Trieste
15. Türkiye
16. France
17. Sweden
18. Switzerland

The real winners in World War II were the USSR and the USA. The Soviet Union significantly expanded its sphere of influence in Europe and Asia. To his pre-war acquisitions in the west were added Königsberg and some Finnish territory. In the east, the Soviet Union captured the Kuril Islands and southern part Sakhalin. Port Arthur again became a Russian naval base.

Manchuria, North Korea, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Albania, and Yugoslavia fell into the sphere of Soviet influence. Russian tanks were stationed on the Elbe and had no intention of leaving. The influence of the Soviet Union was very significant in the northern regions of Iran and in Austria - Soviet troops were stationed there.

In turn, the United States has become the generally recognized leader of the capitalist world. Although their territorial gains were insignificant, US influence in the world increased sharply. The industrial and agricultural production of the United States exceeded the total production volumes of the major Western European countries. The United States, maintaining a monopoly on atomic weapons, became a world superpower. This was confirmed, in particular, by the location of the UN Headquarters in New York.

Great Britain acquired nothing except new debts. And when the USSR and the USA supported the policy of decolonization, England began to turn into a minor power.

France had one more problem than England - communists entered the government of this country.

Germany and Japan lost large parts of their territories, and a large number of Germans and Japanese died.

West Germany produced only half of what it produced in 1936. Store shelves were empty. There was a card system. Monthly norm meat per person was 100 g. All big cities Germany lay in ruins. The total mass of broken stone and twisted iron in them was estimated at half a billion tons . Majority industrial enterprises stood, tens of millions of Germans were unemployed.

The situation was aggravated by the division of the country into four zones of occupation, the need to pay reparations to the victors, a large number of Germans were in captivity. Millions of refugees were driven from their homes. Hitler and the Nazis, loving Germany, brought it almost to complete destruction.

USSR expansionist plans

England and France, weakened by the war, as well as the rest of the European states, could not serve as a barrier to communist expansion.

Numerous facts indicate that it was being prepared:

at the Potsdam Conference, Stalin insisted on joint Soviet-Turkish defense of the Black Sea straits;

Stalin spoke out in favor of annexing the eastern regions of Turkey to Armenia;

In Iranian Azerbaijan and Kurdistan, with the support of the USSR, autonomies were proclaimed, refusing to submit to the Tehran authorities.

Soviet troops had no intention of leaving Manchuria, whose territory was actively used as a base for the Chinese Red Army.

The United States was forced to secretly threaten the USSR with the use of nuclear weapons. Only after this were Soviet troops withdrawn from Iran and Manchuria, and Stalin was forced to moderate his appetites. In March 1947, Truman proclaimed the “doctrine of containment.” It was supposed to contain communist expansion.

Economic situation in the USSR and European countries

By this time, the economic situation of the USSR was very difficult. Much of the European territory of the Union lay in ruins. There was a catastrophic shortage of vehicles, machine tools and equipment, many types of raw materials, electricity and especially food. And although the Soviet authorities carefully concealed the true human losses of the last war, according to some sources they reached 25 million people. At the same time, the exorbitant size of the Red Army remained, which gradually began to lag behind Western countries in technical terms. For example, the Soviet Union did not have jet aircraft. What huge expenses did the Soviet nuclear program and the ambitious fleet construction program require? In a war-ravaged country, there was a catastrophic lack of funds for these imperial plans.

But Europe also needed money and goods. To revive the European economy and modernize it, significant investments were required, and inflation rates were such that they undermined money circulation. The countries of Western Europe, through their own production, could meet their needs for grain by only 40%, and for fats by 15%. Decreasing imports of these goods from the United States could lead to famine. However, by 1947 it became clear that Europe had nothing to pay for American imports. The gold and foreign exchange reserves of European countries were completely exhausted.

George Marshall announces his plan

At the same time, the United States faced the threat of an economic crisis. There has been an overproduction of many types of goods, including food. The low purchasing power of the European market threatened the United States with a depression similar to the one that occurred after the First World War. Under these circumstances, on June 5, 1947, US Secretary of State George Marshall gave a ten-minute speech at Harvard University in connection with the awarding of an honorary doctorate to him. In it, he first formulated the principles of a new American policy of providing economic assistance to Europe. The speech had the effect of a bomb exploding and, if it was perceived negatively by the country's leadership, it could cost Marshall his career. But first the president, and then the Senate and Congress supported the concept of a new European policy, which later became known as the “Marshall Plan.” It brought considerable benefits to both the European and American economies. This was a rare case when morality and economic benefit coincided.

As often happens in history, Marshall was not the direct creator of this plan. The draft of the speech was written by Charles Bohlen, and the main provisions of the plan were taken from a memorandum compiled by George Kennan's group. And although Marshall repeatedly objected to giving his name to the European reconstruction program, we will give him his due: he appreciated the proposals of his assistants and made great efforts to implement the plan.

George Catlett Marshall was the US Army Chief of Staff during World War II. In his post-war speeches, he insisted that the United States, in its own interests, accept historical responsibility for the fate of post-war Europe.

In November 1945, 65-year-old Marshall submitted his resignation from military service. President Truman, who highly valued D. Marshall, offered him the post of Secretary of State. In his new career, Marshall was initially plagued by failures. In China, he failed to reconcile the communists and the Kuomintang. At the conference of foreign ministers in Moscow, tensions between the former allies only intensified. All the more impressive was the success of Marshall's speech at Harvard. The British and French immediately proposed convening a meeting of the foreign ministers of Great Britain, France and the Soviet Union in Paris. The fact is that Marshall offered American assistance to all European countries, including the USSR.

The Soviet Union was extremely interested in American loans for the restoration and reconstruction of the national economy, so the Soviet leadership agreed to hold a meeting of foreign ministers. On the other hand, Soviet leaders strongly rejected any form of international control over the economy of the USSR and the countries of Eastern Europe.

It should be noted that Stalin was an outstanding intriguer, but a rather bad politician. After the war, he managed to make many unforgivable mistakes. A few examples: the Soviet representative, as a sign of protest, did not participate in a meeting of the UN Security Council at which the issue of the Korean War was discussed. This allowed the Americans to fight in Korea under the flag of the United Nations. Stalin did not sign a peace treaty with Japan, and now the Japanese have grounds to demand part of Kuril Islands. With territorial claims to Turkey and Iran, Stalin pushed these countries into an alliance with the United States. Instead of promoting the creation of a united and neutral Germany, Stalin insisted on dividing the country, which contributed to Germany's entry into NATO. Many mistakes were made in relation to the countries of “people's democracy”.

But let's return to the Paris Conference of the Foreign Ministers of the three powers. It ended with the refusal of the USSR delegation to participate in the implementation of the Marshall Plan. Stalin believed that the danger of increasing US influence in Eastern Europe outweighed the possible benefits of receiving American assistance.

The USSR not only refused American aid, but did not allow Albania, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Finland to receive it. Was this the dictator's mistake?

The countries of Eastern Europe managed to restore their economies even without this. True, their standard of living turned out to be lower than the level of leading Western countries, but we should not forget that even before the war, life in Poland was worse than in Belgium. And the standard of living in Czechoslovakia, both before the war and under the communists, was higher than the level of many Western European countries.

As some American politicians admitted, if the USSR had accepted the Marshall Plan, the United States itself would have had to abandon it. Stalin’s actions, in turn, made it possible to present the Soviet Union as the initiator of the split in Europe.

Europe accepts the Marshall Plan

On July 12, delegates from 16 countries gathered in Paris: Great Britain, France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Ireland, Iceland, Portugal, Austria, Switzerland, Greece and Turkey. Representatives of these countries, by September 22, 1947, drew up a report that determined the resources available to Europe and its needs for 1948-1951.

On April 2, 1948, Congress passed the European Recovery Act, and President Truman signed it into law the next day.

It was planned to spend 17 billion dollars over four years, which is equivalent to about 220 billion today. The Economic Cooperation Administration was created to implement the Marshall Plan. Became the chief administrator former head Studebaker Corporation Paul Hoffman. It was Hoffman, speaking to members of the Organization for European Economic Cooperation created in Europe in April 1948 y ( OEES ) , first put forward the idea of ​​​​creating a pan-European market.

The goal of the Marshall Plan was for European countries to achieve economic independence and prosperity. The strategic policy was based on the following principle: trade liberalization while coordinating investments. In other words, it was intended to develop the capitalist foundations of the economy with centralized influence on macroeconomic processes.

Under the Marshall Plan, assistance was provided from the US federal budget in the form of grants and loans. European countries were obliged to spend the allocated funds primarily in the United States, purchasing equipment, materials and services there.

Every year in the United States, funds were allocated in the form of subsidies for the supply of food, fuel and clothing. The local currency raised from the sale of these products was used by European governments to reduce their government budget deficits. The same funds financed an increase in the production of steel, cement, coal, petroleum products and vehicles. Deliveries of industrial equipment were paid for with loans International Bank. Supplies of raw materials, agricultural machinery, manufactured goods and spare parts were financed through the Export-Import Bank of the United States.

Result: annual assistance of 4-5 billion dollars made it possible to increase production output in Europe by 20 billion dollars in just 3 years.

Marshall Plan and West Germany

Since 1948, the Marshall Plan was extended to the western occupation zones of Germany. West Germany received $1.39 billion in aid. And although this amount is not so significant, the Germans managed to manage it in the best possible way. Germany owed this to Ludwig Erhard, the father of the German economic miracle.

In 1948, he was director of the economics department at the Frankfurt Council, the German governing body working under the occupation administration. The economic recovery of West Germany began in the summer of 1948 with the implementation of monetary reform, accompanied by the adoption of a package of social laws developed by the department of L. Erhard.

The implementation of this reform was entrusted to the American banker Dodge. It was carried out in a short time frame simultaneously with activities aimed at increasing industrial production. On June 21, 1948, in Germany, everyone who turned in 40 Reichsmarks received 40 new German marks in return. The rest of the money was exchanged in the ratio: 1: 15, i.e. For fifteen old Reichsmarks they gave one new one.

Progressive taxes on property and savings were introduced, and bank deposits were frozen. Within a few weeks, the stores began to fill with goods. To encourage people to make capital investments, lending to businesses from frozen bank accounts of citizens was allowed. Loans were provided only to those firms that repaid their debts. From June 1948 to July 1949, labor productivity increased by 30% (!). The consequence of this was a decrease in the price level.

A number of objective factors also contributed to the successful implementation of reforms. Thus, West German industry largely survived the war. The country had reserves of qualified labor. In addition, millions of German settlers and refugees who arrived in Germany were willing to work for little pay. In addition, after the military disaster, the population needed literally everything.

By effectively using favorable factors, Erhard, who headed the Ministry of Economics in the first government of the Federal Republic of Germany, managed to achieve outstanding results. In 1950, Germany reached its pre-war production level, and by 1956 it had doubled. The Ministry of Economy skillfully directed investments to the development of the main branches of heavy industry. And its rise contributed to the development of processing and light industry. This, in turn, created favorable conditions for the development of medium and small businesses. Enterprises working for export were especially encouraged. At the same time, the state allocated subsidies for the training of workers, and half of the constructed apartments were provided to citizens at reduced prices. In April 1951, the Bundestag passed the Workers' Participation in Production Management Act.

It was at this time that the foundations of a new, democratic and prosperous Germany were laid, the Germany in which we all live today.

On December 10, 1953, George Marshall received the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo. The general considered this prize to be the most expensive of all the awards he received.

S.Wickman (Hannover)

the idea of ​​​​restoring and developing Europe after the 2nd World War 1939-45 by providing it with economic assistance from the United States was put forward by the state. US Secretary J.C. Marshall on June 5, 1947 in a speech at Harvard University. It was supported by Great Britain and France, who proposed at the Paris meeting of the foreign ministers of the United States, Great Britain, France and the USSR (June - July 1947) to create an organization or “steering committee” in Europe that would clarify the resources and needs of European countries. 16 states agreed to participate in it - Great Britain, France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Ireland, Iceland, Portugal, Austria, Switzerland, Greece, Turkey. In July, these countries concluded a convention creating the Organization (originally a committee) of European Economic Cooperation, which was supposed to develop a joint “program for the recovery of Europe.”

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

MARSHALL PLAN

named after the US Secretary of State Marshall(q.v.), who first put forward this plan in his speech at Harvard University on June 5, 1947; along with the "Truman Doctrine" "P.M." was an expression of an aggressive, openly expansionist course foreign policy US ruling circles after the Second World War. "P.M." was conceived by American diplomacy as a continuation of the Truman Doctrine. “The Truman Doctrine” and “P. M.”, according to A. A. Zhdanov, “represent an expression of a single policy, although they differ in the form of presentation in both documents of the same American claim to the enslavement of Europe.” "P.M." more veiled than the Truman Doctrine. However, “the essence of the vague, deliberately veiled formulations of the “Marshall Plan” is to put together a bloc of states bound by obligations towards the United States, and to provide American loans as payment for the refusal of European states from economic, and then from political independence. At the same time, the basis of the "Marshall Plan" is the restoration of the industrial regions of West Germany controlled by American monopolies. The "Marshall Plan", as it became clear from subsequent meetings and speeches of American leaders, is to provide assistance primarily to the non-impoverished victor countries, America's allies in the struggle against Germany, but to the German capitalists in order to subjugate the main sources of coal and metal production for the needs of Europe and Germany, to make states in need of coal and metal dependent on the restored economic power of Germany." (A. A. Zhdanov). Speaking at Harvard University, Marshall announced the United States' readiness to assist in the "restoration of Europe." At the same time, Marshall’s speech did not indicate either the conditions and extent of assistance that the United States could provide to European countries, or how real this assistance was. The governments of England and France immediately took up the initiative. Marshall and proposed convening a meeting of the foreign ministers of the USSR, France and England to discuss his proposals. This meeting took place from 27.VI to 2.VII. 1947 in Paris. The USSR was represented by V. M. Molotov, France-Bidot and England - by Bevin. At the meeting it became clear that the United States, without giving any information about the conditions and extent of the “aid” that it intends to provide to Europe, at the same time insisted on it. that a steering committee be created from representatives of the great powers, whose functions would include drawing up a comprehensive program for the "economic recovery and development" of European countries: this committee should have very broad powers in relation to the economic resources, industry and trade of European countries to the detriment of their national sovereignty. Since it was clear that the steering committee would become an instrument of the United States, with the help of which they would try to make the economies of European countries dependent on themselves, the Soviet delegation could not agree with the proposals of representatives of England and France (who played the role of US agents at the conference) to create this committee. The Soviet delegation stated that first of all it was necessary to find out the reality of American loans, their conditions and sizes, then request European countries about their credit needs and, finally, to draw up a consolidated program of requests from European countries that could be satisfied by US loans. The Soviet delegation especially emphasized that European countries must remain masters of their economies and be able to freely dispose of their resources and surpluses. Due to the refusal of the British and French representatives to accept the Soviet proposals, the meeting of foreign ministers ended without result. After this, the British and French governments, with the active support of the United States, decided to convene, without the participation of the USSR, a meeting of European countries that would agree to join “P.M.” 12-15. VII 1947 in Paris there was a conference of “European economic cooperation” with the participation of 16 countries that joined “P.M.”, namely: England, France, Austria, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey. The conference created a "Committee on European Economic Cooperation", which was charged with preparing a report on the resources and needs of the countries participating in the conference for a period of 4 years, so that this report would be submitted to the US government. The committee determined the total amount of funds needed to provide assistance under the P.M. at $29 billion and in the second half of September 1947 sent its report to Washington. To consider this report, 3 special committees were organized in the United States, and highest value of them had the one headed Harriman (see) “Advisory Committee to the President of the United States on Foreign Assistance,” the report of which was published on November 8, 1947. The Harriman Committee reduced the amount of “aid” to Europe to 12-17 billion dollars for the next 4 years, which meant further reduction of the initial application submitted by the Committee of European Countries (prior to this decision of the Harriman Committee, the amount of the P.M. loan had already been significantly reduced at the request of the State Department). At the same time, the Harriman Committee unwittingly exposed the true goals of the American monopolists by recommending a significant increase in the share of “aid” intended for West Germany. The question of approving allocations for the implementation of "P.M." was considered by the US Congress in February-March 1948, and in the initial draft of the law on the so-called. "foreign aid" significant changes were made during the discussion process. Congress refused to immediately allocate the funds required for the entire period of implementation of I.M., and limited itself to only approving amounts for the first year of its operation. Congress further reduced the amount of appropriations, bringing it to $5.3 billion over a period of 15 months. Finally, the law adopted by Congress made the conditions for receiving American “aid” even more burdensome for European countries. Discussion "P.M." in Congress was marked by the decision of the House of Representatives to include Franco’s Spain among the countries receiving “aid” under “P.M.” Later, the mention of Francoist Spain, which caused outrage among the American and world democratic community, was excluded from the bill. The Foreign Aid Act was signed by President Truman on April 3, 1948. Following the adoption of this law, in accordance with its terms, a government administration was created in the United States to manage the provision of economic “aid,” headed by the major American industrialist Paul Hoffmann. Harriman was appointed US representative in Europe on issues related to P.M. Law on the implementation of "P.M." provided for the conclusion by the participating countries of the “P.M.” bilateral agreements with the United States on the conditions under which American “aid” will be provided. Such agreements were indeed concluded during the first half of 1948, and they included the following conditions: a) Providing American goods with free access to Western European countries by unilaterally reducing customs tariffs in these countries. b) Refusal of the governments of Western European countries from the nationalization of industry and the provision complete freedom private entrepreneurs. c) The actual control of the United States over the industry and finances of Western European countries, including the establishment of exchange rates in these countries at a level favorable to the United States. d) US control over foreign trade countries that have joined "P.M." A ban on these countries trading with the USSR and people's democracies. Using these agreements, American monopolies seek to turn European countries into consumers of industrial goods imported from the United States and to complicate the restoration and development of those industries in European countries that can compete with US industry. A typical example is the reduction, under US pressure, of the program of the British and Italian shipbuilding industries. Guiding economic development European countries along the path they wish, the United States ultimately achieves the establishment of permanent dependence of European countries on American industry, which should be the most important prerequisite for the political subordination of the “Marshalled” countries to the United States. One of the consequences of this is an increase in unemployment in these countries, as well as a decrease in wages and impoverishment of working people. In an effort to prevent the real development of industry in European countries (except for West Germany, which the United States intends to make the industrial base and arsenal of the aggressive bloc), the United States avoids importing into Europe industrial equipment, limited mainly to the import of food and consumer goods. Thus, American monopoly capital, implementing “P.M.”, sets as its goal to completely subjugate the Western European states and make them an instrument of its imperialist policy. Talk about the US desire to “help” the restoration of war-stricken peoples is just a smokescreen designed to mislead the workers of the “Marshalled” countries. The United States is openly betting on the priority development of the economy of West Germany, whose industry is increasingly passing into the hands of the tycoons of American finance capital. The ruling circles of the United States began to especially actively pursue a policy of encouraging the growth of the military-industrial potential of Germany after the unification western zones occupation, they became the true masters of all of Western Germany, including the Ruhr region. "P.M." has a pronounced anti-Soviet character, since the United States hoped, with the help of this plan, to break away the countries of people's democracy from the USSR and at the same time make "P.M." the basis of the anti-Soviet military-political bloc in Europe. The US attempt with the help of "P.M." splitting the anti-imperialist camp and driving a wedge between the USSR and the people's democracies failed. As for the “Western bloc,” it was formalized by the conclusion of the Brussels Pact on March 17, 1948, according to which 5 states - England, France, Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg - formed a political, economic and military union. Following this, at the direction of American diplomacy, on April 4, 1949, the North Atlantic Pact was concluded in Washington. Not content with this, American diplomacy came up with plans to create other aggressive military alliances directed against the USSR and people's democracies - the Mediterranean bloc (whose participants should include Greece, Turkey and other countries of the Middle East), the Pacific bloc, etc. All of these are links widely a planned chain of military blocs that the reactionary ruling circles of the United States intend to use for their aggressive purposes, and the economic basis of these alliances should be the same “P.M.”, which is one of the most important weapons of American imperialism in its struggle for world domination. Formally, the law on the implementation of "P.M." and the bilateral agreements concluded on the basis of this law between the United States and Western European countries do not contain any obligations of military cooperation, but in fact, countries receiving American “aid” are forced to provide the United States with naval and air bases on their territory and enter into military cooperation with them, etc. The Americans now already have an extensive network of bases in the French colonies, on the island belonging to England. Cyprus, Iceland, Spain, Greece, Turkey, etc. Along with this, in bilateral agreements on "P.M." contains articles on the supply of strategic raw materials by European countries to the United States. "P.M." It is also used by American intelligence for the purposes of legalized espionage, since “marshalled” countries are required to provide the United States with any information related to their economy. "P.M." is in blatant contradiction with the vital interests of Western European countries. However, their reactionary ruling circles, trying to get US support in the fight against the democratic forces of their countries, are betraying national interests and ultimately losing national sovereignty their states. "P.M." unable to bring the peoples of Western Europe a real recovery of their economies. As V.M. Molotov noted, American loans under "P.M." “did not give a real boost to industry in the countries of capitalist Europe. They cannot give this boost, since American loans are not intended to restore and boost the industry of European countries competing with the United States of America, but to ensure wider sales American goods in Europe and to make these states economically and politically dependent on the capitalist monopolies ruling in the United States and their aggressive plans, regardless of the interests of the peoples of Europe themselves." On the other hand, the expansionist "P.M." also contradicts the genuine interests of the broad masses of the American people. More than two years of action of "P.M." fully confirmed the position of the Soviet Union on this issue. "P.M." failed completely. Even its inspirers and organizers cannot hide this fact.

70 years ago, the United States launched a massive offensive against Europe.

The US put forward the Marshall Plan as a program for rebuilding Europe after World War II

1945 Dresden after the Allied bombing. Ruins of the cathedral. Photo: Deutsche Fotothek/Richard Peter/TASS

On June 5, 1947, George Marshall, US Secretary of State, speaking at Harvard University, spoke about how Washington plans to revive EUROPE. This plan, which received the name of its creator, essentially became a signal for an economic attack on the “old continent”, which ended with the complete subjugation of Europe in the western part of the American economic and political machine.

RUSSIANS ARE COMING!

This speech by Marshall was a logical continuation of the speech of US President Harry Truman, which he delivered before the American Congress on March 12, 1947. Briefly, its essence: the Soviet Union is imposing its policies on European states, thus preventing Washington from establishing the concept of democracy in a liberated Europe. Consequently, it is necessary to pursue a “policy of containment”, counteracting the USSR and its national-patriotic allies in Europe. And for this, Truman asked Congress to allocate about 400 million dollars to help Greece and Turkey, which were allegedly under powerful pressure from the communists. In fact, the USSR then demanded that Turkey change the status of the Black Sea straits, and in Greece communist partisans actually came to power, making a significant contribution to the defeat of the Italian-German fascist troops. The Balkans were slipping away from the influence of the Anglo-Saxons, who for some reason traditionally considered the peninsula a zone of their interests.

The Marshall Plan essentially became economic form containment, in Western terminology, of communist expansion. The United States had reasons for this, and not only of Turkish-Greek origin. After the Victory of the Soviet Union in the Great Patriotic War, Europe sharply moved to the left. The highest moral authority of the USSR as the bearer of the communist idea led to the growth of the political influence of the communist parties, the majority of whose members also fought against fascism.

In Italy, as a result of the past elections, the Communist Party received 25 percent of the seats in parliament, in France - more than 30 percent. In Eastern Europe, in almost all countries, either communists or coalitions led by them came to power during elections, as in Poland and Czechoslovakia. A little more - and most of Western Europe could stand under the red banner. By military means, as the United States is accustomed to doing in Latin America, this process could not be stopped without risking the opposite result: combat-ready Soviet tank armies would have swept the occupation forces into the Atlantic in a matter of weeks. At the same time, the Soviet soldiers would be supported by the population in most cases. Sergei Shtemenko, one of the leaders of the General Staff in those years, recalled that “the mobilization plans of the General Staff provided for all possible scenarios for the development of events in Europe,” and Soviet marshals learned to fight win-win in Europe with a much stronger enemy than the stars and stripes who love blackmail on black markets and Coca-Cola.

On the other hand, the US monopolies were bursting with money: during the war years they earned at least $300 billion from the supply of weapons and food, according to modern rate- approximately 4.5 trillion dollars. By 1948, the US gold reserves had increased to 21 thousand 800 tons, which amounted to more than 70 percent of all the world's gold. But it is possible to transfer industry onto a peaceful footing under capitalist conditions only through a crisis, the signs of which began to appear more and more clearly in the American economy: given its scale, it threatened to become worse than the famous crisis of the early 30s.

We must pay tribute to Marshall, by the way, the former boss General Staff American army: the plan developed under his leadership provided that the main political and economic problems of post-war America would be resolved.

FROM THE METROPOLIS - TO THE COLONY

What was the essence of American “aid” to the destroyed European economy? The United States was ready to provide up to 20 billion dollars (actually 13.3 billion was allocated) to those countries that agreed with its plan for “economic recovery and development.” This assistance was to be carried out in accordance with bilateral agreements, but subject to several basic principles.

Firstly, it was mainly not about free money, which countries could dispose of as they wished, but about the so-called commodity loans - the United States sent products, cars, clothes, equipment and the like to Europe at its own discretion, thus selling considerable commodity reserves and buying time to restructure their economy. A third of the total amount, by the way, was spent on purchasing American food, which made it possible to reduce government subsidies USA to its farmers, who thus received considerable investment resources.

Other conditions were also far from charitable and strictly tied the European economy to the interests of US financial and industrial capital.
Recipient countries of “aid” were obliged to abandon the nationalization of industry, maintain freedom of private enterprise, create preferential treatment for American private investment, guarantee free access to American goods while simultaneously reducing customs duties unilaterally, introduce restrictions on trade with people's democracies, and so on. At the same time, the United States stipulated the right to build military bases on the territory of “blessed” countries.

This, by the way, became the basis for the unadvertised “military” part of the Marshall Plan, which ultimately led to the military integration of Western Europe into the NATO bloc a year after the US Congress adopted the Economic Cooperation Act, which launched the implementation of the Marshall Plan in April 1948. Let us note, by the way, that the defense expenditures of all recipient countries within NATO significantly exceeded financial assistance, which they received from the USA. So the Americans remained true to themselves: they sold unnecessary surpluses to Europe, received interest and profits from loans and credits, and in the end forced them to pay for their military expenses! In addition, by imposing a requirement for the repayment of loans in dollar form, the financial systems of European countries were tied to the dollar for a long time (only France, eighteen years later, abandoned the dollar equivalent and left the military organization of the NATO bloc).

In general, the Marshall Plan essentially placed European countries in the position of American colonies. The paradox was that France, the Netherlands, Belgium and other metropolises paid for American aid with raw materials from their overseas territories, which, however, could not stop the collapse of colonial empires: if the metropolis actually becomes a colony, then the colonies are naturally freed from dictate. National liberation wars followed in Indochina and Africa. By 1960, most colonial countries had gained independence. This can also be considered a side effect of the Marshall Plan.

But let's go back to 1948, when American dollar blessings poured into Western Europe. On April 4, 1948, the US Congress, as already mentioned, approved a four-year program of economic assistance to Europe. The bulk of it, as one would expect, came from the UK ($2.8 billion), France (2.5), Italy and West Germany (1.3 each), and the Netherlands (1). In total, 17 countries received assistance, and 17 billion dollars were ultimately spent, which is equivalent, depending on the calculation method, to approximately 200-500 billion current dollars. At the same time, the Americans, through a specially created committee, strictly controlled the internal economic policy of the debtors, as well as their gold and foreign exchange reserves and the financial and credit system, which by that time was included in the Bretton Woods system and was completely dependent on the dollar.

West Germany, in addition to all the listed restrictions, was also forced to transfer its considerable gold and foreign exchange reserves to the American Fort Knox. The fate of these German resources is still shrouded in fog, which scandals and investigations that flare up from time to time cannot dispel. In any case, it is officially recognized that today less than a third of Germany's gold reserves are stored in the Bundesbank's Frankfurt vault.

In general, the Marshall Plan essentially put European countries in the position of American colonies."

STALIN SAID “NO”

Of course, in post-war Europe it was impossible to ignore the opinion of the Soviet Union and its allies when organizing such a large-scale action as restoring the continent’s economy. The USSR and Eastern European governments received an invitation to participate in the implementation of the Marshall Plan. Stalin initially reacted with interest to this proposal: the country, devastated by the war, undoubtedly needed financial and material resources.
But not at any cost, which was clearly and unambiguously stated in the instructions of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks for the delegation led by Vyacheslav Molotov, heading to Paris, where a meeting of the foreign ministers of Great Britain, France and the USSR opened on June 27, 1947. The topic is a discussion of Marshall's proposals.

The position of the USSR was determined largely by the opinion of academician Yevgeny Varga, which he outlined to Vyacheslav Molotov in a memo dated June 24: “The Marshall Plan, first of all, should be a weapon to mitigate the economic crisis, the approach of which no one denies in the United States... If in the interests of the United States it is necessary to give up billions of dollars worth of American goods abroad on credit to unreliable debtors, then we must try to extract maximum political benefits from this.” The seriousness of Soviet intentions is also evidenced by the fact that the ambassadors in Warsaw, Prague and Belgrade were given instructions to convey to the leadership of Poland, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, respectively, the desire to “take the initiative to ensure their participation in the specified economic activities (Marshall Plan - Ed.) and state their claims, bearing in mind that some European countries (Holland, Belgium) have already made such wishes.”

The meeting in Paris freed the Soviet leadership from illusions. Firstly, for the USSR it was unacceptable that American assistance was conditioned by the need to carry out the orders of the Economic Cooperation Administration, which actually determined not only domestic economic policy, but also received access to information about resources, the state of industry, scientific and technical developments, etc. Further. Secondly, the Marshall Plan was completely controlled by the United States and was carried out outside the framework and criteria of the UN, although there was a corresponding structure - the United Nations Relief and Reconstruction Administration, created on November 9, 1943 with the aim of providing assistance to countries affected by the war.

To top it all off, Vyacheslav Molotov received information on June 30 Soviet intelligence, in which it was reported that the leaders of the United States and Great Britain agreed to condition the provision of assistance to the USSR on its refusal of German reparations. This was completely impossible for the USSR, for which the only guaranteed source of foreign investment was captured supplies. On July 2, 1947, the Paris meeting ended with the refusal of the USSR delegation to participate in the implementation of the Marshall Plan. Following the USSR, the countries of Eastern Europe also refused to participate. Stalin said that the Paris conference was part of the West's plan to isolate the USSR.

It is noteworthy that one of the formal criteria by which the USSR was not eligible to receive American assistance was the fact that the Soviet budget did not have a deficit. This is after a bloody, destructive war, as a result of which it was lost
at least a third of the economic potential! Looking ahead, we note that both the USSR and its Eastern European allies restored their economies no later than the recipients of American aid. In the Soviet Union, rationing was abolished already in 1947, while Britain, which suffered much less, abolished rationing only in 1951.

...Four years passed quickly: the Marshall Plan officially ended on December 30, 1951. It was replaced by the Mutual Security Act, which the US Congress approved on October 10, 1951. This law, which officially recognized the division of Europe into zones of influence, already without any omissions provided for the possibility of the United States simultaneously providing its European satellites with both military and economic assistance. The subordinate role of the once world European powers was formalized.

Of course, this plan became one of the most successful projects of American diplomacy. The United States has achieved all its goals, obvious and hidden. Let's list them briefly: the American dollar has become the main international currency in Europe; the influence of the communists and the USSR in Western Europe was weakened; The USA received a huge market for its products; created economic basis for the NATO military bloc; the US economy has received time and resources to adjust to peacetime operations; American monopolies received significant profits, which allowed them to modernize production and increase scientific and technical potential; the dependent position of the European allies made it possible to create the basis for foreign policy pressure on the Soviet bloc; a powerful NATO military infrastructure was created in American interests, and its maintenance was paid for by Western Europe.