Post-War Period- The Marshall Plan
There was an economic decline in most countries in Europe following the end of World War II. Accordingly, there was a need to reestablish the economies of most countries in the West, leading to the establishment of various plans. The plans included the Morgenthau Plan of 1945 and the Marshall Plan of 1948, lasting up to 1951. These plans were implemented at different times and also served various purposes. The Morgenthau Plan was established to promote harmony between countries, while the Marshall Plan was established to facilitate the economic recovery of some countries in the West. Accordingly, these plans are different in structure and purpose, leading to various accomplishments and repercussions for all countries involved.
The contrast between the Morgenthau Plan and the Marshall plan is evident. The Morgenthau Plan was established in 1945, lasting up to 1947, renaming it after “The Treasury Plan for the Treatment of Germany” was established in 1944 (Gregorio, 4). It composed of the disarmament of Germany, the establishment of new borders, the new division of Germany, the monetary payment of countries involved in the war, the redistribution of power, the ending of the Nazis’ influence, the dominance of German financial resources, the establishment of agriculture systems, forbidding of precisions, and the giving of leadership powers to Germany over neighbouring countries (Gregorio, 6). With the implementation of these plans, peace would be reestablished between Germany, the US, and its allies by paying them for all damages incurred and giving them control over their armies and leadership structures.
In contrast, the Marshall Plan was established in 1948 to help achieve the recovery of the financial structure of Germany and spread capitalism. The United States created and used the Marshall plan to endow thirteen billion dollars to some countries in the West. A department of the government was explicitly designed to oversee the Marshall plan in Germany. Subsequently, the economies were reestablished and were able to grow. Thus, according to De Long & Eichengreen (2), the “Marshall Plan aid pushed European political economy in a direction that left its post World War II “mixed economies” with more “market” and less “controls” in the mix.” This statement illustrates that the economies recovered due to the increase in the number of independent mixed markets, reestablishing previously destroyed towns and basic structures such as transportation systems.
There are various factors responsible for the implementation of the Marshall plan. The first factor contributing to the United States implementation of the Marshall Plan involves solving problems resulting from the destruction of basic structures such as residential houses and the transportation system. Additionally, poverty resulting from World War II led to an increase in homeless people and hunger among Western European people. Therefore, the boosting of the financial structure would provide a solution to the problems resulting from poverty, which ended World War. The second factor influencing the United States’ implementation of the Marshall Plan was the need for reforms in countries in Western Europe, such as the disarmament of the German Army, which led to the creation of treaties that would ensure harmony was maintained.
Following the success of the Marshall Plan, the Nazi regime was overruled, leading to prosecution for their crimes leading to the denazification of Germany. Subsequently, the repercussions of the implementation of the Marshall Plan included developing Western Europe over Eastern Europe, creating divisions, and establishing measures to prevent the rise of the Nazis. Further, with the focus on Western Europe the Marshall Plan, Eastern Europe was overlooked since the Nazis dominated that region due to the efficiency of the Marshall Plan in reviving the financial structures in the West. Consequently, the West had better amenities than the East. Thus, this fact contributed to the creation of a division within the country. In addition, measures were put in place to guard the nation against the rise of the Nazis. These measures include the change in policies, governance, and the disarmament of the German Army, limiting the actions of the Nazis.
There are various advantages of the Marshall Plan in the post-war period. The United States profited in multiple ways; the first profit was from creating treaties between America and European countries, such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). According to Frei and Golb (164), “On 22 January 1951, a meeting took place between the just appointed commander in chief of NATO in Europe, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Adenauer’s military advisers, Heusinger and Speidel.” This fact illustrates the extent of the political power given to the United States following the success of the Marshall Plan. The treaties influenced the creation of more allies for the United States. Consistently, this gave power to the United States following the increase in the number of allies, and the treaties signed gave the United States power over other countries. Therefore, the Marshall Plan aided in making the United States into a powerful nation, giving it dominance over other countries.
In conclusion, following the end of World War II, many countries involved faced great losses. Germany is one of the countries that faced grave challenges leading to an increase in poverty. Subsequently, the Marshall Plan was implemented to help countries in Western Europe solve the poverty increase in terms of hunger, housing, and basic structures such as transportation systems. Accordingly, it benefited the United States by giving it political power over other countries and gaining more Allies from Western Europe.
Works Cited
De Long, J. Bradford, and Barry Eichengreen. “The Marshall Plan: History’s Most Successful Structural Adjustment Program”. 1991, pp. 2,6. National Bureau Of Economic Research, doi:10.3386/w3899. Accessed 27 July 2021.
Frei, Norbert, and Joel Golb. Adenauer’s Germany And The Nazi Past: The Politics Of Amnesty And Integration / Norbert Frei. Columbia University Press, 2002, p. 164.
Gregorio, Bàrbara Molas. “The Morgenthau Plan (1945-1947)”. D1wqtxts1xzle7.Cloudfront.Net, 2015, https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/37938225/Morgenthau_Molas-with-cover-page-v2.pdf?Expires=1627378601&Signature=WhI1KrRo3pnXoqu~0gfnVqvns5z1o~bFfuVUkxivWXzV6b8wGnKvbEq2eMAPrPC5P8QtVB7OAnTOarHf-ivJZbboiqr71YK5gQtVQ3GOf00iome-i2rOsk7HFAX2tZxXpkZ47Y~o45gOjJA4oJiv2EaqomNGJZEWTszh3baOSlarV5Hgsx-tVk6y1NSKIJ5VV-Nli1EC6x7j0wdG-ZPEM~TBUGsnoy9QVvyE1IoHihKWj-Ij5AtmdIqKF08s1wXLClKfOXWWYcwmGSbH1aOyhJu1hfvOj71Jt8Othr~42rdABJMsv-yaWxOXLRslrEiz9oVm1aJqB8GIWNRjFr8DmQ__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA.
ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
We’ll write everything from scratch
Question 
Discuss the details of the Marshall Plan in comparison with the Morgenthau Plan. What were the reasons that led the United States to implement the Marshall Plan? What were the repercussions of this decision with regard to the denazification of Germany? How did the United States profit from this decision in the post-war period?
Post-War Period- The Marshall Plan
Any of following
Frei, Norbert. Adenauer’s Germany and the Nazi Past. New York: Columbia, 2002.
Höhn, Maria. GIs and Fräuleins: The German-American Encounter in 1950s West Germany. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2002.
Moeller, Robert. War Stories: The Search for a Usable Past in the Federal Republic of Germany. Berkeley: The University of California Press, 2003.
Schwarz, Hans-Peter. Konrad Adenauer: A German Politician and Statesman in a Period of War, Revolution, and Reconstruction. New York: Berghahn, 1997.
Williams, Charles. Konrad Adenauer: The Father of the New Germany. New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2001.