The US Policy of Marshall Aid Essay Example for Free

The US Policy of Marshall Aid Essay Assess the view that the US Policy of Marshall Aid was motivated mainly by the altruistic desire to help the economic recovery of Europe. Following advice from U.S General Marshall, Marshall Aid was introduced to Europe in 1947. Some argue this policy was motivated mainly through altruistic desire to help the economic reconstruction of Europe; however the four interpretations dismiss this argument, focusing on the need to boost capitalism, preventing communism. The main reasons for Marshall Aids introduction were political and economic, not altruistic. The theory that Marshall Aid was mainly motivated through altruism isnt credibly acknowledged in any interpretation. Judt acknowledges altruism in his interpretation by stating aid was offered to all European countries, without distinction and Enthusiastic American New Dealers had urged upon European colleagues virtues of freer trade, international collaboration and inter-state integration, however he dismisses altruism and argues other influences had great significance, aid was part of a program to reform the European economy as a whole; Europe would need to collaborate in planning and confer.with each other. Enthusiastic American New Dealers supported aid through their own self-interests, not altruistic desire. Balfour, McCauley and Gaddis fail to acknowledge altruism in their arguments, supporting Judts dismissal. However Europe was devastated following the war and Marshall Aid had reduced the problem, so altruism was not completely absent. America lacked any altruistic desire to help Russia. Fear of Soviet domination and the spread of communism was key to the introduction of aid in the first place, this is argued in each interpretation, adding credibility to each view. Gaddis argues the immediate psychological benefits produced by economic assistance would halt the spread of communism. However in contrast to Gaddis, Judt draws focus to productivity missions funded by the Marshall Plan in his interpretation, which brought thousands of managers, technicians and trade unionists the U.S to study the American way of business. There is evidence to make this a credible argument as it ties in with revisionist theory that America intended to use Marshall Aid as a form of economic imperialism to asset their authority over Europe. Gaddis concedes Russia refusing aid would strain relationships, enabling the U.S to seize the geopolitical and moral initiative in the emerging Cold War, thus strengthening Judts argument that aid favou red American interests as well as containing communism. Balfour suggests a main objective of the Marshall Plan was to win the mouths and minds of the West European peoples so as to prevent them from turning Communist, again focusing on Americas fear of communism. This meant boosting capitalism, which was being resuscitated and given a prosperity highly alluring to countries on the fringes of the USSR, to encourage Cominform nations to denounce communism, a fairly forceful argument acknowledged by each interpretation. Judt implies aid was part of a programme to reform the European economy and is correct when stating Stalin and Molotovs suspicions of the terms Marshall was proposing being quite incompatible with the closed Soviet economy. Neither the US or USSR were prepared to accept each others economic system, Judt again references the differing ideologies and argues that as well as reducing Soviet influence, boosting capitalism and encouraging free trade would have the desired effect of containing communism. Further evidence to make thi s a credible argument is within Balfours interpretation, Molotov viewed aid as an attempt by American capitalists to capture additional markets. In contrast to Balfour and Judt who focus on differing ideologies as a key motivation, the counter revisionist argument that Marshall Aid was motivated by U.S self-interest re-emerges in McCauleys interpretation, an expanding European market would take more U.S goods. Nations accepting aid would be open to U.S markets, the incentive of viable trading partners which would in turn avoid depression, as Molotov believed. Americas need for a viable trade partner is expressed further by Gaddis, arguing that economic assistance would provide immediate psychological benefits and material ones that would reduce this trend where goods and capital could move freely, boosting capitalism. Introducing Marshall Aid would solve two problems by containing communism and providing a badly needed trade partner for America, adding credibility to the two arguments. Balfours interpretation also focuses on economic factors as the main motivation behind Marshall Aid, which could be used to turn countries to capitalism and recover the position which had been lost between 1944 and 1947, despite the fact Balfour implies that Eastern Europe was not a market for the West, Molotovs belief supports Balfours argument. McCauleys interpretation also focuses on economic recovery; containing a speech by John Foster Dulles, putting the future of Germany in the context of the economic unity of Europe rather than the Potsdam view of Germany as an economic entity. German recovery would lead to production of industrial and capital goods so vital to Europes earnings, and would open up the German market for other European manufacturers, hence the link to re-establishing inter-European trade1. McCauleys argument that small economic units in a divided Europe could not prosper and Europe had to unite.to provide a market large enough to justify modern mass-production techniques, suggests that in order for the European economy to strengthen, and win the mouths and minds of the West European peoples as Balfour argues, Europe must collaborate. This posed serious problems European political ideologies varied, some countries would have problems working together. European collapse would be a disaster for America too, and revival in Germany was key to re-establishing European economies, further validating McCauleys argument on the importance of economic recovery. Opportunities would open up for other European manufacturers as a result of industrial revival in Germany. Washington believed that reestablishment of multilateral trade was key to boosting the economy, the protective device of aid intended European countries to switch from the bilateral to the multilateral as soon as possible. McCauley references the benefits of multilateral collaboration throughout his interpretation, strengthening Judts argument that economic reasons were the main motivation behind Marshall Aid. The subsequent boom led to an economic divide as obvious as the political one, with the rich West and poor East. European markets had exceeded pre-war levels of production and income by the 1950s, reducing the influence of the communists and verifying Ryans argument that Marshall Aid would negate the appeal of communism. The West had no incentive to turn communist now it was booming. All four interpretations agree Marshall Aid would gain popularity if it would have a negative impact on communism. Gaddis outlines the greatest threat to the West wasnt military intervention, rather the risk that hunger, poverty and despair might cause Europeans to vote their own communists into office, who would obediently serve Moscows wishes, this is a credible argument because communism was benefitting with many European economies bankrupt Soviet domination was a real danger. Gaddis further acknowledges the U.S knew they had to intervene as the communists were an electoral threat throughout Europe especially France and Italy. Ryan agrees, arguing that Communism was perceived to thrive on fear, desperation and chaos, summing up the state of Europe in 1945, and aid would in part negate the appeal of the left.2 McCauley furthers the anti-communism view; by linking it to anti-Communism the concept would be very popular in the USA and Balfour backs this up, stating funds required for aid would never have been approved by Congress unless a considerable amount of emphasis had been laid on the danger of communism in Europe, and on the significance of US aid as a protective device. He also suggests the threat would have to be exaggerated to gain enough support, however Soviet domination was already a serious threat to the West, there was no need to exaggerate its severity. Judt agrees with Balfour, arguing that because aid would be confined to the West, with Greece and Turkey being honorary West Europeans, it undoubtedly made it easier for Truman to secure passage of the ERP through Congress. Judt has acknowledged aid was offered without distinction and Ryan implies Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Ukraine were willing participants, but ultimately, Stalin pressured them into withdrawing3,.Gaddis also acknowledges Russia would not accept such aid or allow its satellites to, which is a credible argument because Stalin feared U.S economic domination, believing economic integration with the West would threaten Soviet control over Eastern Europe. Judt also focuses on the fact Stalin and Molotov were of course suspicious. Stalin had felt betrayed by the West during the war and he lacked trust, which is justifiable. Gaddis further acknowledges this, even though the Marshall Plan didnt yet distinguish the areas of Europe under Soviet control, the thinking behind it certainly did. Deputy Minister Vyshinsky argued the US was attempting to impose its will on other independent states, doing little to reduce Soviet tension. Despite several Cominform states being willing participants in desperate need of help and Judts argument that Russian sentiments were not widely shared elsewhere, aid was refused with Stalins persuasion, which strained relationships according to Gaddis. The four interpretations agree the U.S aimed to use European desperation for aid to boost capitalism. Judts view that aid was offered without distinction is challenged by Kunz, arguing that the State Department knew that Congress would never approve aid for Russia fear of Soviet domination was a key motivation for aid in the first place which validates Kunzs argument who adds that fortunately Stalin never called the bluff4. Russian acceptance would have caused problems as the Marshall Plan was based on the assumption that Russia would decline aid. McCauley implies European Governments were required to plan ahead and calculate future investment needs and to negotiate and confer with each other to aid economic reconstruction. There are numerous examples to validate McCauleys argument. By cooperating, economies would benefit. During the years of aid, countries in receipt experienced economic growth of between 15-25%. Without cooperation, this would not have been possible. McCauley further argues the German economy would improve as Frances desperate need for German reparations would be replaced by U.S credits, solving the French problem. Versailles had previously crippled Germany, and with German recovery important to revitalising Europe, it was vital to avoid a repeat despite Stalins wishes. The marrying of French and German economies would reduce French fears of German economic power. France would know if German expansionism posed a threat as the two were cooperating; they feared a future offensive due to geographical location. Judt focuses on the Americans whod blocked any return to the temptations of the interwar economy, and by encouraging Europe to cooperate, prevented future European conflict and promoted trust and reacceptance of Germany. American desire for a peaceful, united Europe expresses a degree of altruism. Balfour in his interpretation draws focus to an underlying military reason for the Marshall Plan; it later came to be given a more military significance, intending to recreate the military power of Western Europe. Britain and France could resume their roles as Great Powers allowing them to provide armies which would be strong enough, and backed by American atomic weapons in order to recover the position which had been lost by force. However the other arguments do not acknowledge militarism which severely undermines the credibility of this view. Britain and France received significant aid, revitalizing their economies, however no further military action took place in Europe. However Balfour goes on to concede that other events had greater significance, such as differing ideologies and fear of communism. Since Truman didnt want war in election year, these two factors combined dismiss this view. Several motivational factors were involved in implementing the Marshall Plan. A plan to boost capitalism, argued by Balfour, the economic concerns argued by Judt, and argued by McCauley and Gaddis to be interlinked with political concerns, along with hints of militarism and altruism. However, Gaddis argument that the US was following a political grand strategy through economic means, and the interlinking economic concerns established by McCauley reference the greatest motivational theory, along with the differing ideologies between U.S and USSR, implied by Judt and Balfour. The Marshall Plan wasnt motivated through altruistic desire to help Europe, despite Churchills statement that it was the most unsordid act in history5 1 How successful was the Marshall Plan? Scott Newton, History Today (2000) 2 David Ryan, The United States and Europe in the Twentieth Century (2003) 3 David Ryan, The United States and Europe in the Twentieth Century (2003) 4 The Marshall Plan reconsidered: A complex of Motives Diane Kunz (1997) p162, 9pgs 5 The American Past, A Study of American History. Joseph Conlin (2009) p. 724

The Future of Computers in Education :: essays papers

The Future of Computers in Education CURRENT PROBLEMS OF EDUCATION It seems reasonable to begin a discussion of the future of computers in education with considerations of the current problems of education. Then we can direct our use of technology to improve education. I do not mean to imply that there would be universal agreement on these problems or that this list is exhaustive; but these serious problems deserve careful preliminary consideration in restructuring our educational systems. They are worldwide problems that affect all levels of education. I begin with what I regard as the root of many of the grand problems of today: the problem of population. The number of people on earth is growing rapidly with no sign that we will be able to stop this growth. Indeed, many powerful people and groups encourage this growth. Educators often do not see this as an educational problem, but I believe this view to be wrong. World Population: The Grand Problem At the beginning of this century, the population of the earth, after thousands of years of development of civilization, reached one billion people. At the beginning of the new century we will have about six billion people on earth, and this number continues to grow rapidly -- presently at ninety million people per year. A scenario from the United Nations gives the world population in 2150 as 694 billion, based on current growth rates in the different parts of the world.[1] This is very unlikely, but it shows the serious nature of the problem. I regard this rapid growth of population as the root problem on earth today, not just for learning but also for many other aspects of modern society. Attempts to control population in countries such as China and India have met with only partial success. In most of the world there is only an inadequate attempt at population control. A rapidly growing population means that with today’s methods of learning many people will receive no or inferior education. Schools and other educational institutions cannot handle, in their present mode, even in highly developed countries, the ever-increasing numbers of students, and they change only slowly. Very few of the people on earth receive an adequate education even today.

Firoozeh Dumas Essay

â€Å"To deny someone and education is not just a crime but a sin, because you are denying that person the opportunity to realize who he or she is meant to be. † This quote represents Firoozeh Dumas’s view on learning and becoming the person that she is today. Through her hardships, struggles, good times and the bad times, she has matured and learned a great deal. In the autobiography Funny in Farsi by Firoozeh Dumas, the themes or clashing cultures, new environments, and learning through experience comes into play. The story begins as Firoozeh moves with her family to the United States in 1972, as a seven-year-old. From the moment her airplane lands, she starts to see differences; not only in the geography of the land and the appearance of the people, but the look of the whole place. She is used to bustling cities in Iran, crowded with enthusiastic workers, shoppers, and people socializing. In contrast, her new neighborhood in America seemed fairly unexciting; she describes it as uniformed houses, all the lawns in perfect order, as if everything was constantly being maintained to achieve the ideal look. But little did she know that this was only the beginning of differences. Entering a new school would open a whole other orbit of biculturalism. As she enters school, she sees everyone; completely different looking from her, and all of them fluent in English. Curious classmates peered around her desk, examining her from head to toe trying to figure out who she is; what type of creature she is and where she comes from. To make things even worse, Firoozeh’s mother decides to attend school with her, to learn proper English. This leads to ultimate humiliation for Firoozeh. Not only is she an immigrant student, but an immigrant student with her mother in elementary school with her. Students constantly ask her where she comes from, as if she’s an alien of some sort. She slowly learns to respond by saying â€Å"You know, the country where Persian cats come from. † She hopes to one day learn English properly so she can fit in and communicate with her fellow students. Her first day is completely confusing as she tries to embrace all that is happening around her. On the way home, the bus driver drops Firoozeh and her mother a few blocks away from their house. Not so familiar with the location, they get further confused and can’t recognize their own home. To them, the homes all look alike, and can’t distinguish their own from the rest. These incidents represent the difficulties that Firoozeh goes through in her first couple of months in America. However, after a couple of months time, she learns more and more about the American culture and believes she is on her way to â€Å"Americanization. † During summer vacation, the family celebrates their first year completed in America by voyaging to Disneyland. Being a child, Firoozeh is completely star-struck and amazed by the tiny world created for the sole purpose of entertaining people. All her favorite Disney characters that she had only heard the names of in Iran were now walking amongst her in real life! Firoozeh wasn’t the only one who enjoyed herself. Her father Kauzem described Walt Disney as a â€Å"†¦ genius, a man whose vision allowed everyone, regardless of age, to relive the wonderment of childhood. † (p. 17) Their lives in America seemed to be improving, until the Iranian Revolution ten years later. Firoozeh, now a seventeen year old, was again suffering from racism everywhere she went. People were now staring at her again, questioning her and calling her a terrorist, just because of what was happening in her country. The pain of not fitting in was now something she became accustomed to, and she decided to overcome it by further educating herself. She was thankful to have the opportunity to be educated, and she wanted to take advantage of her chance. Firoozeh spent high school learning French, until she got fluent in it. She was offered an opportunity to travel to Paris for two months because of her immense skill and fluency at the language. There, she again faces racism, where she is interviewed and labeled as a seventeen-year-old spy. She begins to ignore the racism around her, and advances in her studies. From education, she learns who she really is. The strength is now ingrained in her and she knows who she is: a young Iranian woman who has succeeded through many hardships. Nothing can stop her from learning, the main factor that helped her develop her personality. The main conflict she faces over and over again throughout the story is intense racism and not being able to fit in with every other American. By end, she realizes that by using education she can overcome all her struggles. Firoozeh Dumas ends up marrying a Frenchman who she meets in college, and they both live happily together. She realizes that her own encouragement and drive to study has brought her all the way to college, and finds her a perfect partner. As she said before, education is what helps a person realize what they are meant to be. In my opinion, the character goes through many hardships; and just as things begin to turn up, she again falls into another political conflict because of the Iranian Revolution. With these multiple problems she has to face, she realizes that one key factor can help her survive through it all: education. She knew that as long as she kept studying and taking advantage of the right of education, she will succeed; and she did. I think she dealt with her hardships perfectly and came out extremely strong at the end. This book is an ideal representation of an immigrant girl coming from Iran. It shows the perfect perspective of what someone like Firoozeh might think, and the problems they will face. It gives an opportunity for the reader to advance their knowledge on a new culture, to see an Iranian immigrant’s point of view. By adding some humor in the story, it becomes even more entertaining and interesting to learn about Firoozeh’s struggles. This book has given me an increased amount of respect for people who come from a different country. Firoozeh’s education helped her go extremely far and be successful in life, and I hope the same will happen to me because I’m blessed with the right of education that Firoozeh describes.

The Significance of the First Amendment - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 4 Words: 1319 Downloads: 10 Date added: 2019/04/26 Category Law Essay Level High school Tags: First Amendment Essay Did you like this example? The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the freedoms of religion, speech, press, petition, and assembly.1 Most Americans agree that these freedoms are important, but every American should also consider why this amendment is important and whom this amendment protects. For instance, does freedom of religion protect individuals, religious groups, or non-religious people, and why is it important that people can freely worship? For that matter, does this part of the Constitution prohibit the government from ever interacting with religion? The freedoms of religion, press, assembly, petition, and speech established by the First Amendment protect different people, and although these freedoms are vital to the American law system, their extent has been debated and sometimes reinterpreted throughout the years. First, freedom of religion keeps the government from forcing beliefs on religious and secular groups alike, but the supposed wall of separation between church a nd state often associated with this freedom is much more complicated than many people think.2 The First Amendment states that the American government is not allowed to establish an official American church or keep people from following a certain religion. This protects religious groups from governmental oppression and allows people the choice not to associate with any religion. However, this part of the First Amendment is much less straightforward than it seems. In the 1962 Engle v. Vitale case, official school prayers were deemed unconstitutional, but in 1996, the Court ruled in favor of an after-school religious group that wanted to gather in a public school. In Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), Amish people were permitted to break state laws by skipping high school for religious reasons, but in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1990), Native Americans were not permitted to break the law by using drugs in their ceremonies.3 With so many seeming contra dictions in these cases, how are Americans to know which religious behaviors will be supported by the government and which will not? This question remains unanswered by the Supreme Court. Second, freedom of the press allows the media to publish works opposing injustice without fear of government punishment. Even when the Constitution was written, newspapers were an important source of information, and today, the media are more prevalent in American politics and culture than ever before. The First Amendment ensures that publishers, reporters, news sites, and other media sources cannot be punished for stances that oppose government actions and decisions. This allows news companies and other forms of media to freely inform the public, speaking out against any unconstitutional or wrong behavior. Again, though, this freedom is open to some interpretation. Media sources can be sued for harmful, false statements such as slander and libel. However, in the 1964 case New York Times Company v. Sullivan, the Court stated that when making statements about public figures and institutions, news sources can make false statements or conjectures if unaware of the statements falsity.4 This decision attempts to balance the freedom of the press with the rights of public figures and companies. However, with the increasing amount of subjective, unproved accusations and opinions clouding the modern media, the question should be asked: Does the presss right to freedom outweigh the importance of the truth? Third, freedom of assembly protects oppressed groups and protesters who want to stand against injustice, in addition to any other groups that gather together. Essentially, this freedom means that as long as a group activity, meeting, or other assembly is not breaking the law, the government cannot intervene in the groups activities. Much like freedom of the press, freedom of assembly keeps those who stand against government injustice from punishment. This freedom is also simila r to freedom of religion, because both protect religious people from government interference in their services and meetings. Peaceful congregations with others are critical to spreading religious, political, and cultural ideas and movements, and the First Amendment ensures that the government cannot hinder people from participating in these assemblies. The civil rights movement and the suffrage movement both owe much of their success to the right of assembly; without this freedom, the government could have easily shut down these movements before they gained momentum.5 Though most government rulings on this freedom have been reasonable, there is one ruling that could be used to justify undue government interference in assemblies. In Cox v. New Hampshire (1941), the Supreme Court ruled that the government can institute time, place, and manner restrictions on large assemblies.6 If applied in a certain context, this case could be used to argue that limiting freedom of assembly is permis sible. Fourth, the freedom to petition the government protects anyone who asks the government to fix a problem, right a wrong, or address an injustice. Unlike most other First Amendment freedoms, freedom to petition allows people to take their complaints, perspectives, and issues directly to the government. This freedom makes it very difficult for the government to ignore the peoples pleas; it forces the government to listen to the people it represents and consider the problems they see in society. A case as recent as 2010 dealt with the complexities of this freedom. In Doe #1 v. Reed, the Court decided that releasing the names of petition signers to the public is constitutional, even when the petition signers are uncomfortable with this release. Many, including dissenting Justice Clarence Thomas, believe that releasing such information violates the First Amendment and could lead to harm or harassment for petition signers.7 Finally, freedom of speech is perhaps the most impor tant of these freedoms, because it protects all people in America. The freedoms of press, religion, assembly, and petition all protect certain groups, but freedom of speech protects all Americans, no matter which groups they are or are not part of. This freedom is especially important today. As communication via the internet and technology becomes increasingly common, Americans need the assurance that the government will not prevent people from sending messages, making posts, or otherwise making statements on political or religious opinions. Freedom of speech is vital to the other freedoms granted in the First Amendment: It allows people to speak about religion, to speak or write for the press, to speak out in rallies and gatherings, and to speak to the government via petitions. This freedom also goes beyond the other freedoms, allowing anyone, anywhere in America, to speak. Like all other First Amendment freedoms, this freedom also has led to some debate. Perhaps the most shocking case involving freedom of speech is Brandenburg v. Ohio, a 1969 case in which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Ku Klux Klan members right to free speech.8 This decision, especially when viewed from a modern perspective, leads to some very serious questions about whether everyone should be allowed free speech. In conclusion, the First Amendment freedoms of religion, press, assembly, petition, and speech protect American people and various groups, but are the center of many debates and questionable court rulings. Freedom of religion protects religious and non-religious people alike from government discrimination, but unpredictable exceptions given to certain religious groups by the government are problematic. Freedom of the press allows members of the media to write and speak freely, but this can come at the cost of objectivity in journalism. Freedom of assembly allows groups to peacefully gather without government interference, but the Cox v. New Hampshire ruling could threa ten this freedom. While the freedom to petition allows people to address government officials directly, the release of petition signers names makes many uncomfortable. Finally, freedom of speech allows all Americans to speak their opinions and beliefs, even though this is not always a good thing. All in all, the freedoms granted by the First Amendment are some of the most important freedoms granted to the people of the United States, which is why it is so important that the government address the problems with these rights, clarify the laws regarding them, and take care when interpreting this amendment in the future. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "The Significance of the First Amendment" essay for you Create order