Analysis of the Two American Policies: The Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan - Essay Example

Table of Contents 1.0.Executive summary 2 2.0.Introduction 2 3.0.How the Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan relate to two halves of the same walnut 3 4.0.Conclusion 11 5.0.References 12 1.0. Executive summary This paper gives a detailed analysis of the two American policies; the Truman Doctrine and Marshall plan. The two policies are critically analysed in the contexts of the similarities in ideologies that gives a portrayal of “two halves of the same walnut”. Brief histories in the occurrence of the events of the policies from initiation to implementation are also elucidated in this paper. Of concern in the two policies is the containment strategy that they emphasized. 2.0. Introduction Two halves of the same Walnut may be used to denote two plans or the occurrence of two events having different or varied outlines but eventually underscoring similar motives and objectives. Such plans or events may have different approaches but the objectives to be met need to be similar to contend to the meaning of the phrase. The ideologies that are presented by the two plans convey a lot of similarities in their end results. Marshall Plan was introduced by George Marshal in 1947; U.S. secretary of State-who had an aim of helping people living without shelter, food and jobs in Western Europe. During the initiation, Marshall in his speech declared the European countries as poor and they risked turning communist (Gimbel and John, 1996). As a result, his plan aimed to provide aid that would keep the economy of the European countries on track. In a radical move, the Europeans, led by France and Britain, settled on the economic assistance. The plan was worth $12.5 billion of assistance awarded to the countries that were left in shambles except the communist nations (Gimbel and John, 1996). Truman Doctrine as an international policy was instituted by Harry Truman in 1947---U.S. president. Truman in his speech declared that US was preparing to offer support to Turkey and Greece with both the military and economic aid with a view of shielding the countries from being compromised to the Soviet territory (Donovan and Robert, 1977). Truman had intentions of interfering with the USSR. He wanted to ensure that USSR did not grow and expand any more. Truman Doctrine dedicated its policies to uplifting anti-communist regimes around the globe. The US congress therefore approved $400 million aid for the execution of the plan. When Truman said “it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures’’ (Donovan and Robert, 1977 p. 256) he implied that America was prepared to support the less fortunate nations everywhere and extend their global security. 3.0. How the Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan relate to two halves of the same walnut According to Hogan and Thomas (1991) in their book “Explaining the History of American Foreign Relations” the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan both had a similar objective which basically revolved around the containment of Communism. These two plans were different in their set up but had the same idea hence the name “Two halves of the same Walnut”. The Marshall Plan and the Truman Doctrine in as much as they bring forth two distinct issues, they aimed at ensuring that communist efforts and advances are suppressed which in entirety make the two approaches similar thus “two halves of the same walnut”. These two policies had similar bearing in most of the aspects, strategies and objectives. In both cases, the involvement of the U.S government was imminent in the use of its resources to enhance political and economic stability of countries in the world under which would be threatened by the communist influence (Dobson and Marsh, 2001). As a result of the similarities in ideologies, the two plans; the Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan were considered “two halves of a walnut”, with the walnut considered to be the containment policy and the two halves the ideological similarities and/or differences. The main focus of the Marshall Plan was the economic stability of the Western Europe and other countries that were threatened by the communist influence while the Truman Doctrine was the policy that allowed countries that were threatened by the communist influence access its resources in combating the stable influence of the communist states in such countries (Gaddis and John, 1982). Truman Doctrine apparently proved a significant step that president Truman set forward for the aid of the foreign nations financially to control the communist effects. To this extent, Truman was set to establish itself a foreign policy which was meant to resolve the conflicts that related to the communist influence for the time of the cold war. This proved itself later after Truman Doctrine had been established, in states including Greece, Viet Nam, Korea in dealing with the wars that erupted in their countries as they were all communist related. As suggested by Kolko (1992), US established itself in the forefront to help fight against the effects of Cold war as shield to succeed her two plans. In these contexts, both the plans rallied all their efforts behind subduing the communist political influence on other states that were not aligned and conformed to their policies. To this extent, there is a level of the portrayal of the “two halves” and the extent of the applicability of the anti-communist policies shows the level of the “walnut”. The Truman Doctrine just like the Marshall Plan would later contribute immensely to the divisions that could be realized in various parts of Europe due to differences in ideologies. As noted by Gimbel and John (1996), the divisions among the various countries culminated into the states hardening their policies especially the Soviet republic that felt that US had a strong hidden agenda to subdue its communist effort from expanding. To explicitly underscore the fact of “two halves”, Katzenstein and Peter (1978) elaborate how both the plans were used by U.S to help drive out the communist parties out of the Western governments in 1948. As a result, the Soviet Union in a defensive reaction to the plans was prepared to put to an end the democracy in the Czechoslovakia which hinted on an act of unprovoked aggression on the side of the Soviet Union. Undoubtedly, the aggression is a clear portrayal that the two policies though they had a different ways of achieving a similar idea; fighting communism, the end results were similar as in the case that led to the aggression by the Soviet Union. However, Dobson and Marsh (2001) never endorsed the Truman Doctrine as a move that was viewed rhetoric to the attainment of the global peace and development; it still appeared to be vital to the Eastern block and a majority of the European nations as the Marshall Plan. In the two plans, the ideologies and their military emphasis shocked many, but the plans still achieved their missions. Many policy makers viewed the two plans as a move that U.S instituted to offer rapprochement to the Soviet nation and eventually end division that had been evoked by the Truman Doctrine. As such, it can be conceived that the two plans had similar approaches in containing the communism ideologies. Although, Gaddis and John (1982) point out that the economic assistance program was majorly not part of the containment policy, but LaFeber (2004) saw the program as a tactic whose main mission was the implementation of the policies of containment by America and the states that ‘danced to their tune’ like Sweden. Basically, the Marshall Plan just like the Truman Doctrine was conceivably meant to stopping communism with implications of weakening the Soviet Union. However, Hogan and Michael (1987) points out further that the immense economic program was a means to creating sustainability among the Eastern bloc countries, destroy the Soviet system, contain their expansion and liberate the Eastern members from the rigid and economically stagnating approaches of the Soviet Union. Additionally, the plan was a means of releasing the Eastern bloc from the communist influence of the Soviet spheres-a move that would allow them wholesomely grows. Truman and Marshall, bring out the concept of “two halves” explicitly in both their similarities of their policies and the means of ensuring that they are achieved. However attractive the plans might have appeared to be, they strongly advocated for de-linking the communism ideologies the states for purpose of making progress in developmental issues (LaFeber, 2004). According to Katzenstein and Peter (1978), the Marshall Plan looked generous as the Eastern bloc countries and the Soviet Union were invited to participate in the policy implementation for the success of the program. But anticipation had been pushed by majority of the policy makers that Soviet Union would push for parallel plan that the Soviets were prepared to reject. The Soviet Union therefore could not relax their secrecy where their security was pegged. On the same vein, the Truman Doctrine also in his plan anticipated that the Soviet Union would be willing to surrender information regarding their economic status and be a donor to the West. As a result, the Soviet was expected to stop state trading as they prepare to reorganize their economy. The Marshall plan and the Truman Doctrine both had their plans to weaken Soviet strength within the eastern side of its jurisdiction as they were planning to continue subduing the Eastern bloc from industrializing after joining the two plans. With this as part of the Soviet plan, they strongly advanced to prevent the Eastern bloc from joining these plans so as to continue ruling the East. The two plans therefore were major proponents of multilateralism from different perspectives with a sole aim of subverting other nations from advancing multilateralism. Containment of the communist approach of the Eastern power is the basic reason behind Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan. Containment involved numerous secret forms of covert action where the US government created a covert capability such as economic and political warfare and paramilitary involvement. As a result, the US military blocked the France and Italy as well as offering economic aid to the countries that opposed the communist approach. Particularly, the Truman approach was meant to arm-twist the Soviet Union into accepting the economic offer and drop communism with a hidden mission of weakening its control in the East. Containment had little hopes of liberation with a counter revolution policy that was used to the rise of the Eastern bloc which was believed to be the ground where communism was bred. The Marshall plan was specifically meant to rid the Western Europe of its downward spiralling of its economic advancement after the frustrating infrastructural damages experienced. The two plans coalesced hid behind ensuring that no nation established power above US in terms of the political, social and economic base. This assertion could be ratified when Truman said "To avoid destruction, the United States need only measure up to its own best traditions and prove itself worthy of preservation as a great nation". In addition, Truman in one of his speeches pointed out that, “Our foreign relations, political and economic, are indivisible. We cannot say that we are willing to cooperate in the one field and are unwilling to cooperate in the other…” It is the same opinion that Marshall held when he reiterated that capitalism is international and can only thrive with the help of other democracies. As a consequence, this assertion gave a similar portrayal that had been given by the Truman that both their policies emphasized on establishing competition with the Eastern blocs. They both aimed for a similar policy that would ensure that the communist states do not jeopardize the free markets that would eventually allow US to be stable economically over other nations. Despite the fact that containment proved very expensive to be managed by the American government, both Truman and Marshall still could continue pursuing it. For instance, to fight the anti-communist war in China, who already had gone deep in communist and had a strong military base; it required America to spend a lot and put up more effort-a move that the two dint despair in for the sake of their fellow Americans. In addition, the containment policy was seen by majority of the policy makers as a threat to international trade; where in a larger ideological context, the economic strength of the communist economies was thwarted and the America economy anticipated for expansion. A similarity in the two approaches is the belief that the elimination of the resources and markets from the face of the world economy thereby weakening the economy of the Eastern bloc which depended on communism as the approach to expanding their prosperity in economic fields. As Gaddis and John (1982) had pointed out that disrupting international trade would present a massive impairment in production and hence weakening of international trade and economy. Hogan and Michael (1987) further point out that Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan were secret tools that America used to flourish its political economy in the wake of the world’s economy. With these views, Truman and Marshall pegged their policies in ensuring that U.S established itself above all other nations and economies in the all spheres. It is the relations of the means and the end that mattered to the two leaders in the push for their policies (Kolko, 1992). By 1948, there were five centers of military and industrial policy that offered a significant value to America in terms of their security. Based on their population and resources, these centers, according to Truman and Marshall could threaten U.S economy and the military system as it depended upon these areas for trade. Most of these five centers including Japan, Germany, and Soviet Union were instrumental in shaping America decision making processes for reconstructing such countries economically as they get configured to the economic status of U.S. Both the policies by Marshall and Truman hid to underpin America policy of Cold War around the world after receiving the bipartisan support. Truman specifically was curtailed to help address insecurity about modern life. Consequently, it aimed at dealing with communism domino effect with the edge to mobilizing American economy to stabilize the less developed regions of the world (Etzhold et al, 1978). On the other hand, the Marshall Plan in a similar move was also brought to modernize programs in the less developed counties that rejected the communist influence. When Truman used the Franklin policy “quarantine aggressor” which metaphorically was used to refer to the containment of a contagious disease in public health sector in a similar manner in which America strived to eliminate the communist influence. In accounts depicted by the two plans, the facts provided portrays America to be struggling to enlarge as a hegemonic power where it achieved domination in many countries some of which practiced communism before. In cases where U.S dominated, their economy expanded due to the economic aid that the nations received from the plans and this catapulted America to establishing its empire as was spelt out by the two plans. As would be anticipated, the relations that coexisted between U.S and the Western European allies would be a perfect hegemonic cooperation; a move that both Truman and Marshall projected for the Americans. In addition to the hegemonic power that U.S established in majority of the communist nations, it also provided material incentive to influencing such nations accept their subordinate status. The manner in which America executed both the plans to marshal the Western bloc under its hegemony shows a great deal of similarity. Soviet Union being the mastermind of Communism and other countries under their influence would feel divided from the rest of the Europeans if the executions excluded them, instead America did it such a way that not their offer but the Soviets answer to exclude them from the policies. As a matter of fact, the plans by the Americans depicted a start to cold war as majority of the policies that they advanced for adoption geared the strategies towards scattering the powers of USSR that they had enjoyed for a long time. In addition, the success of the Marshall plan as a geostrategic venture aided in spurring the European-American trade which supported America security claims like the Truman Doctrine. The two plans investment may have expended more than would be anticipated due the revolt it was able to spurn in Eastern Europe. In reaction to the two plans, Soviet Union’s leader, Stalin assertion that “the world is definitely split into two” was a direct revolt to the American intention to sway the communist community under Soviet Union to the capitalist under America. The superficial good intentions of the plans only sought for an integrated Europe that could only resemble America’s “God’s own country”. This depicts that the two plans strategically provided similar divisive components that ultimately would selfishly benefit only the Western blocs. As Dobson and Marsh (2001) note, the superiority battle that ensued in terms of policies after World War II, descended to aggression and resentment among nations with the need to own control of the world’s resources and machineries. The ideological differences with the East that the two policies clung onto to continued spanning the American dream though in differed dimension but with a view to the same claim- power over the rest. This is a testimony that in as much as they got coined differently they spelt the same agenda to America hence “two halves of the same walnut”. 4.0. Conclusion In conclusion, the reason for the apt formulation of the two plans was based on the fact that America’s preponderance, on which its hegemonic powers were to be based, was huge to an extent trade imbalance could threaten the overall system. In essence, the dominance of U.S with its plans almost interfered with the initiation of its hegemonic powers. Overall, Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan simultaneously aimed to block the communist groupings from taking advantage of the crisis, and shy away from defeat to include Western Europe in the path of economic advancement (Kolko, 1992). However, the vague nature of the plans in regards to their duration and magnitude was the reason behind the conflicting issues in the execution and success. As a result it became almost impossible for Europeans to come up with a comprehensive plan to properly utilize the America’s economic aid. In some cases therefore, the good intentions of the plans could not be realized by some European nations like in Sweden, as they lacked a comprehensive program for executing the plans. 5.0. References Dobson, A and Marsh, S. (2001). U.S Foreign Policy since 1945. London: Routledge. Donovan, K and Robert, J. (1977). Conflict and Crisis: The Presidency of Harry S. Truman, 1945-1948. New York: Norton & Company Inc Etzhold, E, Thomas, H. and Gaddis, J. (1978). Containment: Documents on American Policy and Strategy, 1945-1950. New York: Columbia University Press. Gaddis, J and John, L, (1982). Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of Postwar American National Security Policy. New York: Oxford University Press. Gimbel, W and John, L(1996). The Origins of the Marshall Plan. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Hogan, M and Michael, J.(1987). The Marshall Plan: America, Britain, and the Reconstruction of Western Europe, 1947-1952. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hogan, M and Thomas, G. (1991). Explaining the History of American Foreign Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Katzenstein, M and Peter, J.(1978). Between Power and Plenty: The Foreign Economic Policies of Advanced Industrial States. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Kolko, G. and Kolko, J. (1992). The Limits of Power: The World and United States Foreign Policy, 1945-1954. New York: Harper & Row Publishers. LaFeber, W. (2004). America, Russia, and the Cold War 1945-2002 (updated ninth edition). New York: McGraw-Hill. Read More