The goal of the Marshall Plan was to relieve suffering. The motivation can be debated a bit. It could be because reducing suffering is the right and moral thing to do. Or it could be that suffering makes people embrace political extremism like communism or fascism.
Basically, both are situations you want to avoid like a buffet that advertises "rock bottom sushi prices."
The point is, there was suffering in Europe, and the problem was the economy. Marshall figured the whole thing needed a shot in the arm. (Okay, more like an Epi-pen for someone having an deadly allergic reaction to a bee sting, but the point stands.)
Questions About Suffering
- Sometimes suffering is regarded as either permissible, or even a good thing, usually in the pursuit of justice. Should the U.S. have tried to alleviate suffering in Germany? Why or why not?
- What is an acceptable expenditure to reduce suffering after World War II? How much money should have been sent? More? Less?
- Was money the right thing to send to reduce suffering in the wake of the war? Would manufactured goods or food been a better choice? Why or why not?
- Should the U.S. have made the reduction of suffering a priority? Was there a better way to fight extremism in general or communism specifically? What was it?
Chew on This
Germany started the war, and everyone there was complicit on some level for the suffering they caused. The Marshall Plan short-circuited the justice that would be required.
While money was welcome in Europe, the U.S. should have created a new market for manufactured goods, by first sending those and then selling them to a recovering Europe.