“Bevin did a superb job of getting Molotov out of Paris. He had the — by careful maneuvering... [He] had the courage to invite him and the bluntness to get rid of him.” — Truman commerce secretary W. A. Harriman on Ernest Bevin, British foreign minister https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Bevin …
-
-
This bit is a headache-inducing account of the intricate maneuvering to get France face-saving concessions while protecting German recovery. Ruhr kinda internationalized to give France some control over European steel, in return for stopping obstruction elsewhere.
Show this thread -
The sausage making is ugly and I can’t keep all the names and positions straight. Basically some economic efficiency in recovery was sacrificed to assuage French demands. Some reasonable, others not. There are no saints here but degrees of original sin in rebirth of Europe.
Show this thread -
Interesting tricky problem was rationalizing trade payments. All the countries lacked gold and dollars. Wild inflation everywhere. Belgium had a big trade surplus due to being liberated first, and getting production back on, and wants to keep that. Others say screw you,
Show this thread -
Basically the precondition of American aid was continent-wide recovery coordination. Which required stable currencies and convertibility. Which required a completed recovery. Chicken-egg. Solved via payments union and trade quotas. Command economy it till you get to free market.
Show this thread -
European currencies remained inconvertible till 1958
So it took 13 years for WW2 destabilization effects to be surgically stabilized with a command economy before free-float trade was possible again.
How long for Covid destabilizations?Show this thread -
Scheme required each country to fill out very detailed questionnaires on economic production. They mostly just made it up. The US thought they’d police each other’s accuracy. Instead they colluded in don’t-ask-don’t-tell mutual obfuscation. Including Americans running Germany.
Show this thread -
Weird how we think of Cold Watmr as capitalist west vs command economy East. But there was no real capitalism for much of the period. Soviets had 5-year plans, Western Europe had Marshall Plan. The US had military-industrial complex. Real capitalism was in eclipse 1929-1989.
Show this thread -
Still the plan was clearly to get off planning models. Will Clayton played Europe-whisperer nudging the discussions and proposal into the right shape via backchannel pressure and slight strong-arming of expressions of autonomy. Not Stalin-grade though.
Show this thread -
Clayton’s 3 requirements for a successful funding proposal: 1. Explain why finding to date hadn’t fueled recovery 2. A 3-4 year plan to fix this by production program 3. A blueprint for a European economic federation
Show this thread -
Plus yay/nay to features. Bilateral deals/tariffs under ITO logic bad. Customs union/free trade zones a la Benelux good. This was an early version of the IMF/WB economic liberalization playbook of the 80s/90s clearly. Much less sophisticated and tied to Bretton-Woods spookiness.
Show this thread -
The Europeans resisted mightily. Wanted to retain bilateralism, tariffs and quotas over multilateralism, free trade. In a way Trump’s Europe actions have been about trying to dismantle all this. His is the anti-Marshall non-plan.
Show this thread -
It’s clear that the preference is almost entirely due to the greater opportunities for corporatist grift and cronyism in a 1:1 opaque bilateral world as opposed to an n:n transparent multilateral world. The US wanted to legibilize Europe.
Show this thread -
Alright kids, bedtime. We’ll continue reading the story of Marshall Bunny... I mean Plan tomorrow night.
Show this thread -
So things are moving. Marshall has a team in Europe cajoling statist Europeans to think modern industrial, and a team in DC crafting a “shovel ready” plan. Great phrase, I’m gonna steal it. My mansion plan is not yet shovel-ready. My telescope building plan otoh, is.
Show this thread -
Lol, the Europeans consider angling for the $$ without strings attached by hiring an American PR firm to make a style-over-substance pitch. State department scuttles that. Can’t bullshit the greatest bullshitter nation. The US means to exercise real control.
Show this thread -
This provokes a key question perhaps the book will answer: who was the principal, who was the agent in the end? Who suckered whom? Did the US but cheap control of Europe? Or did Europe get cheap US aid with cosmetic concessions? I think the answer will be “yes”
Show this thread -
Extremely complicated tactical mid-game going on. Amounts to Uncle Sam yelling “get jobs!” at 16 kids while grudgingly allowing UBI. Kids trying to stay in their room demanding a higher allowance and avoiding getting a job. Sovereign laziness vs collective industriousness.
Show this thread -
This book is fundamentally changing my view of what the Marshall Plan was. It was a UBI experiment for unemployed countries that didn’t like sharing, and hated their rich uncle who’d just bailed them out militarily.
Show this thread -
Deal finally done, after eleventh hour accommodations of European constraints and lots of pretty words to create good optics for all. It was a face-saving packaging of a mess that was just good enough to get funding going.
Show this thread -
The US relaxes its demands recognizing that a war-exhausted Europe did not have the political capacity to act with the kind of decisive boldness needed. So plan gets pointed roughly right and unleashed. A punt basically.
Show this thread -
Elsewhere in parallel GATT happens. 23 nations. Unclear what the relationship to Marshall Plan was but same principals drove both. Clayton in particular. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Agreement_on_Tariffs_and_Trade …
Show this thread -
And of course GATT became WTO which Trump regime is now trying to destroy. Liberal international order that began with Marshall Plan and GATT is now under wrecking ball attack by the country that built it.https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/09/trumps-real-trade-war-is-being-waged-on-the-wto/ …
Show this thread -
For context: Trump wants to rewind global trade to pre-WWI pre-industrial state. Not in a historic sense but by reaching for a vague aesthetic of bilateral kiss-ass global loyaltynomics. Others like Navarro are compiling his garish tastes into actual reactionary wrecking plan.
Show this thread -
Europe would not achieve the kind of free trade and economic integration envisioned by the plan till 1968. But the Paris conference did expand minds to the possibility, and create a core group of political leaders interested in Europe as a whole and trust to pursue it.
Show this thread -
Chapter concludes with a view from the Soviet side: a hostile Kremlin analysis of the plan as American imperialism. Now it has to get through Congress. The truth of the plan was somewhere between view from American and Soviet oiptics, plus strong Hanlon’s razor.
Show this thread -
Chapter 7. “On Sept 17, 1947, Andrei Vyshinsky delivered an angry ninety-two minute indictment of the Marshall Plan before the United Nations General Assembly” He was the “star prosecutor of the late 1930s Moscow show trials” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Vyshinsky …
Show this thread -
‘But what truly bothered the State Department, James Reston observed, was not...Russian charges...but the feeling that the United States was intervening “just enough to be blamed for it and not enough to be effective at it.”’ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Reston …
Show this thread -
Stalin blindsided by unilateralism of Marshall plan. He expected to continue talks on Germany. Calls his own conference of communist parties under Zhdanov. Whips French and Italian communist parties into line but that costs them political cred at home https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Zhdanov …
Show this thread -
Zhdanov was apparently sort of the Soviet Kennan. Must have been tough selling what was basically a recovery sabotage plan and revolutionary loyalty test as a meaningful response to the Marshall Plan. Communism was already a bankrupt idea by 1947.
Show this thread -
Funny how the Soviets analyzed and critiques the US actions pretty much correctly, yet were unable to do anything with their narrative. Moral: It’s not sufficient to hate-read between the lines of your opponents’ story correctly. You also have to tell a better story yourself.
Show this thread - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.