Were the Marshall Plan and the formation of the German Federal Republic a response to the "Eastern Bloc" and the Warsaw Pact," or the other way around?

This isn't my best subject, but the first clue is that -- in retrospect -- the Marshall Plan had very little impact on economic recovery AND most of the funds seemd to end up in "defense" an awful lot. You have to read jerks like Chomsky to get the dope on some of this stuff, I guess -- which I try to do as little of as necessary. Maybe I'm alone in not liking that guy, but its not just a detached opinion -- I've actually been to a few of his lectures. Yawn.

The other question is what the Warsaw Pact ended up being -- wasn't it really more of an internal Soviet enforcement mechanism? Not that I blame 'em -- guys like Vaclav Haval can suck a dick.

As for the Eastern Bloc I thought that was just a direct result of WWII -- other than a couple stragglers I guess.

I really don't know as much about the politics of that period as I probably should especially pertaining to when East/West Germany were "created" -- I mean, there was more than a little tension even before Nazi Germany surrendered..

Its also an interesting question of how and why the Marshall Plan or equivalent thereof was (not) applied to Japan and China. Probably just as important for where we are today as what happened in West Europe.

The Warsaw Pact and so on was in response to NATO etal.

I never liked Chomsky... hits me as a liberal (just like John McCain is a "liberal", I suppose).
.

I have been randomly asking people this question the last few days.

The myth goes something like this...

The glorious American military otherwise know as the good guys, with a little help from the Russians or something, defeated the ultimate evil, the Nazis. Then afterwards we tried to build democracy and freedom there, and everyone was on our side like the British and the French and stuff, but the communists had different ideas - destroying us and all of our friends. They made an iron curtain and took over half of Europe and were trying to take over the rest and then probably come here and get us, too. This caught us by surprise, because as good guys minding our own business it never occured to us that bad guys might pull shenanigans like the Russkis were trying to pull. So we had to put a bunch of troops there to protect democracy and freedom and help Germany be free and democratic. Ever since then the Russians were threatening us all the time, and we had to protect ourselves even though we would have preferred to just mind our own business and we weren't hurting anyone.

I have been randomly asking people this question the last few days.

The myth goes something like this...

The glorious American military otherwise know as the good guys, with a little help from the Russians or something, defeated the ultimate evil, the Nazis. Then afterwards we tried to build democracy and freedom there, and everyone was on our side like the British and the French and stuff, but the communists had different ideas - destroying us and all of our friends. They made an iron curtain and took over half of Europe and were trying to take over the rest and then probably come here and get us, too. This caught us by surprise, because as good guys minding our own business it never occured to us that bad guys might pull shenanigans like the Russkis were trying to pull. So we had to put a bunch of troops there to protect democracy and freedom and help Germany be free and democratic. Ever since then the Russians were threatening us all the time, and we had to protect ourselves even though we would have preferred to just mind our own business and we weren't hurting anyone.

Reminds me of this Pentagon propaganda show that used to come in real early on saturday morning in the early 60's, "The Big Picture".There was other shit like that on too in the same general time slot., guess the fix took.

What is the fascination with Chomsky? I never got it.

What is the fascination with Chomsky? I never got it.

My opinion? Well I don't really have one, but I do have an painfully extended anecdote. Its about Charlie G, adjunct professor at a U I went to and community firebrand/public nuisance. He's a Deaniac who almost died when the wings on his plane froze up flying to Iowa to see Dean. Always looking for a chance to expose city corruption and also the conspiratorial goings-on related to the University (like why such and such new library wing was being fast-tracked for construction , how all the major administration are members of a certain society, etc)

He even ran for SG while he was in grad school and had a decent chance to win before falling victim to a vicious and illegal smear campaign -- the courts actually ruled for him.

Anyway, he teaches Poli Sci and loves Madison, Jefferson, Bentham, Mill..that crowd..in addition to drawing great inspiration from Locke and Hobbes of course. Worships the Founding Fathers, the Federalist Papers, the Constitution, Democracy as it was intended to be (his sentiment), you get the picture

Not a total douchebag in one sense but not someone I had much time for. He took a liking to my brother who never called him on his bullshit. The only lecture I ever heard him give ended up being an argument between him and some dork in the class about whether the universe is Deterministic. I kept my powder dry on that one.

Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't explain that this guy thinks hes a real academic hotshot -- he's got multiple undergrad degrees..I don't know for sure if he has any degrees to show for his post-grad work. I wouldn't be surprised if he did, less surprised if he didn't.

THAT is the kind of guy who attends Noam Chomsky lectures and reads Chomsky religiously

For what it's worth..

What is the fascination with Chomsky? I never got it.

He kept talkin' "left" when few others were. Through the "Reagan Years" and the crumbling of the Soviet Union and the post-industrial-post-modern-post-prosperity-globalized society, he just kept talkin'. That has value. He also provided a fundamental criticism of capitalism (much like the current "Shock-jocks"), even if that analysis may be deeply flawed in its details.

BUT, Chomsky also let all sorts of popular culture prejudices and personal shit enter into his analysis. My theory is that it happens to all "brilliant" linguists. S.I. Hayakawa was brilliant, too... which didn't stop him from being either vastly reactionary in politics or from being vastly wrong about many elements of life.

In all seriousness, Mike, Chomsky is almost the quintessential example of the truth of your criticism of "academic radicals". I don't think you are always right but it is probably true in a majority of cases and dead-on with Chomsky.

Bein' disconnected from the masses except in an abstract kinda way will kill ya... almost every time.
.

I was in Dayton, Ohio in 1968 for a march and staying at a dorm. Phil Ochs was on the stereo - "Love Me I'm a Liberal" - and I was having my first encounter with student activists. Well, other than Wayne State, but this was different. That was the first time I had run into Chomsky fans. I was actually already familiar with his work in linguistics - same cat, right? They were big fans of his, and that weekend was the first time I had been exposed to academic radicalism.

I thought at the time that this was some sort of seductive and comfortable replacement for real political work, but that it required one to be a gentrified and bland person. It did fill up lots of time, if that was something a person was looking for. I was anxious to get back to Detroit. I couldn't relate to those people. Still can't.

What is the fascination with Chomsky? I never got it.

He kept talkin' "left" when few others were. Through the "Reagan Years" and the crumbling of the Soviet Union and the post-industrial-post-modern-post-prosperity-globalized society, he just kept talkin'. That has value. He also provided a fundamental criticism of capitalism (much like the current "Shock-jocks"), even if that analysis may be deeply flawed in its details.

BUT, Chomsky also let all sorts of popular culture prejudices and personal shit enter into his analysis. My theory is that it happens to all "brilliant" linguists. S.I. Hayakawa was brilliant, too... which didn't stop him from being either vastly reactionary in politics or from being vastly wrong about many elements of life.

In all seriousness, Mike, Chomsky is almost the quintessential example of the truth of your criticism of "academic radicals". I don't think you are always right but it is probably true in a majority of cases and dead-on with Chomsky.

Bein' disconnected from the masses except in an abstract kinda way will kill ya... almost every time.
.

Chompsky was helpful to me. Living where I do and being totally inundated with RW triumphalism it was encouraging when I picked up Deterring Democracy randomly off a library shelf 'bout 15 years ago. Hell, I had no idea what was going on in East Timor. Since I got on the internet 'bout 5 years ago I've been exposed to a lot more of his work and some of the flaws have become obvious, I think it's fair to call him a gate keeper.