The American Spectator : George C. Marshall: The Berlin Wall and the Nobel Peace Price

Text Size

A Further Perspective

George C. Marshall: The Berlin Wall and the Nobel Peace Price

We missed another recent anniversary.

(Page 3 of 3)

So, the Soviets and East Germans erected the Berlin Wall because of the success of the Marshall Plan and the failure of Soviet Communism. And the Berlin Wall fell because of the continued effects of the success of the Marshall Plan and the continued and utter failure of Soviet Communism.

Let me add this: Some have said that the erection of a fence by the United States on the Mexican border reminds them of the Berlin Wall. This is a slur on the United States and no one should let such a statement go unrebutted.

Senator Barack was not yet the Democratic Party's nominee for president last year when he asked to speak at the Berlin Wall. German Chancellor Angela Merkel thought the request "odd." He ended up speaking at a different venue on July 24. Undoubtedly he wanted to capture some of the notoriety of President Reagan when he spoke at the Wall on June 12, 1987, and challenged Mr. Gorbachev to "tear down this wall." But he also wanted to capture some of the notoriety of President John F. Kennedy who spoke at the Wall on June 26, 1963. Kennedy delivered a short, stirring speech known as the "I am a Berliner" speech. The full text and audio are available online. Let me quote a few lines: "You live in a defended island of freedom…[W]e…can look forward to that day when this city will be joined as one…When that day finally comes, as it will, the people of West Berlin can take sober satisfaction in the fact they were in the front lines for almost two decades." The two decades stretched out another 26 years, but that day finally did come.

That day, November 9, 1989, is a day that will be celebrated forever by free men and women everywhere. And may George C. Marshall's December 31, 1880, birthday be likewise. We missed the anniversary of his death, but we need not miss this year's anniversary of his birth.

Page: < 1 23

topics:
Berlin Wall, Marshall Plan, George C. Marshall

About the Author

James M. Thunder is a Washington, D.C. attorney.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (31) | Leave a comment

loispoor| 12.2.09 @ 6:24AM

Stop your job hunt with a Health care admin Degree it is easy and I got my degree in months and now I am working check http://bit.ly/6jqMDp

Otis, my man!| 12.2.09 @ 12:30PM

I'll use poor Lois's post to get to the head of the line...

The story here is further proof that many who have not received the Nobel Peace prize, should have.

And some others who did get it, should have been shot instead.

Otis, my man!| 12.2.09 @ 12:41PM

And by shot, I'm referring to Yassir Arafat, AND NO ONE ELSE!

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.2.09 @ 9:41AM

Mr. Thunder,
Thank you. These are the kinds of men we need to remember.

Rob Harland| 12.2.09 @ 10:14AM

How interesting to find the American Spectator praising the achievements of a man who funelled billions of US government dollars in overseas aid into countries to spur economic growth, an alternative to a "hot" war and a potent tool of diplomacy which undermined the ideology of America's enemies. Perhaps we should try such a strategy again in the post-Cold War period?

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.2.09 @ 10:35AM

Rob,
Why is AM Spec "interesting" in that regard?

We have a few paleolithic "fortress America" types here among the comments, but the site pretty much stands for forward leaning on national defense.

Richard Baker| 12.2.09 @ 11:44AM

Rob:
As your message is a bit ambiguous, are you decrying George Marshall or supporting him? Clarification, please. Thanks.

Al Adab| 12.2.09 @ 11:59AM

Once again Churchill said it best: "In defeat, defiance, in victory, magnanimity." America needs to remember its successes and quit apologizing for them.

Rob Harland| 12.2.09 @ 11:59AM

Ken (Old Texican) -- thank you for your comment.
While conservatism can encompass a diverse range of perspectives, the cliches of the moment would appear to be (and I recognise it is a simplification):
Government intervention (especially with tax dollars) = bad.
Market forces, "the invisible hand" = good.
Military intervention overseas = good, especially when aggressive.
In particular I find it hard to imagine modern conservatives condining throwing money at governments who went on to construct the sort of "welfare state" socialised structures the US currently so deplores e.g. socialised medicine, nationalised railways, even nationalised car manufaturing (that latter one has since bitten the dust). Even though the article doesn't mention that, I find it a little odd it noting the economic boom which happened without commenting on how Western Europe achieved that while adopting the sort of social reforms which conservatives are now attacking wholesale (and which inspired Lyndon Johnson in his Great Society initiatives when he saw how this could be combined with economic growth).

As for military intervention, suppose after a conflict which has now lasted longer than World War II though not quite the same amount of time Vietnam did for the US (if you take the starting point to be the Gulf of Tonkin) Obama had declared he had decided to "Afghanise" the war in his recent speech, pulling back to Pakistan and concentrate on rebuilding US forces so that they could strike anywhere Al-Qaida reared up again (be it Somalia, Yemen, Sudan, wherever). Conservatives would have hammered him.

Yet after a long war that is what Marshall and the rest of US military thinkers did post WWII. After a long war they stopped, drew their line in the sand and re-equipped.

You could argue that the miltary parallel is not a precise one, but the economic question is one I find curious: a good thing to use massive amounts of government money to finance in its turn government led initiatives in Western Europe which typically combined capitalism with hefty government control and investment in health, welfare, public transportation and industry? And in the American Spectator! Come back John Maynard Keynes, all is forgiven.

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.2.09 @ 6:46PM

Rob,
Heh, we aren't going to have time to discuss this fully before the site rolls on, but your points are well taken.
May I simply say that General Marshall was above anything, a man of his times. He woke up one morning with the United States standing astride the world.... He done good!

Hmmmmm...how do I get this concept across?
OK.
Let me try this. Play pretend it is 2045......
(Old Texican has gone to his home with Christ, by the way.)
...and a bright guy just like you writes an article.
!Quote!
" How could the Americans have been so stupid?
My goodness, it has taken us nearly 35 years to get America back on the right track. It has cost us millions of our finest young men and women. We have had to tear our own government down to it's constiturion and start over.

We have had to send every single muslim back where they came from, just out of real fear that they really believed THE Mohammed, and would kill our babies...and their babies...to prove it.

Israel is still hanging in there...after having to retaliate with nukes on every Muslim city in the middle east. Yes, Israel was nuked first mercilessly. They knew they were all alone, standing on Masada. Bring down the temple on their own heads, then. I can understand Samson now.
(OK, I will quit.) ...
but you see, Rob, we are men and women of OUR own time too.
Obama and crew are trying to turn the lights out on freedom.
They truly are.
I shall do everything unto death to prevent them from doing that.
God bless

Margie| 12.2.09 @ 1:27PM

I call them pale-face paleos.

Margie| 12.2.09 @ 5:00PM

('Twas meant @ Mr. Harland, not article.)

Charlie Fremont| 12.2.09 @ 2:00PM

Asking American Conservatives and their fellow travelers to honor a man like Secretary Marshall is absurd! He was at FDR's side throughout that dark age. He oversaw the appeasement to the Soviets. As for the Marshall plan . . . I don't think Conrad Adenour (sp. ?) was a fan. Amazing what you ask us to accept.

R Martin| 12.2.09 @ 3:21PM

What dark age? Are you referring to that period when Marshall, Roosevelt, Churchill and Brooke liberated Europe from the Nazis and Asia from the Japanese? Read "Masters and Commanders"; you might be enlightened.

Quartermaster| 12.2.09 @ 3:33PM

Marshall really wasn't much of a General, just a military manager. Contemporaries Patton and Mac Arthur stood head and shoulders above him.

The darkest mark against Marshall was his betrayal of China in Mao's hands. Worse, he was open about it. Marshall has the blood of more than 50 million Chinese on his hands. He was far from a great man.

Jim O'Brien| 12.2.09 @ 3:46PM

A favorite quote from Marshall:
"We have tried since the birth of our nation to promote our love of peace by a display of weakness. This course has failed us utterly." - General George C. Marshall, 1945
And now we have Midget Obama, announcing to the enemy that we will leave the battlefield in 2011. In the meantime, our soldiers are supposed to fight with one hand tied behind their backs (ala Vietnam). This will cause an increase in the number of our troops killed or wounded in Afghanistan. The only way to fight a war is with overwhelming force, fighting to kill all the enemy as quickly as possible. General Patton must be rolling over in his grave, to think that so many brave men and women's lives will be wasted on the battlefield due to the gross incompetence, immorality, mendacity, and disgusting arrogance of BHO. Is it 2012 yet?

Rob Harland| 12.2.09 @ 5:53PM

Let's not get carried away with the damning of Marshall: he wanted to go to war but Roosevelt kept him back as an overall manager. It may not be as glorious a post as a field commander, but it is equally necessary to have food, ammo, and other war material as it is to have someone in the field to implement its use. Try fighting a transcontinental war on two broad fronts and see how far you get without a good quartermaster-cum-accountant at the top. It's a bit like saying Lincoln was a bad president because he wasn't Sherman or Grant.
"There are few men whose qualities of mind and character have impressed me so deeply as those of General Marshall. He is a great American but he is far more than that. In war he was as wise and understanding in counsel as he was resolute in action. In peace he was the architect who planned the restoration of our battered European economy and at the same time laboured tirelessly to establish a system of Western defense. He has always fought victoriously against defeatism, discouragement, and disillusion. Succeeding generations must not be allowed to forget his achievements and his example. "
Winston Churchill

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.2.09 @ 6:52PM

Rob
Thank you.
I am now going up to our last interchange and copy pasting here...(before I saw your post here).

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.2.09 @ 6:46PM
Rob,
Heh, we aren't going to have time to discuss this fully before the site rolls on, but your points are well taken.
May I simply say that General Marshall was above anything, a man of his times. He woke up one morning with the United States standing astride the world.... He done good!

We have had to send every single muslim back where they came from, just out of real fear that they really believed THE Mohammed, and would kill our babies...and their babies...to prove it.

Richard Baker| 12.2.09 @ 7:07PM

Quartermaster:
Winston Churchill referred to GEN Marshall as the "Organizer of Victory." As he proved during WWI, he had a great ability to get complicated operations lined up, organized, and be successfully executed. He had Overlord for the asking but, in character, asked for nothing for himself. He also selected most of the Army senior commanders from the little black book he'd kept since WWI. FDR didn't want him to go as he remarked that he wouldn't be able to sleep with him out of town. We'll never know about him as a battlefield commander due to his selflessness in duty. Manager, hardly. The "Organizer of Victory", of course. Suggest you read up on GEN Marshall beyond a Cliff's Notes understanding.

Richard Baker| 12.2.09 @ 7:14PM

Fremont:
Yes, GEN Marshall was probably not a very good diplomat. However, he scrupulously stayed out of the political realm while Chief of Staff and everyone in the Allied cause knew it. Twice, Harry Truman asked him to come out of retirement to serve, which he did and strictly out of Duty to his country. As I told Quartermaster, I'd suggest more than a Cliff's Notes understanding about this man.

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.2.09 @ 7:36PM

Mr. Baker,
Thank you. See Ken above.

chanel watches| 12.2.09 @ 10:07PM

Nice post!
Thanks!

Christopher Holland| 12.2.09 @ 10:26PM

In todays dollars the Marshall Program cost $117 billion - a mere pittance compared to the amount squandered on the TARP monstrosity. AIG alone got a handout of $180 billion - a complete waste. The Marshall Program was money very well spent and George C Marshall deserves every accolade ever written about him. He was a historic figure and a great American in every sense and he makes Barack Obama look like a snivelling, limp wristed bedwetter. America doesn't have leaders of the calibre of George C Marshall anymore and the world knows it.

Richard Baker| 12.3.09 @ 4:51AM

Mr. Holland:
Agree with your last message. We don't seem to be producing men of his caliber these days. Instead we get political weasels like GEN Casey, the present Chief of Staff and GEN (ret.) Shinseki, former Chief of Staff. The selflessness exhibited by GEN Marshall is a rare commodity these days.

Charlie Fremont| 12.3.09 @ 11:02AM

Next you'll press the case that Ike, Nixon and "WIN" Ford were great political leaders. Oh, Truman too.

Richard Baker| 12.3.09 @ 8:42PM

Fremont:
You liberals do have such a problem staying focused. This post was about George Marshall and his selflessness as a Soldier and servant of the country. I'll say it again since you can't seem to read. He was not a great diplomat and his China Mission was a last gasp by Truman to use Marshall's reputation and esteemed character to hopefully bring the Communists and Nationalists together. Obviously, his mission was unsuccessful. You really must stop reading the Cliff's Notes version of history. Try books as your computer searches aren't yielding much knowledge.

Richard Baker| 12.3.09 @ 8:55PM

By the way, a statue of George Marshall, VMI class of 1901, stands on the parade ground at the Institute next to a statue of Stonewall Jackson who was a pre-Civil war professor at the school. A High Honor for both. Recommend that if you're on I-81 near Lexington, VA that you stop by for a visit. It'll be worth the stop.

L.T.| 12.9.09 @ 10:33PM

I am a foreign-born American and I greatly admire GEN. Marshall for his integrity and services to this country. He was above the partisian line, a fact that some posters here do not understand or realize. Both ends of the political arena, except those McCarthy nuts, respect the man for his high honor and serving his country first. Someone mentions Patton and MacArthur above, but having great battlefield commanders can NOT win a World War. Only great strategiests can. If you read the history carefully on GEN. Patton and GEN. MacArthur, you would realize they are great to execuate battles but not run a war. Furthermore, in term of characters comparision, I suggest people reading on MacArthur's, especially during his time in Phillipines. He would have been court- martialed for the payments he received if it's happening now. Even GEN. Ike detested MacArthur's antics. Read the history books, not some Wiki or blogs sites.

Sec. of War Henry Stimson, a conservative, refused to sign on Marshall's recommendation to give MacArthur's Medal of Honor several times before he signed on. Well, b/c the Old Stimson knew damn well that MacArthur sneaked out off Phillipines on a PT boat instead of fighting to his breath as he and his cronnies told the press, which was so fancy of him.

In short, GEN. Marshall served this country well and deserves to be remembered by future generations. Americans only know the Marshall Plan but hardly know the man or his services to this great nation. So, quit blaming Marshall for losing China. China lost to communism b/c of the corrupt regime of the Chinese Nationalists, not Marshall. Viet Nam lost to communism b/c of the corrupt regime of the South Vietnamese. And Iraq and Afganistan will be lost to extremists if corrupt regimes continue to rule these countries.