Tog Sverige emot någon Marshall-hjälp?

Skriv svar
Användarvisningsbild
Hiawatha
Medlem
Inlägg: 22
Blev medlem: 13 augusti 2002, 12:54
Ort: Treriksröset

Tog Sverige emot någon Marshall-hjälp?

Inlägg av Hiawatha » 8 april 2005, 13:15

Tog Sverige emot någon Marshall-hjälp? Jag har olika versioner; att vi gjorde det alternativt att vi inte gjorde det.

Användarvisningsbild
Hans
Redaktör och stödjande medlem 2026
Inlägg: 33265
Blev medlem: 11 juli 2002, 12:52
Ort: Utrikes

Re: Tog Sverige emot någon Marshall-hjälp?

Inlägg av Hans » 8 april 2005, 13:28

Sverige fick hjälp.

Initially Sweden partook in the Marshall aid program and, as a consequence, had to follow the US restrictions on export of strategic equipment to the east.
http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~pete/EWStenlas.pdf

MVH

Hans

edit - http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.wa ... s/03/maps/

Användarvisningsbild
borris
Medlem
Inlägg: 163
Blev medlem: 24 augusti 2004, 17:58
Ort: Skåne

Inlägg av borris » 8 april 2005, 14:28

Om jag minns rätt finansieraierades (både vad det gällde pengar och knowhow) BARK och BESK till en stor del av Marshallhjälpen.

Användarvisningsbild
Hiawatha
Medlem
Inlägg: 22
Blev medlem: 13 augusti 2002, 12:54
Ort: Treriksröset

Inlägg av Hiawatha » 8 april 2005, 15:20

Finns det svenska källor på det?

Webblänkar till Finland och CNN får mig inte att hoppa av entusiasm. :)

Frogman
Medlem
Inlägg: 1166
Blev medlem: 15 februari 2003, 22:27
Ort: Sverige

Inlägg av Frogman » 8 april 2005, 15:29

Ingen svensk källa, men lite intressant iallafall,
A Summary of the Marshall Plan.

Even now a model for positive economic diplomacy, the Marshall Plan was a rational effort by the United States aimed at reducing the hunger, homelessness, sickness, unemployment, and political restlessness of the 270 million people in sixteen nations in West Europe. Marshall Plan funds were not mainly directed toward feeding individuals or building individual houses, schools, or factories, but at strengthening the economic superstructure (particularly the iron-steel and power industries). The program cost the American taxpayers $11,820,700,000 (plus $1,505,100,000 in loans that were repaid) over four years and worked because it was aimed at aiding a well-educated, industrialized people temporarily down but not out. The Marshall Plan significantly magnified their own efforts and reduced the suffering and time West Europe took to recover from the war. The program--whose official title was "European Recovery Program"--aimed at: (1) increasing production; (2) expanding European foreign trade; (3) facilitating European economic cooperation and integration; and (4) controlling inflation, which was the program's chief failure.

The idea of massive U.S. loans to individual countries had already been tried (nearly $20 billion--mainly long-term, low interest loans--since the war’s end) and had failed to make significant headway against Europe's social and economic problems. The plan that Marshall enunciated at Harvard University on June 5, 1947, was revolutionary in that it required the recipients to organize to produce a rational, multilateral approach to their common economic problems. Another innovative feature was its limited duration: four years maximum, thereby assuring American taxpayers and their representatives that the program would not be an indefinite commitment.

The economic problems in 1947-48 included not only the lack of capital to invest, but also the need for Europeans to overcome a U.S. trade surplus with them so massive as to imperil further trade and to encourage unmanageable inflation. Marshall Plan money helped stimulate the revival of European trade with the world and increased trade among European countries.

Americans were reluctant to invest in Europe because their profits were available only in local currencies that were little desired by U.S. businesses and investors. The Marshall Plan guaranteed that these investors would be able to convert their profits earned in European currencies into U.S. dollars. Grants and loans in U.S. dollars enabled managers in Europe to purchase in America specialty tools for their new industries. Marshall Plan money also paid for industrial technicians and farmers to visit U.S. industries and farms to study American techniques. Plan funds even paid the postage on privately contributed relief packages.

Many people in Washington helped to implement and manage the European Recovery Program that Marshall first outlined at Harvard; this is why, in addition to his normal modesty, Marshall refused to call the idea the "Marshall Plan." He always believed that his greatest contribution to the program was his 1947-48 nationwide campaign to convince the American people--and through them the Congress--of the its necessity; he likened his efforts in scope and intensity to a campaign for the presidency.

Over its four-year life, the Marshall Plan cost the U.S. 2.5 to 5 times the percent of national income as current foreign aid programs. One would need to multiply the program's $13.3 billion cost by 10 or perhaps even 20 times to have the same impact on the U.S. economy now as the Marshall Plan had between 1948 and 1952. (Most of the money was spend between 1948 and the beginning of the Korean War (June 25, 1950); after June 30, 1951, the remaining aid was folded into the Mutual Defense Assistance Program.)

On December 10, 1953, George C. Marshall received the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, Norway. He accepted it, not as his individual triumph, but as the representative of the American people, whose efforts and money had made the program a success.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marshall Plan Expenditures

Economic Assistance, April 3, 1948 to June 30, 1952
(in millions of dollars)

COUNTRY Total Grants Loans
Total for all countries $13,325.8 $11,820.7 $1,505.1

Austria 677.8 677.8 --
Belgium-Luxembourg 559.3 491.3 68.0a
Britain 3,189.8 2,805.0 384.8
Denmark 273.0 239.7 33.3
France 2,713.6 2,488.0 225.6
Germany, Federal Republic of 1,390.6 1,173.7 216.9b
Greece 706.7 706.7 --
Iceland 29.3 24.0 5.3
Ireland 147.5 19.3 128.2
Italy (including Trieste) 1,508.8 1,413.2 95.6
Netherlands (*East Indies)c 1,083.5 916.8 166.7
Norway 255.3 216.1 39.2
Portugal 51.2 15.1 36.1
Sweden 107.3 86.9 20.4
Turkey 225.1 140.1 85.0


Regional 407.0d 407.0d --

Notes:

Loan total includes $65.0 million for Belgium and $3.0 million for Luxembourg: grant detail between the two countries cannot be identified.

Includes an original loan figure of $16.9 million, plus $200.0 million representing a pro-rated share of grants converted to loans under an agreement signed February 27, 1953.

Marshall Plan aid to the Netherlands East Indies (now Indonesia) was extended through the Netherlands prior to transfer of sovereignty on December 30, 1949. The aid totals for the Netherlands East Indies are as follows:
Total $101.4 million, Grants $84.2 million, Loans $17.2 million.

Includes U.S. contribution to the European Payments Union (EPU) capital fund, $361.4 million; General Freight Account, $33.5 million; and European Technical Assistance Authorizations (multi-country or regional), $12.1 million.

Statistics & Reports Division
Agency for International Development

mustamato
Medlem
Inlägg: 796
Blev medlem: 2 maj 2004, 15:16
Ort: Lite här och där

Inlägg av mustamato » 24 april 2005, 00:43

Även om Sverige inte hade tagit emot direkt stöd som man valde att göra, hade man ändå märkt av positiva effekter. Den svenska industrin stod ju i ett gyllene läge i maj 1945 eftersom den inte var sönderbombad. Ta en sådan sak som varvsindustrin t.ex, den norska handelsflottan som före andra världskriget var en av världens största hade lidit väldiga förluster i fartygstonnage under kriget, och efter kriget lade de norska redarna (uppmanade av statligt stöd/Marshallhjälp) massiva beställningar hos svenska varv.

Stefan Lundgren
Stödjande medlem 2022
Inlägg: 13422
Blev medlem: 11 augusti 2003, 18:15
Ort: Uppland
Kontakt:

Inlägg av Stefan Lundgren » 28 april 2005, 13:58

Frogman!

Har du tittat i följande arkiv?

http://www.ra.se
http://www.nad.ra.se

Stefan

Användarvisningsbild
JASGripen
Ny medlem
Inlägg: 3
Blev medlem: 15 maj 2005, 19:15
Ort: Svea-rige

Inlägg av JASGripen » 15 maj 2005, 20:29

Författarna av pdf-artikeln är svenska disputerade historiker, så nu kan Hiawatha hoppa av entusiasm. :)

Gudbjorn
Utsparkad
Inlägg: 208
Blev medlem: 6 december 2004, 12:53
Ort: Norge

Inlägg av Gudbjorn » 24 maj 2005, 13:40

mustamato skrev:Även om Sverige inte hade tagit emot direkt stöd som man valde att göra, hade man ändå märkt av positiva effekter. Den svenska industrin stod ju i ett gyllene läge i maj 1945 eftersom den inte var sönderbombad. Ta en sådan sak som varvsindustrin t.ex, den norska handelsflottan som före andra världskriget var en av världens största hade lidit väldiga förluster i fartygstonnage under kriget, och efter kriget lade de norska redarna (uppmanade av statligt stöd/Marshallhjälp) massiva beställningar hos svenska varv.
Er forsåvidt enig, men Sverige kunne ikke låne penger av andre land enn USA. De andre landene i Europa var sønderbombade. Nå hadde sverige mulighet til å ekspandere også. Nye markeder fantes i Europa, hvor sverige kunne tjene penger. Dermed var det også viktig å låne penger av noen til dette formålet.

Användarvisningsbild
Rally
Medlem
Inlägg: 337
Blev medlem: 9 november 2002, 00:48
Ort: Bajenland

Inlägg av Rally » 25 maj 2005, 03:29

"Deltagande i Marchallplanen och i dess europeiska organisation OEEC (1961 ombildad till OECD) ansågs 1947 vara ekonomisk angeläget" (Andrén, Nils, Maktbalans och Alliansfrihet, 1996, Nordstedts Juridik)

Om Sverige och marchallhjälpen.

Skriv svar