with Gaddis argument. “It’s difficult to see how a strategy of containment could have developed – with the Marshall plan as its centerpiece – had there been nothing to contain”. Therefore, Rees and Gaddis highlight the underlying motive of containment. The plan couldn’t have arisen without the initial doctrine of containment as it was this that spurred on the Marshall plan, in the fact that economic support was required to contain it. Rees says that without the Marshall plan “the collapse of Western Eurasia seemed imminent”.

David Rees provides a somewhat compelling argument for the introduction of the Marshall plan, due to the breath of motives he includes. He offers two strands, a humanitarian aspect and protecting Europe from communist threat. This already is more convincing than Kolko as Rees gives a more diverse view of American politics, not just the economic self-interest that Kolko proposes.

Rees’ strand articulating the motive behind the plan, containment of communism, is credible as he emphasizes the deep rooted ideological differences that had been shown between the US and the Soviets for years as key to the introduction of the Marshall plan. Rees’ citing of Potsdam, 1945 where he says “grave differences” were seen between the two powers can be validated by other sources, ‘’the United States government was initially hostile to the Soviet leaders for taking Russia out of World War I and was opposed to a state ideologically based on communism”. This shows that for years’ communism had been the wall between the two powers. Also, Rees citing of George Kennan, US diplomat “I still consider that containment is better than war… with regards to Russia”, gives convincing support towards his argument the Marshall plan was defensive. This argument provides strong evidence that communism was the most important motive as Rees says it was about “encouraging as far as possible the survival of free institutions”. This can be supported by the fact Truman’s foreign policy, the Truman Doctrine,