defending Europe, he says the “Americans began to realize that a potentially hostile power was one again threatening Europe”. This is evident as Stalin was already beginning his consolidation of power throughout Western Europe between 1945-47 through rigged elections, for example Poland in 1947 violence was used and ant-communist parties were persecuted, with the Communists winning the election this gave the Soviets legitimacy to say that Poland was democratic. Gaddis validates this by saying “Stalin’s policy, was one of imperial expansion”. Gaddis provides sufficient support to Rees. These arguments provide evidence to show that communism was key and I specifically agree 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”.

The second strand arguing the motive behind the plan was humanitarian, is less persuasive. He focusses more on portraying the US as a hero against communism the “tyranny”, with little evidence to support their motives were to specifically help the European people. Whilst this isn’t as far-fetched as Kolko saying it was all American self-interest. Rees argument is more substantial in saying the motive was protecting Europe from communism, not helping the people, “Most important of all, American power was still the ultimate guarantee of Western collective security”. On the other hand, despite Rees’ humanitarian argument not being that strong, I think that Nicolaus Mills provides a stronger argument for the motive on the grou