Assess the impact of the Truman Doctrine and the M Essays

Assess the impact of the Truman Doctrine and the M Essays Assess the impact of the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan on the development of the Cold War between 1945 and 1949. Marina Gutierrez IB History Y2 Nicholas 13 March 2015 While many historians disagree over who is to blame for the Cold War, it can be wholeheartedly agreed upon that the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan were essential turning points in the U.S. role in the Cold War. The final years of the second World War and the Yalta conference all demonstrated the differences in opinions, policies, and goals between the U.S. and USSR; these differences that would grow and cause a huge rift between the two superpowers. America was becoming increasingly alarmed by the growth of Soviet power. So, when the British told Truman they could no longer afford to keep their soldiers in Greece, Truman stepped in to take over. In March 1947, he told the American Congress it was America's job to stop communism growing any stronger. It is often said that Truman advocated containment (stopping the Soviet getting any more powerful), but Truman did not use this word and many Americans spoke of rolling back communism. The Truman Doctrine was a response to a crisis . Behind it lay the Communist/Soviet takeover of many of the countries of eastern Europe by salami tactics' - which, Truman alleged, was in breach of Stalin's promises at the Yalta Conference. The idea of these historians here is that, in his speech, Truman drew a line in the sand' - Communism could keep what it had got, but he would not let it grow any more. This implication is one of an America justifiably resisting - containing' - any further Soviet aggression. Marshall Plan nations were assisted greatly in their economic recovery. From 1948 through 1952 European economies grew at an unprecedented rate. Trade relations led to the formation of the North Atlantic alliance. Economic prosperity led by coal and steel industries helped to shape what we know now as the European Union. The majority of the funds provided, went to purchase goods, mainly manufactured or produced in the United States. At the beginning, this was primarily food and fuel. Although this may also be considered the main criticism of the program; in that America was following a concept for economic imperialism, in an attempt to gain economic control of Europe. But in reality, the amounts that America donated as part of the Marshall Plan, can hardly be considered imperialism, in that they represent only a small fraction of the GNP, and the duration of the program was limited from the start. In Germany, a vast amount of money was invested in the rebuilding of industry, with the coal industry alone receiving 40% of these funds. The concept was simple enough, companies that were provided such funds, were obliged to repay these loans to their government, so that these same funds could be used to assist other businesses and industries. Post-war Germany had been forced to dismantle a great deal of its major factories and industries, according to guidelines enforced by the Allied Control Council. Figures for car production alone had been set to levels that represented only 10% of pre-war numbers. With the introduction by the Western Allies of the German Mark as the new official currency, on June 21, 1948, a new economic era was signalled within Europe and especially Germany. The Petersberg Agreement, signed in November 1949, increased these production figures for Germany dramatically.

The effects of making employee salaries public

The effects of making employee salaries public We’re living in a rapidly evolving world where almost everything is done online and the very notion of privacy seems to be evaporating. Most of us are growing increasingly more comfortable having our lives made public through a variety of social networks. This new open and public approach to sharing information is affecting companies as well. How so? Many companies are embracing the notion of complete public transparency and disclosure in ways they never have before. Everything is potentially on the table for being made public, including employee salaries- something that up until recently has long been held in the strictest of confidence. Let’s dig deeper into this concept of employee pay transparency, and how it’s affecting the status quo.The idea behind making employee salaries public is an arguably noble one- more and more companies are seeking to embrace the philosophy that being open and honest with their employees about all things is an effective way to for ge more progressive, sincere, and honest employee/employer relationships. It can also help address some unfortunate inequities in compensation that women and minority groups sometimes face, an issue that gets inadequate attention, especially when salary information is kept hidden.The Wall Street Journal published an article on the good, the bad, and the downright awkward aspects of companies adopting an open salary policy. According to the article, â€Å"The idea of open pay is to get pay and performance problems out on the table for discussion, eliminate salary inequalities, and spark better performance†¦ But open pay also is sparking some awkward conversations between co-workers comparing their paychecks, and puncturing egos among those whose salaries don’t sync with their self-image.†The truth is, as employees we can make a direct correlation between our pay and how our employers perceive and value our contributions, so having this information helps take the gu esswork out of knowing where we stand- both as individuals and in comparison with our colleagues.So, despite its good intentions, when salaries are revealed employers can count on seeing a potentially disruptive effect- while those employees who are at the top of the pay scale will likely be grateful and appreciative (unless they feel that they’re still not being paid enough compared to their coworkers), those at the bottom of the salary food chain can count on being unhappy and confronting their bosses to help remedy the situation. Then, if balance regarding compensation is not reached, it will likely lead to some employees seeking better opportunities elsewhere. Making salary information public can also lead to potential awkwardness and strife among colleagues who sit at opposite ends of the compensation spectrum, which can adversely affect productivity and motivation.It seems clear that although there are some truly good potential reasons for publicly disclosing salary inf ormation, there are some significant potential pitfalls that employers should be on the lookout for when making the decision to do so. Progressive employers who react quickly and decisively to address issues regarding pay inequity will be in the best position to quell any potential disruptions, while those who are slow or late to respond may create some tension among their staff or lose some valuable talent to competitors who are willing to pay your employees what they feel they deserve.Perhaps the best approach for handling the issue of whether or not to publicly disclose salary information is to plan carefully- and proceed with caution.