this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2026
1070 points (97.9% liked)
People Twitter
9826 readers
558 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not when that guy owns the construction company
..so anyone who owns a construction yard in this analogy has carte blanche to demolish as many houses as they want without any penalty or repercussions?
What?
You think reconstruction of europe after the war was made for shit and giggles? They reconstructed europe because its good business. America made money out of the marchall plan, it's no charity. The same ways colonisers didn't go to africa to help poor people develop out of charity. They went there to open new markets, forcibly if needed.
The guy who destroy houses shouldn't be the one getting contracted to reconstruct them afterward, idiot. It just gives him more incentive to destroy more houses.
Sticks and stones make break my bones, but words will never hurt me.
Firstly, sticking with the original analogy - the construction company that does the damage doesn’t need to be the one contracted to rebuild, but it should definitely should be held accountable and foot the bill - reparations are a thing for a reason.
Secondly, the US made money as a result of the Marshall Plan (which was largely grants, not loans) - because rebuilding Europe meant additional friendly markets for which to trade with, but also because it would serve to prevent the same dire economic circumstances that befell Europe in the aftermath of WW1, leading to the rise of the Nazi Party, and ultimately WW2.
Doing an ostensibly good thing, even for purely selfish reasons, where one stands to benefit from others also doing well, is not inherently a bad thing. The phrase “a rising tide lifts all boats” is fitting - or maybe I’m just a Consequentialist at heart.
ah yes and I guess the UK colonized India to civilise them, out of sheer charity? "Open new market" = force them to use the colonizers services and industry. Quit being fucking naive. Hell the US is still forcing us to buy their shitty planes. The US killed left-wing politicians. The US empowered nazis in intelligence services so we wouldn't grow too close to the USSR.
Of course the US should foot the bill. In kind. They certainly shouldn't be allowed anywhere near Iran nor anywhere else they destroyed.
More gish-gallop.
„Opening a new market” in this case means funding and rebuilding an otherwise war obliterated continent with next to no means of housing or feeding its people; or are you seriously arguing that they should have just left it all to the Soviet army to rape, pillage and plunder like they did to Eastern Europe?
I’m not being naive, you’re just being obstinate.
The US is capable of some vehemently abhorrent action, but the Marshall Plan was not one of them.
Finally we can agree on something.
Yea my french grandma told me what the GIs did to her city at "liberation". Quit eating propaganda. You guys pillaged and plundered just as much as them.
The marshall plan was a colonisation plan and we still live under it. Belgium also spent shitload of money to "develop" congo.
And that's also worthy for afghanistan
..and mine told me exactly what the Red Army did to hers, while guaranteeing you her experience was worse.
You can continue to call the Marshall Plan „colonisation” all you want, but doing so doesn’t make it so.
Either way, as much fun as this back and forth has been - it’s 1am here and bed is calling.
Hope you enjoy the rest of your day, wherever you are.