Für neue Autoren:
kostenlos, einfach und schnell
Für bereits registrierte Autoren
16 Seiten, Note: 1.0
Chapter 1: Historical Background
WWII and its consequences
Genesis of America’s aid to war-torn Europe and its doctrine of Containment
The Marshall Plan
Chapter 2: From isolationism to close intervention The Marshall plan and the reasons behind it
To intervene or not to intervene?
What’s behind U.S. commitment to European recovery?
SoMilestone of a new Europe?
.Or Tool of American Imperialism?
Chapter 3 : Brief Overview: The aftermath of the Marshall plan
Germany. Where it all began
From national to supranational
What’s on today? A conclusion.
« I believe that, in years to come. we shall look back upon this undertaking as the dividing line between the old era of national suspicion, economic hostility, and isolationism, and the new era of mutual cooperation to increase the prosperity of people throughout the world »
These words by U.S. president Harry Truman mirror the American policy of the mid 20th century which characterizes the Cold War period. One of the pillars of U.S. engagement on European soil was the four-year European Recovery Program, commonly known as the Marshall plan, after secretary of state George Marshall. This plan had the happy consequences of boosting Europe’s economy, promoting its integration and by doing so keeping away a possible spread of communism over western Europe and thus underlining the deep division between the West and the ʻevil empireʼ. A bipolar system has established.
But the question arises: What are the real motives behind America’s commitment to Europe in the immediate post-war years? Was the E.R.P. a way of securing its interests in the old continent or just a mere sign of sympathy for war-torn Europe?
There are multiple answers among the historians:
Traditionalist views have pointed to America’s defensive reasons since the U.S. and western Europe needed security and protection in face of the Soviet threat. This clearly explains the policies of Containment and prevention of Soviet expansion.
A second generations of scholarship have pointed more on America’s aggressive motivations, geared towards establishing hegemony over western Europe. The highlight is put here on the economic motivations of the U.S. capitalist system and its inherent need to expand its market and so sponsoring economies compatible with their model.
There’s even a third wing who think that America’s policies were aimed at the need and desire to expand its influence abroad, gradually establishing an empire for a combination of political, economic, military and security reasons.
The Europeans on their behalf may have invited the Americans to stay on the continent for economic, political and defensive reasons, thus letting them establish an empire “by invitation”.
Now, whatever the reason there’s no doubt that The Marshall plan, together with the American policies of the 40s have resulted in a major help. British foreign secretary Ernest Bevin praised it as «a lifeline to sinking men, a ray of hope where none had existed before».
Beyond the questions of U.S. imperialism the Marshall plan stays a milestone of foreign policy and an example of mutual help and hard times’ alliance.
World war II proved to be a major catastrophe in human history. At the end of the conflict in the first half of 1945, the world had to come face to face with the loss and destruction brought about by the war. More than 30 million Europeans lost their lives in the conflict, both military and civilian casualties. Cities, towns and villages were left in ruins, large amounts of arable soil throughout Europe and Asia were left devastated, the industrial production was at its lowest and most of its infrastructure had been destroyed, the economy of nearly every country was collapsed.
The Soviet Union was the country with the highest rate of casualties followed by Poland, Germany, France, Great Britain, the United States along with other European countries. Moreover in addition to the large amount of homeless people, food was scarce and shortage o basic needs was at hand. As a matter of fact the end of the war hadn’t brought optimism or happiness, but a rather strong desire for reconstruction, peace and security.
A new balance of powers was establishing after WW2. As the war against Nazi Germany was almost over, the three main characters of the alliance held a conference in the Crimean city of Yalta on February 1945. American President F.D. Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Soviet General Secretary Joseph Stalin had to make decisions about the future of Germany, of all its occupied territories, the reparations and the war on the Pacific front. Most of those decisions were later made concrete in the following Potsdam Conference of July-August 1945, were the division of Germany into four occupied zones, its disarmament and the shift of its borders to the Oder-Neisse line were among the agreements.
As soon as the hostilities were over, the clash between the Soviet Union and the western allies became ever more evident. The red army had occupied large parts of eastern Europe and eastern Germany in order to defeat the Nazi troops but now the soviet government was taking over these territories by favouring communist governments in east Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania and Yugoslavia. This latter will eventually take distance from Stalin’s overwhelming power by establishing its own communist government led by marshal Josip Broz Tito.
The fear of a Soviet influence and the concerns of a possible Soviet expansion first towards western Europe and later towards the entire world will lead the United States to oppose the Soviet Union in a period of political and military tension commonly known as Cold war.
As Churchill pointed out in his famous 1946 speech in Fulton, Missouri «An iron curtain has descended across the Continent» which has divided not only Europe but the whole world into two major blocs (even though a non-aligned countries’ movement will step forward in the 50s that includes a large number of countries in Europe, Africa, Asia and South America) on one side the Democracies of the West led by the U.S.A. and on the other side the Communist world guided by the Soviet Union.
The first signs of crisis between the two blocs became ever more visible, in fact the different policies undertaken by the two blocs within the German territory will inevitably lead to the famous Berlin blockade which will end up with the 1949 unification of the western zones of occupied Germany into the Federal Republic of Germany (Bundesrepublik Deutschland) and the soviet zone into another state, the German Democratic Republic (Deutsche Demokratische Republik). This first hint of the consolidation of the two blocs will be subsequently followed by further crucial events such as:
- the birth of the Atlantic Alliance (NATO) with the Washington treaty of April 4, 1949. The mutual defence alliance, born on the basis of the former Western European Union Defence Organization, was according to its first Secretary General Lord Ismay supposed to « Keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down »; and along with its article 5 proves to be one of the pillars of the Transatlantic relations.
- The Birth of a western alliance together with the joining of West Germany into NATO led to a counterattack by the Soviets with the signing of the Warsaw Pact on May 15, 1955. A mutual defence alliance among the countries of central and eastern Europe under Soviet influence. This new alliance will enable The Soviet Union to acquire a deeper control over its satellite states and to fight any form of liberalization.
Therefore by the mid-1950s the world is already experiencing a bipolar system and its balance of powers. But if we take a step backward we would be able to analyse the genesis of America’s aid to the European recovery process and the subsequent close relationship between the U.S. and a unifying Europe.
As the war came to and end the majority of European countries experienced economic stagnation and a sudden economic collapse. By 1946 Europe had a deficit of around 7 billion dollars. Moreover the winter of 1946-47 proved to be
really hard for the whole European continent. Facing such a harsh situation, Britain had to stop its financial aids to civil war-torn Greece and to Turkey as well. Such a situation put the two eastern Mediterranean countries at risk of a possible Communist subjugation which was feared foremost by the United States. On 12 March 1947 President Harry Truman addresses the country stating that the U.S. would support Greece and Turkey with 400 millions of economic and military aid to prevent their falling into Soviet sphere and, as he said «support free people who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures». By doing so America could pursue its new policy of Containment of Soviet expansion framed by U.S. ambassador to Moscow George F. kennan.
The Truman Doctrine is nowadays seen as the beginning of the Cold war phase. Less then three months later, the American economic aid would be expanded to the whole European continent through a program which will go down in history known as the Marshall Plan.
«Its purpose should be the revival of a working economy in the world so as to permit the emergence of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist ». These words are part of a long speech made by Secretary of State George Marshall at Harvard University on 5 June 1947 which explains the major initiative addressed to the European countries in need of help. Its official name was European Recovery Program (E.R.P.) arranged for 4 years (1948-1952) on an amount of 13 billion dollars in economic, food and technical assistance. The aid was at first addressed even to the soviet Union and its allies in eastern Europe but will be immediately refused by Moscow because that would have meant a subsequent U.S. control of their economies. Its work was coordinated by the Washington-based Economic Cooperation Administration (ECA) administered by Paul G. Hoffman and the Paris-based Organization for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC) and started by reaching agreements with each country involved and fixing the amount of aid needed.
5.300 billion US dollars was the overall amount of aids given in the very first year of the E.R.P.
Besides the full recovery of European nations, the aims of the E.R.P. were multiple:
- revitalizing U.S.- Europe trading process, as European states were America’s major economic partner.
- Fostering a possible European economic integration, leading to free trade with no tariff or currency difficulties.
- Along with the Truman Doctrine the E.R.P. major goal was to fight a possible spread of Communism by strengthening aided countries’ free-market economies and isolating the extreme left-wing parties in order to avoid a possible Soviet takeover.
In 1949 The soviet bloc as well would develop an economic program under the name of COMECON , Council for mutual economic assistance, upon Stalin’s desire to cooperate and strengthen the international socialist relationship on the economic level with its satellite states (mainly Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland, which at first were interested in partaking in the E.R.P. but soon were forced to pull out by Moscow’s government) which together with COMINFORM  was supposed to build a Communist shield against The Truman doctrine and the new western bloc.
No doubts the Marshall Plan represents a major boost on European economies; moreover we could argue that it serves as on of the pillars of the transatlantic relations together with NATO alliance, and is at the basis of the process of European integration (first economic then political) which will bring to a more complex process of supranational unification starting with the European Coal and Steel community of 1952 to nowadays European Union. A process aiming at, as French General Charles De Gaulle will later point out, «a Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals ».
The United States have long pursued a policy of isolationism since the making of the Monroe doctrine in 1823 stating a ʻcontinental isolationismʼ of the Americas from European business, which was later interrupted by U.S. intervention in World War I. In the 1920’s the American government plunges into a new isolationist phase (also due to U.S. economic adequate self-sufficiency and thus not requiring a substantial reliance on foreign trade) but later witnessing the economic crash of 1929 and the subsequent worldwide Great Depression. The outbreak of WWII in 1939 will once again find the U.S. hanging between intervention and isolationism, until Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour which will force America to partake in a new and more devastating war. Once the conflict was finally over the United States of America found itself in a new role as a world leading power, close-related to Europe’s development and its future. So once again the question gets to wether engaging with Europe or not: isolationism or intervention? At present we know what the answer to this question was, but what really lies behind America’s commitment to European affairs?
First of all it’s extremely important to underline that without the economic aid given to Europe through the E.R.P. and other previous loans, the whole continent would presumably be living today under a “Pax Sovietica”, which means that the Marshall plan helped lots of countries to remain free from Soviet power by depriving the Communist parties (especially in Italy and France) of the very ground on which they stood, namely the state of poverty and lack of development in which the whole Europe was lying after WWII and which represented a perfect breeding ground for a communist takeover.
This said, I’d like to start an analysis of the possible reasons which brought the United States to develop such a strong commitment to European countries given its previous Isolationistic policy. The first thing that comes to my mind is that it should have been a tough decision to spend such a great amount of money for the well-being of countries lying on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, especially since the U.S. Congress wasn’t as enthusiastic as president Truman was about such a big expenditure. So the thorniest question was the cost that would fall upon America (especially on its citizens) which necessarily requires a good reason for its exertion.
Already in 1950 some Europeans (especially the French, and especially the leftists) start to question the aims of American help: “Was it really designed to modernize and raise the level of life, or more to shore up American interests on economic and social systems?” this doubts arose due to the growing feeling that the Marshall plan was a means to drag Europe into America’s wars, by developing its production, but particularly its production for defence.
Doubtlessly The U.S. had interests lying behind its foreign policy of aid, some of which were clearly made evident:
- the Marshall plan as a means of aiding war-damaged and impoverished European economies to resurface in order to fight against the growing Soviet threat. Indeed Italy and France were the countries in western Europe which still had powerful communist parties trying to get to power; Greece was still struggling to get out of civil war (and hence America wanted to avoid a possible takeover by the Greek communist party), Britain was struggling with its internal deficit while Germany’s widespread poverty was fostering a popular discontent upon which the Communists were capitalizing. This situation represented a suitable chance for the Soviet Union and the communist parties to get enough power in western Europe as well. Therefore The American government felt it could not bear a Soviet threat in such a vital area and for the sake of its security had to do something to prevent such a gloomy prediction. The answer was president Truman’s Containment policy, the Marshall plan aid and the 1949 Washington treaty establishing NATO. The American approach will inevitably deteriorate the already short-lived equilibrium with the Soviet counterpart marking the final division into two blocs.
- The Marshall plan as a means to implement cooperation not barely with the U.S. but mainly among the European states in order to overcome their outdated national sovereign-state supremacy by supporting a common free trade and political integration. To the U.S. a European integration process would have brought a powerful economic (and military) ally and at the same time a barrier against any communist break-out. Additionally Germany, which was by far the most troublesome situation, would have been under control of a ʻwestern allianceʼ helping America to share the burden. The American effort towards European integration will finally prove successful with the creation of the ECSC.
- The Marshall plan as a way to achieve order and stability in a healing world. In fact only through a rigorous working open market and society there can be equilibrium, security and equality among all lands. Additionally the plan stimulated the creation of a liberal, capitalist, competitive market economy in favour of entrepreneurship and so creating an American-like society, in opposition to the centralized soviet socialist model.
On the other hand some historians (and Sceptics) claim that there were further reasons behind the E.R.P.:
- the Marshall plan mainly as a pathway that the U.S. used in order to overcome fears about their own economic stagnation after the war, by creating better environments for their businesses which were not beneficial for Europe itself. In other words America could have been fostering its political and economic interests.
- The Marshall plan together with the NATO military alliance as a means of setting up U.S. Imperialism. Indeed America has been looking to pre-empt for itself the role of world policeman, becoming the ʻconscience of the worldʼ and thus giving the impression of following a hidden policy of ʻpresumptuousʼ Imperialism, which is partly mitigated by acting under the U.N. name!
It is true that after 1945 the United States has got evermore involved directly and indirectly in keeping democratic governments stable all over the world or pulling down the undemocratic regimes just to establish an American-like government (aiming at a sort of ʻ Pax Americanaʼ) through a strategy named Rollback. This Rollback strategy was applied in multiple occasions like the Korean war of 1950, or the Cuban invasion to overthrow the communist government in 1961. Both these attempts failed to establish an American agreed regime.
The middle-east region as well experienced a growing American government’s commitment as in the Arab-Israeli wars or the famous 1953 Iranian Coup d’état. Further examples of U.S. growing imperialistic visions include the participation in the Suez canal crisis (second Arab-Israeli war) against a coalition between Israel, France and Great Britain which wanted to attack the Egyptian government upon the privatization of the Aswan Dam, or the long and overtoiling Vietnam War which follows the increasing American influence over the former French Indochina.
Moreover we should not forget the U.S. Nuclear weapons’ possession which increases its dominance and at that time brought a substantial standoff over the conflict with The Soviets in the fear of a possible and unwanted nuclear war.
All the above examples feature the inner American interests in economic and political stability which in many cases are overlapped by its interests in secure oil reserves, raw material and minerals.
So we could argue that U.S. imperialistic actions (and so the Truman doctrine and the Marshall plan’s aids) were on the one hand aiming at a process of democratization but on the other hand aimed at challenging the power of the ʻEvil Empireʼ and pursuing American interests.
Last but not least is the fascinating theory suggested by historian Geir Lundestad which brings forth an opposite theory of American Imperialism. In fact Lundestad introduces his theory of an “Empire by invitation”, meaning that post-WWII Europe wanted the Americans to stay engaged within European affairs, especially concerning security and development. Therefore a military relationship had to be established. NATO birth was the consequence of this strong European will to be bound to the United States, and so “inviting them to stay in”.
The Marshall plan, wether it had hidden purposes or not, has surely played a huge role in the recovery of those 16 European countries who accepted its aid. I think that the U.S. leaders, from H. Truman on, had surely undergone such foreign policies to obtain power and prestige on world scale but at the same time this approach has proved to be efficient and major advantage for Europe.
The 1945 defeat of Germany brought to an end the war on European soil, but Germany also proved to be the main terrain for the future clash between the two superpowers in the cold war. No other nation as Germany marked the highest concern for the Western bloc and the Soviet one. The Berlin blockade proved to be the very first crisis between the two powers, a crisis that reached its rupture with the birth of two different countries. As the Cold war escalates the American government becomes everyday more aware that Western Germany represented the fundamental battleground between the good (democracy according to America) and the evil (the Soviet regime). This said, the only way to win the battle against communism was to make the FRG a powerful state, by giving it financial aid and the possibility of rearmament. This view, shared by its biggest ally Great Britain, was at all shared by France who, reasonably, feared a possible German nationalistic resurgence through independence and rearmament, and thus wanted to “keep it down”. In 1949 the necessity to tighten the relationship among the western democracies militarily speaking was finally reached with the establishment of NATO, which, for the joy of the French government, tied West Germany to a strong mutual defence bond with the western allies, thus putting the FRG under control of NATO and under a western European system which will become the European community. The alliance didn’t make things easier, indeed Germany will go through further stiff east-west relations bringing to the 1961 erection of the Berlin Wall. The German situation will finally reach a happy-ending with Gorbachev’s new Soviet policies of liberalization which spread throughout the eastern bloc and eventually led to the fall of communism and the 1990 reunification of Germany.
We could argue that the European integration process had been started by The United States’ will for security. The Marshall plan, the common fight against the looming Soviet threat and the NATO alliance played indeed a key role in bringing European countries closer together. Two wars had already torn the world because of European antagonism and nationalisms, so it urged the need to prevent any possibility of a new slaughter. The idea was to create a supranational body in order to settle a political, economic and monetary union. The forerunners of this idea and fathers of Today’s European Union were the French minister of foreign affaires Robert Schuman and his fellow co-worker Jean Monnet, who suggested the creation of a common supranational authority to regulate the Coal and Steel production of France and Germany and so creating a common market. The organization was open to all, and soon in 1951, by signing the Paris treaty, Italy and the Benelux countries joined France and West Germany in the creation of the European Coal & Steel Community (ECSC).
The first step towards integration has been taken, now the need to go on gradually with the economic unification, as firmly supported by Belgian foreign minister Paul-Henry Spaak, will take the ECSC to successfully evolve into the European Economic Community (EEC) with the signing of the Rome treaties in 1957. The treaties of Rome also witness the birth of a European community for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, called Euratom, regarded very positively by the Eisenhower administration.
In the following years, through ups and downs, the European countries kept the flame of integration alive: new countries from northern and southern Europe joined the community; this brought to the development of a common agricultural policy and the removal of customs among the member states for the free circulation of goods and people. The signing of the Maastricht treaty in 1992 led the European Community to a further evolution into the European Union. A common currency was being introduced by the newly monetary union together with a Common foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) which constitutes one the pillars of the nowadays’ European Union.
The 21st century has seen a gradual change in the world power balance. The United States have lost much of their power (as Europe did after WWII) in favour of rising economies such as China, Japan, India, Brazil and the Middle-east. Especially the latter has become a hotspot for the recent political and economic developments.
The 9/11 terrorist attacks clearly showed how America (and in a broader sense the western world) has gone too far with its imperialistic plans. This outcome has seen for the first time the U.S. call for mutual assistance as declared by article 5 of the Atlantic charter, thus taking the relations between U.S. and Europe once again on the verge over such a thorny matter. New challenges are to be faced as the nuclear issue and the still ongoing war on terror.
The American aids of the 40s and 50s proved to be a fundamental event for the rebuilding of Europe but in the meantime a step towards American ascension as world leader; nowadays the U.S. status is being questioned by new powers. Despite all the threats, today the transatlantic relation still keeps alive as one of the strongest in history.
- Mammarella Giuseppe; Storia d’Europa dal 1945 a oggi ; editori Laterza 2003
- Hanihimäki Jussi M., Schoenborn Benedikt, Zanchetta Barbara; Transatlantic relations since 1945 ; Routledge 2012
- Sloan Stanley R.; NATO, The European Union and the Atlantic community. The transatlantic bargain challenged ; Rowman & Littlefield (2nd edition) 2005
- Ellwood David W.; The Marshall Plan forty years after: lessons for the international system today ; The Bologna center of the Johns Hopkins University school of advanced international studies 1988
- Graglia Pietro S.; L’Unione europea. Uno spazio politico ed economico per 370 milioni di cittadini ; Il Mulino, Bologna 2000
- United States diplomacy center, United States department of state; The Marshall plan: the vision of a family of Nations ; educational guide
- United States department of State, Bureau of international information Programs; The Marshall plan. Rebuilding Europe ; http://usinfo.state.gov/
- Lundestad Geir; The United States and western Europe since 1945 ; Oxford University press 2003
- Lundestad Geir; http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people5/Lundestad/lundestad-con2.html
 The protagonists were the newly elected American President Harry Truman, J.Stalin and W.Churchill together with his successor C.Attlee
 This strategy meant the loss of the coal-rich regions of Silesia and Pomerania acquired by Poland and East Prussia partly acquired by the U.S.S.R.
 Tito’s Yugoslavia will follow its own path, taking distance from Soviets’ dominance, by claiming a pan-Yugoslavian country with its own independent communist government.
 Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty calls for the assistance (by any means, be it armed or not) of the signatory countries in case of attack on one of them by a third party or parties. It’s a collective defense strategy.
 As the failed attempt of withdrawl made by Hungary in 1956, and the invasion of Czechoslovakia In 1968
 Mammarella, Storia d’Europa dal 1945 a oggi, Laterza 2003. p. 647
 Part of Secretary of State George Marshall’s speech.
 Originally the Program contemplated an amount of 17 billion dollars, but after the 4 years of aid only 13 billions were actually used.
 The two organizations worked together to devise annual recovery plans, allocate American aid, make currencies convertible and loosen the restraints on production and trade.
 Mammarella, Storia d’Europa dal 1945 a oggi, Laterza 2003. pp. 144-145
 Cominform was a Soviet-led 1947 founded organization gathering all the Communist parties of European countries. Its main purpose was to coordinate actions between communist parties under soviet direction (especially concerning Foreign policy and economic policies of collectivization and state-controlled industry).
 Charles de Gaulle’s 1959 speech in Strasbourg on his vision of Europe’s future: «Yes, it is Europe, from the Atlantic to the Urals, it is Europe, it is the whole of Europe, that will decide the fate of the world».
 The Monroe Doctrine was seen as a way to secure U.S. control over the countries of Latin America through its political and economic leadership and exploitation. The doctrine was at first greeted with joy by Latin American countries as a way to keep safe from European control, but later on this Continental isolationism would only bring to stricter U.S. command over the American Continent. During the Cold war The Monroe Doctrine will be applied in opposing the Communist spread over Cuba (and its link to the Soviet Union) and Nicaragua.
 Churchill right after WWII described Europe as «a breeding ground of hatred». This will indeed change with the E.R.P. making that breeding ground a common space to cooperate together.
 The European Coal and Steel Community was the result of French foreign minister Robert Schuman’s declaration on the need to create s supranational community to avoid war and carry on peace among its members.
 Commonly known as the Bay of pigs’ invasion.
 The Iranian Coup was planned by the American and British governments upon oil interests.
 The fact that The economic organizations as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, The GATT, the OEEC were all based in the United States could be a hint of the Imperialistic path America was going through.
 U.S. president Ronald Reagan in a 1983 speech defined the Soviet Union as an Evil Empire.
 Britain was the major supporter of this Atlantic alliance between Europe and the U.S.A., on the other side was France, who didn’t trust much the U.S. and had rather focus on a pan-European alliance with France itself as a leader.
 A very good attempt at re-establishing east-west peace was made by west Germany chancellor Willy Brandt through his Ost-Politik, a slow but efficient rapprochement to the east.
Forschungsarbeit, 10 Seiten
Wissenschaftlicher Aufsatz, 12 Seiten
Forschungsarbeit, 10 Seiten
Forschungsarbeit, 35 Seiten
Hausarbeit (Hauptseminar), 20 Seiten
Referat (Ausarbeitung), 10 Seiten
Hausarbeit, 23 Seiten
Seminararbeit, 24 Seiten
Hausarbeit (Hauptseminar), 25 Seiten
Hausarbeit, 16 Seiten
Hausarbeit, 14 Seiten
Seminararbeit, 35 Seiten
Hausarbeit (Hauptseminar), 20 Seiten
Referat (Ausarbeitung), 10 Seiten
Hausarbeit, 23 Seiten
Seminararbeit, 24 Seiten
Hausarbeit (Hauptseminar), 25 Seiten
Hausarbeit, 16 Seiten
Hausarbeit, 14 Seiten
Seminararbeit, 35 Seiten
Der GRIN Verlag hat sich seit 1998 auf die Veröffentlichung akademischer eBooks und Bücher spezialisiert. Der GRIN Verlag steht damit als erstes Unternehmen für User Generated Quality Content. Die Verlagsseiten GRIN.com, Hausarbeiten.de und Diplomarbeiten24 bieten für Hochschullehrer, Absolventen und Studenten die ideale Plattform, wissenschaftliche Texte wie Hausarbeiten, Referate, Bachelorarbeiten, Masterarbeiten, Diplomarbeiten, Dissertationen und wissenschaftliche Aufsätze einem breiten Publikum zu präsentieren.
Kostenfreie Veröffentlichung: Hausarbeit, Bachelorarbeit, Diplomarbeit, Dissertation, Masterarbeit, Interpretation oder Referat jetzt veröffentlichen!