The Cold War
shaped a continent artificially divided between East and West.
The countries of Western Europe remained vulnerable in the face
of Soviet power and dependent on the military protection of the
USA. They faced the urgent challenge of rebuilding their
economies to achieve prosperity and security.
Despite these
tensions, the 1950s and 60s were something of an economic
‘golden age’ for Western Europe, years of growth and full
employment. Governments shared a Keynesian commitment to direct
state intervention in order to manage economies and to the
maintenance of the ‘welfare state’ – providing health care,
housing and pensions. This affluence coupled with technological
innovation brought about enormous material changes to societies
in which consumer goods such as cars, televisions, fridges and
washing machines became widely affordable.
The 1960s, in
particular, were years of artistic experimentation and media led internationalisation of popular culture. Many Western European
countries experienced a degree of social liberalisation; the
availability of the contraceptive pill facilitated changes in
sexual behaviour, the influence of religion went through a
period of decline, legislation decriminalising homosexuality,
adultery and blasphemy were passed, and censorship laws were
relaxed.
|
|
European
integration
In the immediate
post-war years, in the ruined capitals of Western Europe,
leaders could look back at the traumatic decades of conflict,
depression and political extremism, they could look East to the
hostile Soviet Bloc, they could look within their states at the
numbers enticed by indigenous communist parties, and they could
reflect on their own diminished status. There could be no return
to the discredited ways of the past, but each country’s way
forward would vary according to its unique circumstances. The
key partnership in this new Europe was that of the old enemies
France and Germany.
For Germany,
greater economic and political integration with neighbouring
states, in particular France was a strategy for overcoming the
destructive legacy of nationalism and hostility and a route
towards political rehabilitation and economic recovery.
The relationship with France
was a key aspect of West Germany’s recovery. Adenauer agreed to
French proposals to join the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC)
in order to co-ordinate production in the coal and steel
industries. Politically, the agreement aimed to break the
pattern of hostility between France and Germany by identifying
and developing areas of mutual interest. The Treaty obliged
members (France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and
Luxemburg) to agree to the principle of supranationality –
handing over control of the industries to an international body.
For West Germany, being welcomed into an international
organisation alongside neighbouring states, the Treaty
represented a confirmation of the new state’s legitimacy and
rehabilitation. As Adenauer remarked,
“Das ist unser Durchbruch” (this is our breakthrough)
quoted in
T.
Judt, Post War, p.127
Adenauer found
common ground with his fellow European leaders; the foreign
ministers who signed the Treaty all represented Christian
Democratic parties. The continental experience of invasion,
occupation and liberation fostered a shared determination to
work towards unity. The Treaty included the declaration that the
ECSC was “a first step in the federation of Europe”. In 1957
‘the Six’ member states took the further step, with the Treaty
of Rome, of creating the European Economic Community through
which West Germany integrated its economy with its Western
European neighbours. The Franco-German partnership was to be the
engine of this European project, a relationship in which German
economic power was harnessed to French political leadership.
Trade between member states grew rapidly to their mutual
benefit.
Not all West
European states were ready to commit to the process of
integration. In particular, Britain’s experience of War,
undefeated and triumphant, vindicated a confident nationalism
and an insular sense of security based on standing apart, some
might say aloof, from the troubles of the continent. The proven
strength of British ties with the British Commonwealth and with
the USA further diminished the appeal of European integration.
At an instinctive, emotional, historical level there was a sense
that the ‘Island Nation’ did not quite belong to ‘Europe’ and so
Britain passed up the opportunity to provide leadership.
The British
attitude was not without reason; economically, Britain relied
less on European markets than on its extensive commercial links
overseas. In 1947, British exports were greater than the
combined exports of ‘the Six’ who predominantly traded with each
other – Britain didn’t need Europe to the extent that it was
prepared to surrender any degree of sovereignty. Furthermore,
the UK Labour Government (1945-51) had no wish to join an
organisation that might limit its scope to pursue the
development of a socialist ‘New Jerusalem’ in Britain.
However,
Britain’s military triumph had come at a heavy price, a quarter
of the national wealth had been lost – a greater proportion than
any other country, gold reserves were nearly exhausted, and only
American loans were preventing economic collapse. Added to this
were the costs of maintaining an overseas Empire, policing the
defeated countries of Europe and striving to justify ‘Great
Power’ status along side the USA and the Soviet Union. Though
the British economy recovered, industrial production rose more
slowly than in its European neighbours. 1958 was the crossover
year between the War’s winners and losers when the German
economy became bigger than the British.
|
Annual
Average Growth Rates 1950-60 |
UK |
2.7% |
France |
4.6% |
Italy |
5.8% |
Germany |
7.8% |
Source:
H. Young, This Blessed Plot, Overlook Press, New
York, 1999, p. 106
For Franco’s
Spain, relations with Europe were always coloured by mutual
suspicion, Franco regarded the EEC to be a ‘fief of freemasons,
liberals and Christian-Democrats’. (Preston p700) The
technocrats who oversaw Spain’s economic transformation in the
1960s (see below) successfully persuaded a reluctant Franco to
begin negotiations for Spanish membership in 1962. The EEC
agreed to begin discussions about economic issues but Franco’s
refusal to contemplate major changes to the Spanish constitution
meant that any movement to full membership was not on the agenda
until after the dictator’s death in 1975.
The need to
secure long term peace in Europe, both between historic enemies
within Western Europe such as France and Germany, and against
the Soviet threat was the motivation for the establishment of
common security structures. Western Europe’s alliance with the
USA was formalised within NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty
Organisation) in 1949, confirming America’s military commitment
to defend Europe. In the words of the first NATO General
Secretary, Lord Ismay, the original purpose of the alliance was
“to keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans
down.” However, in 1955 West Germany was accepted into NATO
and began to share the burden of defending Western Europe
against Soviet communism. The enduring strength of NATO
contrasts with failed European attempts at establishing common
defence structures and reflects Europe’s reliance on American
military power. The most notable attempt at creating a Western
European military entity – the EDC (European Defence Community)
– failed due to concerns about German rearmament, opposition to
the idea of ceding military control to an external organisation,
and fears that the EDC might diminish America’s commitment to
European security. The French Government formally rejected the
EDC project in 1954. As NATO developed, with the USA’s continued
security guarantee, the need for an EDC came to be seen as
unnecessary duplication.
Western Europe’s
military weakness was exposed by the humiliation of Suez in
1956. Egypt’s General Nasser had asserted Egyptian national
control of the strategically vital Suez Canal against British
and French wishes. In response, Britain, France and Israel had
seized control of the Canal but were forced to withdraw under
intense diplomatic and financial pressure from the USA. Suez
demonstrated that neither nation could project its power
globally without the support of the Superpowers. For France the
EEC offered an alternative sphere of influence. For the UK Suez
triggered a painful reassessment of Britain’s global role.
Economic projections were also pessimistic and eventually
resulted in an acceptance that Britain could no longer afford to
be excluded from ‘Europe’. Belatedly, and from a position far
weaker than previously, the British Government applied to join
the EEC in 1963. France’s President Charles De Gaulle rejected
the application. The reasons for this infamous “Non” were
De Gaulle’s concerns that Britain remained too pro-American and
lacked commitment to European integration. At a more basic
level, Britain’s entry might threaten France’s leading role in
Europe. Both Britain’s combination of wounded pride and disdain
as well as De Gaulle’s vain grandeur were summarised in the
British press with the popular metaphor, ‘there cannot be two
cocks on the dung-hill’. A second British application was
rejected by De Gaulle in 1967 citing the weakness of the British
economy.
Key dates in
European integration
1949
– NATO
established. The original members were The USA, Canada, the UK,
France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Norway, Iceland,
Italy, Denmark and Portugal
1951
– European Coal and Steel Community established. “The Six”
(France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg)
agree to co-ordinate their coal and steel industries.
1954
– France
rejects plans for a European Defence Community.
1955
– West
Germany joins NATO.
1957
– The Treaty of Rome established the European Economic Community
(EEC) agreeing to work towards a common market in which members
would remove trade barriers and allow the free movement of
labour, capital and goods.
1960
– The European Free Trade Association (EFTA) established
offering an alternative European vision. A grouping of
peripheral states, the UK, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Norway,
Portugal and Switzerland formed a free trade area without the
EEC’s ideals of political integration.
1963
– UK application to join the EEC rejected following De Gaulle’s
veto.
1967
– Second UK application to join the EEC vetoed by De Gaulle.
-
What were the
aims of the founders of the European movement?
-
Was European
integration more concerned with avoiding the mistakes of the
past or fulfilling the vision of a united Europe?
-
The idea of
the EU as a peace project ensuring Franco-German
reconciliation has been criticised on the grounds that war
between individual members of either Cold War bloc was
impossible. To what extent do you agree?
|