European Political History Class Notes

7/21/2019 European Political History Class Notes

1/30

Week 3: Formation of NATO

-Evolution of the Soviet threat

Berlin blockade

o direct challenge to Western influence

First nuclear bomb detonated by USSR

o

before this time, the US has nuclear advantage to balance out giant USSR army but

this development is alarming

Czechoslovakian fall

o wasnt a country liberated by the red army in WWII

o wasnt seen as a country behind the Iron Curtain

unclear as to what side theyd be on

o shows Soviet influence is greater than they think it might be

same thing could potentially happen in Italy and France because they too

have communists in power

-Shift from Marshall plan to NATO

Idea now that there might be a military threat to Western Europe

Europe has shown that it needs American aid in major wars

Marshall plan was a short term plan whereas NATO is a long term plan

o Marshall was essentially a strategy of equal policy

o Ill help you and then youll be my equal

o but when it comes to military, America has a distinct advantage

nuclear

o

Europeans and esp. the British push for this NATO alliance

empire by invitation

-NATOs effects on European Integration

Less concern with rivalries and a European hegemon

-Why NATO is only military, why it never develops to something further

American volition

o they are only expecting to militarily defend Europe

o create military structure which will give them the power to keep USSR at bay

o also provide huge amount of money for Western Europe to redevelop its own military

o

but they dont want to go much beyond this

NATO is too big to negotiate further integration

o Composed of 12 states at this time, some of which are not willing to compromise on

other issues

Norway, Finland, Britain

o European integration needs to start small


2/30


3/30

Week 4: Schuman Plan 10/18/2011 5:02:00 AM

-French motivation for launching it

We need German recovery because

o if you let Germany become impoverished and put down, it could fall to radicalism

o Germany is the front line of the Cold War so we need recovery

o

West Germany was a window dressing to the East

competing to show who is more culturally dynamic and which system is

more successful

want to make Germany look good so it proves that capitalism is best

Previously, used production limitations

o this led to unrest for Germany

o led to more cost for American and Britain if they have to support the population

France wants to be a protagonist

o lost the battle on the Cold War, lost the battle on Germany so it can win on creating a

European framework

o knows this move will endear France to America

France goes to Germany and Dean Acheson before Prime Minister Beven

Has both Cold War and economic contexts

-German motivation for saying yes

allows a sense of equality

o Germany is not yet a fully sovereign state

o its also a pariah state

not part of NATO, not a member of UN

o ties itself to the West

magnet theory

Germany wants reunification eventually but want it happen on their

term

West Germany wants East Germany to join them on their terms

rather than a compromise

worried West might want to do a deal with the Soviets

fear of neutrality as defined in the Stalin notes

o

Germany has learned that the last thing it wants is to be the power between East and

West

this has led to disaster and wars on both fronts during WWI and WWII

o how do you prevent your allies from selling you out and your successors from

undoing your effort?

tie yourself to the West through legal treaties


4/30

-British motivation for saying no

Co-leadership with France would be a demotion

NATO eases Cold War fears

o not as panicked as France or Germany


5/30

WEU 10/18/2011 5:02:00 AM

-The British and the WEU

Worried about lack of American support following EDC failure

o as long as there are U.S. troops in Germany, there is a guarantee that a Soviet

invasion can be stopped by American nuclear deterrence

o

British take threat of agonizing reappraisal seriously

due to Eisenhowers perceived desire to move out of Europe

German policy

o starts to become more sovereignBonn Convention

EDC was supposed to manage this but once it fails, there is no legal means to

manage this

o British want to revive Germany and they use this new plan to help accomplish this

once the EDC fails

o Saarland

area around the Saar river that French and Germans still argue about

resource-rich

French try to annex it but they cant

Solution is to Europeanize this land

Euro-region rather than belonging to France or Germany

Cannot have animosity between France and Germany during the Cold War

Creation of WEU

o Expansion of Brussels treaty

6+1, British finally included

o Military guarantee

stronger than NATO

o However, its largely an empty box

its purpose is not clear, doesnt set out specific (non-military) goals for

cooperation which will ultimately lead to its demise

-Why the French say yeswhen they said no to the EDC

British involved now

o powerful Britain can balance out Germany

o

strongly worded guarantee of WEU is particularly comforting to French

Afraid to say no again

o send message of being ungovernable

Much less encumbered

o by the time French voted on EDC, there were many things attached to it that

threatened French sovereignty


6/30

-Why does it then move back to the 6 without the British?

Benelux concerns about being left behind

Britain doesnt seem to want to use WEU for further European cooperation

o other countries DO

Concerns about bilateral agreements between just France and Germany

o Britain fine with this

o Other countries like Italy, Benelux want in


7/30

Euratom 10/18/2011 5:02:00 AM

-U.S. policy supporting Euratom

See this as a replacement for the EDC disappointment

Monnet factor

o Close personal relationship with U.S. figures

o

Says that French wont buy EDC but will buy Euratom

o Lessons from EDC

integration cant happen without French support

France cant be forced into integration if it doesnt need it

Germany cant really say no to European plan but French can

Commercial incentive

o U.S. companies can benefit from equipping Europes atomic energy sector

no other big markets

even America itself isnt very quick to take to atomic energy

have enough coal etc

Proliferation argument

o U.S. wants no other countries to have nuclear weapons

o At this stage, however, the cats out of the bag

Russians have the bomb and GB and France are already working on their

own atomic projects

o If these other states can get the bomb, so can Germany

direct fear of Germany

fear of the effect a German bomb would have on the Soviet Union

o Try to lure the French and British research programs out of the shadows

you can keep a closer eye on nuclear programs if theyre out in the open

hope to stop the transition from civilian to military use of nuclear technology


8/30

EEC 10/18/2011 5:02:00 AM

-Whether the EEC was a function of the Cold War

Cold War context used to be unavoidable but by this point, it is less pressing

o Death of Stalin (1953)

o Geneva Summit between East and West (1955)

o

Korean War and First Indochinese war end

o Austrian treaty

o German issue of rearmament has been solved, and the European security issue is less

pressing

o States begin pursuing integration for non-Cold War

Learning from EDC past failure

o When integration tried to deal with issues like Cold War and military issues, it failed

o Better to just set that aside

o War/military issues are seen as the core of national sovereignty, particularly in

France

by far the hardest thing to integrate

Nature of the EEC organization

o Bureaucratic bifurcation

People that work at EEC are commerce specialists, economic or legal minds

rather than security or foreign affairs specialists

Domestic civil servants

a lot of meetings take place between ministers and someone from

Commission

these civil servants are coming from trade/agriculture ministries but

not many foreign ministry people

Could have intersected with Cold War if trade was allowed with states behind Iron Curtain

but Soviets dont allow them to recognize it

o Soviets against European integration, its a threat to their power and rearming

Germany is particularly divisive

o this changes somewhat in 1960s/1970s to have unofficial dialogue between

COMICON and EEC

o

Official recognition doesnt come til Gorbachev

-In a Cold War Context

Europeans worried about becoming insignificant, so they integrate (taking into account Cold

War stuff)

-The Issue of U.S. policy

U.S. can act as controlling factor against British


9/30

o

keep them from standing in the way of process

Helps get GATT approval


10/30

Kennedys Grand Design 10/18/2011 5:02:00 AM

-Kennedy identifies several problems with the European relationship

Economic

o Gap between U.S. and Europe economically is fast closing and Europe is becoming a

great economic power

o

When U.S. started funding European military assistance, Europe had nothing, but

now that theyre emerging, how should the U.S. deal with funding military

assistance?

o Balance of payments problem

More money going from U.S. to Europe than vice versa

Military expenditure

American investment

Political

o De Gaulle as a French problem

o De Gaulle as a manifestation of a greater European problem

the idea that Europe in general could become a third force in Cold War

o Threat made more concrete by Fouchet Plan

European intergovernmental political integration that would coordinate

foreign policy

o Would mean an overall move away from the Atlantic organization

Strategic

o ICBMs

U.S. is now directly threatened because Soviets can reach them with nuclear

weapons

If a U.S. president launches a weapon in defense of Europe, he is now putting

his own country at risk

makes him less likely to do that

o Flexible response

Looks at situations on a more case-by-case basis rather than massive

retaliation

Graduate your response to the nature of the problem of the time

Ex: if soviets invade with conventional weapons, it makes more sense to

respond with conventional means than suddenly nuclear weapons

o European response

Would have to contribute more conventional forces themselves

To have flexible response, one person has to be clearly in charge and now

there is more dissent amongst the ranks


11/30

independent nuclear deterrence in Britain and France is now

impossible

-So how does Kennedy solve this?

Economic

o

Trade Expansion Act (TEA) of 1962

Does for the U.S. what EEC did for inter-European trade

Gives president authority to put forth new GATT round to push for tariff

liberalization

o How does this help?

Balance of Payment problem solves by boosting U.S. trade and getting

money from Europeans rather than cutting U.S. expenditure within Europe

Dominant Supplier Clause

For those sectors where Europe, the EEC, and the U.S. account for

more than 80% of global production, the President has the authority

to seek a 100% tariff reduction

if the British come in, the expanded community and the U.S. actually

meet that 80% level in a lot of sectors

Political

o Manage De Gaulle via:

Encouraging Britain to join EEC

their presence will make sure that EEC is outward and liberal

British presence in integration process will stop Europeans from

moving away from Atlantic relationship

Britain will keep smaller states from gravitating toward French

working on Germans to stay loyal

Strategic

o Multilateral Force (MLF): a multi-nationally manned naval force with nuclear

weapons, which could be fired ONLY with U.S. consent

would give Europe a taste of nuclear weapons while U.S. remains in charge

-Reactions

British respond relatively well (MLF apart)

o Apply to join EEC

for U.S. reasons and other interest

German response positive

o Like free trade idea


12/30

School of thought that perhaps this economic integration with the U.S. will undermine inter-

European integration in the EEC and such

France

o Rejects MLF and says France will seek its own nuclear deterrent with or without U.S.

help

British dont like MLF eitherbut they dont deny it in public, they try to

negotiate private compromise with U.S.

o Veto British EEC membership

Dash U.S. hope for community enlargement

Dominant Supplier Clause becomes much less effective

very few sectors can get to the 80% threshold if the British are not a

part of the community

No longer have British voice to encourage Atlanticism

-Ultimate result

GATT negotiations do occur and TEA is passed but has less radical effect

MLF limps around for a while before fading out in mid-60s

Period of hostility between De Gaulle and U.S./UK

o very Cold War centered

o give undue credence to scare stories about French reversing their alliances and

turning to the East


13/30

De Gaulle and Europe 10/18/2011 5:02:00 AM

-Visions of De Gaulle and why they exist

Intergovernmental Europe not Supranational or Federal

o Strong belief that the nation is the main actor in world politics

o Doesnt really buy into concept of any ideology past national interest

doesnt call it USSR, calls it Russia because he sees the nation -state as

unchanging

A feeling that the ideological alliance with America is illogical

o he wants to restore France to central player on world stage

o idea that the Americans could loosen their grip on the West and this would result in

Soviets loosening their grip on the East

Everything goes back to the failure of Yalta

o believed this created an artificial vision of Europe

France wasnt present at this meeting so if it puts itself back in a position of

centrality it can undo this original sin

o Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals

-Alliance Partners

Pro-Germany

o Because of its legal limits, ghosts of its past, lack of UN membership, lack of

colonies, it will always be a very strong but ultimately inferior partner

o therefore France will always be able to take the lead

Anti-Britain

o

British presence would make it very hard to convert other states away from

Atlanticism

o Too threatening to French power and too close to America


14/30

The Double Crisis of 1965-1966 10/18/2011 5:02:00 AM

-Empty Chair Crisis and French retreat from NATO

-Is this one crisis or two?

Both a rejection of Western institutions and a challenge to the status quo but not a total

rejection

o

symbolic rejection

Empty Chair Crisis

apparently a very forceful rejection but there are mitigating factors

such as leaving certain deputies and turning up at certain meetings

NATO

Withdraws from command structure but not the treaty structure

Didnt withdraw French troops from Germany and

participate to a certain extent

Cant defend Germany without defending France since the

clash would happen at the German border

France softens blow by doing things like allowing NATO jets to use

their air space

also let them use pipeline

o Strange one step forward toward rejection and one step back that mitigates these

factors but the symbolic rejection is still very important

Timing Issue

o 1963-67 is the period where De Gaulle is at his most powerful

Why was he less powerful before this?

Algeria crisis

politically divided France

can do more divisive things once he accomplishes this first

goal

Election

Wasnt initially elected and not directly elected til 1965

Doesnt get his parliamentary majority til this time

Post-68 he has less power because of student protests, etc.

o

Empty Chair Crisis starts in June 1965 and finishes in January 1966 and NATO

decision is March 1966

Empty Chair Crisis is already mostly resolved by the time NATO decision

comes along

Probably to keep from fighting a two-front war

o Shortly after withdrawing from NATO, he visits Moscow


15/30

can show up as the man who is independent of entangling alliances

Why do outsiders link these two crises?

o Concerned about France changing sides

o What is France trying to show?

Tell countries like Hungary/Poland that they can do what France did toward

the Americans to the Soviet Union

Thumbing nose at the two pillars of the Atlantic system: European

Intergovernmentalism & NATO

will later go on to attack Bretton-Woods

Shows that he is prepared to challenge

o People interpreting this crisis link them because they seem to have a similar goal

-Substance of the Challenges

Empty Chair Crisis

o Is it all bluff or does he mean it?

France gets certain benefits from the community

Agricultural

using the community spreads the cost of agriculture among

all the states rather than France spending disproportionately

more

still vulnerable

o subsidies from community allow many more farmers

to exist than would otherwise

o fear of peasant unrest

Industrial

Does spectacularly well under the community

Politically

France has position of leadership from the community

o Germany too shackled to take the lead and Italy just

isnt politically powerful

De Gaulle is trying to have his cake and eat it, he wants independence from

the community to gain power and the power that comes from its position

within the community

Want to stay within but perhaps act as if he doesnt need to

NATO

o How important is French symbolic withdrawal?

Strategically, it doesnt make a difference


16/30

Europe is no more vulnerable than it was before

It is, however, a pain in the neck

over time these issues are dealt with, but in the short term, it is a

huge inconvenience

o

This makes it safe for De Gaulle because he can make a dramatic gesture without

risking Western security

Germany couldnt have done it, but France could


17/30

Harmel, NATO, and the WEU: Responding to theGaullist Challenge 10/18/2011 5:02:00 AM

-What is pushing the Harmel exercise process?

Is it all about responding to De Gaulle or is it about the changed circumstances of the Cold

War?

Cold War explanation

o

NATO is coming up for review

would be possible for people to leave

France HAS just left command structure

o

Core mission is security mission but at this time it moves to more political arena to

deal with impending dialogues that will be needed with East

balance between different types of defense

in theory, NATO could be doing more but that kind of thing had never gone

very far

o

Arms control

suggests that tension is lessening now that successful arms negotiations can

take place

Nuclear Test Ban Treaty

Nuclear non-proliferation treaty

Who takes part in these issues?

U.S. controls all of Europes nukes but previously hadnt let them

participate in the negotiations

o Dtente seems to be making NATO less relevant

Vietnam and anti-Vietnam protests also lessen bloc solidarity

o

East is investigating a conference on pan-European security

East tries to look like peace keeper

wants its position in Eastern Europe to strengthened

looking for recognition

o Why does NATO respond?

dont want to lose control of the negotiating position

stick together

o

NATO needs to look at the Harmel exercise is because East-West dialogue is no

longer just apossibility, its a reality

How is De Gaulle an explanation for the Harmel process?

o The way in which Harmel is done is in itself meant to send a signal responding to De

Gaulle

plan put forth by a Belgian, NOT an American


18/30

committees are headed by Europeans, NOT Americans

meant to show that NATO really is multilateral in nature

o Show dynamism on the part of the alliance

all of the problems going on with De Gaulle trying to leave, etc. make the

alliance look rather bad

-Long-running issue of Germany and atomic weapons

NPG: Nuclear Planning Group

Germany can be a part of the negotiations when deciding to use nukes but cant actually have

its own nuclear weapons


19/30

Return of Germany as Foreign Policy Actor10/18/2011 5:02:00 A

-In 1950s, Germany is a passive foreign policy actor

Why?

o German peoples saw failure of past foreign policy/military exploits following world

wars

o

Avoid reviving fear in allies

o Get into pattern of dependence

Ex: Stalin notes addressed to British, French, Americans not Germans so

they need to rely on them to deal with it

Hallstein doctrine

o Wont talk to any states who recognize East Germany which essentially means non-

relations with the Eastern bloc

-Big actor at this point is Adenauer so it is his game

-Where/Why does it start to change?

Berlin Wall crisis

o Brandt acting as mayor of Berlin has really tangible effects of the Hallstein doctrine

in front of his eyes

o can see the dead end nature of current policy

Crisis of De Gaulle vetoing British membership

o Germany is the only successful counterweight to France

o if the French are throwing their weight around, the Germans are perhaps the only

ones who can stand up to them

If it remained passive, the status quo upon which it was depending would fall apart

o worse to NOT act

-Linkages between Westpolitik and Ostpolitik

Why crucial?

o Scary for Western allies to see Germany finally acting and then doing so toward East

Three audiences

o Allies

Show that you can still trust Germany by ramping up what theyvebeen

doing before

more involved the community

help get British in

make well in NATO

sign non-proliferation treaty

o Domestic

Also helps show domestic opponents that theyre not heading toward the East


20/30

criticism leveled by CDU when SDP takes powers

o Eastern Bloc

-Reactions to Ostpolitik

Irritates Americans because it feels like Germany is pursuing a separate dtente

Atmosphere of discomfort for Brits and French

o combined with growing German economic power


21/30

Enlargement, EPC, and Kissinger 10/18/2011 5:02:00 AM

-Importance of Britain joining the community

Longstanding belief that cant discuss common foreign policy without the presence of the

British

What Britain brings to the table

o

Another big powerful country joining

o International connections

links with colonies

links with America

o Habits and mindset of a country that is used to being an important foreign policy

actor

adds weight and impact

operatives who really can count

before the French were the most foreign policy experiences but Brits

are less eccentric

British themselves WANT to matter in this institution

o see it as a way of maintaining or boosting Britains international power

o since this is meant to become a key instrument of their foreign policy, they are

willing to invest more

-Why does EPC policy work in Cold War but not in Middle East?

Europe used to slow-moving negotiations

o Cold War works a bit slower and CSCE negotiations are particularly slow

o

Foreign policy negotiation with CSCE happens within European context

its not one foreign minister

o In Middle East, things happen extremely quickly and reactions must be ramped up

Consensus

o CSCE and issue of dtente is much more agreeable, less divisive

want to get recognition of the community

increase trade

flow of goods and perhaps more importantly, information

human contacts

can actually have an impact on the Cold War

downside: can be legitimizing status quo

this is a point of economic crisis

slightly unequal negotiating position since USSR is united and Europe is

composed of separate states with different policies


22/30

forces Europe to unite and coordinate position at a new level to resist

pressure

could use EC or NATO

use EC because it doesnt have American interest at the

moment

everyone thinks this is a useful exercise

o In Middle East, there is less ability (and perhaps incentive) to come together

Arab states impose embargo against all Israel-supporting European states

which divides them from the beginning since some states are more affected

than others

-Kissinger

Year of Europe

o U.S. had been focused on Vietnam, China, etc. at this time

o Europe doesnt want to be ignored but also doesnt want to be told what to do

o Kissinger doesnt give any mention of the European political project

o Maximizes American bargaining power while exacerbating Europes internal

divisions

o European response is to try to boost their own internal cooperation


23/30

Schmidt, Giscard, and Carter 10/18/2011 5:02:00 AM

-Carter generally supportive of human rights and says it matters

does it in a style that is very public and puts pressure on the USSR

violates Soviet notion of dtente which they consider non-interference in their domestic

politics

-Creates East-West tensions

Europeans wary of thisof course they care about human rights but they are more concerned

with the issue of dtente

-Dtente is becoming less popular in the U.S.

Right-wing critique of dtente

o think they are letting the Soviets bamboozle the U.S.

Soviets cheating in the third world, not staying hands off

o allowing a corrupt regime to continue

Left-wing critique

o We can keep talking to Soviets but when we do, we need to raise problems with them

and try to get them to reform

o Put pressure to treat citizens better and reform their ways

-Very different from European concern with stabilization

both American party critiques are threatening to the East-West stability

-Neutron bomb affair

New generation of weapons (ERW- enhanced radiation weapon)

enormously controversial

Americans decide to press ahead with it and Germans know its likely to be used in Germany

o Schmidt has to fight tooth and nail to get government acceptance of this

Just about manages to get it through then Carter changes his mind

Schmidt feels that he was not only not consulted enough in the first place, but also wasted his

time

Carters credibility gone at this point

-European Monetary System (EMS)

Initially Schmidt is not very into this idea

but by late 1977 he is pedaling his own plan for monetary integration

worried about inflation

o European monetary union could help ward this off

Americans want Germans to increase the value of the German Mark

o would make American markets better, help other markets sell more to Germany

o this isnt very attractive to Germany


24/30

Germany cant do much to affect Mark-Dollar exchange but with monetary integration, could

peg Mark via French, Italian, currency without making the same concessions they do to the

Americans

If Europeans able to act collectively, their capacity to talk back to Americans is much

greater

Becomes further source of transatlantic discord because it worries the Americans

o certain American discomfort at what is seen as an attempt to marginalize their

centrality in monetary affairs


25/30

Early 1980s 10/18/2011 5:02:00 AM

-A second Cold War and its effects?

Poland

o President declares Marshall Law in December of 1981

o Will Soviet Union invade?

o

Poland brings the Cold War tensions closer to home

Afghanistan

o Soviet invasion in 1979

o Finally undermines superpower dtente

o Americans introduce economic sanctions

o period of high tensions

Olympic Boycott

o U.S. boycotts Moscow in 1980

Grenada

o 1983

o Coup by left-leaning faction who Americans feel are too left-leaning so they

intervene creating messy situation

Series of economic sanctions following Poland

Steps toward re-armament

o Star Wars

o Euro missiles and SS20s in USSR

o MX Missiles

o

Reagan revives B1 bomber and redevelops neutron bomb

Disarmament halted

o Congress doesnt ratify SALT I

o Two-track method:

Euromissiles meant to be developed at the same time as disarmament talks

and if disarmament talks are successful, they wont be used

Europeans thought they were signing up for disarmament

When disarmament stalls, they find themselves in the position of armament

How does this affect integration process?

o

American relationship damaged

Siberian pipeline

Europe planned pipeline from Russia so it could get oil from there

instead of Middle East during crisis

U.S. says none of their companies (or affiliated countries) will help

them build it


26/30

Part of American response to Polish crisis

Meant to hit Soviet Union hard

Gas and oil were very crucial to their economy

o Impetus for grouping together to form third way

o

Arguments about Cold War blunt American discontent about Mediterranean

enlargement

Greece, Spain, Portugal

Americans sensitive to enlargement because they are having economic issues

more members worsen relations with U.S. economy

Europeans can deflect thisby saying theyre enlarging due to Cold War

vulnerability

Promise of EC membership use to stabilize South

-Role of Economics

Creates new tensions

o global currency fluctuations

dollar especially

o doubts about Reagenomics

o Europeans being particularly protectionist due to recession, upsets Americans

o Europeans want to trade more with the East while Americans are entering a period of

boycotting the East

Western European was doing much more trade with East to begin with

-New generation of leaders

Big personalities with important domestic projects

o Thatcher in 1979

o Mitterand in 1981

o Kohl in 1982


27/30

Re-launching Europe 1980s revival 10/18/2011 5:02:00 AM

-Economic crisis background

-Weakening of superpower dtente

strains relationships

Eastern trade becomes less optimistic in outlook

Strained U.S.-Europes relationships

o Euro missiles

Europe thought they were signing up for disarmament but now they realize

these may actually be launched

-Why does this stimulate plans for political integration?

Individual action isnt very successful, try collective action

In the European Community at this time, there isnt much of anything going on

The way to rediscover original purpose seems to be to pursue political angle

will be easier to overcome small economic issues if you tackle it from political angle

Genscher-Colombo Plan looks to coordinate foreign policy

Why does this plan fail?

o its too vague

o lacks big state enthusiasm

-Economic target

Freedom of goods, services, capital, and labor

Focus initially is on the free movement of goods

though these things were originally incorporated into the Treaty of Rome, states were

unofficially were getting around it to deal with economic downturn

o free movement of goods had been almost completely gained at this point

o labor not pushed as far as it should have been

o capital not pushed as far

hard to change money to stop speculation

-Why is this successful?

Very specific, concrete plan

New center-right leaders enthusiastic about it

o more freedom, less intervention which is a change from what was going on with

previous strategies

Economic integration will in itself bring on more political change

o majority voting

forces people to pay more attention in negotiations because theres a real

possibility to lose if you dont compromise


28/30

Europe and the Cold War 10/18/2011 5:02:00 AM

-Did Western Europe play a role in Eastern Europe

increasing relations (human contacts)

o tourism

o television, radio

stop jamming

increasing governmental contacts

o East German-West German leaders really increase contact

Western Europe holds Eastern debt

o Hard to say the extent to which the East knew about the standard of living in the

West

was used by Eastern Europe as propaganda

by this late period, there is still a small amount of propaganda but its harder

to sell these lies

Disappearance of German bogeyman

o East used to say West Germany was a huge threat

West Germans actions used to justify this to a point (Hallstein doctrine)

With ostpolitik, becomes more difficult to maintain this myth

-Germanys role in reunification

Bottom-up in East Germany

o mostly led by the people not political leaders

o nobody is really in control in East Germany

Kohl is faster to pick up on this movement than others and moves very quickly

o reassures the West that this change will be stable


29/30

A German Europe or a European Germany? 10/18/2011 5:02:00

-What role did Europe play in Kohls vision of Germany?

Europe and Germany two sides of the same coin

o if you want to support unified Germany, you need to support European integration as

well

o

to stop the stigma of German reunification, make it clear youre retaining close ties

with Europe

Kohl and Genscher not always on same page

o Germany system means you can have a government with two people piloting foreign

policy who are party rivals

o working together but also positioning themselves for next electoral battle

Germany worried about how other countries will react to it

o others may see them as a threat

has to do with German position

central pivot between East and West

economic strength

Germany would be becoming much larger

How is Europe the solution for this?

o political integration means that Germanys big size wont be as threatening

o integration at its core is meant to level off differences between big and small

o Kohl sees himself as heir to Adenauer

European integration worked for Germany once, it can do it again

o

Element of continuity: want to show that Germany is not in a state of change

America could go home, NATO could collapse, so its very reassuring to

have a German chancellor who emphasizes continuity

lessens sense that everything could change

-How did reunification alter the balance of power within the EC?

East Germany essentially becomes a member of EC without formal enlargement process

Cant pretend anymore that Germany is equal to France/Italy/UK and should have same

number of MEPs

There was a belief that combining West + East Germany would create massive and successful

economy

European monetary system already dominated to an extent by Deutschemark

o would reunification only increase this?

o move toward single currency is to try to keep this from being an overly German

system


30/30

Figures are wrong, East Germany is actually very poor so now you have West Germany

carrying East Germany

o short post-unification boom but this is followed by economic downturn

How does this affect Europe?

o

Some level of negative effect on them

o temporarily dents Germanys image as the economic power

debate stops being centered only around German model

-How interlinked were Thatchers anxieties about Europe and anxieties

about Germany?

Thatcher is very very public about misgivings about unification

Also skeptical about European integration though she had initially played the game

By the time German unification comes on the scene, she has moved to a much more negative

position on integration

Thatcher has become nearly impossible to advise at this point

European Political History Class Notes

Documents