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


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
-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
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 sovereign Bonn 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 yes when 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
-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

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
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
o keep them from standing in the way of process
Helps get GATT approval
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
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
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 either but 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
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
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
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
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
Harmel, NATO, and the WEU: Responding to the
Gaullist 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 a possibility, 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
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
Return of Germany as Foreign Policy Actor10/18/2011 5:02:00 AM
-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 theyve been
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
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
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
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
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 this of 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
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
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
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 this by 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
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
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
A German Europe or a European Germany? 10/18/2011 5:02:00 AM
-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
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