Join the new world

So sometimes I write little pieces about the real world. Since it is easy to copy and paste I will do so. It is a wall of text, Dio with it.
Anyway, here you go.



Mood Music:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFTLKWw542g&list=RDL4Wl2r_VlhA&index=7

Part one is divided into two epochs:

1951-1991

Some might try to argue that the EU began even earlier than 1951, say in ‘49 with the establishment of NATO. I would read that analysis but I disagree. Even though Washington supported and pushed the foundation of the EU it was, almost from the beginning, a mostly European thing on its face. I would suggest that Washington applied significant pressure to round out NATO with these economic/political agreements. NATO in contrast was openly paid for and run, still is, by Washington. So let’s start in 1941 with the ECSC.

For reference- On 18 April 1951 the Treaty of Paris established the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). The signatories included France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg (Do note who it did NOT include). Within 15 years the ECSC was subsumed into the “European Communities” which included the European Economic Community or EEC.

The idea of the EU is often attributed to a fellow by the name of Robert Schuman - really I would attribute it to Charles de Gaulle if I had to pick a human. Euro’s like Schuman better because he, in contrast to de Gaulle, was all about ever closer union (he did not use that phrase but whatever). Regardless, Paris is central to the origin of the EU.

Whatever person was responsible for the very first inkling of the EU it was in fact de Gaulle who led France as the foundations were established and France was undeniably the most powerful and dynamic player in the block. Strangely de Gaulle was more of a realist and believed that States would pursue their own interests above that of a European Federal State and would resist becoming provinces in such a State. Rather than a European super State what France was really after, intuitively really, was to tie Germany down within an alliance structure so that Germany would feel secure. Basically Paris wanted Berlin, or Bonn at the time, to perceive no threat to her West and therefore feel no need to invade Paris -again. France being a State herself wanted to dominate this alliance structure. De Gaulle also distrusted Washington as the guarantor of Paris. He was unsure if Washington would nuke Moscow (and see NYC burn) to save Paris from the Russians. Let us pause a moment in thankfulness that we never found out if he was right. Anyway, he pulled out of NATO and built his own deterrent nukes (and gave the tech to Tel Aviv).

As a side note and what made me think about this post was that de Gaulle vetoed Brittan’s entry to the EEC on two occasions (1963 and 1967). And here is what the man sai😛
Quote

England in effect is insular, she is maritime, she is linked through her exchanges, her markets, her supply lines to the most diverse and often the most distant countries; she pursues essentially industrial and commercial activities, and only slight agricultural ones. She has in all her doings very marked and very original habits and traditions


So de Gaulle’s plan worked pretty damn well. From 1951 to 1991 European integration progressed and France played a leading role. Somehow Britain snuck into the Union (after de Gaulle left office fwiw) but other than that his vision of containing Germany worked at least from one perspective. You could also argue a perspective that the United States and Russia used force to keep Germany split into two halves which had the practical effect of solving the “German Question” that had brought so much instability to the continent. In brief the “German Question” is how Germany can secure her Eastern and Western borders (which lack natural barriers of note). Berlin solved this by conducting or trying to conduct a rapid move in one direction to knock an opponent out of the fight and then redirecting energy in the other direction if required –She did this 3 of 3 times that she felt required to act.

1991-2008

In 1991ish, for reasons outside the scope of this discussion, Russia rather suddenly lost the ability to dominate its half of Germany and Germany rapidly remerged its two sundered halves politically. This key event rapidly sent both Europe generally and France specifically into a type of crisis. Paris doubled down on what it thought had been successful for 40 years and tried to tie Germany down with more of the same alliance stuff –the EU and the Euro. Germany was trying to manage a difficult period and successfully tie its two halves together into one unit. Germany was successful in its re-integration because it was able to work within this structure to maximize benefit to Germany. For example, the currency –the Euro- was meant to level the playing field for other countries to compete with German industrial might. This worked out poorly as Germany flipped the currency and used it along with the Free Trade Zone to dominate trade. Low consumption and high productivity caused German exports to rise to 50ish% of German GDP. The resultant wealth was redistributed to the Eastern part which firmed up the merger which further strengthened Germany in relation to it European peers. Despite the rapid trend toward disparity within the EU this period was marked, generally, with large increases in prosperity while security remained high with the USA still providing that function. Prosperity and the assumption that ever increasing prosperity would continue to tie Europe together and keep Germany contentedly contained dominated the thinking of the elites in the 20 years following German unification. Coming up on a decade after 2008 that thinking still permeates within that class but lets look at that in part two.