I thought I would take this my final opportunity to use this particular blog by constructing THREE SHORT STORIES concerning the historic, political and philosophical relationship Europe had and has with the United States.
To understand the long-standing 'friendship' between Western Europe and the US you might wish to consider two notions. Firstly, that some associations endure because of their obvious attractions whilst others continue in spite of their obvious differences. Simply put, one is born from the heart, the other is born from the head. Secondly, whilst Europe has spent an inordinate amount of time and effort trying to reconcile the disconnect between what they believe in - their values - and how they have acted, the United States largely has not. In other words, whilst Europe continues to engage in self analysis and increasing self doubt, the US engages in tomorrow. That just might be because the narrative of European nationhood is long, deep,confused and complex. Whilst the US has yet to recognise its past fearful that it might get in the way. As you will now read they might have a point.
Let me try and explain...
Part 2
Europe Needs the US
As we turned to face the twentieth century the European imperial certainties and consistencies that had sat there for hundreds of years were now not only being challenged by the arrival of the US onto the international stage but by Europe itself; increased economic competition within nation-states driven by the socio-political distortions that the industrial revolution was producing meant that the understood balances of power within the Old World were shifting. The increasingly assertive nature of Germany, the growing civil unrest in Russia and the rise in imperial economic tensions felt by both Great Britain and France were just symptoms of these changing dynamics that American expansion, increasing industrialisation and growing nationalism had already signposted.
The arrival of the first 'imperial' US President into the White House - Theodore Roosevelt(TR) - also increased concerns in Europe as Paris, Berlin and Moscow saw TR as he saw himself, as a personification of all that the Anglo Saxon World would offer. As he 'spoke softly (but) carrying a hard stick' he foresaw that the international order would now be reset by the US and its 'junior partner' Great Britain since these two nation-states were the most superior and mature of all. They were born leaders. Needless to say, the French and the Germans in particular would dispute this characterisation and just saw it predictably as political and cultural arrogance. However, in reality the US had now become the leading industrial nation-state in the World - it still is - while Great Britain retained control of the high seas and her 'impressive' imperial reach. Consequently, this status of the Anglo Saxon nations alongside their restated declared pre-eminence did illustrate much; the old world order was breaking apart as the competitive atmosphere of global power politics became tighter. Tensions grew in Europe as most nations of note started to look at how secure they really were. For some such as France the order of the day now seemed to protect and defend whilst in Germany the answer sat in its ability to be project and ascend... Finally, Berlin pronounced its intentions loudest, as London duly and dutifully responded, 'cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war'...
1914 suggested, signalled and signposted much that is worst about us. The German military advancement into the Low Countries and the subsequent 'rape of Belgium' with the raising of Leuven to the ground illustrated that not only had our ability and facility to wage war been upgraded by the industrial revolution and increased technology but morality and humanity had been downgraded by this barbarous and inhumane action. Great Britain reflected and then reacted, they believed they had little choice but to respond in defence of the embattled and beleaguered Belgians. Initially, over 2 million British personnel would be called to arms and sent to Flanders and France. Subsequently, over 5 million British Army personnel would visit this theatre of operations. In all around 956,000 British troops would subsequently lose their lives and staggeringly, over 2 million would be injured, disabled and scared. Washington watched this ensuing nightmare unfold, their well stated instincts were to stay clear of Europe so they remained neutral, Why would they intervene? Or as some Americans would more pointedly and crudely ask, 'do we (actually) have a dog in this fight'? Overall this 'Great War' would cost the lives of around 17 million with over 20 million wounded, disabled and disfigured. As London and Paris continued with this myopic madness Wilson considered his political options - had the time come to stop this catastrophe ?
Having been re-elected in 1916 on a mandate that the US would not join the fighting in Europe Woodrow Wilson shortly afterwards 'changed his mind' and therefore, the nation's due to issues concerning 'national security' and preceded as Commander in Chief to order American troops onto European battlegrounds. The idea of defending your own nation's borders on other nation's real estate was born. Around 4 million troops were mobilized. Significantly, although the American troops cooperated with the Allies on the battlefield they saw themselves as clearly independent from the already established chain of command. As Wilson and his top General John Pershing made clear the US were intervening under their terms not Europe's. The long established European - American relationship was about to change direction.
American military intervention with fresh troops and fresh ideas into this military morass was telling. On Uncle Sam's arrival Berlin soon realised their chances of 'winning' this war were gone. Within a year the Kaiser's troops were were also, ordered home as an armistice was agreed. The bloodiest most futile fighting ever witnessed by (wo)man was finally over but the battle over the post war World was about to begin. The date: January 1919; the venue Paris; the contestants - Clemenceau, Lloyd George, Orlando and Woodrow Wilson - the prize; Perpetual Peace.
These "Peacemakers of Paris' as they have became known struggled over a six month period to reconcile Wilson's post war plan - Wilson's Fourteen points - with Clemenceau's need to obtain retribution from the Germans for this war and the 'humiliating' Franco - Prussian (German) War of 1870, and Lloyd George's desire to defend the 'future' of the British Empire. Add to that Orlando's remit to extend Italian influence around the Mediterranean and the Gordian knot seemed an easier proposition. What did become clear was Wilson's ideas of a new world order that would eventually find traction in a different format represented in 1941 was far too radical for the old guard of Europe. The European leadership were still concerned about history while Wilson was more interested in the future. His ideas concerning free trade, freedom of the seas, arms control and national self determination for more nation - states reflected a world that paradoxically was becoming more interdependent not independent but these initiatives would also spell the end of European imperial control. London and Paris were not quite ready for that. But the key idea surrounding a new international 'peace' organisation - the League of Nations - seemed 'reasonable' to the peacemakers as long as it did not directly challenge the overriding sovereignty of the powerful nation-states. What is key to the intransigence shown by the old European leadership in Paris was that the fighting had stopped. In other words, the motivation to put a halt to this indescribable butchery was now absent. When FDR some 20 odd years later, successfully repackaged Wilson's plan as the Atlantic Charter (1941) the fighting was gaining momentum not losing it, no wonder Churchill - the arch British imperialist - and De Gaulle - the arch French nationalist - finally agreed to it.
Wilson's sombre return to Washington and his subsequent failure to get his own Congress to buy into the League of Nations idea did not disguise the fact that the United States was now strong enough to lead the World. The question remained whether they really understood what that meant!
1941 was the year if there was just one that announced American pre-eminence. The last twenty odd years internationally had been underpinned by a global malaise. Any cohesive European leadership had been left on the battlefields of Northern France and Belgium in 1918. The League of Nations that was meant to offer an alternative international structure had become diluted and eventually delinquent as the members squabbled and skirmished their way along a bureaucratic and legalistic pathway that would eventually lead them back to where they began. In the meantime Washington had initially used and then abused this 'period of peace' as the Wall Street Crash and the Great Depression that followed illustrated. But out of the insular nature of the American character appeared an internationalist that understood leadership and the responsibilities that came with it - FDR.
His subsequent stewardship (1933-1945) of his own nation - state and then of global affairs was hardly faultless or straightforward but at least he recognised that the US had to offer a strong direction of travel that needed to be underpinned by international organisations - very Wilsonian - but the difference between 1919 and 1941 was the time, place and space was now ready for a New World Order. The immediacy and reality of war has a habit of focusing minds. As the Japanese - wittingly or not fired the starting gun at Pearl Harbour - Roosevelt not only introduced the US into the Second World War he also promoted his post war plan that included the effective dismantlement of the old imperial systems, a new defence plan, a new financial structure and of course, the United Nations. This outline structure with many additions, a few deletions and some amendments has enabled the World to traverse the period from 1945 to 1989 with a degree of order if the overall goal of global peace has gone missing. Due to American leadership Europe enjoyed the initial financial benefits of the Marshal Plan and the on going security that emanated from NATO. The very nation-states that assisted in the birth and growth of the US was now on the receiving end of this enduring relationship.
We will discuss in the final short story - part 3 Europe and the US, Do We Still Need Each Other? What has happened to US/European relations post Cold War? What are our options now as we consider a very unpredictable outlook and a insecure future?
KK
To understand the long-standing 'friendship' between Western Europe and the US you might wish to consider two notions. Firstly, that some associations endure because of their obvious attractions whilst others continue in spite of their obvious differences. Simply put, one is born from the heart, the other is born from the head. Secondly, whilst Europe has spent an inordinate amount of time and effort trying to reconcile the disconnect between what they believe in - their values - and how they have acted, the United States largely has not. In other words, whilst Europe continues to engage in self analysis and increasing self doubt, the US engages in tomorrow. That just might be because the narrative of European nationhood is long, deep,confused and complex. Whilst the US has yet to recognise its past fearful that it might get in the way. As you will now read they might have a point.
Let me try and explain...
Part 2
Europe Needs the US
As we turned to face the twentieth century the European imperial certainties and consistencies that had sat there for hundreds of years were now not only being challenged by the arrival of the US onto the international stage but by Europe itself; increased economic competition within nation-states driven by the socio-political distortions that the industrial revolution was producing meant that the understood balances of power within the Old World were shifting. The increasingly assertive nature of Germany, the growing civil unrest in Russia and the rise in imperial economic tensions felt by both Great Britain and France were just symptoms of these changing dynamics that American expansion, increasing industrialisation and growing nationalism had already signposted.
The arrival of the first 'imperial' US President into the White House - Theodore Roosevelt(TR) - also increased concerns in Europe as Paris, Berlin and Moscow saw TR as he saw himself, as a personification of all that the Anglo Saxon World would offer. As he 'spoke softly (but) carrying a hard stick' he foresaw that the international order would now be reset by the US and its 'junior partner' Great Britain since these two nation-states were the most superior and mature of all. They were born leaders. Needless to say, the French and the Germans in particular would dispute this characterisation and just saw it predictably as political and cultural arrogance. However, in reality the US had now become the leading industrial nation-state in the World - it still is - while Great Britain retained control of the high seas and her 'impressive' imperial reach. Consequently, this status of the Anglo Saxon nations alongside their restated declared pre-eminence did illustrate much; the old world order was breaking apart as the competitive atmosphere of global power politics became tighter. Tensions grew in Europe as most nations of note started to look at how secure they really were. For some such as France the order of the day now seemed to protect and defend whilst in Germany the answer sat in its ability to be project and ascend... Finally, Berlin pronounced its intentions loudest, as London duly and dutifully responded, 'cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war'...
1914 suggested, signalled and signposted much that is worst about us. The German military advancement into the Low Countries and the subsequent 'rape of Belgium' with the raising of Leuven to the ground illustrated that not only had our ability and facility to wage war been upgraded by the industrial revolution and increased technology but morality and humanity had been downgraded by this barbarous and inhumane action. Great Britain reflected and then reacted, they believed they had little choice but to respond in defence of the embattled and beleaguered Belgians. Initially, over 2 million British personnel would be called to arms and sent to Flanders and France. Subsequently, over 5 million British Army personnel would visit this theatre of operations. In all around 956,000 British troops would subsequently lose their lives and staggeringly, over 2 million would be injured, disabled and scared. Washington watched this ensuing nightmare unfold, their well stated instincts were to stay clear of Europe so they remained neutral, Why would they intervene? Or as some Americans would more pointedly and crudely ask, 'do we (actually) have a dog in this fight'? Overall this 'Great War' would cost the lives of around 17 million with over 20 million wounded, disabled and disfigured. As London and Paris continued with this myopic madness Wilson considered his political options - had the time come to stop this catastrophe ?
Having been re-elected in 1916 on a mandate that the US would not join the fighting in Europe Woodrow Wilson shortly afterwards 'changed his mind' and therefore, the nation's due to issues concerning 'national security' and preceded as Commander in Chief to order American troops onto European battlegrounds. The idea of defending your own nation's borders on other nation's real estate was born. Around 4 million troops were mobilized. Significantly, although the American troops cooperated with the Allies on the battlefield they saw themselves as clearly independent from the already established chain of command. As Wilson and his top General John Pershing made clear the US were intervening under their terms not Europe's. The long established European - American relationship was about to change direction.
American military intervention with fresh troops and fresh ideas into this military morass was telling. On Uncle Sam's arrival Berlin soon realised their chances of 'winning' this war were gone. Within a year the Kaiser's troops were were also, ordered home as an armistice was agreed. The bloodiest most futile fighting ever witnessed by (wo)man was finally over but the battle over the post war World was about to begin. The date: January 1919; the venue Paris; the contestants - Clemenceau, Lloyd George, Orlando and Woodrow Wilson - the prize; Perpetual Peace.
These "Peacemakers of Paris' as they have became known struggled over a six month period to reconcile Wilson's post war plan - Wilson's Fourteen points - with Clemenceau's need to obtain retribution from the Germans for this war and the 'humiliating' Franco - Prussian (German) War of 1870, and Lloyd George's desire to defend the 'future' of the British Empire. Add to that Orlando's remit to extend Italian influence around the Mediterranean and the Gordian knot seemed an easier proposition. What did become clear was Wilson's ideas of a new world order that would eventually find traction in a different format represented in 1941 was far too radical for the old guard of Europe. The European leadership were still concerned about history while Wilson was more interested in the future. His ideas concerning free trade, freedom of the seas, arms control and national self determination for more nation - states reflected a world that paradoxically was becoming more interdependent not independent but these initiatives would also spell the end of European imperial control. London and Paris were not quite ready for that. But the key idea surrounding a new international 'peace' organisation - the League of Nations - seemed 'reasonable' to the peacemakers as long as it did not directly challenge the overriding sovereignty of the powerful nation-states. What is key to the intransigence shown by the old European leadership in Paris was that the fighting had stopped. In other words, the motivation to put a halt to this indescribable butchery was now absent. When FDR some 20 odd years later, successfully repackaged Wilson's plan as the Atlantic Charter (1941) the fighting was gaining momentum not losing it, no wonder Churchill - the arch British imperialist - and De Gaulle - the arch French nationalist - finally agreed to it.
Wilson's sombre return to Washington and his subsequent failure to get his own Congress to buy into the League of Nations idea did not disguise the fact that the United States was now strong enough to lead the World. The question remained whether they really understood what that meant!
1941 was the year if there was just one that announced American pre-eminence. The last twenty odd years internationally had been underpinned by a global malaise. Any cohesive European leadership had been left on the battlefields of Northern France and Belgium in 1918. The League of Nations that was meant to offer an alternative international structure had become diluted and eventually delinquent as the members squabbled and skirmished their way along a bureaucratic and legalistic pathway that would eventually lead them back to where they began. In the meantime Washington had initially used and then abused this 'period of peace' as the Wall Street Crash and the Great Depression that followed illustrated. But out of the insular nature of the American character appeared an internationalist that understood leadership and the responsibilities that came with it - FDR.
His subsequent stewardship (1933-1945) of his own nation - state and then of global affairs was hardly faultless or straightforward but at least he recognised that the US had to offer a strong direction of travel that needed to be underpinned by international organisations - very Wilsonian - but the difference between 1919 and 1941 was the time, place and space was now ready for a New World Order. The immediacy and reality of war has a habit of focusing minds. As the Japanese - wittingly or not fired the starting gun at Pearl Harbour - Roosevelt not only introduced the US into the Second World War he also promoted his post war plan that included the effective dismantlement of the old imperial systems, a new defence plan, a new financial structure and of course, the United Nations. This outline structure with many additions, a few deletions and some amendments has enabled the World to traverse the period from 1945 to 1989 with a degree of order if the overall goal of global peace has gone missing. Due to American leadership Europe enjoyed the initial financial benefits of the Marshal Plan and the on going security that emanated from NATO. The very nation-states that assisted in the birth and growth of the US was now on the receiving end of this enduring relationship.
We will discuss in the final short story - part 3 Europe and the US, Do We Still Need Each Other? What has happened to US/European relations post Cold War? What are our options now as we consider a very unpredictable outlook and a insecure future?
KK
RSS Feed
