NationStates Jolt Archive

Let's see whether we can't find an actually useful form of alternative history: trying to rate whether or not historical events were positive by thinking about a world without them.

A lot of people in my birthday thread have been critical of not only the politics in Brussels but the very institution of the EU itself. So to those people (and anyone else) I issue the following challenge:

We're back in the year 1949. The Marshall Plan has injected the vital cash to make the step from immediate reconstruction to proper economic growth. NATO is in the process of forming.

Germany has just been confirmed to be split into two halfs. What exactly that means is unclear as of yet. Politicians and VIPs which made their careers in late Weimar- and Nazi Germany shape the public arena. Whether Germany belongs to the West, the East or somewhere in the middle isn't decided yet.

In England we have a post-war government of socialists trying to nationalise whatever they can get their hands on while also beginning to pay back the truly monumental debt their country is in. And if that weren't enough, there's a colonial empire coming apart at the seams.

In France General de Gaulle is not yet President de Gaulle. You have however a weak government in place which struggles to deal with the way the war went and the new reality arising from it, especially overseas. It's almost a given that it will fall apart to be replaced by de Gaulle sooner or later, who holds deeply sceptical views of the Anglo-Americans. What France's relationship with Germany will be is not at all clear at this point.

Italy is now ruled by the conservative Christian Democrats, which while somewhat capable are also without real opposition besides the communists and may have trouble staying out of scandals and crises. There is some economic potential there, but political stability and access to outside markets are essential to make use of it.

So now I ask you to paint a realistic picture of what's going to happen from here. No European community, so no EEC*. The only transnational European institution as such is NATO. Without the EEC, various left-leaning (and indeed right-leaning) governments will have a difficult time keeping any sort of free trade happening, given the pro-government intervention and pro-tariff climate at the time.

*I realise people will call strawman. But that'd be silly. The very idea of an EEC wasn't a pro-free trade idea. There were virtually no free traders in positions of importance in the years following WWII. It was a political idea, just one part of a broader move to bring the countries closer together. The EEC wasn't an economic institution for the sake of economic benefit, it was a political institution and as such can't be seperated from the rest of the EU idea.

I think the nations of Europe would be a lot weaker, and a lot poorer.

However, recognising the good in the EU does not mean that there is no bad. People accept it as a fixed reality now, but I believe it is a lot weaker than people suspect, and could still tear itself apart quite easily. The institution has a huge amount of reform to do if it wants to continue to mean something in the 21st Century.

Without a decent knowledge of European history in the post World War II world--curse you American educational system!--I can't really say. I do, however, see a definite potential for any peace efforts to fall apart and plunge the continent into a new war, possibly during the mid sixties. As horrible as some of the EU is, it's kept the peace, and that is definitely a good thing. I'm not seeing how it could have been managed without the EU.

I doubt that much would be different. There would probably be other free trade agreements that would expand to something like the EU/EFTA is now.

Remember how the German patchwork of kingdoms, duchies and the like struggled against the other European nationstates before the Empire was formed?

That would've been Europe compared to the big players after WW2...

Remember how the German patchwork of kingdoms, duchies and the like struggled against the other European nationstates before the Empire was formed?

That would've been Europe compared to the big players after WW2...

That makes a hell of a lotta sense.

Kewl. 1800 posts for me.

I would be sitting in Germany, unemployed and without a chance of finding good employment.
My boyfriend would be out of work in London.
We would never have started our careers here, and we would never have met.

History is nice and well, but to me the EU is most important for allowing my life to go ahead in such a great way. :)

That makes a hell of a lotta sense.

Kewl. 1800 posts for me.
I hope it does. Yet I can't back it up 'cause I only thought of that comparison in less than a minute after reading the OP.

(See, you're working yourself up the ladder. ;))
I would be sitting in Germany, unemployed and without a chance of finding good employment.
My boyfriend would be out of work in London.
We would never have started our careers here, and we would never have met.

History is nice and well, but to me the EU is most important for allowing my life to go ahead in such a great way. :)
:fluffle: Glad it works out so well for you and your BF. :p

I doubt that much would be different. There would probably be other free trade agreements that would expand to something like the EU/EFTA is now.
Why would anyone want to start free trade agreements? This was a time when price control, nationalisation, 80%+ top tax brackets and massive tariffs all sounded like a great idea to everyone.

I'm not sure anyone would have really worked toward a free trade area until Reagan and Thatcher came along and brought with them their little pro-market revolution.

I hope it does. Yet I can't back it up 'cause I only thought of that comparison in less than a minute after reading the OP.

(See, you're working yourself up the ladder. ;))

:fluffle: Glad it works out so well for you and your BF. :p

A German girl and an English guy falling in love in Ireland... :D Maybe I should write a Hera-Lind-style novel about it
:fluffle:

I daresay an economic solution to globalisation and the rise of the Orient would have been fashoned later, and the old order would have been preserved better.

It would've taken a bit longer for each nation to recover, but it would've happened, and each country would've been individually stronger because of it. Due to NATO, American pressure, and the presence of the Soviet Union, I don't think the western European nations would've gone to war with each other (granted DuGalle was a total dick towards the British, but I don't think he was stupid enough to provoke a war).

I daresay an economic solution to globalisation and the rise of the Orient would have been fashoned later, and the old order would have been preserved better.

Old Order? You mean the British Empire? Because it was an inevitability that it would have collapsed. And a good thing too.

I daresay an economic solution to globalisation and the rise of the Orient would have been fashoned later, and the old order would have been preserved better.
The Suez Crisis would have happened either way. It wasn't like the Americans were happy about colonial empires and interests, so Britain would still have been in the same situation: neither the economic strength nor the political clout to keep the Empire together.

It would've taken a bit longer for each nation to recover, but it would've happened, and each country would've been individually stronger because of it.
Explain how. Go on, write a story! :p

The Suez Crisis would have happened either way. It wasn't like the Americans were happy about colonial empires and interests, so Britain would still have been in the same situation: neither the economic strength nor the political clout to keep the Empire together.

Indeedy do. However, I was referring more to the old, post-1919 composition of Europe.

Indeedy do. However, I was referring more to the old, post-1919 composition of Europe.

What's the post-1919 composition of Europe got to do with the EU?

What's the post-1919 composition of Europe got to do with the EU?

I'd say everything. The Eu has replaced an argumentative, competitive Europe with one that shares in its stagnation.

I'd say everything. The Eu has replaced an argumentative, competitive Europe with one that shares in its stagnation.

Argumentative and competitive? What, you prefer the 'competition' of 1939-1945?

I'd say everything. The Eu has replaced an argumentative, competitive Europe with one that shares in its stagnation.

Personally, I prefer that "stagnation" (whereever that might be happening, cause it's sure not here) to wars on the scale of the past 2 world wars.
But that's just silly little me, who only wants the opportunity to work and live in peace...

I'd say everything. The Eu has replaced an argumentative, competitive Europe with one that shares in its stagnation.

Stagnation? Last time I checked, the EU had a combined economy bigger than the United States and China.

Why would anyone want to start free trade agreements? This was a time when price control, nationalisation, 80%+ top tax brackets and massive tariffs all sounded like a great idea to everyone.


That's not true. GATT started in 1948, and plenty of European nations signed on to it. It's quite possible that some type of exclusive economic zone could have started in Europe in the fifties.

I hope it does. Yet I can't back it up 'cause I only thought of that comparison in less than a minute after reading the OP.

(See, you're working yourself up the ladder. ;))

I'm getting clsoe to the end my n00bhood.

I'm getting clsoe to the end my n00bhood.

n00bhood's all in the attitude. My recommendation to you, my apprentice, is everytime you want to yell at someone on NSG, post some spam instead. Mods force me to recommend you post it in Spam.

Alternatively, at 10,000 posts, whatever your behavior is becomes a trademark, non-n00b behavior.

n00bhood's all in the attitude. My recommendation to you, my apprentice, is everytime you want to yell at someone on NSG, post some spam instead. Mods force me to recommend you post it in Spam.

Alternatively, at 10,000 posts, whatever your behavior is becomes a trademark, non-n00b behavior.

I'll remember that when I'm flamebaited.

That's not true. GATT started in 1948, and plenty of European nations signed on to it. It's quite possible that some type of exclusive economic zone could have started in Europe in the fifties.
But not only did GATT not seriously reduce tariff barriers (it was, afterall, a fairly informal sort of agreement back then) for many years, but the planned extension into the "International Trade Organisation" was shot down by the US Congress. I can't find anything on the web about what the European states thought about it, if anyone else can I'd be very grateful.

I suppose it's possible, yes. But ultimately neither de Gaulle nor Adenauer sat down with each other to make economic policy. The two wanted to bring the two countries and their populations closer together politically - the Steel and Coal Agreement wasn't about making more money, it was about weakening the two countries' ability to make war against each other, thus giving up some of their sovereignty.

If this mindset hadn't prevailed, you'd have countries (all of which secondary powers now at best) which still have past grudges to settle, which don't trust each other and whose governments would react with mild panic to the world that's starting to relegate them to puppets of the Cold War. It's not a climate in which free trade agreements are drawn up, usually.

If the EU had never existed then the Europeans would be throwing poo at one another by now :rolleyes:

But not only did GATT not seriously reduce tariff barriers (it was, afterall, a fairly informal sort of agreement back then) for many years, but the planned extension into the "International Trade Organisation" was shot down by the US Congress. I can't find anything on the web about what the European states thought about it, if anyone else can I'd be very grateful.

I suppose it's possible, yes. But ultimately neither de Gaulle nor Adenauer sat down with each other to make economic policy. The two wanted to bring the two countries and their populations closer together politically - the Steel and Coal Agreement wasn't about making more money, it was about weakening the two countries' ability to make war against each other, thus giving up some of their sovereignty.

If this mindset hadn't prevailed, you'd have countries (all of which secondary powers now at best) which still have past grudges to settle, which don't trust each other and whose governments would react with mild panic to the world that's starting to relegate them to puppets of the Cold War. It's not a climate in which free trade agreements are drawn up, usually.

I believe that a fair number of european countries happily signed onto gatt after the 1947, and while from today's perspective it looks tragically ineffective it was a huge improvement over the 1930s attitude. It also laid out the foundations for future reductions where thousands of tarrifs were eliminated in the 1950s and 60s.

(free traders have had their proponents since before WWI).

I'm not going to argue that free trade had anything to do with de Gaulle and Adenuaer's actions, (I believe it was motivated more by sausages than anything), but there were voices in the halls of power that advocated free trade policies (the british conservative party for example) at that time.

Europe would have had another war :D

JOKING! JOKING!

(free traders have had their proponents since before WWI).
Obviously. But that first globalisation came to an end, and it wasn't until some years after the end of WWII that the next wave started again in earnest.

But it's not even so much about whether or not people thought that free trade in principle was a good idea. The question is whether the European former powers in that sort of climate of uncertainty would turn to each other for free trade.

Obviously. But that first globalisation came to an end, and it wasn't until some years after the end of WWII that the next wave started again in earnest.

But it's not even so much about whether or not people thought that free trade in principle was a good idea. The question is whether the European former powers in that sort of climate of uncertainty would turn to each other for free trade.

Don't you think that even if the former great powers had been skeptical about free trade, smaller nations like the Benelux countries and the Scandinavian countries would have entered into local free trade arrangements anyway simply because they had to given the size of their economies? And once everyone else saw the benefits it would expand to cover the big four?

Don't you think that even if the former great powers had been skeptical about free trade, smaller nations like the Benelux countries and the Scandinavian countries would have entered into local free trade arrangements anyway simply because they had to given the size of their economies?
That's possible.

And once everyone else saw the benefits it would expand to cover the big four?
No, that doesn't necessarily follow. The small countries generally don't have as deep grudges with each other, not illusions of global grandeur. A deal between the Netherlands and Belgium wouldn't have been as politically controversial as a deal between Germany and France.

Ireland'd be f***ed.

Ireland'd be f***ed.

*lol
That's very, very, very true ;)