Rebuilding Europe - 2: Butterfly Effect
Continuation
of the series based on the book, Saving
a Continent.
The Americans
began to believe that the Soviet strategy on Europe was to smile and talk, but
drag things on until Europe collapsed economically, at which point communists
backed by Stalin would take power. So the US concluded that they had to act
unilaterally. They told the French and British that they should setup a
“European community” that would identify its economic needs collectively
(America couldn’t possibly find out each country’s needs individually) and then
“ask” for that amount from the US. As an incentive, the US showed the stick: if
they couldn’t group Europe together, then the US would just go and make
“Germany a self-supporting competitor to the neighboring countries of Europe”!
The British were
pragmatic and agreed, but wondered if American money would then flow into
Eastern Europe, an area under Soviet control. So the US suggested adding
conditions for entry into the European community that would force members to be
capitalist, not communist.
The French joined,
but unenthusiastically. Rebuilding Germany was highly unappealing to the
French. Also, communists were part of the French government, and would oppose
any move that made them choose the American camp over the Soviet one. The
Americans suggested that they purge their cabinet of communists and form an
alternate alliance. (This was a formula America would use in other European
countries as well to remove communist influence). But the French fear and
unhappiness at the prospect of German dominance of Europe would continue to
influence their attitude in all aspects. In fact, many historians blame the
exact same French attitude after World War I as having led to World War II!
Some people countries never learn.
All this put the
Soviets in a tough position. They obviously could never agree to becoming
capitalist for the aid, but their Eastern European satellites would be
“smacking their lips” at the prospect of American aid. How could they keep them
under check? And so the USSR ended up having to pressurize those countries to
stay in line, sometimes by military force. Such moves in turn raised US fears:
were such military moves a precursor to a full blown Soviet invasion of all of
Europe?
On the economic
front, the US refused to lend to the USSR. Nor would the US allow the USSR to
take reparations from Germany. Stalin argued this “forced” the USSR to take the
economic output of Eastern Europe! Stalin began to fear that the US would
expand from economic to military influence across Europe, eventually using
Europe as a base to attack the USSR. An economic plan meant for European
recovery was moving the US and the USSR to turn enemies. The butterfly had
flapped its wings and it was having consequences everywhere…
What you say (quoted next) is true but it singles out the French: "In fact, many historians blame the exact same French attitude after World War I as having led to World War II! Some people countries never learn." Europe was on the boil well before the World War I began, in fact by the end of 19th century many observant wise people in Europe itself had expressed alarm about the "(1) frenzied nationalistic patriotic churning (2) religious identity giving rise to high political attachment even though people were neither promoting religion per se nor would care much about following religious practices, it was just the identity of it (3) linguistic separation and dislike/disapproval for the other language, finally (4) there was a lot of "hate the other" attitude - in fact, the hate was an important ingredient in European nationalism of that time. The "other" was an important ingredient of European patriotism. All these were spread out in Europe and it was not just the French who were frenzied. England was more cool by that time because colonially they were on top of the world and they lived in an island. But the frenzy did not leave them alone completely. The boiling pot that Europe was finally led to what Europe was between 1940 to 1950. At least, the same old way of nationalistic, linguistic, religiosity.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the French never learnt; maybe the Germans never learnt; maybe other Europeans never learnt. That is fine for us. Unfortunately, all the ingredients of European nationalistic jingoism and hate-immersion are present in the Indian sub-continent. Looks like an absolute ditto of it. Very strange, but hopefully history may not repeat itself. Or, at least, European history may not repeat itself in the Indian subcontinent.
I may not live to see the culmination of the whip-enabled nationalism, religious assertion by taking as much law into own hands with the establishment dilly-dallying law-and-order issues always prioritizing vote-bank over everything, high pitch voices on language, caste, regional drowning any expression other than that of the fanatics, and finally, insisting that hate for Muslims being considered just, appropriate and final with no need at all to consider any balanced and fair ways towards dealing with the situation and improving it. Blanket hatred is the only thing permitted, more or less, these days.This is not very different from the way Jews were hated early in the 20th century by non-Jews in Europe. One thing I seem to have a gut-feeling like thing: whatever be the outcome, it is unlikely that it will prove that hate and mindless nationalism will be benign and that they would be deserving winners. And that, they are the appropriate and much-needed ingredients in our mindset.