Naturally Iran is out of this picture now after their famous revolution. — ssu

Well, we know that there was an Iranian revolution in 1979. My point was that the Rockefellers were involved in the oil crisis before the revolution and in the creation of the EU.

But anyway, consider the following facts:

The EU was rejected as undemocratic by Europe’s largest economies, Russia and England.

Germany which was under enemy military occupation was ordered to join.

France was pressured to join.

Belgium, Holland, and Luxembourg could not stay out as their economies were closely interlinked with those of Germany and France.

So, all facts considered, how democratic would you say the whole project was?

By the way, what changes would you like to see? — Apollodorus

I want to see the following changes in Spain:

1 Educational system. Our universities are completely awful. They do not do anything interesting neither motivate the students. You cannot allow a system where you tell to the students that is “normal” to have a low income afterwards. When you are here, you feel like everything is cheated or corrupted. I want a more transparent and flexible colleges procedure. The lack and insufficient educational skills make Spain with the most young people unemployed (around 44 %. What an embarrassing rate...)
For example: I completely do not understand why despite the fact, we are the most tourist country of the world, most of the Spaniards lack of English skills. Can anyone explain this to me?

2. It is time to make peace with ourselves. There are a lot of division in the political context. When you have so, it is very difficult to reach consensus and pacts to improve the State. Most of the situations here feel like “revenge” against the political adversary. It is so useless promoting a good law and then, the opposite part in the parliament say “we will derogate it the next four years”. There is not a clearly plan to us. I do not know what the future holds in my country. I wish there is not more division. Since 1898, when we lost our last colonies, Spain has not did anything interesting at all. Only incompetents in the government.

3. I think the tax system is not well dispensed by the administration. Despite the fact Spain is a big imputation country where you have to pay a lot of taxes for everything, the income that the State receives, is not in a worthy expenditure. I do not see social changes neither impressive aspects. I have to admit with all the pain of the world, but yes, Spain is a poor country and I do understand that my State needs a lot of Taxes to have a good income because we don’t have here wealthy companies or entrepreneurs.
Due to this situation, we end up in a “black economy” (around 25 % of spanish GDP is in black money... check: https://feelingeurope.eu/Pages/Shadow_Economy_in_Europe.pdf) where the Spaniards only understand the only way it seems to survive because if I do have a low income and then the State demands on me a lot of taxes, it is understandable such big portion of black economy. I rather be “outside” the law and have cash everywhere because the taxes seem to not be worthy at all.
We, the Spaniards, do not trust the State at all and I think is sad... Imagine having an income of around 500 - 950 € and then having these prices of house and taxes:



Conclusion: I live in a State which doesn’t respect the individual in both scenarios: education and wealth. I only demand a government which will respect us doesn’t matter the ideology.
Hopefully, we are in the EU. Thanks to them, Spain doesn’t live in a third world country (we are close to)

The EU was rejected as undemocratic by Europe’s largest economies, Russia and England. — Apollodorus

Russia rejected the EU as undemocratic? ? ? When? Who? Must have been Vlad who has said that. Yeah, he's so worried about democracy.

Germany which was under enemy military occupation was ordered to join. — Apollodorus

By whom? The Rockefellers?

France was pressured to join. — Apollodorus

Again who?

So according to you, who pressured Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman to go on with the idea of integration and common markets? Again the Rockefellers?

Have you ever contemplated that after such ruinous wars starting with the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 and then continuing with World War I and World War II, all wars that left France in ruins and the two last ones with Germany too, that the political elites of both countries would finally, after millions of dead, come to the conclusion that there has to be another path forward than the adversarial, bellicose position that had lead to prolonged adversity and such calamity for so long?

Because the truth is the politicians like Monnet, Schuman, Adenauer, Bech, Beyen, De Gasperi didn't need to be pressured by some above entity (Bankers?) to work for European integration. They genuinely wanted something else than the environment that had brought so much death and destruction to their countries. Even Churchill favoured European integration and had the clear mind to have the UK to stay out of it (which now doesn't look like a bad idea, actually).

Oh yes, I bet bankers loved the idea. You can obviously find the Rockefellers, and of course the (ghasp!) Rothchilds, to having been in favor of European integration. Yet bankers are just ONE reason among others. But to argue that it was the bankers that did everything, were the most important reason is simply biased and wrong. To forget that EEC and the European integration process had it's roots in a continent that had experienced two diabolical wars that obviously killed fervent nationalism and the last jingoist in Western Europe for a while is simply an error.

For example: I completely do not understand why despite the fact, we are the most tourist country of the world, most of the Spaniards lack of English skills. Can anyone explain this to me? — javi2541997

Good point. One of the issues I have heard of is that Spanish schools tend to teach English spoken with a Spanish accent. I don't know how true that is, but presumably Spaniards have plenty opportunities to learn better English with the help of the social media and other communication technologies?

Having said that, there are lots of other European countries where foreign languages are not necessarily a priority, England and France among them. The situation is possibly different in Germany and Scandinavian countries like Sweden, Norway, and Denmark where the national language is closer to English than Spanish.

I was once told by Swedish students that the reason they speak such good English is that they watch English-language movies with Swedish subtitles.

But do you think better English would improve Spain's unemployment figures?

As regards education standards, I think most European countries have various issues, possibly due to lack of government investment and because young people either can't make up their mind as to what sort of education and career options to go for or simply for lack of interest. And I don't think the state benefits system helps either.

Upbringing and culture in general may be another factor.

Russia rejected the EU as undemocratic? ? ? When? Who? Must have been Vlad who has said that. Yeah, he's so worried about democracy. — ssu

You are not paying attention, are you?

It was Stalin, not Putin. I was talking about the Marshall Plan and the ECSC that formed the basis of the EU. They were launched when Stalin was in power. He put pressure on East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Yugoslavia and Finland to reject the Plan.

Germany was controlled by US military governor McCloy who was a lawyer with close links to the Rockefellers.

Schuman was under pressure from State Secretary Dean Acheson. Monnet was not elected by anyone was he?

Of course politicians were involved and so were bankers and industrialists. What I am saying is that it was not an initiative of the European people.

See OSS, CIA and European Unity: The American Committee on United Europe, 1948-60

Spaniards have plenty opportunities to learn better English with the help of the social media and other communication technologies? — Apollodorus

Good point. Apart from all the opportunities that every Spanish has to learn English, I guess it is key here to develop a "social" education system. Nordic countries are good in this issue.
Here in Spain the classes are so competitive and if they can do it they would destroy you just for some "good marks" in the exams. For this reason, if you are shy or introvert (as me for example) you would suffer a lot of "how is your English pronunciation" so I remember I didn't participate speaking in public when I was a kid at my English class.
But, I always been so lucky to have parents with money, so them paid me for four years in a row a private English teacher every Sunday. This helped me a lot to improve not only my English skills but the ability to speak in public. I remember one day reading a book. The first word of the paragraph was "schedule". I never seen it until that day so I got freeze trying to know how to say it properly, because it looked like "German" to me :rofl:
When my parents perceived this, apart from keeping me with the private teaching, they started to pay a lot of money in English education like bilingual school and college (around 800 and 1200 € per month). I went to US with a family (Texas, Arkansas, Missouri, Illinois, Wisconsin
...) and EU (UK, Ireland, Scotland...) to be "around" only with native speakers so I was forced to speak properly English to get along with.
To be honest I am so lucky to have this kind of parents who put a lot of money in my English education but I do understand that all the Spaniards have not the luck as me... Here is when the public education should do something.

I was once told by Swedish students that the reason they speak such good English is that they watch English-language movies with Swedish subtitles. — Apollodorus

I exactly do the same since my teacher recommended it. I see American or British films in English. I no longer see it in Spanish.

But do you think better English would improve Spain's unemployment figures? — Apollodorus

I guess yes. This is due to the "dependent" of Spanish economy to the exterior and international market. Not only tourism but another elements as fruits, olives, meat, wine, etc...
We depend a lot of how other countries see us, so I think English is fundamental to improve our image and get more valuable profits.

I'm sorry, but Spain under Franco was a far-rightwing dictatorship. The only reason it wasn't explicitly fascist was because the fascists where one of the far-rightwing factions that Franco played off against each other. "The Spanish Civil War" by Paul Preston is an excellent history book on this which I happen to have read. he also makes it clear how these combined forces then carried out numerous executions once in power - not just communists, but liberals and centrists of all stripes. The aim was to roll back any progressive forces forever.

And describing the 1945 Labour government as "filled with communists and socialists" is similarly not accurate - at least as regards you appear to understand this. It was a centre-left government which was willing to take areas of the economy into public ownership - frankly, the conservative party in the UK was doing the same thing.

You do appear to be correct that America and the West supported the USSR economy to some degree. The USSR was required to take loans from the Paris Club, for example. I don't know why you are being sceptical about the amount of trade that Wikipedia lists as existing between the US and the USSR - even if the USSR statistics aren't accurate, surely the US ones are? This is obviously a complex issue - I don't think I have at all gotten to the bottom of it, but there is more to be said.

then carried out numerous executions once in power - not just communists, but liberals and centrists of all stripes. The aim was to roll back any progressive forces forever. — RolandTyme

Not only executions but expropriation of property of those leftists and liberals. After Franco won, his objective was to massacre all the “enemies” (when they were Spaniards too...) and then have a real “catholic and traditional state” I don’t even know why this misery lasted 34 years. This is why in nowadays there still be some wounds that are not recovered yet...

And describing the 1945 Labour government as "filled with communists and socialists" is similarly not accurate — RolandTyme

I believe my statement regarding "socialists and communists" referred to France, not the Labour Party:

it was Britain’s socialist Labour government and France (that was dominated by socialists and communists) that were opposed to Spanish participation in the Marshall Plan. — Apollodorus

However, since you mention the Labour Party, its co-founders like the Webbs were admirers of Lenin and Stalin. And there were quite a few others like Labour chairman Harold Laski himself who was an open advocate of communism.

The statement “The Labour Party is a Socialist Party, and proud of it” was in Labour’s election manifesto of 1945. So, I think it would be difficult to argue that it was not a socialist party.

The Labour Party is a Socialist Party, and proud of it. Its ultimate purpose at home is the establishment of the Socialist Commonwealth of Great Britain

- Labour Party Manifesto 1945

Not only that, but Labour controlled the London-based Socialist International that it founded and that it used to advance its own socialist agenda in Europe and across the world.

In the 1950 manifesto Labour wrote:

By applying the moral principles of Socialism to our relations with other peoples, the Labour Government has made Britain a symbol of justice and social advance.

Unfortunately for Labour, by then the people had enough of socialism, food rationing (shopping conditions were worse under Labour than during the war), corruption, black market, prostitution, and crime, and they voted for Churchill to restore normalcy and order.

Food Rationing Ends

But Labour remained a socialist party:

We believe that the socialist [actually, Marxist] axiom "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is not for home consumption only.

- Labour Party Manifesto 1964

We never thought, or promised, that the job of ending poverty, at home as well as abroad, would be an easy one. But to do this job is part of our dedication as Socialists

- Labour Party Manifesto 1970

The aims set out in this manifesto are Socialist aims, and we are proud of the word.

- Labour Party Manifesto 1974

By 1979 Labour finally realized that the British people didn’t want socialism and changed its tune from “socialism” to “democratic socialism”:

The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party and proud of it.

- Labour Party Manifesto 1979

1983 was the last time that Labour manifestos mentioned socialism, democratic or otherwise until 2019, under self-identified socialist Jeremy Corbyn, when the National Health Service (NHS) was lamely dubbed “socialism in action”.

But the Fabian Socialists ousted Socialist Corbyn in 2020 and took back control with Keir Starmer (who has insisted that “he is still a socialist”) as new party leader ….

Keir Starmer: I still see myself as a socialist

In April 2020 Fabian Society general secretary Andrew Harrop publicly congratulated Labour’s new Fabian leaders:

The Fabian Society is delighted to congratulate Keir and Angela on their election as leader and deputy leader of the Labour party. We are incredibly proud to see two of our most talented Fabian Society members take charge of the British opposition

Congratulations to Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner | Fabian Society

So, basically, Labour has moved from socialism to democratic socialism to no socialism in its manifestos, but covertly the party leadership still refers to itself as “socialist”. In fact, they cannot be anything else as they are all members of the Fabian Society which is a socialist organization:

The 1880s saw an upsurge in socialist activity in Britain and the Fabian Society was at the heart of much of it. Against the backdrop of the Match Girls’ strike and the 1889 London Dock strike, the landmark Fabian Essays was published, containing essays by George Bernard Shaw, Graham Walls, Sidney Webb, Sydney Olivier and Annie Besant. All the contributors were united by their rejection of violent upheaval as a method of change, preferring to use the power of local government and trade unionism to transform society.
The early Fabians’ commitment to non-violent political change was underlined by the role the Fabian Society played in parliamentary politics. Having initially sought to influence the Liberal and Conservative parties, the Fabians participated in the foundation of the Labour party in 1900. The society has been affiliated to Labour throughout the party’s history and is the only original founder that remains affiliated in unchanged form.

Fabian Society – Our History

Evidently, "affiliated" in this case means "in charge" of the party ....

But, I always been so lucky to have parents with money, so them paid me for four years in a row a private English teacher every Sunday. This helped me a lot to improve not only my English skills but the ability to speak in public. — javi2541997

I think it definitely helps to have well-off parents, doesn’t it? :smile:

But it is important to look into why Francoism came to power in the first place. After all, there was a strong anti-communist movement led by Catholics. Arguably, Franco was a patriot who wanted to preserve Spanish culture.

In any case, I haven’t seen any evidence that Franco was a “Nazi” or "racist" or anything like that? Though I could be wrong.

On the other hand, there is no doubt that there was a worldwide communist movement aiming to establish a dictatorship all over the world. As usual, the British had a hand in this and used communism and socialism to destabilize and subvert other European countries, including Spain, in order to infiltrate and take over their financial, economic, and political systems.

This was primarily done through the infiltration of the education system by means of Fabian institutions and Fabian university societies.

Madrid had its own Fabian Society called “Escuela Nueva” that was run by the socialist Enrique Marti Jara who had studied at the Fabians’ London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) where he was instructed by Fabian Society leaders Graham Wallas and Sidney Webb. Other Fabians were also active within the University of Madrid.

Martí Jara, Enrique

In general, I tend to think that the emergence of Francoism and European nationalism is a bit more complex than often assumed. There was a wide range of different factors involved and it would be wrong to paint everything as just "Fascism".

You are not paying attention, are you?

It was Stalin, not Putin. I was talking about the Marshall Plan and the ECSC that formed the basis of the EU. — Apollodorus

How could I, because Marshall Plan or even the ECSC isn't the EU. You wrote EU so I couldn't know you were referring to Stalin. Indeed, again a chap who was terribly worried about the state of democracy. Who wouldn't when they got over 100% of the vote (by other regions voting for him too).

Germany was controlled by US military governor McCloy who was a lawyer with close links to the Rockefellers. — Apollodorus

Again no. Of course, the other occupation regions don't matter, right?

See OSS, CIA and European Unity: The American Committee on United Europe, 1948-60 — Apollodorus

In fact, this article what you refer to actually makes well my point extremely well.

Do note the role which the article gives to European politicians like Coudenhove-Kalergi, Aristide Briand and Winston Churchill here for the US policy to change for European integration. Hence you have here, which the article perfectly explains, European politicians lobbying Americans to take on the idea of European integration. So the idea of Europeans being here hapless bystanders that are guided by American interests (and Wall Street) is rather biased and is the usual self-centered way of looking at things. As if the US would run the World.

For example Konrad Adenauer had been for long for European integration, well before WW2. That the "integrationist" took power happens simply because Europe had to find a different path from it's bellicose past. Especially in a situation where there was the Soviet Empire taking over Eastern Europe.

Again no. Of course, the other occupation regions don't matter, right? — ssu

The British and American Zones merged in 1947 and were joined by France in 1949. The Americans had the supreme military command as well as the money, remember? :grin:

Military occupation is military occupation. Which part of it do you think is difficult to understand?

Anyway, here is State Secretary Acheson’s letter of October 30, 1949 to Schuman in which he admits that the Americans are “making decisions for the Germans” and tells Schuman to take action “to promptly and decisively integrate US-controlled Germany (note the Occupation Statute) into Western Europe”.

Whether Germany will in the future be a benefit or a curse to the free world will be determined, not only by the Germans, but by the occupying powers. … Our own stake and responsibility is also greater. Now is the time for French initiative and leadership of the type required to integrate the German Federal Republic promptly and decisively into Western Europe … We have also reserved to ourselves in the occupation statute very considerable powers with respect to the action of the German Federal Republic … These difficult problems involve direct and indirect interests of our own, and in most of them we have grown accustomed in the past four years to making decisions for the Germans … We could, of course, take the attitude that, having given to the Germans the Occupation Statute, we should wait for clear and definite evidence on the part of the Germans of behavior in accordance with our expectations. Can we afford to do so, in view of the shortness of time still at our disposal? … I believe that our policy in Germany, and the development of a German Government which can take its place in Western Europe, depends on the assumption by your country of leadership in Europe on these problems … I repeat that our own stake in this matter is very great. We here in America, with all the will in the world to help and support, cannot give the lead. That, if we are to succeed in this joint endeavor, must come from France.

Letter from Dean Acheson to Robert Schuman (30 October 1949)

Had France acted on its own initiative, there would have been no need for Acheson to put pressure on Schuman. But since Acheson did put pressure on Schuman, it follows that France did not act on its own initiative but under American pressure. France acted as America’s puppet which is not surprising considering that it depended on American financial and military assistance.

Acheson himself told Truman that "These measures of relief and reconstruction have been only in part suggested by humanitarianism. Your Congress has authorized and your government is carrying out, a policy of relief and reconstruction today chiefly as a matter of national self-interest”.

Acheson of course, was a partner at corporate law firm Covington and Burling. He was a director of the Rockefellers’ Council on Foreign Relations, a member of the committee that drafted the Marshall Plan and of the Rockefellers’ Committee for the Marshall Plan that campaigned for the implementation of the Plan. He set the foreign policy of the Truman administration from 1949 to 1953, and was involved in creating West Germany’s government.

And you seem to have left out the inconvenient bits in the article, like US cash being funneled through the CIA to pro-unification organizations, etc. ....

And you seem to have left out the inconvenient bits in the article, like US cash being funneled through the CIA to pro-unification organizations, etc. .... — Apollodorus

And the Soviets funneled to their favorite parties money too.

But that European politicians lobbied to the US to choose a certain policy towards Europe makes my point.

The British and American Zones merged in 1947 and were joined by France in 1949. The Americans had the supreme military command as well as the money, remember? :grin: — Apollodorus

Maybe you are forgetting that the Deutsche Mark was introduced in 1948? :smirk:

Well, I don't think that a poor understanding of how global corporations operate is particularly helpful.

The Rockefellers had a worldwide petroleum and banking empire. How do you think an empire like that is run?

First, you hire trusted lawyers to assist you. Next you invest your millions in foundations that you use to buy influence. You make grants to universities that produce politicians and to think tanks that advise governments. You influence economic and foreign policy by putting pressure on politicians. You install your own lawyers and business associates in government positions, etc.

You can see here how the same law firms like Acheson's Covington and Burling influence the EU on behalf of US corporations even now:

Bonanza as Firms Try to Influence European Union - The New York Times

You also keep forgetting that the Rockefellers' CFR became part of the US government in 1942:

The Council on Foreign Relations— Is It a Club? Seminar? Presidium? ‘Invisible Government'? - The New York Times

Maybe you are forgetting that the Deutsche Mark was introduced in 1948? — ssu

You mean 1948 when the Marshall Plan was introduced in Germany? :smile:

And you forget that the Americans, i.e., Rockefeller's people were in charge of both the US administration in Germany and of the Economic Cooperation Administration (ECA) that distributed the Marshall Plan funds.

In 1949-1952 West Germany received loans totaling $1.45 billion. All under US authority ....

In any case, I haven’t seen any evidence that Franco was a “Nazi” or "racist" or anything like that? Though I could be wrong. — Apollodorus

No, you are not wrong. He was not racist neither nazi. Under his regime, he promoted a lot of laws accepting double nationality with Latin American countries like Chile, Argentina, Paraguay, etc...
He also developed (ironically) a constitution to Ecuatorial Guinea.
I guess one of the objectives was abolish socialism and communism, he did not cara about race or blood purity as Hitler wanted. But oh boy! it is so difficult obligate the Basques, Catalonians or Gaelicians feel Spaniards because they have a hard attachment to their roots.

There was a wide range of different factors involved and it would be wrong to paint everything as just "Fascism". — Apollodorus

Agreed. It is so difficult to appoint a general factor to understand why Franco won a civil war which started in Canary Island and then lasted 34 damn years. There are a lot of factors but I guess the territory was key in this scenario. Furthermore francoism catholic ideas, Franco developed a map of Spain without autonomous regions. It was just "Spain" under the same law. This happened fue to one of the messes that the Republic did not avoid: the madness and changes of changing the map of spain just to satisfy the peripherals politicians (as Catalonia for example). Inside this mess, it is impossible to make a clear consensus in whatever aspect so Franco took advantage against a Republic which was already divided to territory stuff. The leftits, themselves, tend to being divided by regional issues.
So establish centralist map without territory federalism (as the Republic wanted) should ended this problems but only created others which follow until today.

Franco was a patriot who wanted to preserve Spanish culture. — Apollodorus

Interesting. I do not know how to answer this one... I do not know what is Spanish culture. It is a word which has many cultural points of view. Form my perspective, I would include Basque country but they do not feel Spanish enough... losing the Basques as nationalists was one of the biggest failures Spain ever made. We should respect more the basques, their language, culture, industries, etc... It is sad how they feel completely separated of Spain. There are zones that I do not like at all, specially the south they are lazy and live in backwards cities.
It always been so debated what is the meaning of Spanish culture and being Spaniard. I wish one day we can recover Basques. I want to live with them a period of my life and understand their way of seeing the life because they are the truest europeans not our mediterranean filthy ass abusive tourism.
What we had done wrong when they were sad and depressed whenever an ETA member died back between 70´s and 90´s.Euskadi Ta Askatasuna. Look:


There are lot of political conflicts and Basque was one of the toughest.

Another link of interest.
Navarre & the Basques

Thanks.

I think that to some, Spanish culture is having churros for breakfast, paella for lunch and tapas for dinner. Followed by rice pudding (not a great fan myself) or tarta de almendras (much better). Having a feria or a party every other day. Singing “en la calle”. Being as loud as possible. And talking so fast that no estranjero ever has a clue of what you are talking about unless you say it in slow and broken English :grin:

Another thing I have noticed is that Spaniards in general like to be Spanish and something else at the same time, which is why you hear them saying things like “I am Spanish and Andalusian”. Some get carried away and may even come up with something like “somos moros”!

But how “moros” were the moros? The Mauretanians were a Berber population and, apparently, DNA studies have discovered a close ancestral link between Berbers and the Saami of Scandinavia. Could @ssu be one of your distant cousins? :smile:

Saami and Berbers: An Unexpected Mitochondrial DNA Link - NIH

And of course the Berbers were colonized by Romans, Vandals, and Greeks ....

But I agree that the Basques are an interesting case. I can’t say that they look much different from other Spaniards. I think you can detect some Iberian and Celtic features plus elements of some other populations. But in terms of language and culture it’s very intriguing. How did they manage to preserve a language that is totally different from other European languages, or from any other language?

Another thing I have noticed is that Spaniards in general like to be Spanish and something else at the same time, which is why you hear them saying things like “I am Spanish and Andalusian”. — Apollodorus

Completely. I am from Madrid and I feel more "madrileño" than Spaniard itself. I am really proud of the city I was born and raised and to me it looks like so different from the rest of the state. Probably, others would say or feel the same if they were born in Catalonia, Andalucía, Basque, etc...
So, seeing and speaking about Spain as a whole is very complex or even impossible.

How did they manage to preserve a language that is totally different from other European languages, or from any other language? — Apollodorus

Easy. Their government put a lot of money on the table to make sure basque language is not forgotten. They even use this language as a "weapon" against the Spanish state because for them basque is a sign of freedom and fight against fascism, and then they think Spain is so related to fascim. Every kid in Basque country go to public schools which only teach in basque and English. I remember meeting one girl from Navarre that she didn't know how to speak Spanish. Her parents and school never taught her how to. Interesting right?
I guess Basques and Navarra just hate Spain and Spanish culture or people :lol:

Any historian can tell you that there was very strong French opposition to German participation in anything, let alone economic unification.

In Sept 1949, according to Schuman’s chief of staff, Bernard Clappier, Acheson put a gun to Schuman’s head:

In September 1949, at one of the periodic meetings of the Allied Occupation Powers in West Germany (Dean Acheson, Ernest Bevin and Robert Schuman), Acheson put a gun to Schuman’s head, asking him to outline a common policy for West Germany at the next Foreign Ministers’ meeting with the implication that, if Schuman did not, the US would have to define a policy with or without the French

- B. Clappier, ‘Bernard Clappier Temoigne,’ in H. Rieben, L’Europe: une longue marche, 1985, p. 22 (Published by Jean Monnet Foundation for Europe.)

Schuman turned to Monnet for help – who drafted his plan under American instruction – and produced the “Schuman Plan” at the next Foreign Ministers Meeting (May 1950) as ordered by Acheson.

Sept 13 1949, McCloy to Acheson:

With respect to German participation in international organizations, this problem will no doubt arise early in the Political Affairs Committee, where the French may be the most difficult obstacle. Therefore, any information on Schuman’s attitude would be useful to us

Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949, Council of Foreign Ministers, Sept. 13

Oct 22 1949, Meeting of United States Ambassadors at Paris (attended by McCloy):

As for US policy, it must be directed towards pressing for the acceptance of Germany into the European Councils. We must put pressure on the French to let the Germans come in on a dignified basis…

Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949, Council of Foreign Ministers, Oct. 22

Oct 30 1949, Acheson to Schuman:

These difficult problems involve direct and indirect interests of our own, and in most of them we have grown accustomed in the past four years to making decisions for the Germans …

Letter from Dean Acheson to Robert Schuman (30 October 1949) - CVCE Website

November 15, 1949, Secret negotiations between the Occupation Powers and Adenauer:

The American, British, and French high commissioners this morning had three hours of secret negotiations with Chancellor Konrad Adenauer; negotiations ordered by the conference of foreign ministers in Paris which eventually will reveal West Germany's new place in the European community of nations.

Secretary of State Acheson Lays Out American Foreign Policy in Berlin

Nov 20 1951, Foreign Secretary Eden to Parliament:

We have also the fact that all through these years gradually we have drawn Germany—this greater part of Germany—into the Western orbit. We have drawn this part of Germany into the Schuman Plan, and into every sort and kind of contact—political, economic, literary, cultural of every sort and kind.

Foreign Affairs: 20 Nov 1951: House of Commons debates

If the ECSC project was voluntary, then:

Why was there a need for the Americans to make decisions for the Germans?
Why was there a need for the Americans to put pressure on France?
Why was there a need for England and America to draw Germany into the Schuman Plan?
Why was Monnet put in charge of Marshall Plan implementation in France?
Why was Monnet’s Plan called 'Schuman Plan' if it wasn’t Schuman’s Plan?
Why was Monnet appointed president of ECSC’s High Authority?
Why did Monnet found the Action Committee for the United States of Europe?
Why did the French National Assembly refuse to ratify the Treaty of Paris?

Monnet was a private person, he was not elected by anyone to federalize Europe. He was a banker and close friend of McCloy, as was Adenauer who was also related to McCloy. He held meetings with bankers ahead of getting together with politicians (see Monnet, Memoirs; K. Bird, The Chairman: John J. McCloy and the Making of the American Establishment, etc.).

Read official biographies, autobiographies, and original state documents, and you will see that the whole project was a top-down operation imposed on Germany, France, and other countries by vested interests, and that in many cases simply by-passed democratic process.

Any historian can tell you that there was very strong French opposition to German participation in anything, let alone economic unification. — Apollodorus

After WW2, many wanted to make Germany an agrarian country incapable of being any kind of threat anymore.

Thank's for the response, Apollodorus. And thanks for the references too! I enjoy when people do take the time to give an well thought response.

you will see that the whole project was a top-down operation imposed on Germany, France, and other countries by vested interests, and that in many cases simply by-passed democratic process. — Apollodorus

And it might have been a very small cabal of people that wanted integration (prior to WW2), just like Konrad Adenauer himself, but the essence is that in the end it did work. It did not fail as, well, nearly everything the US has done in the Middle East. Once when those few Europeans turned the heads in Washington and the US was in favor of European integration, then things happened.

I agree that European integration has been a top down operation, but what you cannot deny is that a) it has been a successful policy in Europe (integration has happened) and that b) Europeans have taken an active role in it. To observe that there were differing opinions was natural. Yes, I don't object your point: also bankers had their agenda, the US did play a major part. But my only disagreement is that you seem to fail to see that their agenda is just one part of the larger picture, it simply doesn't explain everything. For a complex historical phenomenon like the European integration process one narrative with few actors doesn't explain it all.

Above all, one should not forget the incentives that European countries themselves had to join the integration agenda. Many countries, just like my countries, had to make quite delicate moves to join the integration process, and naturally the Eastern European countries were during the Cold War behind the Iron Curtain. And after being behind the Iron Curtain, they had obvious incentives to join the integration process and be left out.

US Foreign Policy has been successful when the foreigners or foreign countries at the center of the policy actually agree with the policy. Present day US unilateralism shows how badly it can fail this is not even tried.

So Franco wasn't a nazi or a racist - fine. You seem quite sanguine about the fact that he was a dictator who had his political opponents - and not just on the left - executed. It was explicit that his regime was against the enlightenment, in any sense, in Spain - women's equality, religious toleration, liberal rights, union recognition, etc.

You seem quite sanguine about the fact that he was a dictator — RolandTyme

Well, I don't recall saying that Franco was not a dictator. My actual statement was:

In any case, I haven’t seen any evidence that Franco was a “Nazi” or "racist" or anything like that? Though I could be wrong. — Apollodorus

To which @javi replied:

No, you are not wrong. He was not racist neither nazi. — javi2541997

To say that someone is sanguine about a fact isn't to say they deny it - it is to say they are at ease with it. You seem at ease with it. You seem untroubled by it. You seem untroubled that he overturned a government committed to democracy, that he killed off political rivals on the left and centre of all stripes, and that the explicit aim of his regime was to destroy any of the values of the enlightenment and social progress which - even as a right-winger - I would expect you to be committed to. You seem happy that he did this just so long as he killed communists - however many other people even vaguely connected to them seems irrelevant to you - or at least an acceptable price you aren't going to bother yourself about. In a similar situation, you would no doubt be equally sanguine about someone like me being killed off, and almost all my friends. It is a disgraceful attitude to have, from anyone, left or right.

Well, it seems to me that you have a hyperactive and rather unhealthy imagination. I never said Franco should have killed you or your friends. By the sound of it, maybe it is you who would like to see me and my friends killed ....

I agree that European integration has been a top down operation, but what you cannot deny is that a) it has been a successful policy in Europe (integration has happened) and that b) Europeans have taken an active role in it. To observe that there were differing opinions was natural. Yes, I don't object your point: also bankers had their agenda, the US did play a major part. But my only disagreement is that you seem to fail to see that their agenda is just one part of the larger picture, it simply doesn't explain everything. For a complex historical phenomenon like the European integration process one narrative with few actors doesn't explain it all. — ssu

If US bankers and industrialists and their European partners played a major role, then that role needs to be acknowledged, not dismissed as "conspiracy theory".

Moreover, the idea of a "United States of Europe" does indeed go back to Anglo-American banking and industrial groups in the 1800's who already held interests on both side of the Atlantic. They owned railroad companies in Europe and America, financial institutions with branches in London, Paris, and New York, etc. Their original plan was to create a United Europe modeled on the United States and then integrate the two entities economically and politically.

Bankers and industrialists do not always exert influence directly. Most of the time they do it through lawyers, academics and other intellectuals, and politicians. Of course, Europeans were involved, but key actors like Monnet and Kalergi, for example, were funded by bankers and industrialists. Ordinary, independent Europeans were not involved nor did they ask for a United States of Europe to be created for them.

As regards the EU's success, I can see why a country like Finland is pro-EU, but I see no evidence that the EU has been an unmitigated success.

The EU may or may not have been “successful” for the first few decades of its existence, (depending on how you define “successful”) but this is no longer the case. The EU has many major problems. For example:

1. The EU has an ageing population.

2. The EU can only maintain its current population levels through mass migration from outside the EU and outside Europe. In January 2020 there were 37 million EU residents born outside the EU.

Statistics on migration to Europe | European Commission

3. There is significant population reduction especially in Southern and Eastern Europe. A fall of more than 30.0 % has been projected for Croatia, Bulgaria, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, followed by others like Slovakia, Portugal and Greece. Even Finland is not very far behind.

Population projections in the EU – Statistics

4.The EU is in long-term economic decline.

EU percentage of world GDP | Statista

5. The EU’s largest trading partner used to be America. Now it’s Communist China!

List of the largest trading partners of the EU – Wikipedia

6. The EU has no defense forces. The only EU country with a proper military is France. Other EU countries are totally dependent on NATO. And NATO only defends them when its leadership has a political or economic interest to do so.

On the whole, large countries like Germany and France are doing well, but all the small countries that were hoping for a better future by joining the EU are actually the ones that are worst hit. A lot of them will be virtually wiped off the map in the near future. This does not sound particularly "successful" to me. England is already out and there is mounting popular Euroskepticism even in EU core countries like France.

Conclusion: (1) There is no evidence that Europe would have done worse without the EU and (2) the EU has got serious problems some of which seem to be terminal, therefore it cannot be called a “success”.

If US bankers and industrialists and their European partners played a major role, then that role needs to be acknowledged, not dismissed as "conspiracy theory". — Apollodorus

Nobody is saying that they don't a role. It's one group that supported integration, but not the only one.

Bankers and industrialists do not always exert influence directly. Most of the time they do it through lawyers, academics and other intellectuals, and politicians. Of course, Europeans were involved, but key actors like Monnet and Kalergi, for example, were funded by bankers and industrialists. — Apollodorus

Well, bankers usually do fund various projects.

Ordinary, independent Europeans were not involved nor did they ask for a United States of Europe to be created for them. — Apollodorus

At least in several countries, just like in my country, there was a referendum to join the EU. So you are incorrect. Or it's the part of history that you just brush aside in your argumentation.

As regards the EU's success, I can see why a country like Finland is pro-EU, but I see no evidence that the EU has been an unmitigated success. — Apollodorus

Define success.

That there hasn't been a war or threat of war between the EU members would be one issue that would come to mind after looking at European history in the long term.

And unlike the COMECON, it hasn't been dissolved and now has survived longer far longer. Isn't that success in Europe?

1. The EU has an ageing population. — Apollodorus

Many countries have an ageing population. Yet I think it's quite clear that these countries would have similar demographic trends with or without the EU. This isn't a problem because of the EU.

4.The EU is in long-term economic decline. — Apollodorus

Yeah. If you make the argument because China and India have risen, this doesn't make sense. It's actually very good thing that Asia has catched up with the EU and the US. Again something that isn't actually happening because of the EU.

5. The EU’s largest trading partner used to be America. Now it’s Communist China! — Apollodorus

Over one billion people would be so. Hopefully India will too grow so much that it overtakes the 320 million Americans. When that happens the per capita GDP would be still one third from the US, not even half!

6. The EU has no defense forces. The only EU country with a proper military is France. Other EU countries are totally dependent on NATO. And NATO only defends them when its leadership has a political or economic interest to do so. — Apollodorus

And if the US continues the way it's doing, I think this going to be a genuine issue. Trumps remarks of the US leaving NATO didn't go unnoticed. This of course is a debate that isn't talked about openly: nobody dares to say how fucked up US foreign policy is now. All this repeat the mantra they have learned, but I think especially now there is going to be a lot of thinking. Afghanistan was also a huge failure for NATO, even if US unilateralism is the decent scapegoat.

At least in several countries, just like in my country, there was a referendum to join the EU. So you are incorrect. Or it's the part of history that you just brush aside in your argumentation. — ssu

I don't think I'm brushing aside anything. Finland may have preferred to be under EU domination than under Russian domination. But the EU is not about Finland.

My point was that the core countries that formed the ECSC which later became the EU, i.e., Germany and France, were pressured into forming an economic and political union by US corporations and their European collaborators. Therefore it was not a democratic project. In fact, there was strong opposition to it, especially in France as shown by the historical documents cited above and as acknowledged by historians.

Of course communists find satisfaction in a communist dictatorship like China becoming a world power whilst European economy, population, and influence are in decline. But not everyone agrees.

BTW, I don't think that the fact that there has been no war between France and Germany can be used as a pro-EU argument. If there has been no war, it is because Germany has no armed forces and France has no interest or means to start one as well as due to opposition from other powers and international law, not because of membership in the ECSC/EU. There is no connection between one and the other.

Finland may have preferred to be under EU domination than under Russian domination. But the EU is not about Finland. — Apollodorus

Not only Finland, but the Eastern members too. And what about Spain, Portugal, Greece? You see, EU enlargement has gone far forward from the start from the EEC.

If there has been no war, it is because Germany has no armed forces — Apollodorus

Really? Cold War Bundeswehr had even nukes for a while, actually.



Now they have "enjoyed the peace dividend", but still have armed forces.

There is no connection between one and the other. — Apollodorus

I do.

And many of those Europeans who have been for European integration, have seen that closer interaction and cooperation among the different sovereign states has brought peace. The simple fact is that there have been many reasons for the European integration, many proponents for it for different reasons.

Let's look at Eastern Europe, not just the Balkans. After the fall of the Austro-Hungarian empire, there is quite a lot of possible problems in Eastern Europe. Just to give one example, Romania has a minority of over 1 million Hungarians inside it's country. This could be a possible problem. Luckily it hasn't been:

In 1995, a basic treaty on the relations between Hungary and Romania was signed. In the treaty, Hungary renounced all territorial claims to Transylvania, and Romania reiterated its respect for the rights of its minorities. Relations between the two countries improved as Romania and Hungary became EU members in the 2000s.

Compare this to Latin America. Peru and Ecuador have had the Cenepa war in 1995. The simple fact is that economic and political integration does improve relations between countries. They aren't afraid of each other as otherwise they would be. And Latin America hasn't had similar integration, even if it has it's own organizations.