Needless to say, Washington wants Britain inside the EU tent making the Atlanticist case for it. We know from declassified State Department files that US intelligence agencies funded the proto-EU movement in the 1950s and 1960s, using a network of spies from the former Office of Strategic Services under General William Donovan to funnel money to front groups.

The documents show that leaders of the European Movement and others who played a key role in the creation of European Community were treated as hired hands in Washington’s Cold War strategy, receiving half their budget from the US. The EU has always been an American project, even if it later slipped US control.

14 thoughts on “Hmmm”

  1. The Yanks fought the Cold War well and won it; we should all be grateful.
    The aftermath of war is always complicated and easy.

  2. Yes, the stoking up Islamism on the USSR’s borders strategy was a particular high point we should all be eternally grateful for.

  3. Hmmm indeed. Maybe that explains why so many of the early EEC leaders had been in Fascist movements in the ’30s. The USA would not fund former Communists, would they?
    (There’s a book on the fascist backgrounds of the European movement but I forget the title).

  4. So Much For Subtlety

    Ian B – “Yes, the stoking up Islamism on the USSR’s borders strategy was a particular high point we should all be eternally grateful for.”

    I think we should. Actually. As bad as the Islamists are, the Communists were worse. And even for us, the only problem the Islamists pose is that our traitorous leaders insist on importing so many of them.

    In an ideal world, they would live there, we would live here and there would be a great big wall between the two groups. We would go on inventing everything good in the modern world and they would go on molesting every sheep they can catch and otherwise being irrelevant to the rest of the planet.

  5. It’s not that much of a surprise, and really not that big of a “secret” that the US was well in favour of the EU as an idea, and partly funded the movement.

    The Bolschewicks weren’t nice, and a real threat. Stalin and his successors weren’t exactly the nicest of people. And the way they “incorporated” eastern Europe left no doubt whatshowever what their intentions were.
    And a non-united western Europe would eventually have erupted in flames again. It’s not as if the Nations have Played Nice the past couple of centuries, isn’t it?

    Most of the current crop of politicians in their 30’s or younger grew up with the Cold War an old stalemate legacy of WW II, the USSR already having become “reasonable” with Perestroyka sweeping up the old warbirds, and a EU already settled and the cause for Peace in Our Times as opposed to the several centuries of incessant wars you get to hear about in history class.

    Collective memory tends to be short, especially when it comes to politics. 10 years is Long Ago, 20 years is either something your parents worried about, or part of Your Wild Activist Years.
    And Current Affairs always trump “Ancient History”.
    Not always a good thing, but this kind

  6. Monnet lobbied hard in Washington, getting the ear of Roosevelt and presenting a federal Europe as bastion against communism. The US, at the time, was deeply concerned that the communists would take over in France and Italy.

    For the detail, see The Great Deception by Booker and North, second edition, 2005, pp 46-53

  7. “And a non-united western Europe would eventually have erupted in flames again.”

    One sort of hopes that a combination of liberal democracies (which have an excellent track record of not declaring war on each other), nuclear weapons and NATO would have prevailed militarily irrespective of the monstrosity that is the EU.

  8. I’m not sure why anyone thinks that this is a surprise. The states referred to in USA are a collection of independent nations which seeded power in a federal government. We credit this system for the low number of interstate wars(the Civil War and the Ohio/Michigan border war are the only 2 I can name off the top of my head) compared to the European states. After having to go across the pond twice due to interstate wars it makes sense that the left-pondians would want to avoid that in the future.

    The major problem that seems to keep popping up is that the EU is working with a first draft constitution. Your version of our Articles of Confederation is an incomplete document. Perhaps in your second functional draft you can do better than the current US constitution. From the complaints about the EU I keep reading the convention should be coming soon. Do us all a favor and don’t send Murphy as a delegate.

  9. Apart from Texas how many U.S. states have genuinely ever been independant, self-governing, sovereign nations?

  10. @Liberal Yank

    How can the Ohio/Michigan border war be called a war? According to the Wikipedia, there was 1600 combatants, no deaths and 1 wounded.

    I bet more people have died reenacting the 1966 world cup final.

  11. Hawaii which is a long story.

    Under the Articles of Confederation(1781-1789) the base idea is almost all sovereign power rested with the states. In this regard all 13 original colonies were run as independant, self-governing, sovereign nations for 5 years or about half as long as the Republic of Texas. The system, like the EU, was flawed. When the Constitution was ratified in 1789 many of the problems were solved as additional sovereign power was transferred to the federal level.

    From where I sit the EU is much like the Articles. The comments I have read here support the fact that there are large flaws in the system. I am not trying to argue that the differences between South Carolina and New York states are the same as between Germany and France. The point is we are pretty proud of how well our system has held up so far and it makes sense we’d like you to have the same government stability. Just as Puerto Rico has the choices to join the union, leave completely, or stay as a territory the UK can make a choice to leave or join the new union that is evolving. Since it seems a new constitutional convention is needed the only course of action that makes sense is to send delegates to see if you can get your own 3/5ths clauses added.

  12. When I was young ….. lefties always alleged that anyone on the right side of the Labour party – e.g. Woy Jenkins – was in the pay of the CIA. I don’t recall their ire being particularly directed at his pro-Common Market policies, but maybe they were. I admit that I probably assumed that since they were largely in the pay of the USSR they just assumed that Woy was paid by the Yanks. But maybe their KGB mates could tell them that Woy actually was.

    P.S. Who the devil paid for Ted Heath’s yachts?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *