1

Gal Hazor
201026457
11.7.2015

Europe in the 20th Century Home Exam

Part 1
The idea of a union between the nations of Europe has been advocated and sought after by
myriad leaders and thinkers throughout European history, for a variety of reasons and through
different means. For the most part, the notion of union was thought of as a result of military
conquest, or perhaps as a catalyst for such conquest, which would have led to cultural
unification under a single presumably tyrannical regime. During the 20th century, and
especially in the aftermath of World War II, the tendency shifted towards an acceptance of the
co-existence of numerous nation-states, and cooperation between those states has been seen as
a necessity for the establishment of a union. There were a few causes which, in my opinion,
generated this shift in political thought and practice in Europe.
First and most obviously, the vast majority of European countries were in dire
economic state at the end of WWII. The years of invasions and aerial attacks, and the
immense losses of soldiers and civilian lives, had left the cities of most countries in ruins and
in urgent need of assistance in reconstructing their economies. Some of this aid came from
sources outside Europe, mainly from the USA. Initiatives such as the Marshall Plan of 1948
provided much-needed relief and helped reconstruct the economies of Western Europe. Yet it
was clear that reliance upon a single outside force would not be an optimal solution,
especially in light of growing anti-American sentiments in some countries. Instead, there was
a need for a sustainable frame in which European nations could recover and maintain at least
a decent and stable economic status, and that was to be achieved by means of cooperation
between the nations themselves, preferably with little to no intervention of third parties. This
path to rejuvenation of European economies had in fact had its roots in the liberalization
measures taken as part of the Marshall Plan, and was outlined more clearly in the Schumann
Declaration in 1950. The subsequent establishment of the European Coal and Steel
Community was evidence to the importance of constant attentive teamwork in the eyes of
European leaders.
The tight partnerships formed between European countries after WWII were not only
of an economic nature, and the goals of interstate cooperation were certainly not confined
solely to this field. The immediate postwar period had been characterized by concerns
regarding the contemporaneous strength and military capabilities of Germany as well as of the

2
Gal Hazor
201026457
11.7.2015
Soviet Union. This too was evident in the Marshall Plan, which also functioned as a step on
the part of the US to prevent the spread of communism westwards. This rationale for the Plan
is the reason why financial aid was offered by the US to Eastern European countries, at that
time under the auspices of the Soviet Union, which of course led to those countries rejecting
the offer. The electoral success of various socialist and communist parties across Europe in
the 1950's and 1960's with some of them becoming the leaders of their respective
governments has most likely contributed to preserving the dread felt by European
politicians and citizens towards the USSR. Meanwhile, the threat seen in Germany in the
postwar period has significantly dwindled over the years. All along it has been somewhat
contrasted with the country's relevance in European trade, which explains why restrictions on
German economy and industry were alleviated as part of the Marshall Plan, while
disarmament and division of the country was still effective. Over time, these too were revised
as West Germany became a stable economy and an ally in the struggle against Soviet
encroachment in Western Europe. All in all, it has been clear that cooperation between
European states was needed in order to prevent further wars and the devastation and loss of
life they bring. Alliance between states was important as a means of limiting the power of any
single country, with special attention given to those perceived as more likely to instigate
aggression and military conflict. Yet considering the outcome of World War I and the Treaty
of Versailles, it has also been well understood that conflict-prone countries and Germany in
particular should be regarded as partners rather than simply as dangers to the peace of the
region, and that establishing diplomatic and trade relationships with Germany was the key to
preventing its possible descent to hostility.
The project of creating a political and economic union in Europe after WWII has had
its fair share of successes, not least of all the rehabilitation of national economies,
infrastructures and industries. It has also managed to prevent conflicts between European
states, and introduce integration in various fields of policy and action. This led to the
European Union becoming a stable political and economic entity of vast international
importance. Yet for all its achievements, the EU does not seem today to have fully realized the
idea of a unified Europe.
Most of it has to do with the gradual enlargement of the project of European unity to
more countries, mainly those in the east and south of the continent. The latter were in general
ex-communist countries, struggling the reestablish their economies and maintain their

3
Gal Hazor
201026457
11.7.2015
emerging autonomous political systems. Their dire condition, especially in comparison with
the more successful Western and Northern European states, has dragged the whole of the
Union down, and forced the stronger participants to aid their bumbling neighbors financially.
The expansion of the EU also meant that an ever larger number of nations, based on differing
and sometimes conflicting political and economic ideologies, had to work together within a
common frame. The lack of control over each Member State's policies and conduct in various
areas, and the impossibility of forcing countries to completely adopt the dogmas of the
strongest states, have turned the EU into a fertile ground for region-wide problems and
clashes between leaders regarding the solutions. This is quite evident in the current state of
Greece, indebted to actors within the EU such as the European Central Bank, yet apparently
reluctant to adapt its economic practice or make substantial concessions in order to pay those
debts. The ongoing heated negotiation between Greece and its creditors highlights the
problem of a union without extensive and longstanding integration in all policy fields.
Another factor for the relative failure of unity in Europe is the prominent role still
played by Russia. Although far from its communist past in terms of dominant ideology,
Russia is still perceived as a totalitarian regime with an expansionist agenda, threatening the
structure of the EU through its cultural links and geographical proximity to several Member
States. This new type of "Red Scare" is based not only on Russia's aggression in Eastern
Europe, but also on its economic power in relation to countries further westward. It is true that
EU has formed a shared policy towards Russia, and is still supported to a certain extent by the
US, yet for some Southeastern nations this dichotomy may not be so obvious. The case of
Greece is again exemplary of the EU's difficulties, as Russia has embarked on a series of talks
with Greece regarding cooperation in the realm of energy, and seems to be willing to help
Greece overcome its current financial straits. Concerns among European leaders regarding
this very possible partnership, or alliance of any Member State with Russia, mean that the EU
would probably agree to make significant compromises in order not to allow Member States
to exit the organization.
A final contributor to the seeming decline of the concept of European unity is the rise
of nationalistic movements in many European countries. These sometimes take the form of
organized and legitimate political parties, and in all cases advocate for stronger maintenance
of national identity. Some of the movements support different sorts of regional cooperation
based on shared cultural values and history, yet look down on complete European integration

4
Gal Hazor
201026457
11.7.2015
as a risk to the power of the nation-state. One of the catalysts for the upsurge of such beliefs is
the major waves of immigration, both within Europe and especially from Africa and the
Middle East, beginning several decades ago but gaining prominence in the public discourse in
recent years. The ethnocentric sentiment growing in retaliation to these trends is sometimes
expressed in the form of a demand for stricter immigration policy on the EU level. In most
other instances, however, this type of xenophobia is supplemented by a sense of suspicion
towards EU leaders, and the relative ease with which they allow foreigners to enter the
continent and move freely between Member States. Along with an ever growing tendency
towards Euroskepticism in several countries expressed most clearly in the referenda in
France and Denmark regarding the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 the spirit of
nationalism is becoming increasingly popular among European citizens, hampering further
progress and integration within Europe.

Part 2
1. Talal Asad claims that Europeans construct and perceive European identity by way of
exclusion, where immigrants, especially of Muslim origin, are seen as outsiders not belonging
to that specific identity. In Asad's view, identity in Europe is limited in the time and space it
gives to minorities, and in the case of Muslim immigrants in particular, the dominant
European identity prevents the co-existence of several distinct ways of life in the same place.
2. Mabel Berezin admits she was surprised at the rise of the radical right in Europe following
the sovereign debt crisis, since she has not predicted the crisis. Yet she believes that the
prevalence of far-right parties should not come as a shock, since nationalistic sentiments were
always present in European countries, and never fit the supranational structure of the EU. The
crisis only exacerbated these sentiments and allowed right-wing leaders to manipulate them.
3. Jrgen Habermas rejects narrow economic definitions of the current crisis in the EU, and
suggests instead viewing it as a political conundrum having to do with the constitutional basis
of EU law, or lack thereof. The crisis highlights the treaties' insufficiency in maintaining a
legal basis upon which Member States can cooperate for their economic development, and the
need for more authority to be delegated to the EU level for the organization's efficiency.