WI: Britain signs the Treaty of Paris in 1951

VT45

Banned
The United Kingdom was thought by most to play an integral part in European Integration, along with France, Germany, and Italy. However, they stayed outside of the European communities until 1973. So, how would European integration gone differently if the United Kingdom signed the Treaty of Paris in 1951, becoming one of the founding members of the European Coal and Steel Community?
 

Thande

Donor
Britain, or at least its political elite, tended to be very pro-European at the time (and the early 50s were a time of starry-eyed western tranzi optimism taking the form of hoping the UN would become a one world state, even in the US sometimes, so such things were not as strange as they seem now). The problem was de Gaulle, who would not let Britain in as he wanted to use the ECSC as a tool to subordinate West Germany to France and to present an anti-Soviet front that did not directly involve the US. And then as now, Britain was seen as too much of an American ally.

Kit started a thread about this a few years ago if you search for it in which there was much more in-depth discussion.
 
Britain, or at least its political elite, tended to be very pro-European at the time (and the early 50s were a time of starry-eyed western tranzi optimism taking the form of hoping the UN would become a one world state, even in the US sometimes, so such things were not as strange as they seem now). The problem was de Gaulle, who would not let Britain in as he wanted to use the ECSC as a tool to subordinate West Germany to France and to present an anti-Soviet front that did not directly involve the US. And then as now, Britain was seen as too much of an American ally.

Kit started a thread about this a few years ago if you search for it in which there was much more in-depth discussion.

Ai, but De Gaulle wasn't the leader of France in 1951 was he?
 

Hendryk

Banned
The problem was de Gaulle, who would not let Britain in as he wanted to use the ECSC as a tool to subordinate West Germany to France and to present an anti-Soviet front that did not directly involve the US.
Don't blame de Gaulle for that one, in 1951 he was sulking in his corner and waiting to be called back to high office--which he wouldn't until 1958.

Even though the Attlee government was quite wary of what it perceived as a threat to the nationalization of the British coal industry, the following account provides reasonably plausible options for possible PODs:

Despite notable improvements in the economy in 1948, severe problems with the balance of payments remained. Plowden was one of the first to be convinced of the inevitability of devaluation, which Cripps long resisted as morally repugnant.

The argument raged for weeks until Cripps devalued by 30 per cent in September 1949. Plowden insisted that devaluation should be accompanied by cuts in government expenditure and by a tight incomes policy. With the TUC co-operating, retail prices rose by only two per cent in the year after devaluation.

Meanwhile Plowden had been closely involved in negotiations with Jean Monnet, then head of the French Planning Commissariat. Monnet became a close friend of Plowden's, and at a meeting at his country house in April 1949 proposed a system of mutual exchange of food and coal. Plowden believed that his French counterpart was seeking to establish an Anglo-French nucleus around which to build a European community.

Plowden pointed out that he did not have power either to assent or dissent; and in the event the idea was rejected by Bevin as an infringement of British sovereignty. Monnet turned to the Germans in order to set up the European Coal and Steel Community.

When Robert Schuman publicly proposed the ECSC in May 1950, Bevin angrily dismissed it as an Franco-German plot. Plowden envisaged a cartel, and felt that Britain ought to join, though he was worried by the "extremely nebulous" character of the proposal. Cripps, too, believed that Britain should negotiate.

But Monnet, fearful that the British would ruin his dream by qualifying their membership, hurried to tie up an agreement with Konrad Adenauer, the West German Chancellor. On June 1 1950 France issued an ultimatum which gave Britain until the next evening to accept the ECSC's supra-national status.

Bevin was ill; Attlee and Cripps were on holiday in France; and Plowden was obliged to improvise a meeting with Herbert Morrison in a passage at the back of the Ivy restaurant in London. "We can't do it," Morrison told Plowden. "The Durham miners wouldn't like it."

Dean Acheson, the American Secretary of State, described this decision as "the greatest mistake of the post-war period." But Plowden was unrepentant - not because he considered that Britain was right to stay out of the ECSC, but because he held that such a decision was unavoidable in the prevailing climate.

As Lord Home later commented, the British in the immediate post-war period were "still too near to the glory of Empire to accept the role of just another country in Europe". Or, as Bevin remarked at the time, Britain "was not simply a Luxembourg".
Perhaps if Bevin's health deteriorates earlier, and a more amenable figure replaces him in time to accept Monnet's suggestion?
 

VT45

Banned
De Gaulle was not in power at the signing of the Treaty of Paris. So, if the UK got an "in" with the formation of the ECSC, there'd be nothing de Gaulle could do to stop them.
 

Thande

Donor
Don't blame de Gaulle for that one, in 1951 he was sulking in his corner and waiting to be called back to high office--which he wouldn't until 1958.

Even though the Attlee government was quite wary of what it perceived as a threat to the nationalization of the British coal industry, the following account provides reasonably plausible options for possible PODs:

Oh, I got confused with a later treaty. Well, the problem with that as you say is primarily Attlee, the British left mostly being very anti-European right up until the 1980s basically for the reasons you state.
 
Britain, or at least its political elite, tended to be very pro-European at the time

Uh. No. Much later development. I think you may be confusing the popular attitude (which was very pro-European in the late forties) with the elite attitude. Strange now to think that the people were more pro-European than the political elites, but it was probably true for a short while.

The attitude of the prominent individuals in both parties more or less throughout the fifties was deeply, deeply sceptical. Pre-Suez, their worldview was more or less still an imperial-centred one, which didn't take European integration at all seriously, in fact on some occassions was actively hostile towards it. After Suez, people started to wake up and smell the coffee a bit more, but it was still a slow process and Macmillan had difficulties convincing people when he began to push for entry. Probably the most benevolent view was Churchill's, which was happy to see European intergration, albeit with Britain having no part in it.

If we'd wanted in, we'd have got in pre-de Gaulle. But we didn't. It's one of those little ironies of history that when all this changed and Macmillan began to steer us towards Europe, the European climate had swung against British entry with the emergence of the de Gaulle tendency.

I think it's difficult to see a way through with earlier integration simply by shuffling the personalities - both parties had opportunities (Labour with the ECSC and the Conservatives with the EEC) to get on the wagon and neither did, and that wasn't a freak outcome. The most efficient way, IMO, would be through an earlier Suez or Suez-style event. If Suez had happened four or three years earlier than it did, I think we would have been a signatory in 1957. I'd forget the possiblity of entry into the ECSC though, because the horizons at that point were just too narrow to accept it. Even if you'd had a strong and favourable PM/F sec, (Itself quite a stretch) the Cabinet would have come down against it or their party would have.
 
Last edited:
Top