European Defence Commmunity created in 1954

Retired from "A brief history of European integration" by Susan S. Nello:

"With the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950, the USA and the UK were in favour of German rearmament. France was against this idea and also opposed Germany becoming a member of NATO, instead proposing the creation of a European army with West German participation (the Pleven Plan). [...] There was to be a combined army with a single uniform and flag, and its own budget. In order to ensure control of the European army, political integration was also to be strengthened, and in 1953 a draft proposal for the creation of a European Political Community was also presented. [...]
In 1952 the Treaty on the European Defence Community was signed. [...] In 1954 the French parliament resufed to ratify the Treaty (though the other five involved countries involved had done so). There was reaction to the supranational element of the proposal [...]"


What I ask is how the European integration would develop if the French parliament ratified the Treaty on the EDC. It seems obvious that the EDC would make the European Union jumps from a "military vermin" to a military juggernaut and would also push forward for European Integration. But the question is how the other countries would react. Would there be more expansions of Europe? It seems unlikely that the UK would join this European Union, even if not involved in the EDC. Other countries maybe would also be a little fearful of transfering a so great deal of autonomy. So, maybe this would be a little European Union, although more centralized. Or, by the other side, some countries would delightly accept protection under a huger army (and some nuclear weapons).
And how the East would react? Would we see an EDC in Eastern Europe? Maybe even merging together with it original counterpart after the Fall of the Wall (if it falls)? Or it only would stir attrition between the two ideological blocs, leading possibly to a Third World War? (ok, unlikely, but not impossible)
 
So if I'm getting this straight ... you're looking at a European Union at an earlier stage that includes a mutual unified army?

Possibly going a little further and talking of a United States of Europe??
 
Is the new EDC going to fight the Algerian War and conduct interventions to other parts of Francophone Africa? There was a reason why the French voted down the proposal - they still viewed their former empire as their sphere of interest and were willing to use military force to uphold their interests there. A joint, defensive military could not be used for such tasks is therefore not suitable for France at this point of history.
 
So if I'm getting this straight ... you're looking at a European Union at an earlier stage that includes a mutual unified army?

Possibly going a little further and talking of a United States of Europe??

The EDC was possible and I'm not looking for a USE. Although I believe that a sucessfull EDC would accelerate the process of European integration, making almost sure that we would have an united Europe nowadays.

Is the new EDC going to fight the Algerian War and conduct interventions to other parts of Francophone Africa? There was a reason why the French voted down the proposal - they still viewed their former empire as their sphere of interest and were willing to use military force to uphold their interests there. A joint, defensive military could not be used for such tasks is therefore not suitable for France at this point of history.

I didn't think about that. Is in my opinion that the EDC shouldn't. But I guess this would need a strong change of course in the French politics (like an early referendum or a consensus between Paris and the FLN) or a new EDC's architecture that would make sure that the unified Armed Forces would intervene. The last option is more plausible, but then, what would happen? A victory, a fiasco or a honored withdraw?
 
I think a fully fledged European Army is a stretch but not West German forces being under the control of a unified European Command, with small nations like the Netherlands and Belgium being voluntary elements as well. It was originally considered that NATO would be the sole controller of German troops after all (as opposed to Bonn).

It wouldn't be a complete unification but nations (sans West Germany) putting individual divisions under EDC control could be possible, as long as its clearly stated such a force is a defensive one designed entirely to combat Soviet aggression in Central Europe. This might allay the fears of big nations about losing sovereignty, help beef up smaller nations' capabilities in a WW3 scenario (Belgian and Dutch troops were considered little more than speed bumps in NATO planning) and avoid intranational bickering over German tanks being sent to Algeria or Dutch fighters going to Suez etc.

This could very well be the basis for an evolving European Army but that would take quite some time. Hopefully if it evolves into a credible fighting force as opposed to a political football, events like the Yugoslav Wars could have swift responses from the *EU

To make it considered on a more serious level, have the United States take a more detached role in Europe post-war. Not easy but if the Soviets are less aggressive and someone like Harold Stassen became President, you could see American policy evolve into effectively being the EDC's patrons, with atomic/aerial backing. Without major US troop deployments in Europe, the Europeans are going to be a lot more motivated to organise a unified defence structure.
 
Is the new EDC going to fight the Algerian War and conduct interventions to other parts of Francophone Africa? There was a reason why the French voted down the proposal - they still viewed their former empire as their sphere of interest and were willing to use military force to uphold their interests there. A joint, defensive military could not be used for such tasks is therefore not suitable for France at this point of history.

The Algerian War would be a major problem for the EDC. The treaty included a clause, that some troops should have been excluded by the integration, for an example honor guards, but also colonial troops and their replacements. So I see, that France would declare in the Fifties, that 90 percent of their army would be needed in Algeria or as reservs gor Algeria. This would make the European Army at that time a german Army with some belgium and netherlandish contingents, And if DeGaulle still comes to power and the Algerian wars, I just see hime reintergrate the French Army in the European Army. Another question is, will the European Army get nuclear weapons and who will controll the warheads.
 
The Algerian War would be a major problem for the EDC. The treaty included a clause, that some troops should have been excluded by the integration, for an example honor guards, but also colonial troops and their replacements. So I see, that France would declare in the Fifties, that 90 percent of their army would be needed in Algeria or as reservs gor Algeria. This would make the European Army at that time a german Army with some belgium and netherlandish contingents, And if DeGaulle still comes to power and the Algerian wars, I just see hime reintergrate the French Army in the European Army. Another question is, will the European Army get nuclear weapons and who will controll the warheads.

This is interesting. So this mean either France will probably leave the EDC just to join it again later. Nice. About the nuclear weapons... I read the Article 107 of the treaty, and it prohibites the production of atomic bombs, unless allowed by the Comissariat. I can see them allowing it, but I really don't know who would control the warheads, even if the treaty also stipulates a "common armament program". But in the end, it doesn't matter so much. A curious effect of the EDC is that maybe other countries under the treaty would also test their bombs.
 
I think that although this is quite possible, I think we'd need a PoD in the French elections of '54. If you can butterfly away the huge Gaullist electoral gains that year then ratification of the EDC is easy. But the thing is that the failure of the EDC project was the catalysts behind the Messina Conference in '56 and the EEC/EC/EU so it's very hard to predict changes if the EDC were successful.

Also, there was an original version meant to include a fully integrated European Armed Forces with its own Parliament and executive elected by all Europeans combined with the European Political Community. One of the problems with this organization was where to place this EDC Army within the NATO military structure. This was the Pléven Plan.

However the later plans and in order to make them more appealing to a wary French public opinion were a lot less ambitious. They envisioned that a number of units (I believe - divisions) under national commanders (except the German ones) within a pan-European framework led by a multi-national chief of staff.

Atomic bombs would probably remain in the nations' hands.

The problem to this being achieved is the French (even moreso the PCF and the Gaullists), once that's fixed, the problem is over. The Americans loved the idea, anything that meant spending less on defending Europe was great (iirc Einsenhower fully and wholeheartedly supported it). The Germans (and Adenauer) would do anything to prove they were in the Western fold and they did never opposed the idea as long as full sovereignty was restored in exchange.

I think that the repercussions will be curious. I think that the EDC would be a largely ineffectual organization and that since it overstretched the eurofederalist goal for a while, the 60s (unlike OTL) will not see a federalist push until the very end of the decade, unless the CAP issue arises a lot earlier.

On Britain, I'd see that Britain would end up joining more or less as for OTL reasons (economic ones) but would get a total opt-out from the military parts of this union.

I think that the Soviets would be more aware of the Western European integration process than OTL but that means that they'll push their Eastern European satellites into further economic federalism but I highly doubt that it could lead to WWIII.

EDIT: The French Wikipedia article on the EDC is extremely detailed. If you are interested (and as a Portuguese, I doubt it'll be too difficult to read) here it is: Communauté européenne de défense
 
Surely the likes of France and Britain will be keen to keep independent atomic weaponry and offer their 'services' in the event of war?

The political implication of atomic weapons under the control of the EDC, which even with sped up political integration is still going to be quite woolly in terms of how truly federative it is, would probably see The Bomb kept out of the equation if only not to alienate big players.
 
I'm still a bit confused as to what the purpose of such a force would be ...

Would it have been a deterent force, purely defensive against the Eastern Bloc countries?

Would it be a used to suppliment US forces or a replacement for them?

Would it have been an alternative to NATO but used purely in Europe?

Is the aim to reduce competing technologies of the member countries so that there is less wastage in defence budgets with research being shared and unified weapons systems being developed?
 
I'm still a bit confused as to what the purpose of such a force would be ...

Would it have been a deterent force, purely defensive against the Eastern Bloc countries?

Not necessarily but yes. No country would get involved in another's colonial conflicts so yeah.

Would it be a used to suppliment US forces or a replacement for them?

Probably, and particularly if you asked the Americans, as a replacement.

Would it have been an alternative to NATO but used purely in Europe?

I think that somehow they'd integrate the EDC into NATO, similarly to the WEU-NATO relationship.

Is the aim to reduce competing technologies of the member countries so that there is less wastage in defence budgets with research being shared and unified weapons systems being developed?

I don't know if there were such kind of aims but it is likely.
 
Top