Home Thoughts On Europe
I HAVE just returned to the United States following two years of study, travel, and work in Great Britain and on the European Continent. As an itinerant student of international political, social, and economic relations, I was very much interested in observing the current situation on the other side of the Atlantic, and did so to the fullest extent that I was able during my stay there.
I realize that one person's impressions can result from only a comparatively narrow circle of experience, but I feel that these impressions, though colored by my own unconscious prejudices, are not unrepresentative of the true situation in the parts of Europe that I was fortunate enough to see. At any rate, as a fairly typical Dartmouth man, I'm presenting this layman's observations for whatever discussion and food-for-thought value they may have.
Long before leaving New York in the late summer of 1950, I had found myself assailed from all sides by often conflicting and contradictory reports as to what was really going on in Western Europe. Communism was an ever growing menace. Communism's danger was diminishing. The Marshall Plan was putting Europe back on its feet. The Marshall Plan was simply throwing money down a rathole. The British Labor Government's socialistic policy was ruining Great Britain. British socialism was gradually solving the United Kingdom's impossible economic situation. European socialism was the. first step on the road to totalitarian communism. Anti-communist socialism in Western Europe was continuing to guard the democratic political rights of the individual. All these contradictions plus many more made me desire to see for myself just what was happening in Europe. I was fortunate in being granted a 2-year scholarship to study abroad.
The following paragraphs result from 23 months in Europe, months during which I spent considerable time in England, Denmark, Austria, and France. The opinions expressed are my own, are nothing more than opinions, but are based on a combination of careful study, contacts with a great many Europeans from all walks of life, and the impressions gained from the everyday ebb and flow of life around me on the other side of the Big Puddle.
First, Great Britain. It seems to me that the American press often gives an unduly pessimistic picture of life in England, and that the limited socialism of the country is unjustly disparaged. I found the British intensely democratic, and extremely jealous of their democracy and political liberties. Government control of imports, exports, materials, and certain basic industries —in view of Britain's limited supply of foreign currencies and the nation's absolute dependence on foreign trade for a livelihood seemed to many a practical necessity after the war. Only with a centrally directing hand could the limited resources of the nation be turned to the greatest advantage of the greatest number, only then could scarce materials and scarce foreign exchange particularly dollars —be directed with surety into fields of necessity rather than wasted on luxuries. The war-time capital destruction had to be rebuilt and repaired, and a nation possessing no important raw material other than coal, a nation no longer holding large foreign investments and whose merchant marine had been decimated, had to be put back on its economic feet. The Labor Party in 1945 offered the British people a program to restore the nation's footing, and the people accepted. In 1951, the Conservatives, under Churchill, won their way back into power. The economics of the little island democracy are such, however, that the Tories have been unable to find a full free enterprise solution that is compatible with social justice. Thus, we now see the peculiar situation in Great Britain of a Conservative Government under Churchill continuing to follow the program of limited socialism as established by the Attlee Government. Very few thinking persons in Britain, not even pronounced Tories, see any possibility of abandoning this system in the immediate future.
I greatly respect the effort the Britons are making. One hears but few complaints at the rationing and shortages. All the English laughed when they read of the family of five who received their week's ration from the butcher through the letter slot in the front door.
One measure of the Englishman's strong will, endurance, and fortitude in addition to his already mentioned sense of humor is the fact that the black market is almost nonexistent in Britain. This in spite of the fact that the following items are still rationed: meat, eggs, cheese, butter, tea, chocolate, sugar. Because so many new vehicles are exported, the average waiting time for the purchase of a new car is three years. I believe that such self-denial on a national scale, self-denial serving the good of the nation as a whole, merits admiring recognition.
Yet, in spite of these difficulties, the British are cheerful and love their lovely green country dearly. They are, whether we in America realize it or not, our strongest ally on the democratic side of the fence in the world's current bi-polar line-up.
I don't want to make this sound like a sales talk or sermon in behalf of Great Britain, but it's worth our noting, I think, that the United Kingdom is doing more than any other North Atlantic Treaty Organization nation in Europe as far as rearmament is concerned. Besides troops in Korea, John Bull has had some fifty thousand men fighting in Malaya for over five years. Universal military training has existed in the U.K. continuously since 1939, and today every physically qualified British youth serves two years in Her Majesty's armed forces. Britain seems most definitely to be carrying its weight on the Western team.
A few miles across the Channel from Britain, in northern France, the traveller runs into an atmosphere completely different. Many of the industrial cities and much of the countryside of this part of France still bear the awful scars and lacerations of the war that passed through the area in 1940 and again in 1944-45. Postwar reconstruction has often been dismally inadequate here. But far more striking is the atmosphere of bitterness, utter discouragement, and often intense hatred hanging about the apparently poverty stricken human wrecks that one meets in the streets of such cities as, for example, Valenciennes and Lille. The men glare at the foreigner as he drives through, and cries of "Mechante capitaliste!" reach his ears. Then, when the passerby takes a closer look at the walls around him, he sees communist signs crudely painted everywhere in both French and English. "Americans, go home!" and "Paix, pas Ridgway!", for example. As has probably been surmised by the reader, this part of France at least outwardly appears a hotbed of discontent and thus a profitable center of activity for the reds. A discouraging sight.
One would .be wrong, however, to assume that all of France appears so hopeless. Only in the North did I observe the above-mentioned squalor, discontent, and misery. Elsewhere, the nation seems to be prosperous, especially in the verdant agricultural areas. American Marshall Aid has been a big help in much of France, is especially visible in the form of new hydroelectric dams and tractors in the fields. I saw by no means all of France, but enough to give the impression that the French people, in spite of the drain entailed by the long conflict in Indo-China, are gradually getting back on their own economic feet and are slowly reacquiring their old self-respect.
They are faced by a terrible enigma, however, in seeing themselves forced to choose between Germany and the Soviet Union. Their nation has been invaded and scorched by the Germans three times since 1870, and the scars of hatred and distrust engendered by those unforgotten conflicts aren't easily abandoned. Thus, the French aren't rushing precipitately into any E.D.C. agreement or guarantee treaty that would entail a Western European army containing German divisions. This problem is close to every Frenchman, and one hears it discussed constantly with oftentimes very considerable heat in the neighborhood cafe. Just how strong would be France's reaction as a nation to a new totalitarian invasion of her soil is a question troubling many observers in the West. I can shed no light on the subject other than to say that, as economic well-being is growing in France, so are the combined strengths of communism and defeatism waning.
In Austria, the beneficial results of Marshall Aid are very evident. The partitioning of this little nation into four zones of occupation was in itself a source of difficulty for the Austrians, but the difficulty was intensified by the fact that most of the industrial plant, as well as the single oil field, was assigned to the Russian sector.
Western Austria of the American, British, and French sectors is largely mountainous, and has long been dependent for its economic existence on mining and on such farm produce as cheese and other dairy products, and — even more important on its winter and summer tourist trade.
Only this past summer, however, did the Austrian schilling's market value at last assume a stature in keeping with its official rate of exchange. And this happy state of affairs was fostered to no small extent by the many new hotels and mountain funiculars built in Austria with E.C.A. money to help induce the tourist and sportsman to visit the little nation.
Most Austrians dislike communism, but communism makes headway wherever unemployment combined with consequent frustration exist due to an unbalanced national economy. Our Marshall Aid has bolstered Austrian balance, and the cause of the West has been strengthened thereby.
I will close this essay with a few words on a lovely.but seldom mentioned little country, Denmark. From among the European peoples I met, the Danes are by far the most like Americans as far as characteristics of manner are concerned. They are a spritelv, active people; they love sports; they always cheer for the underdog; they are friendly, easy to meet, and extremely kind; hospitable to the nth degree; they are proud of their national institutions, very patriotic; they possess wonderfully outgoing senses of humor, and laugh as much at themselves as at others. They work hard, but know how to relax so as to obtain the fullest enjoyment from their surroundings and from the company of their friends. English is taught in all their public schools, which means that the Anglo-American visitor who knows not a word of Danish finds no trouble making himself understood.
Copenhagen is the most pleasing city from all respects that I have ever seen. Its architecture is a subtle combination of the charm and quaintness of the past and the steel-concrete glitter of the present. It is well laid out, clean and neat. To me, the whole atmosphere of the city suggested pleasant, happy living. All modern conveniences and modes of transportation are provided for, yet the pace of life is slow enough that the individual feels he has time to relax and take in his surroundings. Trees and parks are plentiful. There does not seem to be any great competitive hurry to get somewhere. There are no slums. The people are smiling, there is a universal air of friendliness and optimism in the air. Europeans know the city as "the Paris of the North." I must admit I was enchanted by the place and its people.
The Danes are very favorably inclined toward Britain and America. Communism, though it exists in the country, makes but little headway. The Government is social democratic, and is elected by universal suffrage. The Danish underground movement in the recent war was termed by General Montgomery as "second to none in Europe."
Economically, like most countries of Europe, Denmark is plagued by the dollar shortage. But the volume of exports is - of course limited by the fact that Denmark is mainly an agricultural nation and we have high tariffs on most foodstuff imports. Thus, the government in Copenhagen strictly controls all dollar purchases and the distribution of dollar goods imports —a form of rationing intended to produce the most efficient utilization of these resources.
Our E.C.A. experts have been of help in Denmark, as has been our material aid. The Danes were greatly disillusioned, however, when, after expanding their production facilities for certain kinds of cheeses suitable for the American market, the United States Congress in the spring of 1951 passed a vital defense appropriation measure to which was attached a non-related rider setting up maximum quotas of cheese imports. The Danish plant expansions had been made partly on the advice of our own officials who saw such cheese exports as a valuable means of promoting a Danish kroner-American dollar balance of trade. Thus, after costly investment and expansion, the Danes suddenly found their dollar market greatly reduced and their hopeful efforts apparently wasted.
At this juncture, naturally enough, Copenhagen wondered just how sincere were Washington's exhortations to lower world trade barriers so that the Western nations might more readily live, thrive, and prosper together. The above incident affecting Denmark brought home to me the fact that, as leader of the West's effort to maintain democratic ways of life, the U.S. must be consistent in its actions.
In concluding this article, I wish to say that I found Western Europe as a whole to be very much on the side of America as far as the bipolar political world is concerned. The Europeans appreciate the sacrifices we have made in the form of spiritual and material— as well as human aid to their small nations. Their economies have been bolstered by our help, and it is this aid which has made some of their political entities self-sufficient once again. They want our continued friendship, but are somewhat apprehensive of losing their right to speak their own minds through becoming too greatly dependent on us. They also tend to fear the United States may overstep its authority due to its great comparative power and wealth. We in America can count on our N.A.T.O. allies, I feel certain, but we must not forget that it is voluntary agreement that holds us all together. We must not let our own superior power blind us to the fact that our West European United Nations compatriots wish their own voices to be heard, too, and that they can contribute much to our mutual cause that we cannot. The nations of the West are a team, and America is the quarterback, but the team can be successful only as long as each man accepts the assignment that the group as a whole has worked out. Western Europe needs us, but we need Western Europe, too. Only by working together can we have the strength in the West to discourage trouble from the East. Ben Franklin's old words still apply today. "United we stand...."
