Advertisement

Journal of Transatlantic Studies

, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 44–55 | Cite as

Transatlantic relations in the Johnson and Nixon eras: The crisis that didn’t happen — and what it suggests about the one that did

  • N. Piers LudlowEmail author
Article

Abstract

Many believed that the latter half of the 1960s would be a difficult time for NATO. Europe’s recovery, détente, and Washington’s preoccupation with other regions of the world, could all have endangered the alliance. Recent archival releases confirm that several of the trends that were to cause transatlantic tension during the Nixon era were already apparent during the previous administration. Yet recent historiography has emphasised the lack of a transatlantic crisis during the Johnson years. This article will seek to explain why a breakdown was averted —and in the process suggest a number of factors which help explain the difficulties of the 1969–74 period.

Keywords

NATO European integration De Gaulle Johnson nuclear deterrence 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    The Treaty text can be found at https://doi.org/www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm (accessed October 6, 2008).
  2. 2.
    See, for example, Georges-Henri Soutou, La guerre de Cinquante Ans. Les relations Est-Ouest 1943–1990 (Paris: Fayard, 2001), 209–10.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beatrice Heuser, NATO, Britain, France and the FRG Nuclear Strategies and Forces for Europe, 1949–2000 (London: Macmillan, 1998), 17–18.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Maurice Vaïsse (ed.), L’Europe et la crise de Cuba (Paris: Plon, 1993).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    These would subsequently be published as Henry Kissinger, The Troubled Partnership: A Re-appraisal of the Atlantic Alliance (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    See Maurice Vaïsse and Christopher Goscha, La guerre de Vietnam et l’Europe, 1963–1973 (Brussels: Bruylant, 2003)Google Scholar
  7. 6a.
    troisième partie, and Sylvia Ellis, Britain, America and the Vietnam War (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004), 96–101.Google Scholar
  8. 7.
    Jeremi Suri, Power and Protest. Global Revolution and the Rise of Détente (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003), 175.Google Scholar
  9. 8.
    The best English-language study is Frédéric Bozo, Two Strategies for Europe. De Gaulle, the United States, and the Atlantic Allliance (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2001).Google Scholar
  10. 9.
    Ronald Granieri, The Ambivalent Alliance: Konrad Adeneauer, the CDU/CSU, and the West, 1949–66 (New York: Berghahn, 2003) 191–227.Google Scholar
  11. 10.
    Cited in Francis Gavin, Gold, Dollars and Power. The Politics of International Monetary Relations, 1958–1971 (Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 2004), 125.Google Scholar
  12. 11.
    French satisfaction with the stance of the Six at the IMF meeting in London in July 1967 is discussed by Garret Martin, ‘Untying the Gaullian Knot: France and the Struggle to Overcome the Cold War Order, 1963–1968’ (PhD, London School of Economics, 2006), chapter 6.Google Scholar
  13. 12.
    See David Tal, ‘The Burden of Alliance: The NPT Negotiations and the NATO Factor, 1960–68’ in Transatlantic Relations at Stake: Aspects of NATO, 1956–72, ed. Christian Nuenlist and Anna Locher (Zurich: ETH, 2006), 97–124.Google Scholar
  14. 13.
    Ibid., 113.Google Scholar
  15. 14.
    Don Oberdorfer, Senator Mansfield: The Extraordinary Life of a Great Statesman and Diplomat (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Books, 2003), 387–91.Google Scholar
  16. 15.
    Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–68, vol. 15 (Washington, DC: Department of State, 1995), document 214.Google Scholar
  17. 16.
    Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–68, vol. 13, 578.Google Scholar
  18. 17.
    Ibid., 574.Google Scholar
  19. 18.
    See Jussi Hanhimaki, Flawed Architect: Henry Kissinger and American Foreign Policy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 275–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 19.
    European Commission Historical Archives, Brussels, COM(69) PV 83, 2e partie, 24-5.6.1969.Google Scholar
  21. 20.
    LBJ Presidential Library, Austin, Texas, NSF Country Files, Box 163, Europe (Folder 5), Rostow to Johnson, 23.10.1967.Google Scholar
  22. 21.
    See the historiographical overview in Thomas A. Schwartz, Lyndon Johnson and Europe: In the Shadow of Vietnam (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003), 3–4.Google Scholar
  23. 22.
    On Wilson and Johnson, see Sylvia Ellis, ‘Lyndon Johnson, Harold Wilson and the Vietnam War: A Not so Special Relationship?’ in Twentieth-Century Anglo-American Relation, ed. Jonathan Hollowell (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001), 249–58Google Scholar
  24. 22a.
    on Erhard and Johnson, see, for example, Volker Hentschel, Ludwig Erhard. Ein Politikerleben (Berlin: Ullstein, 1998) 877–82.Google Scholar
  25. 23.
    See de Gaulle’s comments cited in Alain Peyrefitte, C’était de Gaulle, vol. 2 (Paris: Fayard, 1997), 61; my translation.Google Scholar
  26. 24.
    Lawrence Kaplan, NATO and the United States. The Enduring Alliance (Boston, MA: Twayne Publishers, 1988), 117.Google Scholar
  27. 25.
    Lawrence Kaplan, NATO and the Policy of Containment (Boston: Heath, 1968), esp. 112.Google Scholar
  28. 26.
    Schwartz, Lyndon Johnson and Europe, 223–237.Google Scholar
  29. 27.
    ‘Crisis and Opportunity: NATO’s Transformation and the Multilateralization of Détente, 1966–1968’, Journal of Cold War Studies 6, no. 1 (2004): 22–74.Google Scholar
  30. 28.
    Andrew Priest, Kennedy, Johnson and NATO: Britain, America and the Dynamics of Alliance 1962–68 (London: Routledge, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 28a.
    Hubert Zimmermann, Money and Security: Troops, Monetary Policy, and West Germany’s Relations with the United States and Britain, 1950–1971 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 229–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 29.
    James Ellison, The United States, Britain and the Transatlantic Crisis: Rising to the Gaullist Challenge, 1963–68 (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2007), 198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 30.
    Priest, Kennedy, Johnson and NATO, 159.Google Scholar
  34. 31.
    See Takeshi Yamamoto, ‘The Road to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, 1969–1973: Britain, France and West Germany’ (PhD thesis, University of London, 2007).Google Scholar
  35. 32.
    The most detailed study of the Kennedy Round is Lucia Coppolaro, ‘Trade and Politics across the Atlantic: The European Economic Community (EEC) and the United States of America in the GATT Negotiations of the Kennedy Round (1962–1967)’ (PhD thesis, European University Institute, Florence, 2006)Google Scholar
  36. 32a.
    see also Thomas Zeiler, American Trade and Power in the 1960s (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992). For the Community’s decision to accept the subsequent US request for faster implementation, Council of Ministers Archives, Brussels, R/753/68, Council Minutes, 9.4.1968.Google Scholar
  37. 33.
    Piers Ludlow, ‘The Emergence of a Commercial Heavy-Weight: The Kennedy Round and the European Community in the 1960s’, Diplomacy and Statecraft 18, no. 2 (2007): 356–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 34.
    Few contemporary observers would have accepted Gavin’s judgement that the 1968 crisis marked ‘the end of Bretton Woods.’ Gavin, Gold, Dollars and Power, chapter 7.Google Scholar
  39. 35.
    Garret Martin, ‘“Grandeur et dépendences”: The Dilemmas of Gaullist Foreign Policy, September 1967 to April 1968’ in European Integration and the Cold War: Ostpolitik/Westpolitik 1965–1973, ed. N Piers Ludlow (London: Routledge, 2007), 43–9.Google Scholar
  40. 36.
    Cited in Benedikt Schoenborn, La mésentente apprivoisée. De Gaulle et les Allemands, 1963–1969 (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2007), 73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 37.
    Ibid., 163.Google Scholar
  42. 38.
    See, for example, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–68, vol. XII, document 27.Google Scholar
  43. 39.
    Martin, ‘Grandeur et dependences’, 43–9.Google Scholar
  44. 40.
    Cited by Leopoldo Nuti, Gli Stati Uniti e l’apertura a sinistra. Importanza e limiti della presenza americana in Italia (Rome: Laterza, 1999), 577.Google Scholar
  45. 41.
    The text of the speech is available at https://doi.org/www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/JFK/003POF03IndependenceHall07041962.htm (accessed7.10.2008).
  46. 42.
    For a discussion of the divide between ‘Europeanists’ and ‘Atlanticists’ within US foreign policy-making circles, see Pascaline Winand, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and the United States of Europe (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1993), 194–201.Google Scholar
  47. 43.
    See, for example, David Calleo, Europe’s Future: The Grand Alternatives (New York: Horizon Press, 1965), 145.Google Scholar
  48. 44.
    Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–68, vol. XIII, 185.Google Scholar
  49. 45.
    On Fouchet, see Robert Bloes, Le Plan Fouchet et le proble‘me de l’Europe politique (Bruges: College of Europe, 1970)Google Scholar
  50. 45a.
    on the mid-1960s plans, Carine Germond, ‘Les projets d’Union politique de l’année 1964’ in Crises and Compromises: The European Project 1963–1969, Wilfried Loth (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2001)Google Scholar
  51. 45b.
    for the late 1960s schemes, Melissa Pine, Harold Wilson and Europe: Pursuing Britain’s Membership of the European Community (London: Tauris Academic Studies, 2007), esp. 84–105.Google Scholar
  52. 46.
    Goscha and Vaïsse, La Guerre du Vietnam et l’Europe, quatrième partie; Ellis, Britain, America, and the Vietnam War, 207-40.Google Scholar
  53. 47.
    John W. Young, Britain and European Unity 1945–1999, 2nd ed. (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2000), 53–99.Google Scholar
  54. 48.
    Helen Parr, Britain’s Policy toward the European Community: Harold Wilson and Britain’s World Role, 1964–1967 (London: Routledge, 2004).Google Scholar
  55. 49.
    Ellison, The United States, Britain and the Transatlantic Crisis, 34–71.Google Scholar
  56. 50.
    On the Dutch stance, see Jeffrey Vanke, ‘An Impossible Union: Dutch Objections to the Fouchet Plan, 1959–62’, Cold War History 2, no. 1 (2001): 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 51.
    Martin, ‘Untying the Gaullian Knot’, chapters 2, 5, 6.Google Scholar
  58. 52.
    William Glen Gray, Germany’s Cold War: The Global Campaign to Isolate East Germany 1949–1969 (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2003).Google Scholar
  59. 53.
    For the evolution of SPD ideas, see Arne Hofmann, The Emergence of Détente in Europe: Brandt, Kennedy and the Formation of Ostpolitik (London: Routledge, 2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 54.
    Significantly, the one attempt at a different approach — Erhard’s bizarre notion of trying to buy German reunification from the Soviet Union — was never actually realised. See Benedikt Schoenborn, ‘Bargaining with the Bear: Chancellor Erhard’s Bid to Buy German Reunification, 1963–64’, Cold War History 8, no. 1 (2008): 23–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 55.
    Yamamoto, ‘The Road to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe.’Google Scholar
  62. 56.
    See Andreas Wenger, ‘NATO’s Transformation in the 1960s and the Ensuing Political Order in Europe’ in Transforming NATO in the Cold War. Challenges beyond deterrence in the 1960s, ed. Andreas Wenger, Christian Neunlist and Anna Locher (London: Routledge, 2007), 237.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Board of Transatlantic Studies 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.London School of EconomicsUK

Personalised recommendations