AD ALTA
JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH
resistance must not and shall not go out.” This appeal to the
French (L‘appel du 18 Juin) is often considered to have lain
foundation for the French overseas Resistance (see Corbett, July
2000).
Already in November 1939, as Britain's political parties sought
to articulate what they were fighting for, Clement Attlee at the
meeting of the Labour Party stated that “Europe must federate or
perish" (see Lipgens - Loth, 1986: 167-168). “At the darkest
hour in French history” in June 1940, Churchill offered a
proposal for a Franco-British Union, which would have “joint
organs of defence, foreign, financial and economic politics”
(Churchill, 1941: 225-234). The proposal of the Franco-British
Union was first developed by Jean Monnet the head of the
Anglo-French Coordination Committee which was set up in
London in December 1939. Jean Monnet's name is closely linked
to the beginning of the post-war period of Western European
integration. Monnet, who tried to prevent the return to the
conditions of Europe prior to 1939, already on 5 August 1943
wrote: "The countries of Europe are not strong enough
individually to be able to guarantee prosperity and social
development for their peoples. The States of Europe must
therefore form a federation or a European entity that would make
them into a common economic unit” (Jean Monnet. Notes on
Reflections. August 5, 1943). After the war, he presented a
project in which he proposed to put all of France and Germany’s
steel and coal production in an organization under common
authority which would also be open to the participation of other
European countries (see Katuninec, 2016: 341). "Monnet’s
approach to the building of a federal Europe was a major
breakthrough in conventional inter-state relations. ... Monnet
was attempting something that had no historical precedent"
((Burgess 1995: 229).
Churchill, who announced the 'Declaration of Union' between
Great Britain and France, is also well known for his view that
the British are with Europe, "but not of it". Britain’s wartime
leader later explained that support he gave to the notion of the
“union of common citizenship” was rooted in the necessity of
keeping alive the French spirit of resistance. He supported
Charles de Gaulle and their agreement was supposed to represent
the unity of those who were determined to carry on fighting the
Germans (Koziak, 2003: 63-64).
Already in 1939 the British Ministry of Information prepared a
motivational poster "Keep Calm and Carry On". The British
government printed nearly 2.5 million copies, but this
motivational poster was never officially issued because it was
only foreseen after the German invasion of England. Later, when
this invasion seemed a very real possibility, the Ministry of
Information prepared the leaflet, boldly called "Beating the
Invader". In April 1941, the War Cabinet decided to print more
than 14 million copies and distribute the leaflet to all British
households. The leaflet provides instructions from the Ministry
of Information with a message from Prime Minister Winston
Churchill on what to do in the case of invasion. Churchill's
powerful and inspirational introduction begins with the words:
“If invasion comes, everyone — young or old, men and women
— will be eager to play their part worthily” (Churchill, 1941).
Although the invasion did not take place and the situation in the
war began to develop in favour of Great Britain, British
politicians realized very well that in the struggle with Nazi
totalitarianism propaganda was also essential, in which social
and economic issues played an important role. The Federal
Union Research Institute (FURI) has become an important center
of intellectual activity. Some of the leading members of this
Research Institute served in Churchill’s coalition government in
the years 1941-1942. Such was the case of William Beveridge
who chaired this institute. The institute provided opportunities
for notable individuals from across the political spectrum to
discuss the course of post-war European integration. Studies
covering various issues underlying the integration were
published mainly by the section of the institute which was
dedicated to constitutional law. A publication worth mentioning
is the work A Federation for Western Europe written by the
British lawyer Ivor Jennings. Jennings assumed that after the
war continental Europe would follow the path of democracy
inspired by British legal and political institutions, which could
provide bedrock for the federation of European nations. Jennings
did not think that after the defeat of Nazism, Britain and France
would be strong enough to oppose the USSR’s expansionist
policy. It was not a federation of exclusively Western European
states that he envisioned; in the long term, he was not opposed to
the idea of including a democratic Russia. Yet if Russia was to
be included, he would welcome the idea of the inclusion of the
United States as well, “because it would redress the balance of
the enormous Russian population” (Jennings, 1940: 30-31).
The economic section of the Research Institute focused on the
analysis of various crucial economic aspects concerning the
potential existence of a post-war union. The economic plans put
forward by the members of the economic section varied mainly
on the questions concerning the extent to which central
institutions would interfere in running the economy. Friedrich
von Hayek,
an Austrian-British economist and philosopher, who
was also a member of the institute, pointed out that all the
projects of the federal government would be limited by
economic differences and conflicting interests, resulting in the
inability to agree on a common policy (Koziak, 2003: 77-78). In
Hayek’s viewpoint, the success of fascism and Nazism could be
blamed on the refusal of socialist parties to assume responsibility
in coalition governments as well as on their populism and effort
to appeal to masses even in difficult times. He believed that
socialism impedes social development, because a planned
economy stifles competition. According to Hayek, best known
for his defence of classical liberalism, redistributing wealth
would lead people whose wealth is taken from to be less
productive because they do not see the benefits in working as
much if the benefits of their work is taken away from them.
Hayek’s opinions prompted criticism on the part of leftist
economists. Harold Wilson, a post-war politician and some years
later Prime Minister of Great Britain,
5
rejected the claim that
peace can be achieved only through economic liberty and voiced
the concern that accepting such a claim would not be a step
forward for democracy, but rather sliding into the past. (Koziak,
2003: 79). For a certain amount of time Wilson worked as a
research assistant of William Beveridge and was heavily
influenced by this famous economist who is known for his work
on the foundations of a welfare state. Having used this term in
1942, Beveridge drew on the economic theories of state social
policy developed by John Keynes in the late 1920s and early
1930s. Keynes based his theory on the idea that the key variable
that governs economics is aggregate demand. In his view what
causes the crisis of capitalism is not only inadequate supply, but
especially the declining demand on the consumers’ part. In order
to raise wages, consumption must grow and the collective
purchasing power must be insured. In other words, nobody, not
even entrepreneurs, can profit from social phenomena such as
low wages, unemployment, or poverty.
The report "arising out of the work of the Inter-departmental
Committee on Social Insurance and Allied Services" (officially
known as Cmd 6404) was presented to parliament in November
1942 and published in the same year. Beveridge was convinced
that the war provided an opportunity to ensure that the type of
social deprivation seen during the worldwide economic
downturn in the 1930s could not happen again. In connection
with the "Three Guiding Principles of Recommendations"
Beveridge said: "Now, when the war is abolishing landmarks of
every kind, is the opportunity for using experience in a clear
field. A revolutionary moment in the world's history is a time for
revolutions, not for patching" (see Beveridge Report, November
1942).
5
Harold Wilson served two terms as Prime Minister – from 16
th
October 1964 until
19
th
June 1970 and from 4
th
March1974 until 5
th
April 1976.
The committee's report drawn up for the British
Parliament focused on how to tackle the five “giant evils”: want
disease, ignorance, squalor, and idleness. His welfare provisions
were based on four assumptions which were to be incorporated
into British post-war policy: “that there should be a national
- 178 -