If someone would grade my DBQ from the 2005 test, it’d be much appreciated.</p>
<a href=“http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/public/repository/_ap05_frq_euro_histor_45551.pdf[/url]”>http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/public/repository/_ap05_frq_euro_histor_45551.pdf</a></p>
That’s the link to the questions.</p>
Heres a grading rubric if you don’t know the system</p>
<a href=“http://apeuropeanlahs.org/pdfs/dbqrubric.pdf[/url]”>http://apeuropeanlahs.org/pdfs/dbqrubric.pdf</a></p>
Throughout the period of time after World war II and during the cold war, there were many</p>
different views in Europe regarding a unified Western front. Regardless of what country </p>
you lived in, the majority of opinions usually fell into the categories of for, against, or </p>
undecided. The first school of thought I will touch upon is the advocates of unification. In </p>
his speech at the University of Zurich in September 1946, Winston Churchill blatantly says, </p>
" We must build a kind of United states of europe." He also pushes for the necessity of </p>
France and Germany to reconcile and help lead a revival of European culture. To Churchill, </p>
European unity, whether a nation was small or large is the only way for Europe to remain </p>
dominant globally. Like Churchill, French minister of foreign affairs Kobert Schuman also </p>
believes in a unified western Europe. When announcing his plan to also establish a common </p>
market of coal and steal, he says that France and Germany must move on and the only </p>
way Europe could unite is if this occurs. He is also inviting Germany to join in on the </p>
unification. However, being that Germany was very weak coming off the loss of the war, I </p>
believe his point of view would be different if Germany would have won the war, or he </p>
didn’t clearly know that Germany was now a mere puppet in European affairs. Like the last </p>
two gentlemen. the west German chancellor Konrad Adenaver is also a staunch advocate of </p>
unification. He says that the German people have learned each nation can’t thrive </p>
individually and they must combine. However, he is clearly bias because had Germany won </p>
the war, he wouldn’t be advocating for a peaceful european coalition because Jack Lynch, </p>
who was the irish prime minister at the time also wanted a unified Europe. His reasoning </p>
was that Ireland was never one of the always neutral contries, and the coalition would </p>
bring protection to the Irish borders and to the borders of the members.</p>
Although many were for the unification, the opposition also had some supporters. One of </p>
them being soviet deputy Foreign minister Andrei Vyshinsky who calls the plans a way for </p>
the USA to control Europe. He also calls it destructive to the democratic eastern european </p>
nations and the USSR. He is extremely bias coming form the USSR and giving opinions of </p>
the USA based upon the relationship between the two nations. He also calls the eastern </p>
european nations democracies when in fact they were just satellite states of the soviet </p>
union. A political cartoon in a soviet paper also shows how Americas big stick will help </p>
Europe protect itself. It than mocks Ludwig Ernhard, and the sovereignty of western </p>
europe. As I stated earlier, anything coming from the Soviets about the USA or western </p>
europe at this time must be considered bias. due to the flaring tensions of the two schools </p>
of thought in 1949, the year of publication. One last person against unification was british </p>
prime minister Margaret Thatcher. She argued that European nations and culture were all </p>
different and it’d be folly to fit them into one standard European personality. I believe that </p>
her views are the only ones that are objective and contain some validity.</p>
While some were for and others were against unification, some were neither. Take Duncan </p>
Sandys, who reported to CChurchill on a conversation with De Gaulle who talked about </p>
French reluctance to the idea of a German state. He also said France was suspicions of the </p>
UK and the US’s policy. He did however say that France would join only if they were a </p>
founding partner with the United Kingdom. British finance minister Harold Macmillan took </p>
the stance that Britain wouldn’t benefit form joining, but asked if there was another way to </p>
make all parties satisfied. He clearly is biased towards the United Kingdoms ideals. One </p>
last person. Prime minister of Spain Felipe Gonzalez asked why Spain would give up its </p>
isolation to join the coalition. He seems reluctant to participate.</p>
Overall, each side for or against or undecided on the idea of western european unification </p>
had their reasoning. Whether it was Churchill advocating for, or the USSR saying nay each </p>
individual and nations opinions coincided with the thought of the people, and the interest of </p>
the nation.</p>