USA responsibility for fostering the growth and development of the EEC Article

USA responsibility for fostering the harvest-home and development of the EEC - Article ExampleIn addition, they believed that an integrated Europe could play a greater governmental role in the world.The sparing gains to be derived from European integration were recognized long originally the postwar era, but post-World War II developments made them greater and more visible. The benefits come from expanding the size of the foodstuff open to producers. They are thus able to obtain the economies of scale resulting from mass production and specialization, and the economy as a whole can gain from the effects of greater competition. The advantages of integration assumed greater grandeur in the 1950s because technological developments that occurred during and after the war increased the size of the market necessary to support streamlined industry. Competition from large U.S. business firms seemed insurmountable to European firms faced with small, fragmented markets and equipped with obsolete machinery. larger markets and protection from the competition of U.S. products were thought necessary to sustain rapid European growth. Both could be obtained through economic integration.The political gains from integration seemed at the time to be even more grave than the economic ones. The destructive war in Europe was not followed by peace but by frigid war. Under Joseph Stalin, the Soviet Union threatened the very existence of European governments. Germany was divided and faced a powerful Russian army on its frontier. Italy and France both experienced great uncertainties from having large Communist minorities deep down their borders. In this situation, only the military power of the United States maintained security. But the Europeans felt that they had to make an important contribution to their own defense, both to avoid being totally dependent on the United States, and to cultivate for the day when U.S military forces would be removed from European soil. Integr ation through supra national institutions was thought to be both a means of ensuring efficient expenditure of the resources Europeans felt they could devote to security, and a way of downgrading separatist military establishments. In Germany, particularly, integration was viewed as a means of providing sufficient strength in the due west to convince the Soviet Union that nothing could be gained from a continued division of Germany, in the confide that reunification would eventually be permitted. Conflicts over the goals of European unity and over the degree of supranationality of its institutions have tag the European movement during the postwar period. Indeed, the most far-reaching attempts to institutionalize unity through the European Defense confederation (EDC) and the companion European Political Community (EPC) foundered on issues directly related to these conflicts. In order to put over this problem, the promoters of the European idea decided to concentrate their effort s on economic integration. European governments ( France in particular) could enter into agreements in the economic sphere, as demonstrated by the formation and continued existence of the European Coal and vane Community (ECSC), but were not prepared to accept a direct attack on national sovereignty, as shown by the defeat of the EDC proposal. Thus, the Rome Treaty establishing the EEC is devoid of provisions for political integration. (Nugent, 2006) However, political motives were paramount, and the ultimate objective of the