Soleb

European
Community,
Atlantic
Community?

Atlantic Community and Europe 1

edited by
Valérie Aubourg, Gérard Bossuat
and Giles Scott-Smith

Introduction

The Transatlantic
Imaginary: Constructing
the Atlantic Community
during the early Cold War

Valérie Aubourg
and Giles Scott-Smith

Mars, Venus, and the Cultural Cold Wars

This book originated during the transatlantic tensions surrounding the Iraq war. As the movement towards a US military intervention progressed, both diplomatic circles and public opinion in America and Europe seemed to be swept along in a maelstrom of misunderstandings perfectly captured in Robert Kagan’s influential article “Power and Weakness”.1Narratives about transatlantic relations became increasingly dominated by the “Mars and Venus” paradigm, according to which the divergence of the US and Europe seemed to mean the inexorable loss of common values and worldviews, in particular regarding the perception of threat and the use of power. If Europeans and Americans did not “share a common view of the world, or even (…) occupy the same world” anymore, then the end of the Atlantic Alliance and certainly the demise of any “Atlantic Community” seemed imminent. The dominant image of the early 21st century was therefore one of a break-up or at least a profound transformation of the transatlantic relationship.

To historians however, the cliché of the unbridgeable “value gap” and estrangement between the US and Europe did not appear very satisfactory. First of all, it represented something of a neoconservative interpretation of transatlantic history, well argued but obviously oversimplifying European positions and neglecting the considerable investment of the US in the international order established after the Second World War. More importantly, the theme of a deep Atlantic crisis was by no means new. Although the post-1945 period has been claimed as a kind of “golden age” in contrast to the upheavals of the early 21st century, it too witnessed a recurring cycle of tension concerning the extent of US political and economic power and cultural influence in Europe. McCarthyism and the Suez crisis are obvious early points of reference in this cycle, but from the 1950s onwards there was a constant stream of declarations on the “troubled partnership”, ranging from claims about the “transatlantic crisis” and the “Atlantic fantasy” to despair about the “widening Atlantic” or, according to a Council on Foreign Relations study, “Atlantis Lost”.2Similar to Kagan later, Chace and Ravenal in Atlantis Lost described the transatlantic relationship in the mid 1970s as “the disintegration of the Atlantic community in a series of ad hoc and bilateral arrangements, thinly covered by the fossilized face of NATO and other Atlantic institutions”, a process rooted in the changing nature of power and the devaluation of the centrality of US-European relations in global politics. For these authors, no return to the old-time “Atlantic religion” seemed possible. From a long-term historical perspective, therefore, the themes of Euro-American estrangement and transatlantic crisis are an inseparable part of the post-war transatlantic experience, as are the strong emotions arising from these recurring tensions, lived anew each time the cycle of crisis returns.

But it has not just been the Atlantic Community that has come under scrutiny in recent years. The fall-out from Iraq had an impact on debates surrounding the European Union, an entity that also resonates in interesting ways within the history of American policy towards Europe after the Second World War. Iraq blurred the perceptions of the EU held by Americans at a time when the Union was drafting a new constitutional treaty, a situation made ironic by the fact that the European Constitutional Convention was presented as a founding moment in European history similar in significance to the Philadelphia Convention. The bitter exchanges between Americans and Europeans were certainly present in the background of the European Convention’s work, and transatlantic disputes became intertwined with the EU’s internal debates.3 What is more, the renewed interest in Samuel Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” thesis following September 11, with its theme of Western democratic values and regional unity as vital tools in the war against terrorism, frequently became superimposed on the debate over a crisis of Atlantic values.4 The resulting lack of clarity in the whole discussion only highlighted more the need to reexamine the concepts being thrown around and used and abused in equal measure.

In addition to the recent political context, it was also an opportune moment from an historiographical perspective to reassess the Atlantic Community concept. After the end of the Cold War, the loss of a common Soviet enemy seemed to demand a reconsideration of the purpose of the Atlantic Alliance and the mutual interests that still existed between Europe and the United States. As part of this process, historical scholarship began to re-examine and re-interpret the Cold War period, making use of new archival sources, alternative approaches, and theoretical perspectives.5 Several studies have aimed at re-evaluating transatlantic relations and the interplay between Alliance politics and European integration in particular.6 Three trends formed the backdrop to these explorations in diplomatic history. Firstly, there was the “cultural turn” that demanded a greater appreciation for the role of ideas and ideology, not only in terms of policy formation but also in terms of everyday life in the Cold War period.7 Connected to this was a long-running debate concerning the meaning of “Americanization” and the many varied processes that have been a part of it.8 Secondly, an expanding body of historians began to re-examine the identity and purpose of the various institutions involved, bringing attention to bear on Western “state-private networks” and the intricate relations, both covert and overt, between private groups and governments outside of the formal foreign policy-making apparatus.9 Thirdly, there was a push to “internationalise” Cold War history by opening up and disrupting the standard narrative with multiple perspectives gathered from up-till-then ignored or inaccessible sources.10

Ideology and culture have been key themes in the re-conceptualization of Cold War history over the past two decades. There have been several useful general analyses of the culture of the Cold War, looking at how everyday life was influenced by the ideological struggle,11 particularly in the field of race and gender relations.12 Many studies have also focused on the manipulation of cultural products, concepts and mass media in the struggle between the Western powers and the Soviet bloc,13 leading to attempts to compare experiences on both sides of the Iron Curtain.14 Particular emphasis has been given to the effort to “get the message across”, recording and analysing the history and practice of (US) public diplomacy15 and the development of psychological warfare and propaganda programmes.16 State-private networks in various fields have been studied in some detail, including labour, youth, and the arts, with special attention often being given to the involvement of the CIA.17 In the intellectual field the most famous example has been the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF), which sought to gather together a transnational network of public figures and academics to denounce Stalinism and defend the cultural values of the West. The revelations in the late 1960s of large-scale funding from the CIA has severely complicated the CCF’s historical legacy.18

With this volume we wanted to both draw on this burgeoning post-Cold War research and extend it by investigating the many-sided meanings of the Atlantic Community, a concept often invoked during the Cold War but with longer roots and a continuing resonance into the 21st century. The aim was to gather together investigations covering national, institutional, and individual perspectives, particularly highlighting non-US views and up-till-now lesser-known actors. We also sought to lay out in some detail the complex links it has with the “European idea”, appreciating the different emphases placed on the Atlantic and the European in different political, economic, cultural, and geographic settings. This volume therefore takes on the immediate post-Second World War period, encompassing the crystallization of the Atlantic Community idea and its relation with the nascent European Community in the 1940s and 1950s. The second volume, also to appear with Soleb, will cover the negotiations and developing strains between Atlanticist and European perspectives through the 1960s and early 1970s. The two volumes therefore chart the progression of thinking on Atlantic and European affairs, and the changing political context which framed it, during the crucial decades following the Second World War.

The Conceptual Framework: Exploring the Space of Atlanticism

The articles in this volume represent approaches covering two broad fields of enquiry. Firstly, the importance of ideas and values. Was the notion of an Atlantic Community, indicating common strategic interests, shared values, and a common destiny, simply a product of Cold War rhetoric? Was it no more than a useful euphemism to evade the realities of the “Americanisation” of Europe and the unwelcome fact of American hegemony within the Alliance? Or did it justifiably represent a new development in Western civilisation, based on a common political and economic model and defined around a genuine consensus on key issues between Europe and North America? How did views on the Atlantic Community differ on both sides of the ocean? How was it promoted for a wider public? What were the “common Atlantic values” so frequently found in the documents of the time? How did the Atlantic Community notion—and close variations such as “Atlantic commonwealth”, “Atlantic Partnership” o+r “Atlantic alliance” (in a non-institutional sense)—combine with existing understandings of “The West”, “The Free World”, “The Occident”, or the construction of Europe itself?

Secondly, the relevance of policies and personalities. How was this Atlantic Community concept put forward in political and economic (elite) circles at the time of the Marshall Plan and the Atlantic Treaty? How does the notion evolve in the postwar period, when European organizations were discussed and created? How did these new European institutions fit into a larger Atlantic Community framework, in the view of their American or European promoters? How did the Atlantic Community concept resonate within different policy fields and across various policy-making networks? Through which channels was it publicized in Western Europe and North America, and how was it received by public opinion? In charting these developments we also hoped to identify a series of “memory sites” as defined by Pierre Nora—moments or specific events with symbolic significance, places and cultural artefacts, or personalities (whether mythical or real) that encapsulated the construction of the memory and identity of the Atlantic Community.19

More broadly, we sought to understand what the Atlantic Community idea represented in an international framework characterized by the East-West conflict, and how it had been historically constructed in various settings. We operated with three main assumptions: that the Atlantic Community, as a regional notion, was a product of the representations and imagination of individuals and groups in the sense of Benedict Anderson’s “imagined communities”, and of the communication and discursive strategies of particular actors;20 that it was rooted in and produced by specific political contexts and expressed a distinctive political representation of the world; and that it performed a legitimizing function for institutions, political movements, and asymmetric power relations operating within the transatlantic relationship. Through these assumptions we wanted to track the actors who produced and—not necessarily the same ones—who reproduced and disseminated the Atlantic idea and its narrative. The Atlantic Community concept justified particular institution-building, which in turn justified an Atlantic Community. But there were clearly limits to what this circular movement could achieve in the practical world of policy-making. Individuals and institutions invested political, cultural, symbolic, and economic capital and developed specific tools and activities to give weight to the concept because it encapsulated their worldview and furthered their interests. The radical transformation of transatlantic affairs promised by some may not have occurred, but this does not rule out the transitory effects of this concept across several decades of North American-European relations.

The “Atlantic Community” phrase is difficult to deal with because it encompasses two notions: Firstly, a community and secondly a regional entity. The notion of a community can be misleading because it has a more elastic meaning and use in English as compared to other languages, a situation that can be illustrated through national case studies that clarify particular contexts and usages. Thus, for example, the French “communauté” usually implies some formal or institutional arrangement, while the English word can refer to a much more loosely defined group. In German, “Gemeinschaft” points to closer and more organic links between its members, as opposed to the looser “Gesellschaft” (society).21The community must also be distinguished from an “association” or a “partnership”, which, as André Kaspi observed, carries connotations of a business-type relationship in which there can be a junior and a senior partner.22Partnership would imply cooperation between a European and an American partner, while a community goes further than this dual structure by placing all the participating states on the same level. From the perspective of political science the associate concept of “political community” is relevant here: A social group in a given territory who recognise their shared identity and purpose and who therefore develop a framework for decision-making authority to pursue common goals. It is highly significant that major works on transnational political community were published precisely in the 1950s. The influential functionalist studies by Ernst B. Haas, in The Uniting of Europe, and Karl W. Deutsch, in Political Community at the International Level and Political Community and the North Atlantic Area, contributed to the interest among political scientists in the processes and mechanisms of political community, in a decade that witnessed the creation of intergovernmental organizations and the emergence of the European Communities.23 Deutsch and Haas tried to understand how political communities could be created, and in some respects encouraged, at the transnational level. From the 1950s through to the 1990s, scholarly analysis of (and sometimes advocacy for) Atlantic political community rose and fell according to the changing political context between North America and Europe.24 The vagueness of the Atlantic Community concept’s institutional content was criticized by promoters of a more integrated Atlantic organization like Clarence K. Streit, who preferred “Atlantic Union” to identify the federal structure he had in mind.25 But from the late 1940s up to the early 1960s the geopolitical and intellectual zeitgeist seems to have been particularly conducive for the production and reception of an “Atlantic Community”, however it was supposed to be understood.26

The regional character of the Atlantic Community also does not add much conceptual clarity, since there has never been a consensus on what the “Atlantic area” is, and even less of what an “Atlantic country” is. For the purposes of this book, the “Atlantic Community” is taken as a social-cultural construct that seeks to legitimize a regional identity—in other words, a “space of Atlanticism” through which and around which to mobilize representations, ideas, and indeed ideologies. As geographers, historians and scholars of the renewed field of (critical) geopolitics have shown, especially by incorporating the methodologies of Gramsci, Foucault, and more recently Edward Said, there is an intimate connection between space, knowledge and power. Maps as well as narratives were crucial tools for the constitution of modern states and nations, allowing them to identify borders, assert ownership and legitimacy, control their territory and populations, and foster a common identity rooted in an image of the state and a narrative of its origins.27In addition to their role in building nations as “imagined communities”, maps helped shape “imagined geographies”, to use Said’s phrase—spatial representations developed by the colonial powers and projected onto their empires as tools of power and instruments of hegemony.28

The title of this book, “Atlantic Community, European Community?” exactly plays with these multiple meanings and invites a reconsideration, both temporal and spatial, of the geopolitical upheavals and reorganizations that occurred in Europe as a result of the Second World War and the Cold War. In a time of tremendous change in the distribution of power, perceptions of “Europe”, “America”, “East” and “West” shifted rapidly and radically, entailing a reconstruction of the imagined geographies of Europe. These mental maps were crucial because, combined with appropriate mythologies and archetypes, they both helped shape the outlook of political leaders and decision-makers and could be put to use to capture the imagination of the wider public. And because they played a role in fixing identities they clearly influenced diplomatic negotiations, arrangements in political economy, and alliance politics. Many of these mental maps had a longer lineage dating back to the 19th century, such as “Mitteleuropa”, “Eurasia”, and “Paneuropa”. After the Second World War the Mitteleuropa idea, in both its Habsburg and Imperial German versions, vanished into the bipolar division of Europe. The traditional image of Europe as the center of imperial power in the world was unraveling. In the Western part of the continent, overlapping and competing visions of a “United Europe”, a “European Community”, a “Third Force Europe”, a “Nordic Community” (Norden), a “Euro-Africa”, an “Atlantic Community” or a renewed “West” developed instead, each projecting a specific vision of the European heritage, imagined geography, identity and role in the world.29

Analyzing the interplay between the Atlantic and European Community concepts thus allows us to go back to Edward Said’s analysis of the hegemonic power of mental maps. Who imagined the Atlantic Community in the 1940s and 1950s? To whom was it projected? What were its purposes? Was it a purely American concept to be understood in the framework of the Cold War? It was certainly a powerful antic-Communist propaganda tool in the ideological war of the late 1940 and 1950s, supporting and legitimizing US military and political involvement in Europe. The Marshall Plan saw the United States attempting to reshape the soci-economic structure of West European nations through a vast modernization and productivity program, a task backed up by a massive information and propaganda campaign.30 At the very least this nurtured debates on how Europeans saw themselves and how they conceived their relations with North America in an “Atlantic” setting.31 At the same time, as Volker Berghahn has argued, another cultural cold war was being waged by the United States against their non-Communist critics in Western Europe, and an Atlantic Community discourse was a useful device to foster common Euro-American cultural and political affinities.32 Nevertheless, all these interpretations offer US-centered visions. What about Canada, a North American country with an intimate link to Britain and the Commonwealth and its own unique interpretations of the Atlantic Community? What about European visions of the Atlantic Community, on which there is much less information? Not all Europeans were supportive of a Six-country, highly integrated European Community, instead favouring alternative (larger and less integrated) conceptualizations of Europe within an Atlantic frame.33 For instance, a better understanding of European conceptualizations of the Atlantic Community would clarify further Lundestad’s important “empire by invitation” thesis.34

Organisation of the Book

In the complex set of ideas, emotions, historical references and geopolitical visions that grew around the Atlantic Community concept, it was Lippmann and Streit, both journalists and publicists, who in many respects played the role of founding fathers. In his “Notes on Lippmann” that opens this book, Ronald Steel reminds us that Lippmann coined the “Atlantic Community” phrase in 1917, during the first World War, and that it soon provided the perfect image for countries linked by a common civilization and the “vital highways” across the Atlantic ocean.35 Streit, who defined his vision of the Atlantic Community as a union with a federal structure, was also an influential figure during the following World War, as Lara Silver argues here. The Atlantic maps of wartime calmly marked out the boundaries of geopolitical upheaval.

In the following chapters we have arranged the contributions around five main themes. The first part provides general perspectives on the mechanisms involved in the dissemination of the Atlantic Community idea. Both David Ellwood and Volker Berghahn offer larger interpretative frameworks to understand the uses and development of the Community. While Ellwood reflects on the purpose of the geopolitical narratives used by the United States in Europe from the Marshall Plan to the Atlantic Alliance, Berghahn introduces the case of the Ford Foundation, evaluating the successes and failures in attempting to bridge transatlantic intellectual and cultural differences. Looking at the issue from a long-term perspective, Lara Silver analyzes the use of metaphor in the rhetoric used to construct and present an Atlantic Community to the public. Finally, Giles Scott-Smith studies how American public diplomacy, and in particular US exchange programs, sought to make selected European elites receptive to US interests by fostering an Atlantic identity within a US informal empire.

A second part presents case studies on national conceptualizations of the Atlantic Community. Cornelia Constantin looks at the French case through the twin myth of “Bidault the Atlanticist” and “Schuman the European”, while Frédéric Attal examines Italian views through the personality of Ugo La Malfa, a leader of the Italian Republican Party who situated himself somewhere between European and Atlanticist positions. Victor Gavin looks at the British conceptions of the European and Atlantic ideas during the negotiations for the European Defense Community, while Klaus Schwabe and Denis Stairs offer a synthesis of the views of German and Canadian leaders towards the Atlantic Community and its links with Europe.

The third part examines relations between European institutions and America. Using diplomatic records and the US version of the Bulletin de la CEE, Gerard Bossuat paints a broad panorama of the Atlantic Community proposals throughout the 1950s and how they related to European integration. Transatlantic perceptions are further explored by Alexander Reinfeldt in his chapter on the European Coal and Steel Community’s information policy in Washington, and by Birte Wassenberg in the debates at the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe. Catherine Fraixe provides us with a useful counterpoint in showing how New York’s Museum of Modern Art and the covertly-funded American Committee for a United Europe projected the idea of “European art” in the early 1950s, resulting in further tensions for an Atlantic identity.

As the main institution that crystallized and disseminated representations of an Atlantic Community, NATO deserved special attention. In part four, three papers evaluate the impact of NATO’s institutional development in the 1950s on the crystallization of a community feeling. Ine Megens looks at the working relationship between national representatives and the Secretary General and his staff. Andrew Johnston examines NATO’s Temporary Council Committee, which in 1951 tried to reconcile strategic and military requirements with the politico-economic capabilities of the NATO countries. David Burigana presents the activities of the Advisory Group for Aernautical Research and Development (AGARD), attached to the Standing Group, as an area of transnational cooperation of scientists and engineers promoted by NATO. Two other papers deal with the role of NATO information policy in defining and projecting an Atlantic Community, with Valérie Aubourg investigating NATO’s partnership with non governmental organizations and Bernard Ludwig tracking the debates and tensions surrounding its activities in anti-Communist propaganda.

Part five deals with the delicate question of borders, margins and limits by looking at countries whose presence in the Atlantic Community and NATO was complex or contested at some point, providing interesting insights into the ways an Atlantic identity was constructed over time. Marco Mariano describes how Italy became “Atlantic” through the pages of Henry Luce’s influential Life magazine. The shifting definitions of Europe, the West and Turkish identity are explored in Paul Kubicek’s paper, and the paradoxical issues concerning Portugal’s membership of NATO and the Atlantic Community are analyzed by Luis Nuno Rodrigues. Finally, two papers discuss the interesting cases of countries whose “Atlantic” nature was not questioned, but which nonetheless experienced shifting and contrasting experiences. Jenny Raflik looks at American military bases in France and their influence, be it negative or positive, in generating an “Atlantic spirit”. Gert van Klinken, by focussing on Dutch international law professor and Calvinist party member Gezina van der Molen, investigates how a staunch supporter of NATO as an essential force in opposing the Communist threat could still come to doubt the meaning of the Atlantic Community.

Whether there was or is an “Atlantic Community” is still a matter of debate. What all of these contributions show is how the imagined geographies of the Atlantic Community, be they political, economic, social, or cultural, were closely intertwined with the needs of war and Cold War. Yet it is not as if the Cold War was always a decisive factor. There was a general need to define a West in which Americans, Canadians and West Europeans could project their respective (and multiple) identities, and this had a longer history. Certainly, these needs were unable to nurture a truly transatlantic institutionalized community, and without this foundation interests and identities continued to shift over time. This is the basis for the tensions of the 1960s and 1970s as the European Community came to occupy a more definite place in international affairs, and it is also an interesting background for the disputes witnessed since the end of the Cold War itself.

The June 2006 conference and this resulting publication owe much to the generous support of the CICC (Centre de recherche sur les civilisations et identités culturelles comparées des sociétés européennes et occidentales), University of Cergy-Pontoise; the UMR Irice (Paris-I, Paris-IV, CNRS); the European Commission’s Jean Monnet Action; and the NATO Public Diplomacy Division. We would also like to thank the Communauté d’agglomération de Cergy-Pontoise, which helped to make this project possible. Valérie Aubourg would like to acknowledge the support of the European Commission under a Marie-Curie fellowship. We are especially grateful to Mr. Jean Fournet, then NATO Assistant Secretary General for Public Diplomacy, Ms. Tuffelli-Pierre, Head of Outreach Countries Section, Public Diplomacy Division, and Ms. Anne-Marie Smith, Head of the NATO Archives, for their help and encouragements. Mr. Thierry Legendre, then Policy Planning Advisor at the Office of the Secretary General of NATO, kindly accepted to address the conference during the closing session. Finally, Giles Scott-Smith would also like to thank his co-editor Valérie Aubourg for her dedication and support for this project.

1  See R. Kagan, “Power and weakness”, Policy Review, June-July 2002, online, available at http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3460246.html, and his extended essay, Of Paradise and Power; America and Europe in the New World Order, New York, Alfred Knopf, 2003.

2  See for example H. Kissinger, Troubled Partnership: a Re-appraisal of he Atlantic Alliance, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1965; H. van B. Cleveland, The Atlantic Idea and its European Rival, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1966; D. Calleo, The Atlantic Fantasy. The US, NATO, and Europe, Washington DC, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1970; D. Middleton, A Study in Unity and Disunity, New York, David McKay, 1965; R. Kleinman, Atlantic Crisis: American Diplomacy Confronts a Resurgent Europe, New York, Norton, 1964; R. Steel, The End of Alliance: America and the Future of Europe, New York, The Viking Press, 1964; R. L. Pfaltzgraff, The Atlantic Community, a Complex Imbalance, New York, Van Nortrand Reinhold, 1969; J. Chace and E. C. Ravenal (eds.), Atlantis Lost. US-European Relations after the Cold War, New York, New York University Press, 1976; W. F. Hahn and R. L. Pfaltzgraff, Atlantic Community in Crisis: A Redefinition of the Transatlantic Relationship, New York, Pergamon Press, 1979; R. Dahrendorf, A. J. Pierre and T. Sorensen (eds.), A Widening Atlantic? Domestic Change and Foreign Policy, New York, Council on Foreign Relations, 1986.

3  For an analysis of this see V. Aubourg, “La perception américaine de la Constitution européenne (2002-2004)”, Critique Internationale, 26 (2005), pp. 9-21.

4  S. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, New York, Simon and Schuster, 1996.

5  See in particular M. J. Hogan (ed.), The End of the Cold War: Its Meaning and Implications, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1992; G. Lundestad and O. A. Westad (eds.), Beyond the Cold War: New Dimensions in International Relations, Oslo, Scandinavian University Press and New York, Oxford University Press, 1993; D. Reynolds (ed.), The Origins of the Cold War in Europe: International Perspectives, New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 1994; P. Grosser, Les temps de la guerre froide. Réflexions sur l’histoire de la guerre froide et sur les causes de sa fin, Bruxelles, Complexe, 1995; R. Ned Lebow and T. Risse-Kappen (eds.), International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War, New York, Columbia University Press, 1995; O.A. Westad, “The New International History of the Cold War: Three (Possible) Paradigms”, Diplomatic History, 24(4), 2000, pp. 251–265; O.A. Westad (ed.), Reviewing the Cold War: Approaches, Interpretations, Theory, London, Frank Cass, 2000; G.-H. Soutou, La guerre de Cinquante Ans. Les relations Est-Ouest, 1943-1990, Paris, Fayard, 2001; S. Pons and F. Romero (eds.), Reinterpreting the end of the Cold War: Issues, Interpretations, Periodizations, London, Frank Cass, 2004; O. A. Westad, The Global Cold War. Third World Interventions and the Making of our Times, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2005.

6  See M. Trachtenberg, A Constructed Peace. The Making of the European Peace Settlement, 1945-1963, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1999; J. Giauque, Grand Design and Visions of Unity: the Atlantic Powers and the Reorganization of Western Europe, 1955-1963, Chapell Hill and London, University of North Carolina Press, 2002; A. Brogi, A Question of Self-Esteem: The United States and the Cold War Choices in France and Italy, 1944-1958, Westport, Praeger, 2002; M. Trachtenberg (ed.), Between Empire and Alliance. America during the Cold War, Lanham, MD, Rowan & Littlefield, 2003.

7  See the work of Akira Iriye: Cultural internationalism and World Order, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997; Global Community: the Role of International Organizations in the Making of the Contemporary World, Berkeley, University of California Press, 2002; “Culture and International History”, in M. J. Hogan and T. G. Paterson (eds.), Explaining the History of American Foreign Relations, Cambridge and New York, Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 214-222. Also J. Gienow-Hecht and F. Schumacher (eds.), Culture and International History, New York, Berghahn Books, 2003.

8  See among others R. Wagnleitner, Coca-Colonisation und Kalter Krieg: Die Kulturmission der USA im Österreich nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg, Wien, Verlag fur Gesellschaftskritik, 1991; G. Bossuat, L’Europe occidentale à l’heure américaine, 1945-1952, Complexe, Bruxelles, 1992; R. Kroes, R. W. Rydell, D. F. J. Bosscher (eds.), Cultural Transmissions and Receptions: American Mass Culture in Europe, Amsterdam, VU University Press, 1993; R. Kroes and D. Ellwood (eds.), Hollywood in Europe: Experiences of a Cultural Hegemony, Amsterdam, VU University Press, 1994; R. Pells, Not Like US. How Europeans Have Loved, Hated, and Transformed American Culture since World War II, New York, Basic Books, 1997; M. Kipping and O. Bjarnar (eds.), The Americanisation of European Business: the Marshall Plan and the Transfer of US Management Models, New York, London, Routledge, 1998; R. Kroes, “American Empire and Cultural Imperialism. A View from the Receiving End”, Diplomatic History, 23(3), Summer 1999, pp. 463-477; H. Fehrenbach and U. G. Poiger (eds.), Transactions, Transgressions, Transformations: American Culture in Western Europe and Japan, New York, Berghahn Books, 2000; R. Wagnleitner and E. Tyler May (eds.) “Here, There and Everywhere”: The Foreign Politics of American Popular Culture, Hanover, NH, University Press of New England, 2000; Special Issue of Diplomatic History, Summer 2000, Vol. 24, No. 3; J. Zeitlin, (ed.), Americanization and its Limits: Reworking US Technology and Management in Post-war Europe and Japan, New York, Oxford University Press, 2000; V. de Grazia, Irresistible Empire. America’s Advance through Twentieth-Century Europe, London, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2005; A. Stephan, The Americanization of Europe: Cultural Diplomacy and Anti-Americanism after 1945, New York, Berghahn Books, 2006.

9  See G. Scott-Smith and H. Krabbendam (eds.), The Cultural Cold War in Western Europe 1945-1960, London, Frank Cass, 2003; H. Laville and H. Wilford (eds.), The US Government, Citizen Groups and the Cold War: The State-Private Network, London, Routledge, 2006.

10  See M. Connelly, A Diplomatic Revolution: Algeria’s Fight for Independence and the Origins of the Post-Cold War Era, New York, Oxford University Press, 2003.

11  For example L. May (ed.), Recasting America: Culture and Politics in the Age of the Cold War, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1989; S. J Whitfield, The Culture of the Cold War, Baltimore and London, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991; C. G. Appy (ed.), Cold War Constructions. The Political Culture of United States Imperialism, 1945-1966, Amherst, The University of Massachussetts Press, 2000; P. J. Kuznick and J. Gilbert (eds.), Rethinking Cold War Culture, Washington, DC, Smithsonian Institution Press, 2001; D. Field (ed.), Recasting Cold War Culture, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, 2005.

12  M. Dudziak, Cold War Civil Rights: Race and the Image of American Democracy, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2000; L. Belmonte, Selling the American Way: US Propaganda and the Cold War, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008.

13  W. Hixson, Parting the Curtain: Propaganda, Culture and the Cold War, 1945–1991, New York, St. Martin’s Press, 1997; J. Gienow-Hecht, Transmission Impossible: American Journalism as Cultural Diplomacy in Postwar Germany, 1945-1955, Baton Rouge, Louisiana State University Press, 1999; V. Berghahn, America and the Intellectual Cold Wars in Europe, Princeton and Oxford, Princeton University Press, 2001; D. Caute, The Dancer Defects: The Struggle for Cultural Supremacy during the Cold War, Oxford, New York, Oxford University Press, 2003; N. Gould-Davies, “The Logic of Soviet Cultural Diplomacy”, Diplomatic History, 27(2), April 2003, pp. 193-214; V. Aubourg, “La diplomatie culturelle américaine pendant la guerre froide”, Communisme, special issue (“La guerre froide revisitée”), 80-82, Winter 2004-2005, pp. 77-103.

14  R. Mitter and P. Major (eds.), Across the Blocs: Cold War Cultural and Social History, Portland, Frank Cass, 2004.

15  See F. Ninkovich, The Diplomacy of Ideas. US Foreign Policy and Cultural Relations, 1938-1950, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1981; A. Hansen, Public Diplomacy in the Computer Age, New York, Praeger, 1989; S. J. Parry-Giles, “The Eisenhower Administration’s Conceptualization of the USIA: The Development of Overt and Covert Propaganda Strategies”, Presidential Studies Quarterly, XXIV(2), Spring 1994, pp. 263-273; M. Haefele, “John F. Kennedy, USIA and World Public Opinion”, Diplomatic History, 25(1), Winter 2001, pp. 63-84; W. Dizard Jr, Inventing Public Diplomacy: The Story of the US Information Agency, Boulder, Lynne Renner, 2004. On radio broadcasting, see D. Krugler, The Voice of America and the Domestic Propaganda Battles, 1945-1953, Columbia, University of Missouri Press, 2000; A. Puddington, Broadcasting Freedom: The Cold War Triumph of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, Lexington, University Press of Kentucky, 2000. On cultural exchange programmes see R. Wieck, Ignorance Abroad: American Educational and Cultural Foreign Policy, Westport, 1992; O. Schmidt, A Civil Empire by Cooptation: German-American Exchange Programmes as Cultural Diplomacy, 1945-1961, Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1999; G. Scott-Smith, Networks of Empire: The US State Department’s Foreign Leader Program in the Netherlands, France, and Britain 1950-70, Brussels, Peter Lang, 2008.

16  See S. Pisany, The CIA and the Marshall Plan, Lawrence, KS, Kansas University Press, 1991; P. Lashmar and J. Oliver, Britain’s Secret Propaganda War, 1948–77, Stroud, Sutton Publishing, 1998; P. Grose, Operation Rollback: America’s Secret War behind the Iron Curtain, Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 2000; G. Mitrovich, Undermining the Kremlin: America’s Strategy to Subvert the Soviet Bloc, 1947-1956, Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 2000; R. Aldrich, The Hidden Hand. Britain, America and Cold War Secret Intelligence, London, John Murray, 2001; B. Stöver, Die Befreiung vom Kommunismus. Amerikanische Liberation Policy im Kalten Krieg 1947-1991, Köln, Böhlau, 2002; Vingtième Siècle, special issue on “Propagande et communication politique dans les démocraties européennes (1945-2003), 80, 2003-2004; A. Defty, Britain, America, and anti-Communist Propaganda, 1945–53:The Information Research Department, London, Routledge, 2004; M.-C. and P. Villatoux, La République et son armée face au péril subversif : guerre et action psychologique en France 1945-1960, Paris, Les Indes Savantes, 2005; K. Osgood, Total Cold...