Editor's Note

Home , Shen Zhihua

Editor’s Note Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/jcws/article-pdf/2/3/1/695272/15203970051032183.pdf by guest on 28 September 2021

This issue completes Volume 2 of the Journal. Unlike Volume 1, Volume 2 has focused more on the Western than the Eastern side of the Cold War, looking in depth at the United States, West Germany, France, and Great Britain. Although a few articles—notably Shen Zhihua’s analysis of the out- break of the Korean War, and the review essays by Walter Clemens and War- ren Williams—dealt with affairs in the Soviet bloc, we wanted this volume to concentrate more on the West. Our aim from the outset has been to cover all sides of the Cold War, drawing on new archival material and memoirs from both East and West. The opening of long-closed archives and the publication of new memoirs in the former Communist world have attracted widespread attention (despite many problems with access to documents, especially in Moscow); but scholars should not overlook the huge volume of extremely im- portant material released each year in the West. A report issued in October 1999 by the Information Security Oversight Office of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), which I first learned about in the in- valuable Secrecy & Government Bulletin put out by Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists, reveals that roughly 600 million pages of documents were declassified in the United States in the period from 1996 to 1998. NARA’s declassification efforts have slowed considerably over the past year (primarily because of nettlesome—and completely unjustified—restric- tions imposed by Congress), but a vast amount of documentation continues to be made available each year. Although the United States is unique in the sheer volume of material it declassifies, other Western countries have been releasing very large quantities of documents each year. Scholars working in the archives of Canada, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, and even France (which is perhaps the Western coun- try most plagued by excessive secrecy), as well as in many smaller countries, can find enormous amounts of newly declassified material pertaining to all aspects of the Cold War. Links to websites for the Canadian, West European, and Australian archives can be found on the “Foreign Government and Aca- demic Sites” portion of the links page of the Harvard Project on Cold War Studies (HPCWS) website (http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws). Most of these archival websites are extremely helpful and detailed, and I would

1 Editor’s Note strongly encourage potential researchers to consult them before heading abroad. Links to the NARA website and to websites for the U.S. Presidential Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/jcws/article-pdf/2/3/1/695272/15203970051032183.pdf by guest on 28 September 2021 libraries can be found on the “U.S. Government Sites” portion of the HPCWS website’s links page. This issue of the Journal is devoted to a further exploration of France’s role in the Cold War, completing the discussion launched in the previous issue with Part 1 of Andrew Moravcsik’s two-part article. The concluding seg- ment of his article, published here, turns to the third and fourth of his four case studies: the decision by President Charles de Gaulle to veto Britain’s ap- plication for membership in the European Economic Community (EEC), and the “empty chair” crisis of 1965–1966. As in Part 1, Moravcsik uses these cases to support his argument that French policy toward the EEC was driven mainly by commercial considerations. Moravcsik does not deny that de Gaulle subscribed to an elaborate vision of French grandeur that cast France as the leading power in Western Europe and sought to mitigate France’s (and Europe’s) reliance on the United States. Nor does Moravcsik deny that de Gaulle’s geopolitical ideology shaped French policies on some key issues such as nuclear weapons and military relations with the North Atlantic Treaty Or- ganization (NATO). Instead, what Moravcsik argues is that on the crucial issue of European integration – which was a central part of French foreign policy during the Cold War – de Gaulle repeatedly compromised his geopolitical aims in order to satisfy powerful commercial interests, particularly French farmers. Once the case studies are completed, Moravcsik reviews the key points of his argument and seeks to respond preemptively to some of the objections that are likely to be raised. He also offers broader comments on the use of historical evidence. We are publishing six responses to Moravcsik’s article from a group of prominent scholars who have studied de Gaulle, French politics, and Euro- pean integration (as well as numerous other topics) for many years. The re- spondents vary in their harshness, but all raise at least some doubts about the fundamental thrust of Moravcsik’s argument. Among the questions raised are whether it is possible to separate geopolitical from commercial interests, whether the promotion of French economic strength was an integral part of de Gaulle’s vision of grandeur, whether de Gaulle truly viewed agriculture as a backward sector and was reluctant to promote it, and whether French policy on European integration would have been much different if de Gaulle had not been responsive to commercial interests. In addition, several of the commen- tators raise questions about Moravcsik’s use of sources, a point given particu- lar emphasis by Marc Trachtenberg and Jeffrey Vanke. Trachtenberg examines a number of the key episodes and pieces of evidence adduced by Moravcsik, comparing the documentary record with the way those events and sources are

2 Editor’s Note depicted in Moravcsik’s article. Vanke raises questions about the use of sources in each of Moravcsik’s case studies, showing how the use of other materials Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/jcws/article-pdf/2/3/1/695272/15203970051032183.pdf by guest on 28 September 2021 might have led to very different interpretations. We are also featuring a rejoinder by Moravcsik to the various criticisms. The six commentaries and his reply undoubtedly will not be the end of the debate. The spirited exchanges here show that the divide between Moravcsik and his critics remains deep on many issues. We encourage others who may be interested in taking part in this debate to contact us. Because of the length of the second part of Moravcsik’s article, the six commentaries, and the rejoinder, we have had to pare back the number of book reviews in this issue. In the next issue we will return to our customary book review section, with reviews of 10–12 books.