If someone would grade my DBQ from the 2005 test, it'd be much appreciated.
http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/ap...stor_45551.pdf
That's the link to the questions.
Heres a grading rubric if you don't know the system
http://apeuropeanlahs.org/pdfs/dbqrubric.pdf
Throughout the period of time after World war II and during the cold war, there were many
different views in Europe regarding a unified Western front. Regardless of what country
you lived in, the majority of opinions usually fell into the categories of for, against, or
undecided. The first school of thought I will touch upon is the advocates of unification. In
his speech at the University of Zurich in September 1946, Winston Churchill blatantly says,
" We must build a kind of United states of europe." He also pushes for the necessity of
France and Germany to reconcile and help lead a revival of European culture. To Churchill,
European unity, whether a nation was small or large is the only way for Europe to remain
dominant globally. Like Churchill, French minister of foreign affairs Kobert Schuman also
believes in a unified western Europe. When announcing his plan to also establish a common
market of coal and steal, he says that France and Germany must move on and the only
way Europe could unite is if this occurs. He is also inviting Germany to join in on the
unification. However, being that Germany was very weak coming off the loss of the war, I
believe his point of view would be different if Germany would have won the war, or he
didn't clearly know that Germany was now a mere puppet in European affairs. Like the last
two gentlemen. the west German chancellor Konrad Adenaver is also a staunch advocate of
unification. He says that the German people have learned each nation can't thrive
individually and they must combine. However, he is clearly bias because had Germany won
the war, he wouldn't be advocating for a peaceful european coalition because Jack Lynch,
who was the irish prime minister at the time also wanted a unified Europe. His reasoning
was that Ireland was never one of the always neutral contries, and the coalition would
bring protection to the Irish borders and to the borders of the members.
Although many were for the unification, the opposition also had some supporters. One of
them being soviet deputy Foreign minister Andrei Vyshinsky who calls the plans a way for
the USA to control Europe. He also calls it destructive to the democratic eastern european
nations and the USSR. He is extremely bias coming form the USSR and giving opinions of
the USA based upon the relationship between the two nations. He also calls the eastern
european nations democracies when in fact they were just satellite states of the soviet
union. A political cartoon in a soviet paper also shows how Americas big stick will help
Europe protect itself. It than mocks Ludwig Ernhard, and the sovereignty of western
europe. As I stated earlier, anything coming from the Soviets about the USA or western
europe at this time must be considered bias. due to the flaring tensions of the two schools
of thought in 1949, the year of publication. One last person against unification was british
prime minister Margaret Thatcher. She argued that European nations and culture were all
different and it'd be folly to fit them into one standard European personality. I believe that
her views are the only ones that are objective and contain some validity.
While some were for and others were against unification, some were neither. Take Duncan
Sandys, who reported to CChurchill on a conversation with De Gaulle who talked about
French reluctance to the idea of a German state. He also said France was suspicions of the
UK and the US's policy. He did however say that France would join only if they were a
founding partner with the United Kingdom. British finance minister Harold Macmillan took
the stance that Britain wouldn't benefit form joining, but asked if there was another way to
make all parties satisfied. He clearly is biased towards the United Kingdoms ideals. One
last person. Prime minister of Spain Felipe Gonzalez asked why Spain would give up its
isolation to join the coalition. He seems reluctant to participate.
Overall, each side for or against or undecided on the idea of western european unification
had their reasoning. Whether it was Churchill advocating for, or the USSR saying nay each
individual and nations opinions coincided with the thought of the people, and the interest of
the nation.
