Advertisement

The Neglected Flank? NATO in the Mediterranean 1949–56

  • Elena Calandri
Part of the St Antony’s/Macmillan Series book series

Abstract

Those scholars who have studied the genesis and early years of the Atlantic Alliance have focused their interest mainly on the relationship between the United States and Western Europe. The Mediterranean has aroused comparatively little interest among historians.1 This may partly be explained by the lesser threat facing this area in the East-West conflict, as opposed to Central Europe. Nor was there a clear concept of where the ‘front’ was in the Mediterranean, while the ‘Iron Curtain’ dividing Europe was clearly the line along which the Red Army and the Western forces faced each other. Thus the Communist threat in the Mediterranean area was political rather than military, at least until the beginning of the 1960s. Moreover, the integration of Italy, and later also of Greece and Turkey, into NATO, was less the result of coherent strategic planning than of political imperatives.

Keywords

Middle East Southern Flank General Staff Scandinavian Peninsula Ally Strategy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    With the notable exception of L. Kaplan, R. Clawson, R. Luraghi (eds), NATO and the Mediterranean, Wilmington, Delaware, Scholarly Resources Inc., 1981.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    On French North Africa’s relations with Western policy in the post-war period, see A. Lacroix-Riz, Les protectorats d’Afrique du Nord entre la France et Washington. Maroc et Tunisie 1942–1956, Paris, L’Harmattan, 1988.Google Scholar
  3. 5.
    On US attitude on Italy’s adherence to the Atlantic Pact see H.T. Smith, ‘The Fear of Subversion: the United States and the Inclusion of Italy in the Northern Atlantic Treaty’, Diplomatic History, vol. VII no. 2 (1983), pp. 303–68.Google Scholar
  4. 8.
    The French principally aimed at countering the northward imbalance of the Atlantic Pact caused by the inclusion of the Scandinavian peninsula and obtaining an international acknowledgement of the links between the Metropole and French North Africa, which they were trying to make permanent through the French Union; on the political re-evaluation of the empire after the war see R. Girardet, L’ideé coloniale en France 1871–1962, Paris, La Table Ronde, 1972, 3me partieGoogle Scholar
  5. A. Nouschi, ‘France, the Empire and Power 1945–1949’, in J. Becker. and F. Knipping (eds), Power in Europe? Great Britain, France, Italy and Germany in the Post-War World, 1945–1956, Berlin and New York, de Gruyter, 1987 pp. 157–83.Google Scholar
  6. 9.
    On French post-war strategic planning and the military role of the colonies see J. Doise, M. Vaïsse, Diplomatie et outil militaire, Paris, Imprimerie Nationale, 1988, pp. 395–437Google Scholar
  7. P. Guillen, ‘La France et la question de la défense de l’Europe occidentale du Pacte de Bruxelles (mars 1948) au Plan Pleven (octobre 1950)’, Storia delle relazioni internazionali, vol. II, no. 2, 1986, pp. 305–27.Google Scholar
  8. 14.
    On General Juin, see B. Pujo, Juin Marchai de France, Paris, Fayard, 1988Google Scholar
  9. A. Juin, Mémoires, vol. III, Paris, Fayard, 1960.Google Scholar
  10. 20.
    On US ‘Cold War’ interest towards French North Africa see John Lewis Gaddis, Strategies of Containment, New York and Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1982, pp. 60ffGoogle Scholar
  11. J. Schnabel, The History of the Joint Chiefs of Staff vol. I, Wilmington Delaware, Michael Glazier, 1979, pp. 304–20.Google Scholar
  12. 23.
    FRUS 1948, vol. I, views of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Over-all Examination of the US Requirements for Military Bases and Base Rights, 2 August 1948 and memorandum by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the Secretary of Defense, 21 December 1948, pp. 603–4, 674–6; Schnabel, History, pp. 304–20; Lawrence S. Kaplan, A Community of Interest. NATO and the Mutual Defense Program 1948–1951, Washington, Office of the Secretary of Defense-Historical Office, 1980, pp. 45-52Google Scholar
  13. 34.
    On Greece and Turkey’s adherence to NATO in the context of NATO relations with Yugoslavia see Beatrice Heuser, Western ‘Containment’ Policy in the Cold War. The Yugoslav Case 1948–1953, London, Routledge, 1989, pp. 176–83.Google Scholar
  14. 38.
    On the Korean War and NATO see Walter LaFeber, ‘NATO and the Korean War: a Context’, Diplomatic History, vol. 13, no 4, 1989, pp. 461–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 41.
    In early September 1950, the US Government rather abruptly communicated to the French and the British its intention to ask for a German contribution to Western defence. Bevin, initially opposing it, changed his mind during the New York Tripartite Conference, while the French refused to agree and proposed in October the Pleven Plan; on US policy toward Germany, see Ernest R. May. ‘The American Commitment to Germany 1949–1955’, Diplomatic History, vol. 13, no. 4, autumn 1989.Google Scholar
  16. 46.
    On the question of NATO Commands in Anglo—American relations see John Baylis, Anglo—American Defence Relations 1939–1984: The Special Relationship, London, Macmillan, 1984, 2nd edition, pp. 57–73.Google Scholar
  17. 57.
    On Anglo—Egyptian relations in 1950–1954 see Richard Ovendale, ‘Egypt and the Suez Base Agreement’, John W. Young (ed), The Foreign Policy of Churchill’s Peacetime Administration 1951–1955, Leicester University Press, 1985, pp. 135-58; idem, Richard Ovendale, The English Speaking Alliance. Britain, the United States, the Dominions and the Cold War 1945–1951, London, Allen and Unwin, 1985, passim.Google Scholar
  18. 60.
    Cf. P. Ziegler, Mountbatten, New York, Perennial Library, 1986, pp. 515–24.Google Scholar
  19. 64.
    See J. C. Garnett, ‘British Strategic Thought’, in Baylis (ed.), British Defence Policy in a Changing World, London, Croom Helm, 1977, pp. 156–73Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Academic and Professional Ltd 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elena Calandri

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations