Votre recherche
Résultats 2 ressources
-
In 1969, in a well-established European Economic Community (EEC) under the neo-Gaullist presidency of Georges Pompidou, Germany stood as a model for France, looking for an effective industrial policy and a recovery of its rank on the international scene. Since the mid 1960s the international monetary system had been weakened by the growing US debt. France wanted to be the leader of the economic and monetary union (EMU). This political decision was a means to improve its economy confronted with the instability of the international monetary system. As pointed out by Jacques Rueff, « L’Europe se fera par la monnaie ou ne se fera pas. » During this period, from the relaunch of the EMU (December 1969) to the Maastricht Treaty (February 1992), French economic action was based on a strong political will defined to reinforce the relationships with the Federal German Republic, and then the reunified Germany. The Franco-German monetary relationships aimed to promote a strong and independent Europe and to restore an exchange rate stability. The “golden standard” stability myth was viewed and understood differently in France and Germany. If recent historical studies have been partially devoted to the consequences of European monetary policies (essentially in France) on economic and monetary integration in the EEC, they focused on the 1974-1981 or 1981-1986 periods. The creation of the EMU was a dynamic process running from December 1969 to February 1992. Franco-German monetary relationships included two levels of decision-making. First, on the political level, there was the presidency, the chancellery, the European Commission and the ministers. Second, its counterpart, economic power. The latter requires analysis of the role played by central banks in the definition and application of monetary policies. This dichotomy illustrates the progressive transition between the political level and the economic level during the 1980s. The decline of politics and the primacy of economics were analyzed differently in France and Germany. Political and economic objectives and expectations were contrasted and divergent. This study demonstrates that the EMU dynamic was an economic process where politics gave way to economics. Monetary relations were asymmetric. The real interlocutor of French political authorities was German economic power, represented by the Bundesbank. The Franco-German tandem was a political myth broken by world economy liberalization. For Germany, the EMU was a device to define a European Germany in a federal Europe. In France, it represented an illusory means to restore French primacy for conservative and liberal governments and a way of compensating a failing ideology for socialist governments. The EMU provided monetary stability, but the dream of a powerful and independent Europe vanished with the Maastricht treaty. Even as it rejected the idea of European political union defended by the German diplomacy, France paradoxically laid the foundations of a German Europe.
-
In 1917, the Bolshevik party seized power in Russia, repudiated state debt, nationalized private enterprises and imposed early forms of Soviet management to the economy. France, whose economic ties with Russia had largely grown during the three previous decades, saw her huge investments in the country compromised. The French private sector, by far the most affected of all Allied powers, reacted strongly to this regime change. This memoir focuses on the subsequent actions of the private sector, and seeks to understand how they reacted to the Bolshevik’s coming to power. Did they play a role in the process of decision-making towards military intervention? Did they have any impact on the ground in Russia? How did they react to the ultimate failure of the intervention and the loss of their assets? We demonstrate that the economic factor was central in the adoption of an interventionist policy. We also examine how the French government discreetly tried to support the private sector, but mostly used it to advance its own interests in Russia. Finally, we demonstrate that the failure of the private sector to defend its interests has many common causes with the failure of the military intervention itself.