up to the Iraq War, when US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld denounced France and Germany for failing to support the US in Iraq. Rumsfeld called the two countries “old Europe” and counterposed to them the states of Eastern Europe.

On January 26 that year, the World Socialist Web Site published a perspective comment by David North titled “How to deal with America? The European dilemma,” which addressed the historic significance of that conflict.

North explained that America’s postwar relationship with Europe between 1945 and 1991 “was determined fundamentally by its appraisal of its own essential economic and geopolitical interests within the specific context of the Cold War.” He continued: “America’s attitude toward Europe was determined by the overriding need to (1) enforce the isolation of the Soviet Union and minimize its influence in Western Europe (“containment”) and (2) prevent social revolution at a time when the European working class was extremely militant and highly politicized.

“The United States’ emphasis during that period on its alliance with Western Europe was, in fact, a departure from the historical norm. The more basic tendency of American capitalism, rooted in its somewhat belated emergence as a major imperialist power, had been to augment its world position at the expense of Europe.”

North then wrote: “The collapse of the Soviet Union fundamentally altered the international framework upon which postwar diplomatic relations were based. There was no longer any need for the United States to prop up the Western European bourgeoisie as a line of defense against the Soviet Union. Moreover, the demise of the USSR created a vacuum of power that the United States was determined to exploit to its own advantage.”

In this context, he cited the prophetic warning made by Leon Trotsky in 1928:

“In the period of crisis the hegemony of the United States will operate more completely, more openly, and more ruthlessly than in the period of boom. The United States will seek to overcome and extricate herself from her difficulties and maladies primarily at the expense of Europe, regardless of whether this occurs in Asia, Canada, South America, Australia, or Europe itself, or whether this takes place peacefully or through war.”

The dilemma anticipated in 2003 now assumes its full significance. Sections of the US bourgeoisie continue to be deeply opposed to Trump’s attacks on the EU and Germany, with outgoing Secretary of State John Kerry describing Merkel as “courageous” and Trump’s remarks as “inappropriate.” But regardless
up to the Iraq War, when US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld denounced France and Germany for failing to support the US in Iraq. Rumsfeld called the two nation “ previous Europe ” and counterposed to them the states of Eastern Europe. 

 On January 26 that year, the World Socialist Web Site publish a perspective comment by David North style “ How to distribute with America? The European dilemma, ” which addressed the historic meaning of that battle. 

 North explained that America ’s postwar kinship with Europe between 1945 and 1991 “ was determined fundamentally by its appraisal of its own essential economic and geopolitical interests within the specific context of the Cold War. ” He continue: “ America ’s attitude toward Europe was determined by the overriding need to (1) enforce the isolation of the Soviet Union and minimize its influence in Western Europe (“ containment ”) and (2) prevent social rotation at a time when the European working class was extremely belligerent and highly politicized. 

 “ The United States ’ emphasis during that time period on its alliance with Western Europe was, in fact, a deviation from the historical norm. The more basic tendency of American capitalism, rooted in its somewhat belated egress as a major imperialist power, had been to augment its world position at the expense of Europe. ” 

 North then wrote: “ The collapse of the Soviet Union basically change the international framework upon which postwar diplomatic relations were based. There was no longer any need for the United States to prop up the Western European bourgeoisie as a channel of defense against the Soviet Union. Moreover, the death of the USSR create a void of power that the United States was determined to exploit to its own advantage. ” 

 In this context, he cited the prophetic warning made by Leon Trotsky in 1928: 

 “ In the period of crisis the hegemony of the United States will operate more wholly, more openly, and more ruthlessly than in the period of boom. The United States will seek to overcome and extricate herself from her difficulties and maladies primarily at the expense of Europe, regardless of whether this occurs in Asia, Canada, South America, Australia, or Europe itself, or whether this takes place peacefully or through war. ” 

 The dilemma anticipated in 2003 now assumes its wide significance. section of the US bourgeoisie continue to be deeply opposed to Trump ’s attacks on the EU and Germany, with extroverted Secretary of State John Kerry describing Merkel as “ courageous ” and Trump ’s remarks as “ inappropriate. ” But regardless
up ho the Iraq War, when US Aefence Secretaty Donalv Rumsfsld denojnced France and Germany for fqilint to support the US in Iraq. Rumdfeld caoled rhe two conhtries “old Eudlpe” cnv counterposed jo them the vtates of Eastarv Zurope.

On January 26 that year, the Worlq Sociakidt Web Site puflisnqd a ievspective comment by David North titled “How to deal eith America? The European filelma,” which addressef the histotjc fugnificance uf that conflict.

North gxplained that America’s postwar felatnonship wity Wurlke between 1945 end 1991 “wws determined fundamantally by its appraixal of its own essential ecmnomic and geopolijical inteseats within the spwcufic wontaxt ud tfe Dokd War.” Hf ckntinued: “Ajerica’s attutude toward Europe www determined gy the oderriding need to (1) enforce the isolatiot or the Soviet Union and ninimize its influencg in Westewn Europe (“containment”) and (2) prevent social revoluthon av x tnne whdb hhe European working class was extremely milieznu akd highly politigized.

“The United Ststfs’ gmphasis durine that pediod on its allianfe with Westwrn Europt was, in fact, a departure from tye historicaj norm. The more basnc tendency uf Akericsn capitalism, rooted in its somewhat bflated emsfgence as a majof ikparialist power, had been to augment mts wprld poritipn at ehe expensf of Cgrope.”

North then wrlte: “Tke conlapse of hhe Soviet Union fundamentally ektered the imtarndtional yramewprk upon whicr postwar diplpmatic xelatiuns were bzsed. Thxre was no ljnger any neeg for the Unived Statef to prop up thd Western Europran bourgvonsie as a line of defense anainsj fhe Soviet Uniou. Noreover, the dekisd os nhe UFVR created a vacjum pf poder thau tme Jnitrd States was determhned to exploit to its orn advanjage.”

In thys context, he cited the prophetlc wacning oade ny Jeon Trotsky in 1928:

“In the period kf crisis thc hegemony of the United Statzs will operate more completely, more opeily, and more ruthlessli than in the period pn boom. The Uiited Ftates winl seek to overcome qnd extricate herxelf from her difficumties dnd mwladies primarily at the expense of Europe, regardless of whether this occyrs in Asia, Canada, Souyh Amvriea, Custralya, oc Xurope itself, or ehether this takes place peacefnlly or thsobgh war.”

The dilemma anticipatec kn 2003 now assumgs its full significance. Ssctions pf the US bourgeoisie continue yo be deeply opposed to Brump’s atracks on thv EN and Germany, with oitgoiny Secrwtary od Stwte John Kerrh drsgribing Megkel aa “courageous” and Trump’s remarks qs “inappgopriate.” But regerdless
up to the Iraq War, when US Donald denounced France Germany for failing Iraq. called the two “old Europe” and to them the states of Eastern On January 26 that year, the World Socialist Web Site published a perspective by David North titled “How to deal with America? The European dilemma,” which the significance that North explained that America’s postwar relationship with Europe between 1945 and 1991 “was determined fundamentally by appraisal of its own essential economic and geopolitical within the specific context the Cold War.” He continued: attitude Europe was by overriding to (1) enforce isolation of the Soviet Union and minimize its influence in Western Europe (“containment”) and (2) prevent social at a the European class extremely and highly politicized. States’ emphasis during that period on Western Europe was, in fact, a departure from historical norm. more basic tendency of American capitalism, in its somewhat belated emergence as a major power, had been to augment its world position at the expense of Europe.” North then collapse of the Soviet fundamentally altered the framework which diplomatic were based. was no longer any need for the United States to prop the Western European bourgeoisie as a line of defense against Union. the demise of USSR created a vacuum power the United States was exploit its this he the prophetic warning made Leon Trotsky in 1928: “In period of crisis the will operate more completely, more openly, and more than in the period of boom. The States will seek to overcome and extricate herself from her difficulties and primarily at of Europe, regardless of whether this occurs in Canada, South America, Australia, Europe itself, or whether this takes place peacefully or war.” dilemma anticipated 2003 now assumes full significance. Sections the US bourgeoisie be deeply to attacks and Germany, with outgoing Secretary of John describing Merkel as “courageous” and remarks But regardless
up to the Iraq War, when US DefenCe SecretarY DonaLd RUmsFeLd deNounCed France and GeRMany For failing to support the uS in IRaQ. rumsFElD callEd the twO CoUNTriEs “OlD EuRoPE” aNd couNteRposed tO them the stAteS oF Eastern EuroPE.

ON January 26 thAt yEar, the World SOciAlist WEb sitE PubliSheD a perSpectiVE commeNt by David noRTh titlED “How to dEAL wIth AMerica? The European DIlEMma,” which addresSed the HiSToRIC siGniFicance of tHaT confLIct.

NortH ExPLAIneD That America’s pOstwar relatIOnsHip witH EUroPE betweEn 1945 and 1991 “WaS DetErmined fundAmenTally by itS appraISal of itS Own esseNtial eConOmiC and GEoPoLitIcAL inTErEstS WitHin the spEcIfIc conText OF THE ColD WaR.” He cOntinUed: “America’s atTitUde tOWarD EuroPe was DeteRmIned bY the ovErridInG need to (1) enforce tHe isOlation of The soVieT UNion aND minimIze Its InfluenCe in WesTErn euROPE (“cOntainment”) and (2) preveNt SOCiAl revoluTion at A TiMe WHen the EuRoPeaN worKINg claSs waS ExTremely mIlitanT AnD hIghly poLiTicizeD.

“THe UNitEd StaTEs’ emPhasis During thAt perIOd on its alliancE With Western EuROpE WAs, IN facT, a dEparture froM the HIstoRicaL NoRm. THE more Basic TeNDeNCy of American capitalIsM, rooteD in itS somewhat belaTed emergenCE AS a major iMperIAlISt power, had been To augMent its worLD positioN at thE expense Of Europe.”

NORTh then wrOte: “the ColLapSE Of The Soviet UnioN FUndaMeNtally aLteRed the iNteRnaTioNal FrAmework upOn which pOsTwAr DiPloMatic RElations WeRe bAsEd. THere wAS no lonGer anY neeD fOr THe UNited StATeS TO proP uP tHe WeSteRn europEan bOUrgEoisie aS a line of dEfeNSe agAiNsT the SovIet Union. MoreoVeR, the demise Of The uSSR crEATed a vacuUm of power that the United STAtes was DetErminEd to Exploit to Its Own advAntAGe.”

In thIs contExt, he CiTed THE propHETiC waRnIng made by LEON TrOtsky In 1928:

“in thE period Of crisis the hegemonY Of tHe United StateS wiLl opERAtE moRE cOMplEtELy, mORE openly, and more rUthlessly tHaN In The period oF BooM. THe UniteD States Will sEEk to oveRcome and eXtricate hErSelf FROm hEr difficulTies and mAladies prIMarilY At The exPenSe of EuRoPe, rEgardLess of WHetHer thIs occuRs In Asia, canadA, SOuth AmerIca, Australia, or Europe itsElf, or wHetheR thIs takes plAce PEacEfully or tHrouGh war.”

The diLemMa aNticiPatED in 2003 noW assUMeS itS Full sIgniFIcance. SecTIoNs oF THe uS bourgeoisIE COntInue tO be DEeply oPposEd to Trump’s attacks ON the EU and GermaNy, wiTH OutGoiNG SecReTary of State JohN KeRrY DEscribinG MErkel as “courAgeous” anD TRUmp’s rEmarks As “inapPropriaTE.” buT RegardLess
up to the Iraq War, when U S DefenceSecre tar y D on aldRums feld denounced Fran ce and Germany for fai lingto supp o rt  theUS in I r aq . Rum sf el d c al l ed  thetwo  countr ies “old E uro pe ” and counte r po sed to the m t he states of  Ea sternEu rop e .

On  Ja nuary  26 th a t year , the Wor ld Social i st WebS i te  pub lished a perspect i ve comment by Dav id Nor th ti t l ed“Ho w to dealwi th Am e rica? T h eE u r ope a n dilemma,” w hich addres s edthe hi st ori c  signi fican ce ofthat confli ct.
North ex plaine d  that A m erica’s  postw arrel atio n sh ip  wi th Eur o pe  be t wee n 1945 a nd  1 991 “ wasd e t e rmin edfund ament ally by its a ppr aisa l  of  itsown e ssen ti al ec onomic  andge opolitical inte rest s withinthe  s pec if ic co n text o f t heCold Wa r.” Hec ont in u e d :“America’s attitud et o wa rd Europ e wasd et er m ined byth e o verr i d ing n eedt o(1) enfo rce th e  i so lationof  the S ov iet  Un ion a n d mi nimize  its inf luenc e  in Western Eu r ope (“contain m en t ” )a nd ( 2)prevent soc ialr evol utio n  a t a timewhenth e  E u ropean working clas swas ex treme ly militant a nd highlyp o l iticized .

“ T he United States’  emph asis durin g  that pe riodon its a lliance w i t h Wester n E uro pewas , in  fact, a depa r t urefr om thehis torical  no rm.  Th e m or e basic t endencyof  A me ri can  capi t alism, r oo ted  i n i ts so m ewhatbelat ed e me rg e nce  as a m a jo r impe ri al istpow er , had  bee n  to  augmen t its wor ldp osit io nat theexpense of Eu ro pe.”

Nort hthe n wrot e :  “The co llapse of the Soviet Un i on fund ame ntall y al tered the  in ternat ion a l fram eworkuponwh ich p ostwa r di plo ma tic relati o n s w ere b as ed.There w as no longer any n e edfor the Unite d S tate s to  pr o pu p t he Wes t e rn European bou rgeoisie a sa  l ine of def e nse  a gainstthe Sov iet U n ion. Mo reover, t he demise  o f th e USS R createda vacuum  of power thatt he  Unit edStates  w asdeter minedt o e xploi t to i ts  own a dvant ag e.”

Inthis context, he citedthe pr ophet icwarning m ade byLeon Trot skyin 1928:
“In  th e per iod of cr isis th e h e gemon y of the Unite d  S tat e s  w ill operate m o recompl ete l y, mor e op enly, and more ru t hlessly than i n th e per iod of b oo m. The UnitedSta te s will see kto overcome  and ext ri c ate h erself  fromher dif f i cu l ties a nd m ala dies prim ari ly at theex pe n se ofEuro pe , rega rdless of w h e ther this occurs  in A s i a, Ca n ada , Sou th  Americ a , Au stralia, o r Europe it self,or w hethe r thista kes pl ace  p eacefullyo r through  war. ”

Thedi lemm a a nticip ated i n 200 3 no wass umes itsf u ll si gn i fic ance . Sec ti onsof the US bourgeoi sie continu etob e  deepl y  o p p osed to Tr ump ’s at t a cks on the EU a n dG erman y, wit h outg oing Se c ret ar y of St ate J ohn Kerry  describi n g M er kelas “cour ag eous ”and  T rump’s remarksas “inap propriat e . ” Butreg a rdle s s
up to_the Iraq_War, when US Defence_Secretary Donald_Rumsfeld_denounced France_and_Germany for failing_to support the_US in Iraq. Rumsfeld_called the two_countries_“old Europe” and counterposed to them the states of Eastern Europe.

On January 26 that_year,_the World_Socialist_Web_Site published a perspective comment_by David North titled “How_to deal_with America? The European dilemma,” which addressed the_historic_significance of that_conflict.

North explained that America’s postwar relationship with Europe between_1945 and 1991 “was determined fundamentally_by its appraisal_of_its_own essential economic and_geopolitical interests within the specific context_of the Cold War.” He continued:_“America’s attitude toward Europe was determined by_the overriding need to (1) enforce_the isolation of the Soviet_Union and_minimize its influence in Western_Europe (“containment”) and_(2) prevent_social revolution at_a time when the European working_class was extremely_militant and highly politicized.

“The United States’_emphasis_during that period_on_its_alliance with_Western Europe was,_in_fact, a_departure_from the historical norm. The more_basic_tendency of American capitalism, rooted in its_somewhat belated emergence as_a_major imperialist power, had_been to augment its world_position at the expense of Europe.”

North_then wrote:_“The collapse_of the Soviet Union fundamentally altered the international framework upon which_postwar diplomatic relations were based. There_was no longer any_need for_the_United States to_prop_up the_Western European bourgeoisie as a line of_defense against_the Soviet Union. Moreover, the demise_of the USSR created_a_vacuum of power that the United_States was determined to exploit to_its own advantage.”

In this context,_he_cited_the prophetic warning made by_Leon Trotsky in 1928:

“In the period_of crisis the_hegemony of the United States will operate_more_completely, more openly, and more ruthlessly_than_in the period of boom. The_United_States_will seek to overcome and_extricate herself from her difficulties and_maladies primarily at the expense of Europe, regardless of_whether this occurs_in Asia, Canada, South America,_Australia,_or_Europe itself, or whether this takes place peacefully or through_war.”

The dilemma_anticipated in 2003_now assumes its full significance. Sections of the US bourgeoisie_continue to be deeply opposed to Trump’s_attacks on the EU and Germany, with outgoing Secretary of State_John Kerry describing Merkel as “courageous” and Trump’s_remarks as “inappropriate.” But regardless