This is the second lesson of the first module of the EUPress teacher training by Professor Fabio Masini on the beginning of European integration after the Second World War.
The origins of European integration after the Second World War are not found in realpolitik or technocracy alone, but in a powerful set of ideas about how to avoid another descent into violence. Lesson 1.2 sheds light on this foundational moment: a time when intellectuals, economists, and politicians alike grappled with a core question — how do we build a peaceful and just international order after total war?
Between the wars: Two visions of internationalism
The horrors of World War I and fears of its repetition fueled intense debate across Europe:
- Internationalism from below: a grassroots movement focused on workers’ solidarity and cross-border cooperation;
- Internationalism from above: the belief that supranational institutions could regulate state behavior and prevent war.
It was the latter — a top-down approach inspired by the U.S. federal model — that would shape post-1945 European integration. But even here, federalism carried different meanings.
Two kinds of federalism: Hayek vs. Robbins
The lecture highlights two contrasting models of federalism, promoted by leading intellectuals of the 1930s:
- Friedrich Hayek, a liberal economist, saw federalism as a tool to restrain democratic excesses. He advocated a technocratic, apolitical federation—detached from electoral politics—to prevent economic mismanagement and return governments to market logic.
- Lionel Robbins, also an economist but with a more democratic vision, argued for multi-level governance:
- Local problems should be solved locally;
- Regional issues at the regional level;
- Cross-border issues — migration, energy, trade, ecology — required supranational authority.
This was federalism as layered democracy, not the depoliticized agency model promoted by Hayek.
A federation almost born — and aborted in war
In a fascinating and little-known episode, France and the UK nearly formed a bilateral federation during the early days of WWII. The plan — to merge their armed forces under a shared political structure — was set for signing in June 1940. But history intervened: Nazi forces entered Paris on the same day. The opportunity passed.
Though the treaty died on paper, the idea survived in minds.
From intellectual vision to political plan: Enter Ventotene
The federalist ideas of Robbins — transmitted via economist Luigi Einaudi to the activist Ernesto Rossi — eventually reached Altiero Spinelli, who, while confined on the Italian island of Ventotene, drafted the Ventotene Manifesto (1941).
The manifesto called for:
- A supranational European federation,
- The end of absolute national sovereignty,
- A way to secure peace by binding states together under shared authority.
This document became the intellectual blueprint for post-war integration, later championed by figures like Monnet and Schuman.
Why this matters: Europe was not built on markets alone
The lesson makes a crucial point: European integration did not begin as an economic project. It began as a peace project — a response to the total failure of the nation-state system under fascism, corporatism, and war.
Only later would economic cooperation become the main vehicle for political unity. But at its origin, the European project was — and remains — a deeply political and moral response to “the worst of Europe,” aiming to create something better in its place.
European integration was not the product of inevitability or bureaucratic design. It was a deliberate project of political imagination, forged by thinkers and leaders who believed that peace required shared sovereignty — and the courage to rethink power hitself.
