The European case during and after the civil war was recorded in details. By studying the events that took place during the First and Second World Wars, a clear understanding of the relations between states and transformation of Europe, in general, can be acquired. Moreover, today, Europe is one of the most industriously developed parts of the world with political and economic stability; thus, it is crucial to research its transition process. The region faced a considerable challenge during the WW1 and WWII. However, after aggressively seeking transformation, it renewed again under new governance and policies after the war. The paper discusses the influence of the changes and agreements of the time in order to explain the surrender or sovereign paradox and the effect of a bargaining hypothesis in the post-1945 era (Magagna 6). Therefore, a critical discussion of several events relating to the political, social, and economic stability within and beyond Europe will be done in order to explain the bargaining hypothesis affect. A detailed discussion of the processes of the post-war experience in the European people after 1945 is an excellent analytical resource for true and complete information concerning the contemporary events. This paper focuses on discussing the origins of the states and democracy practice, as well as the evolution and reformation of the markets in Europe. Moreover, it considers different events that occurred during the transition period in Europe after the World Wars in the light of the bargaining hypothesis and sovereign or surrender paradox.
In order to understand the incidence, one should review historical data from the earlier years both before and after 1945 when the WWII ended. 1945 is considered a recovery year for Europe because, at that time, the Western and Eastern countries engaged in a close cooperation with the aim to end the thirty-years-old war. During the First and the Second World Wars, the countries of the region experienced a massive loss of lives, destruction of property, and lack of peace. As a result, the survived population was suffering from unemployment, German militarism, fascism, and endless revolutions. Therefore, the people of both East and West were forced by the circumstances to collaborate in order to prevent any future wars that could lead them to the prior bitter experience (Cook 58). Therefore, new institutions were formed, and social reforms were implemented between the two with the aim to achieve a common welfare. Some organizations, cooperation unions, and even states were founded in the post-national environment. People were forced to seek solutions to the existing conflicts in order to survive. Therefore, any previous movements and influences were put aside, and new negotiations between the nations started. As a result of these negotiations, new national reforms, monopoly leadership, and economic treaties emerged. A new Europe was formed in a bid to recover from the damage experienced in the pre-1945 era (Magagna 11).
However, the collaboration of people in the region was not smooth due to the existent influence of the United States, the Soviet Union, and the Great Britain movements. In the West, Americans applied more pressure on the communists while the East population resisted any communist involvement. Besides, Germans had a strong influence on and aided the East in order to earn indirect benefits. Therefore, rebellions and rejection of different groups were evident and were reflected in the choices they made. Additionally, mutual mistrust between the leaders of different communities was also experienced. However, after the creation of a stable independence in the authority of the European Union (EU), the ambitions of German militarism, seaborne empires, and Americanism were suppressed. The revolution was experienced in the late twentieth century and is evidenced by the enlargement of the EU and fall of the Soviet Union in the 1980's. Indeed, this period marked the birth of a liberal culture in Europe with global cosmopolitan cities such as Milan, London, Amsterdam, and Berlin among others (May 289).
In order to achieve the recovery of political and economic stability and growth of Europe, several transformational changes were conducted. The transformation process brought both positive and negative results for example, in the Pan-European Canvas and the American model actualization. Trust, bonds, and agreements on the trade tariffs were made; they resulted in either gain or loss to each of the parties involved. Moreover, the Soviet Bloc caused the political surrender of the militarism to monopoly leadership in order to achieve international cooperation of the nations. Despite the damages that came with the shift from the local to central government, the citizens readily sacrificed their power to ensure they prevent a repetition of the earlier war. The sacrifices and compromises made resulted in the surrender or sovereign paradox. However, in some situations, such as in the treaty agreement, a compromise was reached on equally sharing the losses and gains. The negotiation processes follow the bargaining hypothesis. For example, in the post-1989 era when the Eastern Europe considered attaining liberalization in line with the America model, the provisions of the agreement were based on the low taxes, limited public services, and free trade markets between the two regions. These rules were shaped by the bargain hypothesis implemented in the agreement between the participants (Judt 203). This process was involved in several negotiations in Europe during the post-war era with the aim to facilitate its recovery and stability that it has today. Different incidences will be discussed below in order to explain its further use.
The Birth of New States
Despite the regional disparity of the East and West, a division of Europe, and the associated interests of the capitalism and communism, the states in the region were influenced by their neighbors: Americans and Germans. Some differences in the culture, religion, class, ad power grouped the population. These issues caused the formation of territorial boundaries among the communities and their practices. One of the significant influences that had influenced these groups was religion. In Europe, the Jews, Catholics, Orthodox, Muslims, and some Protestant denominations existed at the time. Each group practiced own beliefs and traditions that forced them to live together occupying certain territories (Cook 87). In the end, these areas subdivided and gave birth to individual states. Most of these societies formed in the 1930's as it was an era of political commitment and faith. Religious differences were more vivid and burning in this period than in any other age (Magagna 10). Moreover, the local governments were centralized hereditary forms of power led by the privileged groups of people.
However, in the post-war period, the local governments surrendered their power to the central government. The old borders were dissolved, and people followed the military demarcations that ruled them at that time. Military governments with influential leaders such as Adolf Hitler attained their sovereign power via dictatorship. The citizens had to surrender their self-rule, power maximization, and security in the change for revenue of the government rule and protection. These provisions were paradoxical as the military government was only meant to seek the support of citizens forcefully and did not care much for their needs. Moreover, the taxes rose from the population, and the purposes of their use did not consider the taxpayers’ preference. Therefore, despite the commitment and sacrifice of the people to the national rules, the outcome was not fair. In the end, in the post-war time, citizens demanded justice, and new territories were formed depending on the general cooperation and unity of the associated groups (Magagna 15). These new creations gave birth to new cities such as Trieste, Odessa, Salonika, Vilna, and Sarajevo, amongst others (Kavaliauskas 69). Moreover, the formation of the treaties that led to the end of the war resulted in the very idea of creating the states. Later, the new boundaries enhanced better political leadership that resulted in the improved democracy in the region.
The European people have learned much from the war experience. According to some authors, the First World War had a greater adverse impact on the region while the Second World War marked the beginning of eliminating stiff conflicts in Europe. However, due to the rational interests of the population in the region, it was almost impossible to attain an effective solution to the existing problems. Before the war, a traditional form of governance was practiced in the region; the king ruled as a supreme leader and was the head of the military, protector of the faith, and a lawmaker. The royal assistants were selectively appointed in the church, villages, towns, and cities. However, due to the dictatorship in the sovereign state, people were less comfortable and developed resistance and rebellion moods to the governance (Magagna 13). This leadership had existed in the post-1500 era for many centuries; at the time, the population was mostly under the rule of Adolf Hitler and the German Militia governance. However, after the war, the people sought for the transformation of their leadership to democracy (May 512). Consequently, democratic rights enabled the powerless. Such leaders as Churchill and Roosevelt were selected to head the democratic powers and implement the system of new realism and transition. The majority of citizens learned of their rights and was advocating their democracy readily openly. In most people, democracy was the only hope for a better Europe.
Some of these practices developed due to the Americanization of some countries and the enlightenment of the people concerning their power and rights. The EU was another factor that helped in shaping the countries according to the public preferences. Therefore, new leadership measures were established in the 20th century when the people of each country were allowed to elect their leaders. A different form of leadership was built in various countries such as Russia (the Soviet Union), Hungary, Bulgaria, and Austria depending on the influence of the foreign aid that they received. For instance, in Russia, dictatorship had dominated for awhile unlike in other European countries (Kavaliauskas 254). Moreover, in the 1990s, all states adopted the democratic leadership. However, the democratic rule was not full and fair because the foreign parties, which had formed agreements with the European countries, were exploiting them for the own benefits. Moreover, the existence of the monopoly powers in the region encouraged the development of the political paradox in the region.
Therefore, the shift of authority from the local to the regional institutions provided the foreigners with an opportunity to exploit the people. In some countries, the leaders chose to receive foreign aid for supporting their campaigns in exchange for a promise to help it benefit from their European region during their term. Therefore, a sovereign paradox of the territorial rulers emerged. Moreover, the mutual exploitation of different territories was rather destructive even though it was named the help to the new countries. However, after the foundation of the European Union, all the territories were now strong enough to protect each other and establish better policies for effective leadership ( Judt 304). The control and strength of the Union spread the influence of the fair and just leadership to all people and boosted the political stability in the region. Before the end of the 20th Century, Europe had re-attained its confidence in the political leadership and progressed in its recovery from the war losses. Moreover, the leadership enabled the establishment of better economic stability.
The European Market Case
After the post-war period, the EU supported commercial treaties that were ffairly beneficial to all participants. Moreover, the old treaties that were less favorable were abolished in order to ensure that the region did not face any exploitation from its partners. Besides, the coercion of the government in the region helped in resolving the monopolistic powers of the states and ensured better decision-making processes. At last, the treaty authorization and regulation of markets in the democratic states became effective. These coercions assured that the commitment weaknesses of the sovereign or surrender paradox were resolved during the 20th-century era in Europe. Further progress in the region had taken place over the years until another change of the continent occurred after 1989 (Magagna 18).Today, Europe is one of the smallest but most industrially-developed continents in the world. Intensive trade is experienced between the region, America, Asia, and other continents. Thus, the emergence of the surrender paradox that unfairly gave the partners sovereignty in trade has boosted the economic stability of Europe
However, reviewing the past events, local markets have drastically grown after the end of the Cold War (Judt 196). The Cold War was caused by the disagreements between the two faces of Europe: East and West, after the retribution and rehabilitation of the region. Endless disputes made it impossible to make mutual decisions or reach a compromise on the issues concerning their welfare. However, the Cold War was less destructive than the previous military confrontations and did not stop the progress in other activities. In the process of resolving the Cold War issue, the bargaining hypothesis dominated. Therefore, the participants in the Cold War were required to listen to each others' needs and accept a compromise. After the successful ending of the active phase of the Cold War, Europe entered the era of relative political stability from 1953 to 1971 (Kavaliauskas 202). In this period, the trade activities were supported by the treaties that focused on the affluence accumulation of the states. The people in Europe lost the illusion that was caused by the past wars and aimed at making their lives better. As a result, a greater social collective experience was practiced by all citizens despite their culture or religion. The interests of the affiliated foreign associates were boosted by a developed social democratic factor among the people, and international trade affairs were enhanced. The EU and all other European people were free to express own thoughts and negation on any discontentment in their business activities. As a result, prosperity in the trade affairs was increasing and supported the people in the region (Magagna 16).
However, the stability of the trade issues caused some complications to the foreign traders because there were fewer loopholes to take advantage and utilize Europe. Moreover, the EU implemented strict measures in order to favor the trade with the EU registered members. These restrictions together with the democratic political stability threatened the interests of foreign countries. Therefore, business was left to the state members after 1971 (Kavaliauskas 118). In the same period, Europe faced a considerable recession in its economic and political stability. The leaders tried to negotiate with their neighbors and potential traders, but the policies of the treaties that they had formulated earlier were too restrictive. Therefore, the Union opted for the surrender paradox for the sake of its survival and prosperity among the foreign forces. However, before 1989, Europe had passed a new transformation that led to the establishment of new realism treaties (Magagna12). The treaties were made more practical and favorable in order to attract foreign traders to the region. The provisions of the new agreements included fair taxes, free trade policies in the member states, among some other benefits. The business practices facilitated the growth of the economic and social resources of the region. In the end, Europe featured a variety of events, supplies, states, and cultures. After the fall of 2005, the area was demarcated one more time. Its participation in the global trade market is outstanding, and its history is a masterpiece to the revolution of political, economic, and social growth.
In conclusion, the bargaining hypothesis was the means to the achievement of self-contentment in the process of the transition and revolution in Europe. The transition of Europe from the war-wrecked stage under the aristocracy to military governance was a challenge. However, through the decentralization of the government powers to the territorial units (monopoly) and later to the central government depended on the negotiations and decisions of the leaders. However, after the 19th century when the democratic governance dominated, people fought for their rights and justice with the help of the bargaining hypothesis. The process ensured that unfair policies of the government that unjustly empowered the sovereign or surrender paradox were eliminated. Besides, the democratic powers enhanced the unity and cooperation among the European areas. Those boundaries later developed to the states of new Europe.
Moreover, democratic practices of the nations ensured that the government coercion and the formulated treaties protected the welfare of citizens. The consideration of the preference and wishes of the population was largely enhanced by the existence of the bargaining hypothesis and democratic rule. According to the above analysis, it is easy to understand the development of the European continent over ages. The study has apparently discussed the process of the states’ evolvement, trade market developments, and democratic political stability achievement. The paper exclusively explained the bargain hypothesis practices and used the concept to explain implications of the surrender and sovereign paradox in different incidences. Additionally, the analysis is a clear presentation of the journey of Europe and its struggle to attain the stability that it enjoys today.