From Atlantic Wave to Revolutionary Contagion

American hegemonism was always in search of ideological common ground with Europe

The theory of the Atlantic revolutionary wave was first promoted among Europe’s historians at the height of the Cold War. The authors of this theory were American Robert Palmer from Princeton and French historian Jacques Godechot. Elaborated at the beginning of the 1950’s, the new theory was presented at the 10th International Congress of Historical Sciences which was held in Rome. 

The thesis of an “Atlantic revolution” claimed that the upheavals of the late 18th century which took place on both sides of the Atlantic - in the US and France - had as their objective the establishment of democratic republics based on the common cherished principles of freedom, equality and national sovereignty. In other words, we are talking about a backdated attempt at the creation of an ideological community which made possible the establishment of a democratic system on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean.

This profoundly un-scientific thesis was trying to create a common history out of thin air, one which was based on common values.

The so-called Atlantic values were further discussed during a conference organised by the College of Europe and the University of Pennsylvania in 1957. The participants tried their utmost to find common criteria for these Atlantic values. There followed the publication of a collective book under the direction of Henry Brugmans, Leo Moulin, Hans Kohn and Milorad Drachkovitch (“The Conference on the Atlantic Community. Basic Values of the Atlantic Community”, 1961). 

Despite all these efforts, most European historians refused to accept the existence of an “Atlantic” community. For them, the trans-Atlantic linkages were simply a result of the two world wars followed by the Cold War, without there being a common history behind them.

Thus to claim that the French Revolution of 1789 happened under the influence of the American War of Independence (1776-1783) was anathema to nearly all French historians who, like Fernand Braudel, refuted Godechot & Palmer’s ill-fated thesis. Indeed, trying to establish a causal link between America’s war of de-colonisation and the French Revolution was a huge stretch of the imagination.

It is obvious today that these intellectual efforts to justify the existence- since the 18th century- of an Atlantic community served a political need in the context of the Cold War. The problems with the thesis were immediately apparent, stemming from the insistence that democracy and freedom were fundamental values of this supposed Atlantic community. Were they to extend to Portugal and Spain, headed by Salazar and Franco - two Latin dictators ? Was NATO member Turkey part of this Atlantic community or not ? (In 1951 many expressed misgivings about including non-Christian Turkey in NATO).

Without having been able to prove the existence of a common history on the opposite shores of the Atlantic, the only community one can speak of is a strategic community, with NATO as its embodiment. 

In reality, we cannot even talk of an economic community between Europe and the US. Whilst the EU established its own common market, over the ocean the US founded NAFTA as the Western hemisphere’s most important trading bloc. 

And finally, there is no such thing as an Atlantic political community, as there is no common foreign policy and, because of the American hegemonism over the Western bloc of countries, there is no dialogue between equals.

All efforts to find justifications for the current situation by rummaging through the past are regrettable. 

Unfortunately, after a long hiatus, two American professors from Stanford and Yale are at it again.

In 2023, Saumitra Jha and Steven Wilkinson have published a dubious research paper entitled “Revolutionary Contagion”. Has the pair replaced the concept of the Atlantic wave with that of a “contagion” under the influence of…the Covid virus ? Fortunately, neither Jha nor Wilkinson are historians : one is an economist and the other is a political scientist.

In their study they are trying to demonstrate, no more and no less, that the soldiers sent by King Louis 16th of France to help American colonists win  against Britain, returned home and played a “decisive” political and military role in the French Revolution. 

In other words, despite the language barriers and the soldiers’ rather basic education, they were indoctrinated by their American hosts with the democratic values which they brought back to France and which wreaked havoc among the rebellious French peasantry.

This thesis, regardless of the number of accompanying graphs pasted to prove its validity, is highly insulting to the French, as well as profoundly wrong from a scientific perspective. 

The central assertion of the thesis - that French soldiers got their revolutionary education in America and were instrumental in ensuring the success of the 1789 revolution - can indeed be refuted by any high school graduate in Europe without much difficulty. 

Still, the fact that it has been published by a reputable Ivy League university means that the much-touted cohesion among NATO allies is fraying at the edges and needs an ideological dollop of faith once again. For those in the know, such desperate efforts spell doom for the common future of the trans-Atlantic alliance .