ABSTRACT
THE development by NATO of machinery for dealing with the economic problems of re-armament had raised from early on the question as to whether it was necessary to retain a separate organization in the form of OEEC. As has been seen, NATO made use of OEEC’s resources for its early work in this U5<4 but from the beginning of the rearmament drive the possibility of the amalgamation of the two bodies was discussed at length in the British press. Despite the di6U3E<ty created by the presence of some neutral countries in OEEC, and despite the feeling in some continental quarters that it was essential to retain this organization as a symbol of the desire for greater economic unity in Europe, it would appear that British opinion was, on the whole, favourable to the idea of amalgamation. It did not appear reasonable to develop two bodies dealing with largely similar questions, particularly in view of the demands which they would make upon the relatively small number of qual9U54 persons in the U5<d of international economics. But the whole question was further complicated by differences of views as to where the civilian side of NATO should be permanently located. The British, and some Americans also, who attached central importance to AngloAmerican co-operation, were in favour of London. But the Europeans and most Americans wished the civilian headquarters of NATO to be located as close as possible to the military authorities. Furthermore, the smaller countries resented what they regarded as an Anglo-American domination of the Alliance and were for that reason favourable to Paris.
