What has the EU done to stop War in Europe?

pragmatic

Distinguished Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2004
Messages
12,262
Reaction score
1,639
Points
1,968
Serious question, it is always the fallback answer for why we need the EU, but what has it ever done to stop it.

Lets look at other continents North America, any wars since 1945?
OK that one is a bit easy, only 3 countries, how about South America, any world wars?
Right lets zoom over to Asia, lets forget the ones that the USA created, any world wars, massive multinational killing fields? A few countries happy to kill their own people, a civil war or 2 and the Korean war is still technically going on but apart from opportunist expansion by China post war any big wars?

We do have Africa and the Middle east though, and those are a bit of a mess. No world war yet, but who knows, maybe they need the EU more the Europe?

We should start a franchise model and rent it out to the other continents, its already proven to be really great at preventing wars in bloc's of peaceful democratic globalised trading nations.
Not so great at preventing crippling intrastate austerity that leave 50% of some demographics unemployed with no hope of getting a job but we'll gloss over that on the sales pitch.
 
Yes, the EU prides itself as being the champion of a united Europe and has done so for many years. However, there are several major problems with that outlook:

1. Europe failed to prevent many atrocities committed in the Balkan wars.
2. After the end of the cold war many military bases were set up by the EU and NATO surrounding Russia. This military expansion is causing great unease in Russia.
3. EU sanctions against Russia over Ukraine is not defusing the situation because everybody knows the EU does not have the military power to take on Russia.
4. The rise of ISIS and EU providing weapons to the various factions fighting the 'Islamic State' could end up with those weapons being captured by IS. If the situation escalates will Europe end up in a war with IS?

It seems to me the EU has over the last few years spread huge amount of money about 'rescuing' EU countries after the fall of the world economies which the EU believes prevented countries from political collapse and 'bushfire' wars from breaking out.
 
Was the EU set up to stop war in Europe or stop war between its members? I don't remember France and Germany being at war recently, though they did go to war twice in 35 years before that. So perhaps it does work? As for the rest, blame the military might of NATO rather than the EU.
 
If you buy into the idea that it has stopped wars between the major countries, then it was successful at doing that when it was just a trading block. That's how it should have stayed.
 
What the EU has done is stop the potential outbreak of war within its borders by making Germany the most powerful and influential state in Europe. Basically it has achieved what the Kaiser and the Fuhrer wanted all along without a single shot being fired.!!
 
To quote an old saying "Jaw jaw is better than war war.".
The EU is certainly good at boring people into submission.
As to the Balkans - that was a legacy from Tito.
 
Was the EU set up to stop war in Europe or stop war between its members? I don't remember France and Germany being at war recently, though they did go to war twice in 35 years before that. So perhaps it does work?
After WWII Germany was split into two halves and there was the threat from the Soviet Union so I don't think there would be a war between Germany and France in the aftermath of WWII. You could also include involvement from the US, Nato bases in West Germany from various Nato member states, France US, UK having nuclear weapons...
 
Why would a European nation go to war with another?

In the modern world it is democracy and the will of the people and free trade (national and individual self interest)* that prevents anything like that, the shadow of the arrogance of kings can only be seen through the likes Putin and if he were in the EU he would be no less potent, the EU would simply be paralyzed, outplayed and not knowing what to do.

If it did kick off though and no such thing has even come close to being imaginable, what would the EU do, in a hypothetical world where they had to prevent member states from going to war with each other what would or even could they do?

*We also no longer fight for resources, international companies bid for such things freely, nations are no longer involved, thank god.
 
What if Catalonian Spain democratically voted for independence from Castillian Spain but the man in Madrid said no..?
Hypothetically ..!
 
Why would a European nation go to war with another?

In the modern world it is democracy and the will of the people and free trade (national and individual self interest)* that prevents anything like that.......

The will of the people and free trade. Exactly. Except when dealing with the country which we are most likely to go to war with and then instead of averting war by free trade and the will of the people, we whip up a hysterical and belligerent atmosphere against them and impose economic sanctions. Brilliant.
 
Yes, the EU prides itself as being the champion of a united Europe and has done so for many years. However, there are several major problems with that outlook:

1. Europe failed to prevent many atrocities committed in the Balkan wars.

The point of the EU was to stop the big European Countries like Germany and France from going to war again. It was primarily driven by the US as part of the strings attached to it funding the rebuilding of Europe after WWII. The balkan wars were a direct result of the end of the cold war. Perhaps if the US, NATO and the EU worked together sooner they might have prevented the wars. Hindsight is a useful tool but you have to remember to put everything into the context of the geopolitics of the time.

2. After the end of the cold war many military bases were set up by the EU and NATO surrounding Russia. This military expansion is causing great unease in Russia.

That was part of the US foreign policy to get it's tentacles into former soviet states before Russia got off it's knees following the collapse of the soviet union. The unease in Russia stems from Putin's belief that the fall of the soviet Union was the biggest Geopolitical disaster of the 20th century. He wants Russian influence to hold sway in former soviet countries and for the US to bugger off. The EU is merely a tool the US uses to further it's goals.

3. EU sanctions against Russia over Ukraine is not defusing the situation because everybody knows the EU does not have the military power to take on Russia.

It's got little to do with the EU. The calculation Putin has made is that Obama will not directly intervene either under the US banner or under NATO. If that changes then you may see Putin decide to either fight a war or back off to preserve his power. Putin also has a trump card of being able to turn off gas supplies to Europe during the winter if the opportunity arises that gives him an edge.

4. The rise of ISIS and EU providing weapons to the various factions fighting the 'Islamic State' could end up with those weapons being captured by IS. If the situation escalates will Europe end up in a war with IS?

It's a moot point since ISIS have gotten their hands on Assad's military hardware (Hezbollah may have gotten some of Assad's chemical weapons, hence Israeli air strikes) and since ISIS swept into Iraq they've got their hands on serious military hardware the US sold to the Iraqi Government. So really whatever equipment the EU has provided is pretty much small fry compared to what ISIS has managed to steal from Assad and the Iraqi Army. It's not just tanks either.

It seems to me the EU has over the last few years spread huge amount of money about 'rescuing' EU countries after the fall of the world economies which the EU believes prevented countries from political collapse and 'bushfire' wars from breaking out.

If the bailouts hadn't have happened, we would have seen the international banking system collapse plunging us into an Economic Depression (which might still happen, risky times) and as happened last time wars would have likely broken out. In fact I'm guessing the Middle East would have gone up in flames a lot faster than it has done.

It's easy to blame the EU for this and that and forget to look at things from a geopolitical context. And the history behind the EU aka The US bankrolling the rebuilding of Europe with strings attached.
 
I love the way posts are sometimes pulled apart paragraph by paragraph and the content commented upon - but the comments say virtually the same thing in a different way. :)
 
re: North America, I'll think you'll find much despotic behaviour across its 23 countries in the last 50 years. Haiti springs to mind immediately, or perhaps a little episode in Cuba in the early 60's? North America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia will help you discover which countries are included. But I'd expect a UKIP sympathiser to not know much of world geography ;) Denigrating other continents or regions of the world to that level of debate is rather patronising imo. And I'm not spoiling for a fight or engaging in pragmatic-bashing.
 
The US still renews the Cuba trade embargo every year.
Time to stop.
 
re: North America, I'll think you'll find much despotic behaviour across its 23 countries in the last 50 years. Haiti springs to mind immediately, or perhaps a little episode in Cuba in the early 60's? North America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia will help you discover which countries are included. But I'd expect a UKIP sympathiser to not know much of world geography ;) Denigrating other continents or regions of the world to that level of debate is rather patronising imo. And I'm not spoiling for a fight or engaging in pragmatic-bashing.
You are right I apologise there is obviously plenty of island nations.

How many of those are successful democracies with strong trading ties with their neighbours and have went to war with them?

Don't recall a mini world war in the Caribbean on national geographic but I might have missed that one.
 
How many of them could afford to wage an international war?
 
Its almost like you couldn't make it up, nutters running the shop.
 
Its almost like you couldn't make it up, nutters running the shop.

Yep.

What is the future for your children and your grandchildren?
 
Crazy, though I'm sure the French won't b stupid enough to pay.
 
I can't help but wonder what more rational people might think if the question on this thread was turned around:

What has nationalism done to stop War in Europe?

Perhaps helps bring things into perspective whatever your view on what the EU has, or has not, done for world peace.
 
For some people nationalism, like religion, fills a spiritual emptiness and gives sense of something to look up to and fight for. The national flag is run up the pole and chests swell with pride. It also bring people together singing national anthems etc.

Many, especially historians, tend to blame nationalism for wars and they may be right. Some say nationalism caused racism and divides people, they may be right.

I doubt the EU has done anything for world peace, it might have prevented some bushfire conflicts within the EU. Also not sure about the true meaning of the word 'peace', after all a strong dictator, through fear, can bring about 'peace'.
 
Like in Russia? The native residents of Crimea (the Tartars) hare being forced out.
If your definition of peace is no-one dares to say anything then they can.
 
No - not my definition. After all, peace reigned supreme all over the USSR in the 1950s and 1960s.

Suppression of the population and any insurgence is a form of peace.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom