4 ms·

The need for Germany to secure their left flank to avoid a two-front war and France's realization that it has nothing to gain from war with Germany also led to

by cynusx 10y ago

The need for Germany to secure their left flank to avoid a two-front war and France's realization that it has nothing to gain from war with Germany also led to the creation of the European union in response. The idea was to deeply intertwine their economies so neither nation would benefit from war with each other. As for the US, their only objective is to prevent the rise of a dominant european power that can compete with them. e.g. WWI prevent germany from capturing france, WWII prevent germany from occupying russia (lend-lease) and then enter the war to prevent russia from occupying europe.

sgt101 10y ago
Nit pick alert ! The EU was created in response to the opportunity that the fall of the Soviets provided - to bind in and develop the economies of eastern europe. The binding of France to Germany was achieved with the European Economic Community, the removal of German military infrastructure and the comprehensive occupation of Germany by the UK, France, USSR and USA. I don't see the USA as invested in preventing the rise of a European power that shares, approximately, the values of the USA. The USA entered WWII reluctantly, and the effect of it's entry was to shorten the war by many years, possibly a decade. Christ alone knows what the USSR would have looked like as the eventual winner in 1955. My thinking is, shattered in every conceivable way.
- cynusx 10y ago
  US decided only to commit to D-day when the soviets were gaining ground on the Germans. In fact by the time they made the decision to do that, the soviets had already liberated half of ukraine. 4 months after the decision, the soviets had liberated the whole of ukraine. The soviets war machine steamrolled the rest of Germany and only US forces would be able to stop them from occupying the whole of europe.
nickik 10y ago
Your explanation of US action fails the reality test. There is no evidence that the US acted to prevent a dominant power in Europe. They joined the war because Germany acted in a way that made it almost impossible for them not too.
- cynusx 10y ago
  Bear in mind that germany declared war on the US in december 1941 and the US took some time to mobilize, it was only in 1943 the US agreed to cross the channel and open a second front in may 1944. This decision was made after the battle of stalingrad and battle of kursk which destroyed the German army ability to mount major offensives and when the soviets liberated half of ukraine. If they wouldn't have done this then the russians would still have captured Berlin in 1945 and there would be nobody to stop them from 'liberating' the whole of europe. This second front wasn't needed, Germany was losing the war already. It was needed though to prevent the russians from occupying the rest of europe. The combined state would be geographically secure, resource independent and demographically superior to the US.
  - nickik 10y ago
    I was talking about WW1. Wilson acted again the allies when he restricted financial transactions with them. The germans forced his hand with the Zimmermann telegram and unrestricted submarine warefare. About WW2 I would say that the US wanted to invade Europe earlier but the Brits did not agree. Also it was completly impossible to do it earlier and that why the Brits didnt agree. If it was all about stopping the Soviets, why would they give them that many weapons. The Soviets would have taken years longer without the blockade of Germany and Land-Lease.
    - cynusx 10y ago
      In WWI the US finally intervened as Germany pursued unrestricted submarine warfare, directly ignoring US wishes. However, the US also realized that continental europe ignoring US wishes would be the default regardless of which party won. If Berlin won then the combined nation would be able to gain domination of the seas and therefore global trade. If the allied won, then they would have excluded america from world trade to rebuild their economies. As for WWII, the US could have focussed on Japan but instead they had a Europe First strategy which involved denying nazi germany european hegemony. However, by the time they actually decided to invade it was clear Germany was already defeated by the soviets and it was a matter of time.

by cynusx 10y ago

sgt101 10y ago

Nit pick alert ! The EU was created in response to the opportunity that the fall of the Soviets provided - to bind in and develop the economies of eastern europe. The binding of France to Germany was achieved with the European Economic Community, the removal of German military infrastructure and the comprehensive occupation of Germany by the UK, France, USSR and USA. I don't see the USA as invested in preventing the rise of a European power that shares, approximately, the values of the USA. The USA entered WWII reluctantly, and the effect of it's entry was to shorten the war by many years, possibly a decade. Christ alone knows what the USSR would have looked like as the eventual winner in 1955. My thinking is, shattered in every conceivable way.

cynusx 10y ago
US decided only to commit to D-day when the soviets were gaining ground on the Germans. In fact by the time they made the decision to do that, the soviets had already liberated half of ukraine. 4 months after the decision, the soviets had liberated the whole of ukraine. The soviets war machine steamrolled the rest of Germany and only US forces would be able to stop them from occupying the whole of europe.

nickik 10y ago

Your explanation of US action fails the reality test. There is no evidence that the US acted to prevent a dominant power in Europe. They joined the war because Germany acted in a way that made it almost impossible for them not too.

cynusx 10y ago
Bear in mind that germany declared war on the US in december 1941 and the US took some time to mobilize, it was only in 1943 the US agreed to cross the channel and open a second front in may 1944. This decision was made after the battle of stalingrad and battle of kursk which destroyed the German army ability to mount major offensives and when the soviets liberated half of ukraine. If they wouldn't have done this then the russians would still have captured Berlin in 1945 and there would be nobody to stop them from 'liberating' the whole of europe. This second front wasn't needed, Germany was losing the war already. It was needed though to prevent the russians from occupying the rest of europe. The combined state would be geographically secure, resource independent and demographically superior to the US.
- nickik 10y ago
  I was talking about WW1. Wilson acted again the allies when he restricted financial transactions with them. The germans forced his hand with the Zimmermann telegram and unrestricted submarine warefare. About WW2 I would say that the US wanted to invade Europe earlier but the Brits did not agree. Also it was completly impossible to do it earlier and that why the Brits didnt agree. If it was all about stopping the Soviets, why would they give them that many weapons. The Soviets would have taken years longer without the blockade of Germany and Land-Lease.
  - cynusx 10y ago
    In WWI the US finally intervened as Germany pursued unrestricted submarine warfare, directly ignoring US wishes. However, the US also realized that continental europe ignoring US wishes would be the default regardless of which party won. If Berlin won then the combined nation would be able to gain domination of the seas and therefore global trade. If the allied won, then they would have excluded america from world trade to rebuild their economies. As for WWII, the US could have focussed on Japan but instead they had a Europe First strategy which involved denying nazi germany european hegemony. However, by the time they actually decided to invade it was clear Germany was already defeated by the soviets and it was a matter of time.