4 ms·

The primary threat to European peace isn’t external. The EU was wholly created and developed during a suspension of internal politics, conflict, and balancing

The primary threat to European peace isn’t external. The EU was wholly created and developed during a suspension of internal politics, conflict, and balancing due to the distorting weight of a third party ensuring order, e.g. German reunification is opposed by Britain, France, and Poland without the presence and backing of the US rendering their oppo essentially useless. Repeat for N issues. Britain’s current state wasn’t conceived and started because England, Scotland and Wales’ historically conflicting interests were rendered meaningless in the face of an ostensibly neutral third party keeping the peace allowing them to develop ever closer ties, England just conquered the rest a long time ago. For reference, the last time Europe tried to collectively balance itself internally before conflicting interests inevitably metastasized into alliance formation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concert_of_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concert_of_Europe And forgive me but once again, I just cannot overstate how important suspending internal conflict was vs keeping the USSR at bay, or going further back, keeping the Nazis out of Britain.

pasabagi 6y ago
Is this a common view of european history amongst Americans? To me, it seems very idiosyncratic and strange. Here's some doubts off the top of my head: 1. Has the peace in europe been unusually long-lasting? 2. Are internal politics actually suspended? Russia, and by extension the USSR, was a traditional player in European conflicts. 3. Is there a fundamental difference between the soviet bloc / nato 'grand alliances' and the earlier ones? 4. What practical role did the US play in, for instance, German unification? I thought that was basically the German's own thing, with nobody else having a relevant opinion. I'd see the recent cooperation between EU states as a result of the collapse of their empires. No empires means no squabbling over colonial territory, a loss of military power and prestige, and the end of an easy way of translating military power into economic success. Usually, external powers cause instability, much as the US and the USSR did throughout the cold war in the third world. Also, what internal conflict was possible to help the Nazis invade britain? Everywhere else in western europe was already conquered by the time such an invasion was in the works.
- readarticle 6y ago
  Oh no, it’s not common at all day to day. US foreign policy has been heavily liberal & internationalist for a century or so now in a manner that deeply affects public opinion of it and its effects. More realist lenses such as this have enjoyed splendid isolation in their IR niches until somewhat recently, but even that slight bump in popularity is mostly negligible outside DC and academia. Each of your doubts could be addressed with a book/subfield of study, so this will be very high level, unsatisfying, inevitably colored, and in the same vein of perspective as before: 1. https://europa.eu/european-union/sites/europaeu/files/pictures/70-years-peace_en_0.jpg https://europa.eu/european-union/sites/europaeu/files/pictur... , can also see the concert and it’s rocky phases leading up to WWI here. 2. Mostly as it relates to balancing and the results of that, though as you’ve pointed out this could all easily be viewed as balancing against the USSR (though the context, lack of relative economic power & length of time in alliance preclude this somewhat, alliances don’t necessarily prevent peer conflict, especially over time and as the participants strengths vary!). 3. Sort of? Cold War era alliances were standing, and meant to ensure peace vs reactive with a finite life span and intended to address a specific crisis, e.g. Napoleon. This obviously existed beforehand though, and indeed led to WWI. I’m not sure of the exact historical trends on this. 4. The eastern half was still soviet for one, France was very strong in the form of EC at the time and didn’t like NATO dominating/expanding for two, and Thatcher was just Thatcher for three. The whole process of reunification was such a fantastic example of skillful diplomacy on both sides that I really can’t do it justice here, suffice to say that US efforts pushed an uneasy/unwilling FR/UK to commit to the process, the “Two Plus Four” negotiating format, and Germany in NATO while brokering the guarantees and associated issues that led the USSR to accepting. Really recommend checking out the history of this if you have the interest and time, fascinating period of history. And decolonization was absolutely key to integration! Staying on brand, I would only question whether it was fully voluntary (Suez), and whether the global cessation of translating military force into economic success among US allies post Bretton Woods & the WWII destruction of every single other blue water navy had more of an effect. Finally, the third world was a battleground. External powers and powers in general often do cause instability, but the US in this case held near complete hegemony over Western Europe, and hegemony is quite closely linked with stability in general. One can also look at the relative internal placidity of the eastern bloc while the soviets held control, and its aftermath. I’m not exactly sure as to what your last paragraph asks, but I’ve had enough fun writing this as is, whew.

pasabagi 6y ago

Is this a common view of european history amongst Americans? To me, it seems very idiosyncratic and strange. Here's some doubts off the top of my head: 1. Has the peace in europe been unusually long-lasting? 2. Are internal politics actually suspended? Russia, and by extension the USSR, was a traditional player in European conflicts. 3. Is there a fundamental difference between the soviet bloc / nato 'grand alliances' and the earlier ones? 4. What practical role did the US play in, for instance, German unification? I thought that was basically the German's own thing, with nobody else having a relevant opinion. I'd see the recent cooperation between EU states as a result of the collapse of their empires. No empires means no squabbling over colonial territory, a loss of military power and prestige, and the end of an easy way of translating military power into economic success. Usually, external powers cause instability, much as the US and the USSR did throughout the cold war in the third world. Also, what internal conflict was possible to help the Nazis invade britain? Everywhere else in western europe was already conquered by the time such an invasion was in the works.

readarticle 6y ago
Oh no, it’s not common at all day to day. US foreign policy has been heavily liberal & internationalist for a century or so now in a manner that deeply affects public opinion of it and its effects. More realist lenses such as this have enjoyed splendid isolation in their IR niches until somewhat recently, but even that slight bump in popularity is mostly negligible outside DC and academia. Each of your doubts could be addressed with a book/subfield of study, so this will be very high level, unsatisfying, inevitably colored, and in the same vein of perspective as before: 1. https://europa.eu/european-union/sites/europaeu/files/pictures/70-years-peace_en_0.jpg https://europa.eu/european-union/sites/europaeu/files/pictur... , can also see the concert and it’s rocky phases leading up to WWI here. 2. Mostly as it relates to balancing and the results of that, though as you’ve pointed out this could all easily be viewed as balancing against the USSR (though the context, lack of relative economic power & length of time in alliance preclude this somewhat, alliances don’t necessarily prevent peer conflict, especially over time and as the participants strengths vary!). 3. Sort of? Cold War era alliances were standing, and meant to ensure peace vs reactive with a finite life span and intended to address a specific crisis, e.g. Napoleon. This obviously existed beforehand though, and indeed led to WWI. I’m not sure of the exact historical trends on this. 4. The eastern half was still soviet for one, France was very strong in the form of EC at the time and didn’t like NATO dominating/expanding for two, and Thatcher was just Thatcher for three. The whole process of reunification was such a fantastic example of skillful diplomacy on both sides that I really can’t do it justice here, suffice to say that US efforts pushed an uneasy/unwilling FR/UK to commit to the process, the “Two Plus Four” negotiating format, and Germany in NATO while brokering the guarantees and associated issues that led the USSR to accepting. Really recommend checking out the history of this if you have the interest and time, fascinating period of history. And decolonization was absolutely key to integration! Staying on brand, I would only question whether it was fully voluntary (Suez), and whether the global cessation of translating military force into economic success among US allies post Bretton Woods & the WWII destruction of every single other blue water navy had more of an effect. Finally, the third world was a battleground. External powers and powers in general often do cause instability, but the US in this case held near complete hegemony over Western Europe, and hegemony is quite closely linked with stability in general. One can also look at the relative internal placidity of the eastern bloc while the soviets held control, and its aftermath. I’m not exactly sure as to what your last paragraph asks, but I’ve had enough fun writing this as is, whew.