3 ms·

> it's an attempt to deter aggression by expressly recognizing an attack on one member as an attack on all. ...and it appears the two mutual alliances pre-Worl

> it's an attempt to deter aggression by expressly recognizing an attack on one member as an attack on all. ...and it appears the two mutual alliances pre-World War 1 basically ended up hastening the start of World War 1. Why do we think that it would be different this time?

ajross 5y ago
Because your example is 108 years old and no NATO nation has been attacked militarily[1] in the 73 years since the treaty was signed? [1] With no doubt a handful of exceptions that people will point out. The Faulklands war comes to mind, where the UK deliberately did not invoke the treaty and chose to defend its territory itself, etc...
- ImHereToVote 5y ago
  Wasn't there a war between two NATO countries? Turkey and Greece.
  - belter 5y ago
    "In 1964, due to the Cyprus crisis, Greece withdrew military units from NATO forces in the Southern Mediterranean, over threats of invasion of Cyprus by fellow NATO member Turkey.[8] Later in 1974 due to the invasion of Cyprus by Turkish forces, Greece withdrew from NATO military command. Notwithstanding, the country did not withdraw entirely from the organisation, but became significantly less active.[9] In 1980, the Greek foreign minister Konstantinos Mitsotakis made remarks about the situation where he could see Greece fully withdrawing from the organisation. However, later diplomatic pressure from the United States led to Greece fully re-integrating with the alliance.[10]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_NATO#Greece https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_NATO#Greece
- cryptonector 5y ago
  It's Falklands. And anyways, NATO as it stands today will not be attacked. But potential NATO entrants very much might be, prior to and maybe even after entering. No one believes that NATO will actually fight beyond Poland. Hell, I don't believe the Germans would fight for Poland -- Poland would fight for Poland, but that's probably it. Defensibility matters. I think Poland is defensible mainly because this time Poland is prepared and willing to defend itself long enough to embarrass the rest of NATO into helping. That means Poland is now safe from attack. All the new entrants being discussed are less defensible than Poland. With Ukraine being left to flap in the wind and lose, the value of discussing NATO entrance is now negative.
- logifail 5y ago
  > no NATO nation has been attacked militarily in the 73 years since the treaty was signed [..] Without a definition of "attacked militarily" I'm not sure that claim is useful. Perhaps mostly due to the concept of countries "declaring war" on each other having rather gone out of fashion? Back in 1943, Roosevelt asked (!) the Congress declare a state of war. These days it seems it's more like "shoot first and ask [strike]questions[/strike] Congress later"

ajross 5y ago

Because your example is 108 years old and no NATO nation has been attacked militarily[1] in the 73 years since the treaty was signed? [1] With no doubt a handful of exceptions that people will point out. The Faulklands war comes to mind, where the UK deliberately did not invoke the treaty and chose to defend its territory itself, etc...

ImHereToVote 5y ago
Wasn't there a war between two NATO countries? Turkey and Greece.
- belter 5y ago
  "In 1964, due to the Cyprus crisis, Greece withdrew military units from NATO forces in the Southern Mediterranean, over threats of invasion of Cyprus by fellow NATO member Turkey.[8] Later in 1974 due to the invasion of Cyprus by Turkish forces, Greece withdrew from NATO military command. Notwithstanding, the country did not withdraw entirely from the organisation, but became significantly less active.[9] In 1980, the Greek foreign minister Konstantinos Mitsotakis made remarks about the situation where he could see Greece fully withdrawing from the organisation. However, later diplomatic pressure from the United States led to Greece fully re-integrating with the alliance.[10]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_NATO#Greece https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_NATO#Greece
cryptonector 5y ago
It's Falklands. And anyways, NATO as it stands today will not be attacked. But potential NATO entrants very much might be, prior to and maybe even after entering. No one believes that NATO will actually fight beyond Poland. Hell, I don't believe the Germans would fight for Poland -- Poland would fight for Poland, but that's probably it. Defensibility matters. I think Poland is defensible mainly because this time Poland is prepared and willing to defend itself long enough to embarrass the rest of NATO into helping. That means Poland is now safe from attack. All the new entrants being discussed are less defensible than Poland. With Ukraine being left to flap in the wind and lose, the value of discussing NATO entrance is now negative.
logifail 5y ago
> no NATO nation has been attacked militarily in the 73 years since the treaty was signed [..] Without a definition of "attacked militarily" I'm not sure that claim is useful. Perhaps mostly due to the concept of countries "declaring war" on each other having rather gone out of fashion? Back in 1943, Roosevelt asked (!) the Congress declare a state of war. These days it seems it's more like "shoot first and ask [strike]questions[/strike] Congress later"