3 ms·

Surely you must realize the fallacy of your argument. I can apply this logic to literally everything. - X means we don’t have Y. - But a Y just happened. - I

Surely you must realize the fallacy of your argument. I can apply this logic to literally everything. - X means we don’t have Y. - But a Y just happened. - It’s because we didn’t have enough X. But also you are wrong on you historic counts here. Western Europe hasn’t been entirely peaceful since 1945. First of all, Europe had colonies and colonial warfare well into the 1980s, colonial wars include Angola, Algeria, Kenya, the Falkland Islands and many more. Second many countries were dictatorship in Western Europe, including Spain, Portugal and Italy. There was a war in Cyprus, civil war in Northern Ireland, as well as terrorist insurgencies in Germany and Spain well into the 90s and 2000s. Neither did USA have hegemony in Western Europe during this period. USSRs influence spread across the continent. There were actually two Germanies until the late 1980s, there still are two Cypruses (despite both Turkey and Greece being NATO members), Communist and Socialist parties remained popular and quite often as part of coalition governments e.g. in Scandinavia, France, Belgium, etc.

philwelch 3y ago
> Surely you must realize the fallacy of your argument. I can apply this logic to literally everything. Well, you would need to analyze the specific facts of the situation to see if it backed up the argument first, which I did. > Western Europe hasn’t been entirely peaceful since 1945. First of all, Europe had colonies and colonial warfare well into the 1980s, in places like Angola and Algeria. Angola and Algeria aren’t in Europe. > Second many countries were dictatorship in Western Europe, including Spain, Portugal and Italy. They still didn’t go to war with each other. > There were civil wars in Northern Ireland as well as terrorist insurgencies in Germany and Spain well into the 90s and 2000s. I never claimed the US was able to eradicate domestic terrorism, only wars between countries. Western Europe hadn’t had a war between countries since 1945, which is the longest stretch since probably the fall of Rome. > There were actually two Germanies until the late 1980s Yes, that’s why I specified “Western Europe”; Eastern Europe was under Soviet hegemony.
- runarberg 3y ago
  What do you call the War in Cyprus and the Civil War in Northern Ireland? Turkey and Greece are two separate countries involved in territorial war of Cyprus (sometimes considered Western Europe). UK and Ireland are also two separate countries definitely inside Western Europe. Algeria and Angola were an integral part of France and Portugal respectively, just like Lyon and Lisbon. To the European powers, these were wars inside western European countries. I find your specification of "War" and "Western Europe" awfully convenient. For example USA had hegemony over both the UK and Argentina, yet the latter invaded a territory of the former, but you are still correct because the Falkland Island aren’t in Europe. If history doesn’t fit your narrative, you can simply narrow the scope until it fits. This is the problem with grand historic theories, they always just fit, but only after being hammered to the "correct" shape.
  - philwelch 3y ago
    > Turkey and Greece are two separate countries involved in territorial war of Cyprus (sometimes considered Western Europe). If you want to consider Turkey part of Western Europe that’s up to you. > UK and Ireland are also two separate countries The UK was not at war with the Republic of Ireland; it was at war with domestic terrorists inside Northern Ireland. > I find your specification of "War" and "Western Europe" awfully convenient. If that’s true, I’m sure it’ll be just as easy for you to find another 78 year period of history in which no two sovereign Western European polities went to war with one another. In fact, the whole reason I pointed it out is because the western half of Europe had been interminably war-torn for centuries. You’re talking about colonial wars in Angola and IRA terrorists; I’m talking about breaking the centuries-long cycle of Anglo-German-French wars that stretches into medieval times. > For example USA had hegemony over both the UK and Argentina We did? That’s news to me.
    - runarberg 3y ago
      You were the one that stated that USA had hegemony in Western Europe post 1945, so that should include the UK. The Argentinian dictatorship had strong USA backing, the dictator who initiated the invasion Leopoldo Galtieri was a graduate from the US Army School of the Americas, in fact Argentina was working with the CIA in their backing of the Contras militia in Nicaragua. USAs influence over the Argentinian dictatorship just before the invasion is no secret. As we see, USA hegemony is not sufficient for peace (even your very convenient definition of peace). However it is still not established that USA hegemony is even a necessary conditions. First, you can mark any large cross-national territory over any arbitrary decade and find peace. Even territories with a history of war. For example, there hasn’t been large South American countries going to war with each other since 1947 either (see I can conveniently omit the Falklands War too if it fits my narrative). Heck, even the African great lakes has seen peace according to your definition since Tanzania invaded Uganda and disposed of Idi Amin in 1979. I guess Tanzanian hegemony is a thing for good. Second there are multiple alternative hypothesis you haven’t explored. Don’t you think the UN deceleration of human rights helped with minimizing conflicts, the rise of democracy, the end of imperialism, decolonization, demilitarization, buildup of infrastructure, the European Union, etc. I find these together way more plausible then your supposed USA hegemony.

philwelch 3y ago

> Surely you must realize the fallacy of your argument. I can apply this logic to literally everything. Well, you would need to analyze the specific facts of the situation to see if it backed up the argument first, which I did. > Western Europe hasn’t been entirely peaceful since 1945. First of all, Europe had colonies and colonial warfare well into the 1980s, in places like Angola and Algeria. Angola and Algeria aren’t in Europe. > Second many countries were dictatorship in Western Europe, including Spain, Portugal and Italy. They still didn’t go to war with each other. > There were civil wars in Northern Ireland as well as terrorist insurgencies in Germany and Spain well into the 90s and 2000s. I never claimed the US was able to eradicate domestic terrorism, only wars between countries. Western Europe hadn’t had a war between countries since 1945, which is the longest stretch since probably the fall of Rome. > There were actually two Germanies until the late 1980s Yes, that’s why I specified “Western Europe”; Eastern Europe was under Soviet hegemony.

runarberg 3y ago
What do you call the War in Cyprus and the Civil War in Northern Ireland? Turkey and Greece are two separate countries involved in territorial war of Cyprus (sometimes considered Western Europe). UK and Ireland are also two separate countries definitely inside Western Europe. Algeria and Angola were an integral part of France and Portugal respectively, just like Lyon and Lisbon. To the European powers, these were wars inside western European countries. I find your specification of "War" and "Western Europe" awfully convenient. For example USA had hegemony over both the UK and Argentina, yet the latter invaded a territory of the former, but you are still correct because the Falkland Island aren’t in Europe. If history doesn’t fit your narrative, you can simply narrow the scope until it fits. This is the problem with grand historic theories, they always just fit, but only after being hammered to the "correct" shape.
- philwelch 3y ago
  > Turkey and Greece are two separate countries involved in territorial war of Cyprus (sometimes considered Western Europe). If you want to consider Turkey part of Western Europe that’s up to you. > UK and Ireland are also two separate countries The UK was not at war with the Republic of Ireland; it was at war with domestic terrorists inside Northern Ireland. > I find your specification of "War" and "Western Europe" awfully convenient. If that’s true, I’m sure it’ll be just as easy for you to find another 78 year period of history in which no two sovereign Western European polities went to war with one another. In fact, the whole reason I pointed it out is because the western half of Europe had been interminably war-torn for centuries. You’re talking about colonial wars in Angola and IRA terrorists; I’m talking about breaking the centuries-long cycle of Anglo-German-French wars that stretches into medieval times. > For example USA had hegemony over both the UK and Argentina We did? That’s news to me.
  - runarberg 3y ago
    You were the one that stated that USA had hegemony in Western Europe post 1945, so that should include the UK. The Argentinian dictatorship had strong USA backing, the dictator who initiated the invasion Leopoldo Galtieri was a graduate from the US Army School of the Americas, in fact Argentina was working with the CIA in their backing of the Contras militia in Nicaragua. USAs influence over the Argentinian dictatorship just before the invasion is no secret. As we see, USA hegemony is not sufficient for peace (even your very convenient definition of peace). However it is still not established that USA hegemony is even a necessary conditions. First, you can mark any large cross-national territory over any arbitrary decade and find peace. Even territories with a history of war. For example, there hasn’t been large South American countries going to war with each other since 1947 either (see I can conveniently omit the Falklands War too if it fits my narrative). Heck, even the African great lakes has seen peace according to your definition since Tanzania invaded Uganda and disposed of Idi Amin in 1979. I guess Tanzanian hegemony is a thing for good. Second there are multiple alternative hypothesis you haven’t explored. Don’t you think the UN deceleration of human rights helped with minimizing conflicts, the rise of democracy, the end of imperialism, decolonization, demilitarization, buildup of infrastructure, the European Union, etc. I find these together way more plausible then your supposed USA hegemony.