3 ms·

The EU was created in 1993, not sure how at that time colonies were anywhere relevant to the creation. The starting point was the European Coal and Steel Commu

The EU was created in 1993, not sure how at that time colonies were anywhere relevant to the creation. The starting point was the European Coal and Steel Communion in 1951 (conceived 1950, with France, W Germany, Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands) which had as an objective to create lasting peace between France and Germany by making it practically impossible from resource pooling to go to war.

epistasis 3y ago
The EU is the continuation of the efforts at integration started in the 1950s. It took the loss of the colonies to really cement the future economic integration. The idea that economic integration prevents war has been fairly well shattered by Russia's warmongering. There are often reasons cited that sound good to the public, but these are not necessarily the same as the true reasons that really motivate the actions of nations and individuals. That's actually the entire idea behind markets: simply asking people what they want or having them vote is not a substitute for putting their actual material interests into play by spending money in a market. The idea of "less or no war" is a good sell, but "we need to keep prosperity after giving up our colonies" is a material interest that comes down to the basic need to eat.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  What is your evidence for the point around colonies? Are there any primary sources from people like Schuman, for example? WWI also showed that economic integration doesn't always prevent wars, Russia recently isn't a great example, because the integration was pretty limited.
  - epistasis 3y ago
    My main source of the idea comes from Timothy Snyder, who argues primarily based on timing. European countries continued wars after WW2, just their imperial wars, against the people that they didn't think deserved having national self determination. And as the big maritime empires lost an imperial war, that's when they joined the EU. The Dutch and French lose their colonies, time to join up. UK lost their empire later, then joined in the 1970s. (BTW, I appreciate the questioning of sources, and wish that I had said more at the start of my comments.)
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      Thanks. The French lost most of their colonies later than the concept/creation European Coal and Steel Community, for example, and the UK joined much later. My impression was that in the late 1940s/early 1950s some of the ideas around overcoming the old animosity between France and Germany were genuine (at least from listening to people around at the time). On some of the later moves I have less insight into - perhaps it was a mix and/or varying motives?
      - p_l 3y ago
        Some of the ideas were related to avoiding another Treaty of Versailles issues with Ruhr and other border regions, and stopping effective implementation of Morgenthau plan (which had inane idea of effective depopulation by starvation and total destruction of industry in Germany, leaving a small pastoral population) that was ongoing, while avoiding considerable opposition from population to any idea where germany might endanger others again.

epistasis 3y ago

The EU is the continuation of the efforts at integration started in the 1950s. It took the loss of the colonies to really cement the future economic integration. The idea that economic integration prevents war has been fairly well shattered by Russia's warmongering. There are often reasons cited that sound good to the public, but these are not necessarily the same as the true reasons that really motivate the actions of nations and individuals. That's actually the entire idea behind markets: simply asking people what they want or having them vote is not a substitute for putting their actual material interests into play by spending money in a market. The idea of "less or no war" is a good sell, but "we need to keep prosperity after giving up our colonies" is a material interest that comes down to the basic need to eat.

RandomLensman 3y ago
What is your evidence for the point around colonies? Are there any primary sources from people like Schuman, for example? WWI also showed that economic integration doesn't always prevent wars, Russia recently isn't a great example, because the integration was pretty limited.
- epistasis 3y ago
  My main source of the idea comes from Timothy Snyder, who argues primarily based on timing. European countries continued wars after WW2, just their imperial wars, against the people that they didn't think deserved having national self determination. And as the big maritime empires lost an imperial war, that's when they joined the EU. The Dutch and French lose their colonies, time to join up. UK lost their empire later, then joined in the 1970s. (BTW, I appreciate the questioning of sources, and wish that I had said more at the start of my comments.)
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    Thanks. The French lost most of their colonies later than the concept/creation European Coal and Steel Community, for example, and the UK joined much later. My impression was that in the late 1940s/early 1950s some of the ideas around overcoming the old animosity between France and Germany were genuine (at least from listening to people around at the time). On some of the later moves I have less insight into - perhaps it was a mix and/or varying motives?
    - p_l 3y ago
      Some of the ideas were related to avoiding another Treaty of Versailles issues with Ruhr and other border regions, and stopping effective implementation of Morgenthau plan (which had inane idea of effective depopulation by starvation and total destruction of industry in Germany, leaving a small pastoral population) that was ongoing, while avoiding considerable opposition from population to any idea where germany might endanger others again.