3 ms·

> It is good for Europe ... to learn the hard way that peace and tranquillity is the exception rather than the rule I don't know if you're being serious here,

> It is good for Europe ... to learn the hard way that peace and tranquillity is the exception rather than the rule I don't know if you're being serious here, but this (Ameri-centric? C21-centric?) view is laughable. Europe is well-acquainted with war and never saw lasting peace for much of it's history until the second half of the 20th century.

hagbard_c 2y ago
> Europe ... saw lasting peace [in] the second half of the 20th century. Which happens to coincide with the lifetime of the majority of Europeans. War was mostly something which happened to other countries, in other places - not in 'civilised' Europe, surely? So yes, I am being serious - deadly serious. Most European countries neglected national defence after the fall of the Soviet Union in the expectation that Fukuyama was right when he claimed we were at 'The end of History' [1]. There is a good Swedish term for this condition: fredsskadad which translates to 'peace-damaged', the opposite of 'war-damaged'. It is the condition of a people who have gotten so used to peace being the norm that they assume that everyone everywhere else also considers peace to be the goal and thus no longer need to consider the possibility of ending up in a conflict. [1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/57981.The_End_of_History_and_the_Last_Man https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/57981.The_End_of_History...