EU stopped World War Three!

Denerick

demonspawn wrote: »

So in theory, if Israel were to join the EU (regardless of any stipulations) and attacked Gaza again, the EU would be essentially powerless to stop it. They could make demands and pass resolutions but they would not be able to do anything short of invading Israel and disarming the population.

True or false?

If the EU disagreed so much they could boot Israel out. And the Israeli's wouldn't want that.

The EU has directly lead to positive and meaningful constitutional change in Turkey, and will continue to do so. It has also transformed many eastern bloc countries and done much to fight corruption and introduce transparancy to crony regimes.

demonspawn

Denerick wrote: »

If the EU disagreed so much they could boot Israel out. And the Israeli's wouldn't want that.

So will you concede that the EU would have no power to physically stop a conflict if a member state went rogue? That this entire argument is based on nothing? How successful have European states been at averting conflict in the past? History tells us that they are not successful at all.

Hypothetically speaking, if Ireland were to secede from the EU tomorrow and invade NI, the EU would have no power other than kick Ireland out (although we had already officially seceded).

The EU has directly lead to positive and meaningful constitutional change in Turkey, and will continue to do so. It has also transformed many eastern bloc countries and done much to fight corruption and introduce transparancy to crony regimes.

So what happened to Ireland and Greece? Seems while the EU was busy sorting the Eastern Bloc out, Ireland and Greece went nuts. Will the EU become nothing more than a nanny federation that can't even keep it's member states in line?

Jeboa Safari

demonspawn wrote: »

So will you concede that the EU would have no power to physically stop a conflict if a member state went rogue? That this entire argument is based on nothing? How successful have European states been at averting conflict in the past? History tells us that they are not successful at all.

Hypothetically speaking, if Ireland were to secede from the EU tomorrow and invade NI, the EU would have no power other than kick Ireland out (although we had already officially seceded).

They could cut off trade with us leaving our economy f*****. There'd be nothing to stop them assembling an armed force to assist Britain, not that they'd need it. The battle groups exist now too I think?

demonspawn

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

They could cut off trade with us leaving our economy f*****. There'd be nothing to stop them assembling an armed force to assist Britain, not that they'd need it. The battle groups exist now too I think?

So is that a 'no' to 'The EU stopped WWIII'? Because quite frankly, they never had the power to do such a thing. There was no threat of war after WWII in the first place, at least not in Europe.

Jeboa Safari

demonspawn wrote: »

So is that a 'no' to 'The EU stopped WWIII'? Because quite frankly, they never had the power to do such a thing. There was no threat of war after WWII in the first place, at least not in Europe.

I already posted that I don't think it stopped ww3

Jeboa Safari wrote:

I think the prospect of mutually assured destruction has be the main reason why we have not see a third world war. I don't think there would have been an appetite in the Western European countries to instigate another major war either, only way I could see it breaking out in Europe after the WW2 is if the Soviet Union invaded.

Denerick

demonspawn wrote: »

So will you concede that the EU would have no power to physically stop a conflict if a member state went rogue? That this entire argument is based on nothing? How successful have European states been at averting conflict in the past? History tells us that they are not successful at all.

Hypothetically speaking, if Ireland were to secede from the EU tomorrow and invade NI, the EU would have no power other than kick Ireland out (although we had already officially seceded).

That is outside the EU's remit. If a member state has a causis belli against another, then it would get very confusing. Though I can't picture Dutch troops pouring over the Belgian border, for some reason. The EU is not a policeman, constituent states are there out of choice. it is not the USA, it is not a federal organisation.

So what happened to Ireland and Greece? Seems while the EU was busy sorting the Eastern Bloc out, Ireland and Greece went nuts. Will the EU become nothing more than a nanny federation that can't even keep it's member states in line?

The cronyism of Ireland and Greece is quite different to Bulgaria or Romania, especially after the immediate post communist years. I agree that superficially the level of crony capitalism is that country was/is horrid.

RandomName2

#15 wrote: »

How so?

Rest of your post was v interesting.

Alliances systems at the best of times can be tricky, and as Scofflaw pointed out the EU has and always will seek to be a political rather than strictly economic union.

The EU is going through a transitional phase as it moves towards an ultimate goal of single-statehood. Despite this overarching ambition it has been necessary to maintain the independent voice of member governments (as member governments would naturally not agree to reduce their sovereignty). However, this conceit can place the alliance in jeopardy due to the 'rogue' actions of a member. That's what all the above posts about a hypothetical membership of Israel point to.

It could be said that any sane alliance would boot its ally out if it behaves in a militarily/politically or even economically suicidal fashion- but life tends not to be that simple. Witness the Greek financial collapse, for instance. Could the same be said of a nation that throws itself into war? It has in the past, at least

RandomName2

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's worth adding to that that Versailles was foolishly punitive, in that it continued the tit for tat territorial exchanges of Alsace-Lorraine between Germany and France, and treated Germany as a thoroughly defeated power when most Germans felt they could have won if the Army had not been betrayed by the politicians on the Home Front. That assisted in the creation of political instability in post-war Germany and an acceptance of the Army as a political arbitrator, both of which helped the Nazi rise to power.

That is very true: but mainly point to catalytic what-if scenarios;

What if:

• Fascism had not come to power in Italy?
• The US Great Depression had not happened?
• The Nazis had not risen as a force in Germany?
• Communism had gained control of Germany?
• An aggressive personality such as Hitler had not come to power?
• The junkers and Centre Party had kept the Nazi's in check?

The treatment of the Second Reich sowed the seeds of resentment that enabled such a powerful and aggressive dictatorship to emerge, with such popular support, within Germany. However, it did not make war by any means inevitable, and certainly not the course of a war for what was in all honesty a defeated, dismembered power.

Yet perhaps a more telling aspect of this is the fact that the Versailles Treaty was indeed unjust, not merely as a factoid developed by Nazi propaganda. This fact, coupled with Western weakness, really did mean that the Versailles protocols were likely to be rolled back (in fact the reparations, for instance, remained almost entirely unpaid, though they were subsequently held up as a major grievance by the Nazis).

Hitler maintained that he wanted all Germans in Europe to be incorporated into the Reich. This was itself entirely defensible; just as the rearmament of the Rhineland was.

However, had I been alive at the time I would have argued that it was not the concession being sought that Germany that should be resisted, but the Germany that was seeking such concessions: in the same manner that a nuclear France is not the same thing as a nuclear Iran. The ambitions and goals of the Fuhrer were not limited to the defence of Germans living in other European countries, but to the monopolisation of force within the Eurasian sphere.

Had the Western Allies created a workable Versailles, then there may not have been such a grey area concerning 'this far and no further'. The sacrifice of the Sudentenland, and with it Czechoslovakia, and with that the Little Entente, meant that an aggressive war against Germany became an impossibility. The subsequent collapse of the defence of France was itself caused by a mentality which never left the trenches in the first place.

RandomName2

demonspawn wrote: »

Edit: Does the European Union as a separate entity from it's member states have a standing army?

Not yet.

View

RandomName2 wrote: »

I know the claim that war has been prevented is not the only justification for a political superstructure of Europe, but it certainly is a major one.

So the question stands:

How exactly has the ECSC/EEC/EC/EU/EU prevented war in Europe?

The title of this thread is nonsense. No one has ever claimed that the EU has prevented WWIII. Nor has anyone claimed that the EU has prevented war - whether actual or possible - between countries which are not, and never have been, members of it (e.g. Soviet Union V's USA, Brazil Vs Argentina or even the hapless former Yugoslavia).

What has been claimed by the politicians who actually set up the ECSC, the EEC and the EAEC was that the process, conceived by Jean Monnet, which opened up after the Schuman declaration changed the dynamic between the states involved from a historic one of rivalry and armed conflict to one of cooperation for the mutual benefit of those states. In other words, to borrow a phrase from the NI peace process, it got the politicians and their member states away from the "politics of the last atrocity" and onto a different, more mutually beneficial path.

And, the important factor to be remembered is that the decisions made by the politicians involved after the Schuman declaration were "game changing". Instead of gearing up their coal and steel industries - then perceived as the "engines of war" - for future conflict, the politicians chose to place them under the ECSC's High Authority (the Commission's predecessor) and open their markets in these industries' products up to each other. In other words, they actively chose the "Monnet Method" - namely, actual economic cooperation over the previous default of potential military confrontation.

Over the following decades, the politicians' initial choice has been reinforced again and again, thus fundamentally reshaping the political relationships between the citizens and the member states of the EU. Those of us alive today in the EU have all had the potential course of our lives changed as a result of the initial decisions made by the politicians back in the 1950's. I doubt that those who assembled to hear the Schumann declaration could have easily envisaged the effect it would ultimately have.

A short clip - the Full declaration.

RandomName2

View wrote: »

The title of this thread is nonsense. No one has ever claimed that the EU has prevented WWIII. Nor has anyone claimed that the EU has prevented war - whether actual or possible - between countries which are not, and never have been, members of it (e.g. Soviet Union V's USA, Brazil Vs Argentina or even the hapless former Yugoslavia).

Well yes they do, served in a sort of word salad concerning mutual cooperation and a move towards reconciliation and abandonment of the philosophy of atrocity. People have for very many years claimed that the EU did indeed prevent war - not a specific war - but war per se.

I didn't bother mentioning Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, et al as these were not within the EU and the wars, coups or invasions that occurred there cannot be blamed upon the structure of the EU.

demonspawn

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well yes they do, served in a sort of word salad concerning mutual cooperation and a move towards reconciliation and abandonment of the philosophy of atrocity. People have for very many years claimed that the EU did indeed prevent war - not a specific war - but war per se.

I didn't bother mentioning Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, et al as these were not within the EU and the wars, coups or invasions that occurred there cannot be blamed upon the structure of the EU.

Now I'm not claiming that what's happening in Greece can constitute a war in the traditional definition of the word, but it's most definitely a conflict and people have died. If the citizens of Greece were armed, the military would be deployed and this would clearly descend into a civil war.

The EU did not prevent this, in fact I'd go so far as to say they actually created this conflict.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CfqOfzLQ8s

Scofflaw

demonspawn wrote: »

Now I'm not claiming that what's happening in Greece can constitute a war in the traditional definition of the word, but it's most definitely a conflict and people have died. If the citizens of Greece were armed, the military would be deployed and this would clearly descend into a civil war.

And if our road deaths were actually caused by military action, one could also claim that we were involved in a war. It's certainly not possible to call it a war, and calling it a conflict is possible only because 'conflict' takes in so many different shades of activity. Neither a scheduling conflict nor a conflict of interests can be stretched towards "war" either.

demonspawn wrote: »

The EU did not prevent this, in fact I'd go so far as to say they actually created this conflict.

If we entirely ignore the actions of the Greek government, and indeed the Greek people, we might eventually come to that conclusion by elimination.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Corsendonk

demonspawn wrote: »

Now I'm not claiming that what's happening in Greece can constitute a war in the traditional definition of the word, but it's most definitely a conflict and people have died. If the citizens of Greece were armed, the military would be deployed and this would clearly descend into a civil war.

The EU did not prevent this, in fact I'd go so far as to say they actually created this conflict.

Funny that its the EU in your opinion I thought it was Kostas Karamanlis that caused the mess in Greece.

View

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well yes they do, served in a sort of word salad concerning mutual cooperation and a move towards reconciliation and abandonment of the philosophy of atrocity. People have for very many years claimed that the EU did indeed prevent war - not a specific war - but war per se.

Your title cites a specific (potential) war - namely WWIII. The most likely protagonists of such a war over the past few decades were the Soviet Union and the USA. Either you have specific people in mind who claimed that the internal dynamics of the European Communities/Union somehow stopped the decision making of these non-EU states concerning WWIII, or your title is nonsense. Which is it?

As for within the EU, the politicians involved - i.e. the people who got to make the decisions in favour of cooperation rather than in favour of conflict - seem to believe that the European Communites/Union did in fact allow them to alter the previous default mode of conflict and to ensure mutually beneficial cooperation amongst the member states of the Communities/Union. In other words, to turn away from potential war between the member states of the Communities/Union (i.e. not between other countries at random).

There is no obvious reason why any reasonable person should dismiss the opinions of the actual decision-makers concerned, just because you don't seem to like them.

demonspawn

Corsendonk wrote: »

Funny that its the EU in your opinion I thought it was Kostas Karamanlis that caused the mess in Greece.

The measures taken by the Greek government are because of pressure from the EU. Piss off your citizens or piss off the EU? A difficult choice but citizens can be arrested and pacified.

demonspawn

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well yes they do, served in a sort of word salad concerning mutual cooperation and a move towards reconciliation and abandonment of the philosophy of atrocity. People have for very many years claimed that the EU did indeed prevent war - not a specific war - but war per se.

I could argue that if Hitler had won the war, Germany would have prevented war. That doesn't mean that it would have been right.

That was not a reference to the Fourth Reich by the way, it's simply a statement of fact. War would have been prevented regardless who won WWII, although Nazi Germany would have probably been more effective in preventing a future war. They were fairly ruthless militaristic fascists at the end of the day. They would have quashed any sign of upheaval with ruthless efficiency before it had a chance to gain enough momentum. Groups like the French resistance would not have lasted too long without the help of the UK and U.S. in that environment.

Scofflaw

demonspawn wrote: »

The measures taken by the Greek government are because of pressure from the EU. Piss off your citizens or piss off the EU? A difficult choice but citizens can be arrested and pacified.

The choice is between being solvent or insolvent as a state, being able to borrow money or not. The choice to upset the citizens had really been taken well beforehand, under the aegis of previous Greek governments.

It's not even as Greece (or Ireland) has actually stuck to the deficits agreed with the other EU member states, so it can hardly be that they were trying to avoid breaching a limit they had already long since passed.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fratton Fred

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's worth adding to that that Versailles was foolishly punitive, in that it continued the tit for tat territorial exchanges of Alsace-Lorraine between Germany and France,

Am I right in thinking that the Alsace lorraine region is a large coal and steeel producing region? Is it just a coincidence that the origins of the EU lay in those products?

i must admit, although I would stop short of saying the EU prevented WWIII, I always thought it was set up primarily to stop Germany and France taking lumps out of each other.

Scofflaw

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Am I right in thinking that the Alsace lorraine region is a large coal and steeel producing region? Is it just a coincidence that the origins of the EU lay in those products?

i must admit, although I would stop short of saying the EU prevented WWIII, I always thought it was set up primarily to stop Germany and France taking lumps out of each other.

Very much so - indeed, the first fore-runner of the EU was the European Coal and Steel Community, which was set up to manage exactly those materials, because they were still the primary materials for munitions production, as well as being the main products of the region generally disputed between France and Germany.

Hence the Schuman Declaration:

The coming together of the nations of Europe requires the elimination of the age-old opposition of France and Germany. Any action taken must in the first place concern these two countries.

With this aim in view, the French Government proposes that action be taken immediately on one limited but decisive point :

It proposes that Franco-German production of coal and steel as a whole be placed under a common High Authority, within the framework of an organisation open to the participation of the other countries of Europe.

The pooling of coal and steel production should immediately provide for the setting up of common foundations for economic development as a first step in the federation of Europe, and will change the destinies of those regions which have long been devoted to the manufacture of munitions of war, of which they have been the most constant victims.

The solidarity in production thus established will make it plain that any war between France and Germany becomes not merely unthinkable, but materially impossible. The setting up of this powerful productive unit, open to all countries willing to take part and bound ultimately to provide all the member countries with the basic elements of industrial production on the same terms, will lay a true foundation for their economic unification.

Had there been no Cold War, the European Communities might have succeeded anyway, or they might have gone the way of the League of Nations. Certainly the existence of the Cold War reinforced the peaceful intent of the European Communities - and without them, the Cold War may not have guaranteed stability in Europe either. After all, there are plenty of historical parallels for states fighting each other next to a hostile greater power.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BetterLisbon

RandomName2 wrote: »

I have often heard this claim that the EU was designed to prevent war, and that it was successful in doing so.

Yet I have never seen any evidence to suggest anything other than the presence of the United States in Europe after WW2, and Allied nuclear ballistic missiles, were the exclusive reasons why war did not subsequently break out.

Nor can I see any means for war to break out between the democratic European states following world war two - in terms of wealth, productivity, culture, technology or motive. Indeed who are we talking about? West Germany and France? Emm...

Not that large political unions have historically prevented its members being at war, despite their good track record in terms of preventing war between its members. (Actually the converse proves the rule, but we'll leave that aside for the moment)

For instance Bismarck's Second Reich: Germany was never at war with itself, but I don't know anybody who would say that the Second Reich was not itself at war? The same can go for any previous political union seen in Europe, regardless of size or period.

Indeed, perhaps the incapacity for its members to be at war is a prerequisite for political union? With or without political union it is hard to see how individual members of large political unions would ever have had the capacity for war, at least unless they merged into an antagonistic political union. To this end it could be argued (somewhat tenuously) that European hegemony prevented incorporation of states into the Soviet sphere.

I know the claim that war has been prevented is not the only justification for a political superstructure of Europe, but it certainly is a major one.

So the question stands:

How exactly has the ECSC/EEC/EC/EU/EU prevented war in Europe?

Well all EU propoganda like all propoganda plays with the truth to tell its lies. There was a desire for no more intra-european wars but the motives were far from benevolent.
A quick history lesson:
At the start of the 20th century there were 4 superpowers Britain, France, Germany and Russia. Each had its sphere of influence and each had satellite states to provide it with trade. There was a delicate balance between the four.
Twice in the first half of the 20th century Germany fancied its chances of grabbing a bigger slice of the trade cake (the reason for all major wars). Thus twice the other three reacted to protect their slice of the cake, each time american help was needed to finish the job. However second time around a massive amount of american help was needed to defeat germany as britain and france were exhausted.
As the dust settled after WW2 it became clear the western european powers could no longer protect their slice of the cake on their own and they were dependent on the USA for protection from Russia. Plus newly independent India and sleeping giant China were on the horizon.
Thus it was proposed to consolidate power so a common european slice of the cake could be protected if not individual the slices.
Hence the tools of war (Coal and Steel) were pooled in preperation for the European Defence Community (which europhiles airbrush out of history) that would fight for the european slice of world trade.
The EDC failed to be formed as the British werent up for it (under orders from uncle sam) but instead the EEC was formed as a starting point. The EEC has gradually morphed into the EU with troops in Chad propping up a dictator.

So inshort yes the european project played its part in stopping a WW3 but not for any noble reasons.

Denerick

There is way too much migration from the CT forum on this thread.

Corsendonk

Doesn't anyone just think that the people of Europe got fed up with soldiers marching through the ruin of their houses every few years? Something that later generations of europeans seem to forget.

Scofflaw

Corsendonk wrote: »

Doesn't anyone just think that the people of Europe got fed up with soldiers marching through the ruin of their houses every few years? Something that later generations of europeans seem to forget.

I occasionally wonder if the two world wars, by conscripting men very young, and by having very high rates of actual killing compared to populations, actually changed the genetic makeup of Europe.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Martin 2

Corsendonk wrote: »

Doesn't anyone just think that the people of Europe got fed up with soldiers marching through the ruin of their houses every few years? Something that later generations of europeans seem to forget.

Indeed. I think after centuries of hatred, discrimination, subjugation, exploitation, suffering and war, the main European protagonists decided that there had to be a better way and sought to end war and the causes of war.

Denerick

Scofflaw wrote: »

I occasionally wonder if the two world wars, by conscripting men very young, and by having very high rates of actual killing compared to populations, actually changed the genetic makeup of Europe.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Indeed. Two generations of conscription put an end to the fanciful naivity that 'most people are not capable of murder'. Ordinary people, thrown into awful circumstances, assert their original state of nature. This is why war poetry and fiction are among the highest standard of English literature.

RandomName2

Is it just me, or does the tone of this sound somewhat disturbing:

'Europe is not the same place it was 50 years ago, and nor is the rest of the world.

In a constantly changing, ever more interconnected world, Europe is grappling with new issues: globalisation, demographic shifts, climate change, the need for sustainable energy sources and new security threats. These are the challenges facing Europe in the 21st century.

Borders count for very little in the light of these challenges. The EU countries cannot meet them alone. But acting as one, Europe can deliver results and respond to the concerns of the public. For this, Europe needs to modernise. The EU has recently expanded from 15 to 27 members; it needs effective, coherent tools so it can function properly and respond to the rapid changes in the world. That means rethinking some of the ground rules for working together.'

This is in relation to the ratification of Lisbon.

http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/take/index_en.htm

However, interestingly

'The UN General Assembly has defeated a resolution that would have granted the EU extra rights in its proceedings.'

such that 'the European Council President, Herman Van Rompuy, will not be able to address the assembly on behalf of the EU next week.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11311790

Although as the other thread in this forum highlights,

'EUROPEAN LEADERS are taking steps to develop deeper ties between the EU and Nato as the union seeks to boost its influence in global affairs'

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0913/1224278759260.html