EU stopped World War Three!

RandomName2

'The EU was never intended to be a purely economic union. Really, people should read up on its history before they say that kind of thing, because it's completely false.

The origin of the EU is the ECSC - the European Coal and Steel Community. Why coal and steel? Because they were the necessary materièl for warfare. The whole intent was to prevent European wars by bringing the European powers closer together - coal and steel were a means to that end, not an end in themselves. That's a completely political aim.

[...]

The whole point of the EU is closer relationships between European countries and their peoples - the "ever closer union" that's been the very first phrase in the preamble to every European treaty since Rome in 1957:

"DETERMINED to establish the foundations of an ever closer union among the European peoples,"

That's what it's about. That's the whole point, that drawing together of Europeans so that they don't fight each other ever again. The economic stuff is secondary. The EU has always been political.

historically,
Scofflaw'

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?

Corsendonk

Did we join go the wrong party? Sounds like Ireland should have joined the USA. And don't forget all those Irish presidents.

#15

That's the difficulty isn't it? You can't always prove that you prevented something that didn't happen.

What's the alternative to the EU? A bunch of European states competing against each other?

mike65

NATO and the Warsaw Pact prevented WW3.

Martin 2

I think the greater integration brought about by the evolution of the EU has made the possibility of war between members inconceivable - that's the 2010 perspective. In the 1945 to 1957 post war period, it was conceivable that there could be another European war and at the time the EU progenitors put this forward as one reason for the formation of the ECSC which evolved into the EEC, EC and then the EU.

With respect to war in Europe and WWIII, I think the prospect of mutually assured (self-)destruction in this nuclear age had by far the biggest role to play in preventing an all out war involving NATO and Warsaw pact countries
.

demonspawn

Not all wars are fought with tanks and bombs. There's a global economic war going on as we speak. The WTO has essentially declared war on those countries outside of the WTO. They impose sanctions and unfair trading policies that favor developed nations over developing nations. They enforce those sanctions and policies with the threat of military action. The European Union is also guilty of this to some extent.

In my opinion, the EU was formed to consolidate power and give Europe more ammunition in this global economic war, World War III if you will.

Scofflaw

Post by demonspawn containing video of unpleasant and graphic CT rubbish deleted, poster banned for a week.

Keep the CT stuff for CT.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Manic Moran

In 1910 a book was published called "Europe's Great Optical Illusion." In it, the author basically proved to the satisfaction of anyone who thought they new about the subject that the war in Europe many people feared due to the arms races that were going on was an impossibility as developments in international commerce effectively made war impossible.

In 1913 Germany's largest trade partner was France. The UK's second-largest trade partner was Germany.

Events proved the economic theory wrong

Here's the problem. Wars are never economical, at least if the other side has at least a fighting chance. It certainly makes an increased blip in domestic revenue, but at a bit of a long-term cost. They are started for political or aspirational issues, or simple dislike. Relying on an economic argument for the prevention of something in which economics tend not to have a huge amount of emphasis is a bit foolish.

NTM

Corsendonk

Manic Moran wrote: »

In 1910 a book was published called "Europe's Great Optical Illusion." In it, the author basically proved to the satisfaction of anyone who thought they new about the subject that the war in Europe many people feared due to the arms races that were going on was an impossibility as developments in international commerce effectively made war impossible.

In 1913 Germany's largest trade partner was France. The UK's second-largest trade partner was Germany.

Events proved the economic theory wrong

Here's the problem. Wars are never economical, at least if the other side has at least a fighting chance. It certainly makes an increased blip in domestic revenue, but at a bit of a long-term cost. They are started for political or aspirational issues, or simple dislike. Relying on an economic argument for the prevention of something in which economics tend not to have a huge amount of emphasis is a bit foolish.

NTM

Ryanair!! thats my theory! Allowed the peoples of Europe to mix and explore Europe on a regular basis.

Scofflaw

Manic Moran wrote: »

In 1910 a book was published called "Europe's Great Optical Illusion." In it, the author basically proved to the satisfaction of anyone who thought they new about the subject that the war in Europe many people feared due to the arms races that were going on was an impossibility as developments in international commerce effectively made war impossible.

In 1913 Germany's largest trade partner was France. The UK's second-largest trade partner was Germany.

Events proved the economic theory wrong

Here's the problem. Wars are never economical, at least if the other side has at least a fighting chance. It certainly makes an increased blip in domestic revenue, but at a bit of a long-term cost. They are started for political or aspirational issues, or simple dislike. Relying on an economic argument for the prevention of something in which economics tend not to have a huge amount of emphasis is a bit foolish.

NTM

Which certainly suggests that anyone who argues that the EU is intended to bring about peace purely through economics and trade is probably wrong - now we just need to find someone arguing that viewpoint.

The EU is intended to bring peace through cooperation - it's an explicitly stated in its Treaties. The economic cooperation is only there to provide a basis for political cooperation, and the initial choice of coal and steel, at that time the traditional material basis for warfare, was explicitly related to introducing political cooperation over the means of warfare itself.

The cooperation envisaged as the reason for the EU runs throughout what it does - it encourages political cooperation at every level from heads of state down to regional councils, and it encourages exchanges and communication in nearly every corner of European life, from education (through programs like Erasmus, Comenius, etc) through sport to research and the military - all with the same aim in mind, which is encouraging people in Europe to mix and explore Europe on a regular basis, to establish contacts and friendships throughout Europe, and to generally engage in the "ever-deepening union of the people of Europe". Like it says on the tin.

The extent to which the EU is responsible for the enduring postwar peace in Europe is of course arguable - the Iron Curtain and the Cold War certainly had a role in that, just as it had a role in keeping Europe subordinated to US interests, and it's quite reasonable to argue that the EU, being a product of willing cooperation between the European countries, is as much a symptom of a willingness to maintain peace as it is itself something that produces peace - but it's very hard to argue that it wasn't the intention behind the EU, and that the EU is supposed to be nothing more than a free-trade area.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Jeboa Safari

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.

McDougal

I think the rise of the Soviet Union and the division of Germany did more than anything to prevent WW3

The europhiles and apologists for the Brussels bureaucracy just like to trot out the line that if it wasn't for a free trade treaty signed in Rome, France and Germany would be still at war today. It's utter nonsense but some people lap it up.

molloyjh

The whole thing is impossible to prove one way or another. At the time there was no Cold War really. Yes there were certainly tensions between East and West but it hadn't fully developed into the Cold War conflict. Some European countries were still imperial powers, albeit in decline. So the factors to consider at the time were different.

We have no idea what would have happened had the EU not been founded. We don't know how European countries would have reacted to one another or how the emerging superpowers would have reacted to a different landscape. What we do know, and more importantly what the politicians of the day knew at that time, was that 2 World Wars were started in Europe by European countries. They had no way of knowing how things were going to pan out over the decades that followed.

What we do know is that a united Europe certainly couldn't lead to a repeat of the previous 2 wars, in that they wouldn't be rooted in Europe. A unified Europe backed by the US also created a buffer against the Russians in the Cold War. Had Europe been divided that disincentive to war would most likely not have been present. So at worst the EU probably did lead to one less contributing factor and one added disincentive to war. Whether WWIII would have happened regardless is impossible to know.

Personally I'm not convinced that WWIII would have happened, but I'm not sure how safe a divided Europe would have been to Russian invasion either. Who knows, maybe we'd all be speaking Russian now and the US would be sitting back refusing to get involved. Then we wouldn't have had a World War but it would hardly be a consolation!

McDougal

molloyjh wrote: »

The whole thing is impossible to prove one way or another. At the time there was no Cold War really. Yes there were certainly tensions between East and West but it hadn't fully developed into the Cold War conflict. Some European countries were still imperial powers, albeit in decline. So the factors to consider at the time were different.

We have no idea what would have happened had the EU not been founded. We don't know how European countries would have reacted to one another or how the emerging superpowers would have reacted to a different landscape. What we do know, and more importantly what the politicians of the day knew at that time, was that 2 World Wars were started in Europe by European countries. They had no way of knowing how things were going to pan out over the decades that followed.

What we do know is that a united Europe certainly couldn't lead to a repeat of the previous 2 wars, in that they wouldn't be rooted in Europe. A unified Europe backed by the US also created a buffer against the Russians in the Cold War. Had Europe been divided that disincentive to war would most likely not have been present. So at worst the EU probably did lead to one less contributing factor and one added disincentive to war. Whether WWIII would have happened regardless is impossible to know.

Personally I'm not convinced that WWIII would have happened, but I'm not sure how safe a divided Europe would have been to Russian invasion either. Who knows, maybe we'd all be speaking Russian now and the US would be sitting back refusing to get involved. Then we wouldn't have had a World War but it would hardly be a consolation![/QUOTE]

Are you talking about NATO or the EU?

RandomName2

molloyjh wrote: »

What we do know is that a united Europe certainly couldn't lead to a repeat of the previous 2 wars, in that they wouldn't be rooted in Europe.

The Concert of Europe was developed after the Napoleonic Wars, and the Versailles Treaty and League of Nations in the wake of WWI.

Even if you look before these events you can see attempts to prevent large scale European Wars - the Peace of Westphalia at the conclusion of the 30 Years' War, for instance. For a long time Papal supremacy in Europe was seen as the main means to prevent conflict.

All of these measures failed, as the EU will inevitably fail as a means to prevent war.

The reasons for the failure of the above political, military and economic measures designed to permanently end European wars were not due to the specific areas that they sought to address.

The Papacy as an arbitrator in European affairs didn't collapse because of the impiety of princes, but due to the strengthening of monarchy and the obvious degeneration and corruption of the Papacy

The Peace of Westphalia did not fail due to the tensions between Protestant and Catholic, but due to the rise of nationalism.

The Concert of Europe also collapsed due to nationalism: in two waves - the consolidation of Germany and, later on, the catalyst that was the collapse of Ottoman grasp of the Balkans.

Versailles was unsuccessful because, even though it engaged with nationalism, it did not do so correctly. It left a mish-mash of small European states that were unstable and antagonistic to one another. It also failed to provide any means of dealing with the two superpowers of the USA and USSR. The failings of the LON were manifest.

So here comes the EU which reconciles the areas most amenable to reconciliation, and attempts to engage with the other superpowers (ultimately) as a superpower in of itself.

After WW2 it was NATO which provided a defence against war, not European integration. Economics have nothing to do with war - as has been quite evident in the last two hundred years when, if you are intending to conquer your trading partner, you don't really need to be concerned about it not dealing with you Particularly since no European nation has ever anticipated engaging in a war of attrition; and even more since a war of attrition was only possible prior to the invention of tanks, modern air-forces, and megaton ballistic missiles.

To its credit you can see that the EU wants no loose ends that may contribute to war: the Germans taking Strasbourg after the Franco-Prussian War just needed an outside influence (i.e. Russia) to tip the balance into disarray. With no nation in Europe being amenable to an alliance outside of the EU, it is less likely of Europe being pulled apart from within.

But even the concept of two-front war is fairly archaic by this stage. Europe may still be pulled apart beneath yet remain a politically unified whole (France's Third Republic to all intents looked fine until WW2 exposed its fundamental and crippling weaknesses). Moreover the tenor of the EU is not to prevent war per se, but to just make sure that all EU nations are in the same boat in the event of war.

This might, in the end, turn out to be a more dangerous precedent than mere division.

#15

RandomName2 wrote: »

This might, in the end, turn out to be a more dangerous precedent than mere division.

How so?

Rest of your post was v interesting.

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote:

Versailles was unsuccessful because, even though it engaged with nationalism, it did not do so correctly. It left a mish-mash of small European states that were unstable and antagonistic to one another. It also failed to provide any means of dealing with the two superpowers of the USA and USSR. The failings of the LON were manifest.

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.

It's also worth adding that the League of Nations was at least partly hamstrung by being an entirely inter-governmental organisation, and that the closer analogue to the League is the UN rather than the EU. Finally, we have a lot more supranational organisations now, rather than the system relying on the effectively single strand of the League.

Good post, btw.

cordially,
Scofflaw

demonspawn

If and when Israel joins the EU, how effective will the Union be at resolving the current conflict? Would the EU even have any desire to resolve the conflict?

I believe it will be as effective as the UN has been with it's countless resolutions that are largely ignored by the countries that are basically able to do whatever they like. The latest conflict in Iraq is testament to that.

I suggest that the EU prevented WWIII in so much as there has been no real threat of war anyway after Germany and Japan surrendered.

Mahatma coat

If Israel is allowed into the EU then there will Be a War, a Pan European Civil War, ending in the destruction of Israel but probably causing the Destruction of a large part of Europe.

demonspawn

Mahatma coat wrote: »

If Israel is allowed into the EU then there will Be a War, a Pan European Civil War, ending in the destruction of Israel but probably causing the Destruction of a large part of Europe.

Damn, guess that whole theory about the EU preventing war is out the window.

Jeboa Safari

Can't see the EU wanting Israel to join, or Israel wanting to join the EU

demonspawn

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Can't see the EU wanting Israel to join, or Israel wanting to join the EU

"Berlusconi says wants to see Israel in EU"

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3842743,00.html

"Israelis are unaware of the deep relationship their country has with the European Union, Javier Solana, the union's foreign policy chief said Wednesday, adding that his organization's ties with Israel are stronger than those with candidate country Croatia. "

http://www.haaretz.com/news/solana-eu-has-closer-ties-to-israel-than-potential-member-croatia-1.5700


Or maybe they do.

meglome

demonspawn wrote: »

"Berlusconi says wants to see Israel in EU"

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3842743,00.html

"Israelis are unaware of the deep relationship their country has with the European Union, Javier Solana, the union's foreign policy chief said Wednesday, adding that his organization's ties with Israel are stronger than those with candidate country Croatia. "

http://www.haaretz.com/news/solana-eu-has-closer-ties-to-israel-than-potential-member-croatia-1.5700


Or maybe they do.

Ah Berlusconi one of the shiftiest politicians in Europe. He's entitled to his opinion but the vast majority of people and politicians in the EU wouldn't want Israel to actually join.

And remember if Israel joined they'd be accountable for many things they are not currently accountable for. You think they'd want that?

demonspawn

meglome wrote: »

Ah Berlusconi one of the shiftiest politicians in Europe. He's entitled to his opinion but the vast majority of people and politicians in the EU wouldn't want Israel to actually join.

And the EU's foreign policy chief? I think there are a lot more politicians that would welcome a strong military presence like Israel. If anything they'd be getting back some of the cash they've invested in Israel over the last 60 years or so. Also, as much as Europeans dislike what Israel do, I think they probably dislike the threat of terrorism even more. I'm sure it would be rationalized that Israel would help Europe in the fight against terrorism.

And remember if Israel joined they'd be accountable for many things they are not currently accountable for. You think they'd want that?

What makes you think they'd be accountable for anything? How many EU politicians are demanding they be accountable for anything now? Israel is a very important trading partner with the EU, I don't think the EU would risk that partnership for the sake of a few more Palestinian lives. If Israel was invited to the EU, I believe the demands placed on Israel would be mainly superficial to garner support from EU citizens.

Edit: Anyway, this is about how effective the EU would be in resolving the conflict between Israel and Palestine. It's purely hypothetical.

Jeboa Safari

demonspawn wrote: »

And the EU's foreign policy chief? I think there are a lot more politicians that would welcome a strong military presence like Israel. If anything they'd be getting back some of the cash they've invested in Israel over the last 60 years or so.

The EU is working towards closer cooperation, the last thing they need is Israel with its own agenda making that considerably harder.

demonspawn

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

The EU is working towards closer cooperation, the last thing they need is Israel with its own agenda making that considerably harder.

How much closer must the EU get? Israel, for all intents and purposes, is a European country. The last step would inevitably be membership to the EU.

So if and when Israel joins, how much power do you think the EU holds in regard to solving the conflict or preventing an escalation? That's the question I'd like answered.

Jeboa Safari

They'd probably have some sort of solution as a prerequisite to Israel joining

demonspawn

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

They'd probably have some sort of solution as a prerequisite to Israel joining

So what happens when Israel accepts the prerequisites, pulls out of the Palestinian territories, joins the EU, then re-enters the territories and continues doing what it has done for years?

You're dodging the question. How would the EU go about preventing a conflict? Would it demand that member states supply troops and logistics? Does it even have that power?

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

Jeboa Safari

demonspawn wrote: »

So what happens when Israel accepts the prerequisites, pulls out of the Palestinian territories, joins the EU, then re-enters the territories and continues doing what it has done for years?

You're dodging the question. How would the EU go about preventing a conflict? Would it demand that member states supply troops and logistics? Does it even have that power?

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

I don't know. If Israel was the aggressor then no. If Israel was attacked and they were a member of the EU then maybe. It's all hypothetical. I'm sure any conditions on them joining would include something stopping them from just going straight back in.
I'm sure the EU as a whole has the power to deal with Palestine

As I said, I don't see it happening any time soon, Israel would have to give up too much, and a lot in the EU would be against it.

Denerick

My personal opinion is the EU/EEC/ECSC was motivated more by building bridges of co-operation as opposed to purely economic incentives. However there is no point in overlooking the economic imperative here either. For a start, protectionism was traditionally harmful to Europe's economy and thus her balance of power. The French needed German coal; the Belgians needed French and German markets for their steel, and so on and so on. So it was wonderfully practical to seek a way to bring about an end to harmful trade wars between these nations - as they often acted as a prelude to actual war.

So in short, a bit of both. In retrospect it suits us to view the European project as a noble goal in order to bring about continental peace. But in practise this wasn't necessarily the case. Of course all Europe's statesmen recognised the need to improve co-operation. But this doesn't mean national interests were relegated. De Gaulle shrewdly manipulated the European community in order to assert French authority within the complex. Its one of the reasons why he opposed British entry in the 60s. It suited the French to have a castrated Germany writing all the checques whilst they controlled the overall political and bureaucratic ambition of the movement. Not to mention the CAP, which benefited the French more than most. The CAP was the kind of programme that would have been too costly, infeasible and would distort on a national scale, but worked relatively well on a continental scale. And it really pleased those French dairy and wine farmers.

So yeah. Its certainly more nuanced than sheer idealism, though in retrospect its kinda nice to view it through that prism.

demonspawn

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?