Would peace in Europe be sustainable without the E.U.?

I always find it remarkably refreshing how well Europeans from different countries get on together on a personal basis. I think the reason for this is that the insanity which prevailed throughout the early part of the C20th is over not just thanks to the EU, but because there is a strong realisation that we have been through so much that we must never let it happen again! It may well have been ingrained on the Russian psyche as well during the cold war. As Brezhniev said to Forde in a zil Limo in Moscow, while holding Forde's hand, - We have been through so much - way more killed than anyone else in ww2- we will never let it happen again!
 
Certainly not, look at all the wars in Europe that happened from 1946 until 1992. One continual bloodbath, until the treaty was signed.

He was probably using the EU colloquially, to include the EC and the other predecessor institutions...and since his question was whether the peace would have been sustainable, the pacific nature of Europe from 1946-1956 or so shouldn't eliminate the validity of it.
 

Thande

Donor
Of course it would. What exactly does the EU (or its precursor institutions) do to prevent war? A lasting peace in (western) Europe was inevitable since at least the late 1960s, probably earlier. The Council of Europe and all that sprung from it was a consequence of Europeans abandoning warring attitudes, not the cause of it.
 
Probably, although without economic ties created by the EU things may be slightly more rough in some places, depending on circumstance. Other than, it's not really in anyone's interest for major war in Europe unless things really go to shit.
 
Probably in western (and possibly central) Europe at least, but with the fall of the USSR and the Balkan situation, not so likely in the East.
 

Typo

Banned
What exactly are the western Europeans going to fight over exactly? Is Germany going to try to get A/L again or something?
 
Certainly not, look at all the wars in Europe that happened from 1946 until 1992. One continual bloodbath, until the treaty was signed.

He was probably using the EU colloquially, to include the EC and the other predecessor institutions...and since his question was whether the peace would have been sustainable, the pacific nature of Europe from 1946-1956 or so shouldn't eliminate the validity of it.

Yes. EU is just a strongest expresion of post-WW2 cooperation between European states.
OK, my original post was sarcastic, perhaps (probably) unhelpfully so, but those 'predecessor institutions' themselves only date back to '56 (or so, right), which is a full decade after the end of the war.

And, for that matter, there are several countries NOT in the EU even today (Norway being a prime example).

I think SOME sarcasm was appropriate, even if I went overboard.


OK. I apologize for being that snarky.
 
Well, Europe would have to look very different in order not to develop something like the EU. So this different Europe could be more prone to warfare. Not to mention the impact that the prospect of EU membership had on East European countries. I think that,not any kind of grand declaration or attempts to play sat peacekeeping, is the most significant EU contribution to peace in Europe. Before 1989, war (except in very peripheral situations) was prevented by the alliance systems. Yes, Ireland could have fought Switzerland, but other than that, how would you prevent a global conflagration?
 
Realistically, there was peace in Europe between the 'great' nations because of three factors - America, Russia and Nuclear Weapons. Lets face it, in the most basic terms it took a global war, followed by a period of 44 years where America and Russia sat on their respective halves.

I remember cheering when the Berlin Wall came down, thinking that we'd won. Looking back, i'm not sure exactly what I thought we'd won, or indeed avoided loosing:confused: Given the removal of the communist system from one half of the continent, things have warmed up a little and suddenly the peoples of eastern europe find they can 'freely' express themselves, thats bound to cause a few issues.

But rolling forward to the here and now, one has to wonder how illusory this peace will prove to be. France paralysed by strikes and deporting eastern europeans, Germany's chancellor claiming that multi-culturalism is a failure, here in Britain, we're in debt (practically broke i believe), there are fears of a double recession, Greece, haven't heard much from them, have they rioted themselves out?

I appreciate that I have talked in generalities about the situation, for the nitpickers amongst you:D

That being said, these are interesting times here in that place across the channel. One could be forgiven for feeling that destiny is on the march again:eek:
 
The EU sure helped by increasing economic interdepencies and making travel easier (allowing people from different countries to get to know each other).

But the main reasons were others:

-Political dominance of the Superpowers during the cold war.

-Germany and Russia having so many deaths in WW2 that they are still not keen for another round.

-Massive ethnic cleasing during/after WW2

-Much better econimc developement than during the first half of the century, giving the people something else to spend their energies on

-Nuclear weapons
 
By the way given the insanity that happened in the old Yougoslavia, a problem area since the middle ages, I should clarify that I meant between EU member nation predominantly! You could argue by the way that German quick recognition of the independence of its old wartime buddy, Croatia actually led to the upsurge of violence there! However, Austria's warning to Serbia re Slovenia certainly worked a treat!
 

Maur

Banned
Meh, of course the constant cooperation and negotiation that organisations preceding EU fostered went a long way to transform Europeans into peaceful and fluffy hippies.
 

Lukkonle

Banned
I always find it remarkably refreshing how well Europeans from different countries get on together on a personal basis. I

I should clarify that I meant between EU member nation predominantly!

I think you are exaggerating. You still have attacks on Poles in German border towns or clashes between Slovaks and Hungarians.


The EU had little to do with peace in post-war Europe.
It had more to do with massive military presence by USA and Soviet Union, population shifts in most of Central and Eastern Europe that reduced roles of minorities in countries(which previously led to war and conflict), and nuclear weapons. You can look to Yugoslavia that wasn't occupied and left with ethnic issues what would happen to Europe once Cold War would be over.

Had there been no EU, there still would be peace due to nuclear stand off between two superpowers.

And no mistake-there is still a lot of bad blood between several EU countries, only it is concealed and fought against by both politicians and media.
 

Maur

Banned
I think you are exaggerating. You still have attacks on Poles in German border towns or clashes between Slovaks and Hungarians.


The EU had little to do with peace in post-war Europe.
It had more to do with massive military presence by USA and Soviet Union, population shifts in most of Central and Eastern Europe that reduced roles of minorities in countries(which previously led to war and conflict), and nuclear weapons. You can look to Yugoslavia that wasn't occupied and left with ethnic issues what would happen to Europe once Cold War would be over.

Had there been no EU, there still would be peace due to nuclear stand off between two superpowers.

And no mistake-there is still a lot of bad blood between several EU countries, only it is concealed and fought against by both politicians and media.
That's exactly argument for EU having big influence. It provides places other than battlefields fight against each other.
 
Top