do you think the EU will collapse?

[Theodarzna]

Well that is the thing you don't understand then. Ever wonder why in the EU there are anti-racism laws, laws that throw you in jail if you use the n-word, because that is what europeans fought for in WW2. They fought for the survival of democracy and liberalism against the rise of fascism.

It's fucking ridiculous to claim that the US was forged from the hardship of fighting for the existence of the US, while it was a pleasant experience compared to what WW2 entailed.

But maybe you are right. Maybe we should fight more violently for what the EU stands for, maybe we should take up arms and fight for liberalism and for european peace and we should just murder and slaughter every single right winger and anti-EU asshat around. I know that is what I would do if I was a leading politician. There'd be Covert Ops teams all over the place in Europe cleaning ship and outside of Europe too (Turkey etc).

Not what I argued at all actually, but thanks for the ever shifting goal post.

They did fight, primarily to avoid being conquered by Adolf Hitlers regime. At the time of the war I suspect few even cared that the Holocaust was happening, or that the Third Reich was practicing Eugenics, as so was most other European States and in some cases well after WW2. So this whole "It was a proud Anti-fa struggle against bigotry and racism!" sounds a bit silly considering the pillars of Nazi ideology, namely Eugenics, continued in Europe afterwards and stopping the holocaust or eugenics wasn't a stated cause for fighting the war.

My point isn't that WW2 was some easy kids play conflict. Its that WW2 wasn't fought to make the EU happened, but WW2 was used as a justification later on to maybe start creating some kind of Union, which even people today disagree on what its supposed to be.

Were as the American War of Independence was fought explicitly for the founding of the United States' creation.

The key difference is, in one instance a war was fought to create an institution, in the other an institution was created to not have to fight a war. One war was fought to create the institution, the other war is listed as a justification for an institutions existence. But nobody in WW2 fought and died for the "European Project."

[Deleted]

I am going the Kuntantee's point and expanding a bit to say, Unlike other countries that are forged in hardship, the EU is created to avoid future hardship. That neither inspires loyalty nor forges a nation but instead is a weak thing that will turn to dust in the face of adversity. The EU identity is created in prosperity and convenience. It will be forgotten when the very convenience and prosperity that created it ceases to exist. There is a reason why national identities persist; they are forged in hardship. When the party of prosperity runs dry, the EU will come apart. Heck the prosperity seems to be already dead for many of its people.

The United States (And I only make the comparison because others keep saying United States of Europe) on the other hand has a war FOUGHT FOR IT. Not a war that in response they decided to form a country.

So as a comparison, the American War of Independence was fought very much to create a new nation free of a colonial overlord. People willingly gave their lives for the "American Project."

What you and Djalil seem to be engaged in is a Lammy style rewrite in which WW1 and WW2 which were fought for various reasons, none of which was to found the Steel and Coal commission or create the EU or create a new Unitary State of Europe. After that chaotic period some people came up with an idea, a few even thought of create a new Nation State out of it eventually.

The difference is the US is forged in the adversity of a struggle against something and a victory against that thing. The EU is created, well to avoid ever feeling hardship again. Kuntantee makes the salient point of asking, "Will the EU hold on when the hardships return and prosperity is over?" Maybe you are one of those types who believes the party will be everlasting and eternal. Who knows, but I think Kuntantee makes a solid point and I concur with his reasoning.

You're starting from a wrong comparison and building on top of it.
The EU is not a country. It doesn't need to be "forged out of a unifying war" or something.
EU is a very specific political project aimed at creating stability, prosperity and convenience. There won't be a moment where that "prosperity and convenience" ceases to exist cause that would mean the EU itself has ceased to exist.
National identities persist as they should as the EU is not supposed to replace them. The United States is a country, EU isn't a country. It's a union of countries. A union of "United states" and in no way is the eu supposed to replace national identities in order to achieve its goal.
In fact, it's goal, aka making war between European nations not only unthinkable but materially impossible, has already being achieved.

You can try once again twisting my or Mayhem's words in a, to be quite honest, dishonest and pathetic attempt at.... I don't know... win a point? But the reality of how things went is pretty clear.
The EU is a project born from the destruction caused by two wars aiming at prosperity and stability.
Once again, your comparison between the EU and the USA or ANY country is pretty void.
There is no comparison to be made because, as Annette schwartz once stated, EU is a union, not a country.

- - - Updated - - -

That's factually wrong, the dream of an united european continent exists ever since the Roman Empire collapsed. But the French Revolution was the defining moment.

And you HAD to write this didn't you.
Like... you felt COMPELLED to sit down and write this didn't you.

[Deleted]

i mean the force required to collapse the whole of eu would be really rare since its landscape is so high in width, youd have to have constant earthquakes all over

[Deleted]

i mean the force required to collapse the whole of eu would be really rare since its landscape is so high in width, youd have to have constant earthquakes all over

A... calamity from the skies! Jenova!

[Deleted]

And you HAD to write this didn't you.
Like... you felt COMPELLED to sit down and write this didn't you.

Yep, that's actually my profession, historian and fact checker.

[Theodarzna]

You're starting from a wrong comparison and building on top of it.
The EU is not a country. It doesn't need to be "forged out of a unifying war" or something.
EU is a very specific political project aimed at creating stability, prosperity and convenience. There won't be a moment where that "prosperity and convenience" ceases to exist cause that would mean the EU itself has ceased to exist.
National identities persist as they should as the EU is not supposed to replace them. The United States is a country, EU isn't a country. It's a union of countries. A union of "United states" and in no way is the eu supposed to replace national identities in order to achieve its goal.
In fact, it's goal, aka making war between European nations not only unthinkable but materially impossible, has already being achieved.

You can try once again twisting my or Mayhem's words in a, to be quite honest, dishonest and pathetic attempt at.... I don't know... win a point? But the reality of how things went is pretty clear.
The EU is a project born from the destruction caused by two wars aiming at prosperity and stability.
Once again, your comparison between the EU and the USA or ANY country is pretty void.
There is no comparison to be made because, as Annette schwartz once stated, EU is a union, not a country.

And you HAD to write this didn't you.
Like... you felt COMPELLED to sit down and write this didn't you.

If it is not a country why do you feel the need to argue it has some epic foundation story, that WW1 and 2 were its founding wars? If its not a country you could have simply said "It's not a country." You only now bring that up when me and Kuntantee both pointed out that people seem to want to make it a country. Why have you waited THIS long to now say "Oh but the EU isn't a country!"

So the EU isn't a State, then obviously no wars were ever fought to found it. I remain correct in my original position either way.

[Deleted]

A... calamity from the skies! Jenova!

i think calmity means disaster but yeah basically a massive disaster would have to happen in order for the eu to truly collapse and disappear but im no science student so im not entirely sure

[Deleted]

Yep, that's actually my profession, historian and fact checker.

Unfortunately you didn't check the context of this discussion though. We're talking about the EU. Not the concept of a United europe which has been coming and going throughout the centuries.

[Tipton]

Why are you so sure that two individual countries wouldn't go to war after ww2?

NATO, Warsaw Pact, ect.

The EU made war between European countries impossible by interlinking their economies. If France invades Germany, everything collapse and we all go back to the donkey.

And oddly enough it's the EU that is the indirect cause of the current crisis in Ukraine, and a possible flashpoint in another European war. If that fires off, we'll wish we could go back to the Donkey.

[Deleted]

If it is not a country why do you feel the need to argue it has some epic foundation story, that WW1 and 2 were its founding wars? If its not a country you could have simply said "It's not a country." You only now bring that up when me and Kuntantee both pointed out that people seem to want to make it a country. Why have you waited THIS long to now say "Oh but the EU isn't a country!"

So the EU isn't a State, then obviously no wars were ever fought to found it. I remain correct in my original position either way.

I never argued that.
Kuntantee stated "EU identity was created out of prosperity and convenience", which is a false claim, as it was created out of desperation and destruction, aiming at prosperity and convenience. A goal it largely achieved.
The point about the EU having some sort of epic beginning out of blood and steel and mashed guts was put forward by you. And also the concept of national identity, which once again is not really appropriate in this setting, was put forward by you.
I am telling you now why your reasoning is faulty. It's built on a wrong comparison.
You should actually be thanking me

- - - Updated - - -

NATO, Warsaw Pact, ect.



And oddly enough it's the EU that is the indirect cause of the current crisis in Ukraine, and a possible flashpoint in another European war. If that fires off, we'll wish we could go back to the Donkey.

NATO is a military alliance, Warsaw pact is long gone.
Military alliance don't prevent wars. If anything they make sure they happen.
There's no European war being fought anytime soon what are you talking about?

[Deleted]

I am going the Kuntantee's point and expanding a bit to say, Unlike other countries that are forged in hardship, the EU is created to avoid future hardship. That neither inspires loyalty nor forges a nation but instead is a weak thing that will turn to dust in the face of adversity. The EU identity is created in prosperity and convenience. It will be forgotten when the very convenience and prosperity that created it ceases to exist. There is a reason why national identities persist; they are forged in hardship. When the party of prosperity runs dry, the EU will come apart. Heck the prosperity seems to be already dead for many of its people.

The United States (And I only make the comparison because others keep saying United States of Europe) on the other hand has a war FOUGHT FOR IT. Not a war that in response they decided to form a country.

So as a comparison, the American War of Independence was fought very much to create a new nation free of a colonial overlord. People willingly gave their lives for the "American Project."

What you and Djalil seem to be engaged in is a Lammy style rewrite in which WW1 and WW2 which were fought for various reasons, none of which was to found the Steel and Coal commission or create the EU or create a new Unitary State of Europe. After that chaotic period some people came up with an idea, a few even thought of create a new Nation State out of it eventually.

The difference is the US is forged in the adversity of a struggle against something and a victory against that thing. The EU is created, well to avoid ever feeling hardship again. Kuntantee makes the salient point of asking, "Will the EU hold on when the hardships return and prosperity is over?" Maybe you are one of those types who believes the party will be everlasting and eternal. Who knows, but I think Kuntantee makes a solid point and I concur with his reasoning.

You describe the very problem of your argument in the first paragraph.

When will that prosperity and convenience cease to exist? That is my entire point - it will require so much for those two things to disappear.

See, even as a European federalist I don't believe in the silly European 'nation-building', because quite frankly, there's nothing that truly unites us all in Europe besides being in Europe (and even that is arguable, with the case of Cyprus). The union was never created for any purpose other than preventing war and pragmatism, such as trade. Peace and less regulations across borders creates better lifes for most European citizens.

So... 'will the EU hold on when the hardships return and prosperity is over'? The answer to that question is that that's a dumb question. Because already now there's quite a lot of problems in the EU - increased polarizing, Brexit, Russia looming over in the east, refugee crisis, ecomomic crisis... and even a lot of problems with the EU as an institution. These are hardships. And even then the EU is standing strong because the prosperity isn't over. You want to know what the alternative to the EU is? Individual nation-states with their own rules. That's a catastrophe scenario, any person working within science or economics can tell you that much. 'Prosperity is over' when the different nation-states of Europe can trade with themselves without needing a supranational body to create policies and regulate trade... which, you know, will never happen.

- - - Updated - - -

I am not convinced it was that peaceful...


War of the Oranges (1801)

Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815)

Greek War of Independence (1821-1832)

French invasion of Spain (1823)

Liberal Wars (1828-1834)

First Carlist War (1833-1840)

Second Carlist War (1846-1849)

Hungarian Revolution and War of Independence (1848-1849)

First Schleswig War (1848-1851)

Wars of Italian Independence (1848–1866)

Crimean War (1854–1856)

Second Schleswig War (1864)

Austro-Prussian War (1866)

Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871)

Third Carlist War (1872-1876)

Serbo-Bulgarian War (1885)

Well, it was 'peaceful' in the sense that the major powers never squabbled (except during the Napoleonic wars) like they did in the previous centuries.

[Deleted]

Unfortunately you didn't check the context of this discussion though. We're talking about the EU. Not the concept of a United europe which has been coming and going throughout the centuries.

I did checked the thread and the concept of EU came from those centuries old ideals. The EU is precisely the Napoleon's wet dream of an open peaceful Europe with a free market.

[Kalis]

Well, it was 'peaceful' in the sense that the major powers never squabbled (except during the Napoleonic wars) like they did in the previous centuries.

Britain & France vs Russia in the Crimean War.

Germany vs France in the Franco-Prussian War.

Wars between the major powers came about once every generation. WWI was just over 40 years after the Franco-Prussian War as well, WWII a generation after that.

We were pretty predictable.

- - - Updated - - -

I did checked the thread and the concept of EU came from those centuries old ideals. The EU is precisely the Napoleon's wet dream of an open peaceful Europe with a free market.

Napoleon having similar ideals does not mean that the EU came about due to Napoleon, you are synthesising a link there.

[Deleted]

Napoleon having similar ideals does not mean that the EU came about due to Napoleon, you are synthesising a link there.

Actually, he did pushed the right dominoes towards it when he abolished the Holy Roman Empire and created the Confederation of the Rhine and the Republic (later Kingdom) of Italy.

[Kalis]

Actually, he did pushed the right dominoes towards it when he abolished the Holy Roman Empire and created the Confederation of the Rhine.

Lots of things led indirectly to the creation of the EU, including the invention of gunpowder and discovering fire, however unless you can prove that Napoleon's ideas led to the creation of the EU it gets scratched off as a direct reason.

[Thelin]

- - - Updated - - -
Military alliance don't prevent wars. If anything they make sure they happen.

Not sure I agree with that. Without NATO's article in terms of military defense of fellow members you can bet for damn sure Russia would be creeping inward to regain land it lost after the USSR broke up.

Same with China pestering everybody in the Asian Pacific.

Military alliances are a deterrent more than a catalyst.

[Deleted]

Lots of things led indirectly to the creation of the EU, including the invention of gunpowder and discovering fire, however unless you can prove that Napoleon's ideas led to the creation of the EU it gets scratched off as a direct reason.

It's defining moment because he was the first to implement the ideal of united europe through liberalism and nationalism. Even with his defeat, his ideals continued with liberal revolutions around the world and nationalism being the foundation of nations like Germany and Italy.

I never once stated that he is the main reason why there is an European Union, but that his dreams were what started the process of an european unification.

[Kalis]

It's defining moment because he was the first to implement the ideal of united europe through liberalism and nationalism. Even with his defeat, his ideals continued with liberal revolutions around the world and nationalism being the foundation of nations like Germany and Italy.

No, that does not mean the EU had anything to do with the French Revolution or Napoleon.

You need to show that B was a result of A, not that A & B look a bit alike, so must be related.

[Deleted]

No, that does not mean the EU had anything to do with the French Revolution or Napoleon.

You need to show that B was a result of A, not that A & B look a bit alike, so must be related.

http://www.napoleon-series.org/resea...ification.html

Just one article from many.

[Deleted]

Not sure I agree with that. Without NATO's article in terms of military defense of fellow members you can bet for damn sure Russia would be creeping inward to regain land it lost after the USSR broke up.

Same with China pestering everybody in the Asian Pacific.

Military alliances are a deterrent more than a catalyst.

Russia won't do that because they're an open economy and doing that would destroy them more than any war.