Without WWI, could something similar to the EU have been created?

Jan 2014
989
Rus
#11
Britain was a naval power. British military/army was not in the top 5 in Europe. It had no enough population for that.What are you talking about?
About politics of France which was dependent from British since 1814. About creation of Germany and Italy. About preventing Turkish defeat in 1878.
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
12,770
Europix
#12
Such Unions can be create only under one dominate power. EU created under domination of USA. Before WWI no one In Europe had power to unite power....
Not necessarily true.

There are two things that are (way too often, IMHO) overlooked in all EU related analysis and talks, even in speculations like this one.

1. France.

Because of Germany's economic success after WWIi (but also the recurrent "Germany taking over Europe since ever" meme), people ignore that it's not Germany, but Germany & France.

One of the keys of EU is the improbable German French couple. EU exists largely because the existence of this couple.

2. BeNeLux.

Some name the 3 countries (Belgium, Netherlands,Luxembourg) "Mini-Europe".

Inspite of their "smalitude" they were (and still are) instrumental in the creation and existence of EU.

They brought a certain culture of "political compromise" in the sense of searching and finding a viable common ground even in most improbable situations, a political culture that it's less present in other places.

One last thing: EU isn't a creation of US.

It was convenient (for a period) for US, but US didn't created it, didn't pushed for it.
 
Last edited:

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,201
Sydney
#13
"One last thing: EU isn't a creation of US. "
an unified Europe is a direct competitor for the US in term of economic power

the US is riding on the back of the US dollar being the world trading currency
it allow the US to have the "printing " of US dollar as its largest export by far
an Euro could substitute for it ,
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
12,770
Europix
#14
an unified Europe is a direct competitor for the US in term of economic power
iMHO, that isn't a bad thing in itself. The "competitor" becomes a bad thing when it's coupled with "adversity", "enmity". A sane competition is an effective booster.

If You think a bit, France and Germany are competitors, but it doesn't disserve neither of them. EU became a closer competitor for US for some time, and that didn't exactly disserved either.
 
Jan 2014
989
Rus
#15
Not necessarily true.

There are two things that are (way too often, IMHO) overlooked in all EU related analysis and talks, even in speculations like this one.

1. France.

Because of Germany's economic success after WWIi (but also the recurrent "Germany taking over Europe since ever" meme), people ignore that it's not Germany, but Germany & France.

One of the keys of EU is the improbable German French couple. EU exists largely because the existence of this couple.

2. BeNeLux.

Some name the 3 countries (Belgium, Netherlands,Luxembourg) "Mini-Europe".

Inspite of their "smalitude" they were (and still are) instrumental in the creation and existence of EU.

They brought a certain culture of "political compromise" in the sense of searching and finding a viable common ground even in most improbable situations, a political culture that it's less present in other places.

One last thing: EU isn't a creation of US.

It was convenient (for a period) for US, but US didn't created it, didn't pushed for it.
France and Germany
France and Germany will not be able to create deep union if they would be fully selfdependent. They forced to live on american laws, so they have no much tensions.

Now Brussel are gradually becoming separate thing which stands over all European states. And Belgium is transforming to Brussel's contado. Belgium's proper government was weakened by division on Wallon-Flemish and other actions. Now, i think, EU and NATO headquarters (thay appeared in same city "accidentally") much more powerful in Brussel than Belgian government.

Remember last case with Puigdemont which flew to Belgia. Did to Belgia? He flew to EU and NATO's Brussel. Thats why Spain couldnt do nothing to him.
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
12,770
Europix
#17
France and Germany will not be able to create deep union if they would be fully selfdependent. They forced to live on american laws, so they have no much tensions. ... .
Slavon, I was talking about the formation of the EU and about EU until now.

A couple of young politicians had the dream of a peaceful, cooperating Europe, before the WWII even ended.

At the end of the WWII, while a part Europe was still in ruins a couple of French, Belgian, Luxembourgish, Dutch, giving their hand to Germans. They dared to promote rebuilding Europe together with Germans and Italians. While the N├╝rnberg trial was going on. While the world was discovering the horror of the gas chambers.

Can You imagine how strong was their dream? You realise how hard they had to fight to follow that dream?

No Slavon, without those European dreamers, no US, no URSS could have imposed something like that. It came from inside, not from outside.

And You know it all too well: once CCCP released the power, the even the shadow of communism vanished from the entire Eastern Europe in a blink of an eye.



... Now Brussel are gradually becoming separate thing which stands over all European states. And Belgium is transforming to Brussel's contado. Belgium's proper government was weakened by division on Wallon-Flemish and other actions. Now, i think, EU and NATO headquarters (thay appeared in same city "accidentally") much more powerful in Brussel than Belgian government.

Remember last case with Puigdemont which flew to Belgia. Did to Belgia? He flew to EU and NATO's Brussel. Thats why Spain couldnt do nothing to him.
I'm afraid You are mixing things.

The Flemish-Waloon issue has nothing to do with EU. It's almost as old as Belgium itself. With or without the existence of EU, the issue would still be there. The Belgian governement was wekened multiple times, and that also, long before the very idea of EU even existed.

Puidgemont didn't fled to NATO or EU, but in Belgium. His case was judged by Belgian national instances. His case was defended by a Belgian lawyer specialised in refugee/extradition trials against the Belgian (and not only) state. Just a small trivia: in the 50-60, Belgium had high political tensions with France because it gave refuge to French nationals pursued for "terorism" by France (it was in the Algerian war period).

Heck, Karl Marx, Victor Hugo, found refuge in Brussels. Belgium has a history of giving refuge to politicly undesirable persons.

But Europe is direct subordinate for US in the term of political and idealogical power
Muah ... nope.
 
Jan 2014
989
Rus
#18
The Flemish-Waloon issue has nothing to do with EU. It's almost as old as Belgium itself. With or without the existence of EU, the issue would still be there. The Belgian governement was wekened multiple times, and that also, long before the very idea of EU even existed.
As i know division was established oficially in 1980s.
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
4,710
#19
But Europe is direct subordinate for US in the term of political and idealogical power
No it's not. The US European allies are less powerful, and most lack the full spectrum capabilities of the US. But they're not subordinate in any meaningful sense, i.e. the US cannot give them direct orders. (Viz the French, who have always understood the nature of rather better than most, meaning an insistence on independent French nuclear weapons, and removing themselves from the NATO peace-time command structure in the 1960s.)

Post-WWII the US set itself up as the hegemon power in relation to Europe. Part of the equation of hegemonic powers is that Hegemon actually can't directly demand compliance. It gets it because its allies are willing to give it, and that prerequiste for that is that the hegemon acts primarily in the interests of its allies, before its acts in its own self-interest.

It's also why the US under Trump is failing the alliance it built in Europe. (Helped by the fact that many Americans have been confused whether the Europeans are assumed subjects (to be commanded), when they're allies (to be persuaded).)

But it's also an aspect of the situation that the Soviet Union never quite understood. And one that Russia in its current form more or less refuses to understand.
 
Jun 2017
2,517
Connecticut
#20
No. UK's entire foreign policy was opposition to a united Europe(something that clearly never fully died) and France's foreign policy was all about revenge against Germany. EU rose from the ashes of the two world wars and the defeat of every mainland European great power. Without the defeat of all the mainland European great powers no reason for closer ties and there would be periodic coalition warfare same way there had been ever since the early modern period. In OTL the only remaining powerful forces were outside of Europe and there was no longer a point to jockey for power and it made sense to unify for economic reasons.
 

Similar History Discussions