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

Jun 2017
2,517
Connecticut
#21
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.
Suez Canal example contradicts this and demonstrates that if France and the UK were to act in opposition to US interests(UK had nukes at this point) that the US could directly demand compliance while example below shows the opposite would not happen. The US would have been able to do the same with the Falklands incident if they had an administration that so desired. The UK and France have veto power in the UN Security council and nuclear arsenals but barring their willingness to destroy the world(something their ability to do is far more doubtful than say Russia or China) the US has every conventional and soft power advantage necessary to force compliance or non interference if so desired.

Anyhow the best modern example that proves this point is post 1991. The modern post 1991 example where one of said powers vetoed a US foreign policy action on the UN Security council resulted in the US simply ignoring the UN Security Council and doing it anyway with no consequences whatsoever for exerting power beyond what it has within the international system. Said power would almost certainly not get away with the opposite scenario(which would be Suez). UN SC gives the great powers the ability to unilaterally veto anything they want, power beyond this allows great powers to ignore this limitation and the US has this power at least over France and the UK.
 
Jan 2014
989
Rus
#22
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.
What about American troops in Europe?
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
12,770
Europix
#23
As i know division was established oficially in 1980s.
Official division doesn't mean the Flemish-Walloon (more accurate would be Flemish-speaking/French-speaking) issues began there. It's one of the consequences.

You have time understand that Belgium made in it's history 6 state reforms (and the seventh is around the corner already). Since it's appearance, Belgium never experienced revolutions, nor extremely violent manifestations. One of the reasons is that the State, the system, was reformed to meet somehow the new contexts before internal tensions exploded. Until now, the politics and administration managed to evolve, to adapt, fairily well, continueslly.

But all it's rather complicated, and it's going to go way out of the OP if we continue.
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
12,770
Europix
#24
Suez Canal example contradicts this and demonstrates that if France and the UK were to act in opposition to US interests(UK had nukes at this point) that the US could directly demand compliance while example below shows the opposite would not happen. The US would have been able to do the same with the Falklands incident if they had an administration that so desired. The UK and France have veto power in the UN Security council and nuclear arsenals but barring their willingness to destroy the world(something their ability to do is far more doubtful than say Russia or China) the US has every conventional and soft power advantage necessary to force compliance or non interference if so desired.

Anyhow the best modern example that proves this point is post 1991. The modern post 1991 example where one of said powers vetoed a US foreign policy action on the UN Security council resulted in the US simply ignoring the UN Security Council and doing it anyway with no consequences whatsoever for exerting power beyond what it has within the international system. Said power would almost certainly not get away with the opposite scenario(which would be Suez). UN SC gives the great powers the ability to unilaterally veto anything they want, power beyond this allows great powers to ignore this limitation and the US has this power at least over France and the UK.
Sorry, but that isn't exactly a demonstration that European allies would be "subordinate". Would You consider Brazil or Zimbabwe "subordinates" of US? Don't think so.

It's simply that US is a superpower using it's position.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,201
Sydney
#25
One of the means of control of the US over Europe has always been to pump up the red menace , now the Russian scare to , hallucinogenic level
even to poke the bear if it doesn't cooperate in being scary enough
this has the added benefit of flogging high priced weapon systems on the European while destroying their native weapon industry

this keep Europe in a state of senile infancy , no indigenous weapon industry means no political independence
 
Likes: Slavon

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
4,710
#27
What about American troops in Europe?
What about them? They didn't make policy.

Unlike Russian troops, the US never interfered with domestic politics. More to the point, there was never any mechanism for the US to even try do so. They just had to trust that their allies would want to continue being their allies. That's also how it worked out. Because the Warsaw Pact was just across the border.

I know there's a certain popularity for the false equivalence of thinking the USSR and the Warsaw Pact had the same relationship as the US and NATO. Problem with that is how everyone in western Europe, and elsewhere, could observe the repeated object lessons of watching the USSR invade one of its allies trying to plot a different DOMESTIC policy course than the one approved by Moscow.

Besides, as soon as the USSR in the late 1980's signalled it was no longer willing to put its weight about to keep its European satellites in line, those all fell away from it and transformed politically in short order.

That's one aspect of difference between allies and satellites. And the USSR somehow never managed understand how to be a hegemon, and not simply try to rule, or why the former might work better.
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
4,710
#28
I feel those two statements mean the same thing.
It just means the US had economic leverages also against its allies when they did something the US regarded as not in not just in the US' best interests, but a bad idea generally. You will find very few other western European nations, not being the UK and France, who found Suez a good idea. The fact that the US acted against the UK and France in 1956 in no way means the UK and France were seen as acting on anyone's behalf, or interest, but their own.

There's an aspect of asymmetry to that, that still persists. The US has economic leverage it can use punitively against others, and none of it's European allies has the heft to retaliate in kind, with the same effect on the US. It's only the advent of the EU and its Common Market that has evened the score between the US and its European allies in that respect.

But what Suez 1956 meant was that the US wasn't going to accept foreign adventures in the form of the kind of colonial wars the British and French still had as an option before WWII in the post-WWII situation. It still doesn't mean the US could dictate policy to them (in that case Suez wouldn't have happened in the first place), or that it could directly intervene in UK or French domestic politics. Since it didn't. The financial leverages were highly effective, but precisely financial, and indirect.
 
Last edited:

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
4,710
#29
One of the means of control of the US over Europe has always been to pump up the red menace , now the Russian scare to , hallucinogenic level
even to poke the bear if it doesn't cooperate in being scary enough
this has the added benefit of flogging high priced weapon systems on the European while destroying their native weapon industry

this keep Europe in a state of senile infancy , no indigenous weapon industry means no political independence
That's pretty hysterical in itself.

What marks western Europe out as far as weapons industry in concerned, is the rank overcapacity and untenable multiplication of similar capabilities along national lines all over the place.

That's also something the EU level has been looking, to try to get around the national aspect of military industry, to get the Europe to pool some of the resources and avoid a BIT of the sheer waste the situation has produced.

Aggregate the EU exports about the same amount of weapons globally as the US or Russia does.

The US can to an extent oversell weapons to its European allies because it is still considered politically valuable to keep the US happy like that. (Norwegian F-35s etc.) The US can also pick up business by reselling older fighter aircraft (F-16s) to various countries in eastern Europe strapped for cash and without military industries (also a legacy of the Warsaw Pact, military stuff was built by the Soviets, which is why Ukraine still has a lot of it, but Poland fx doesn't, and the only ones to have built a bit of it subsequently are the Czechs). Leave Trump to it for a while, and that could change of course.

https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2018-03/fssipri_at2017_0.pdf
 

Similar History Discussions