Come on, that's a silly thing to say, everyone's empires were significantly dismantled after WW2.
It's easy not to fight when there's nothing to fight over and you've got a massive bear beating at the door.
I'm not claiming the EU's done nothing, I think it's made Europe richer, increased growth, etc., I'm claiming the EU had nothing to do with peace in Europe. Europe would still be at peace today with or without a common market. Especially given that the UK didn't join for 25 years and a bunch more in the 80s and then more recently. And the UK invaded Egypt with France before they were both in the EEC.
That was NATO and mutual fear and needing protection from US doing that, not the EU. It was simply being in club capitalism and being very scared of club communism.
And the world changed, become smaller. Which developed nations have gone to war with each other since WW2? No European country invaded Norway for it's oil. The UK is seriously talking about letting Scotland drift away without going to war in it. Territory's not the same as it was.
Again, my claim is that Europe would still be at peace today with or without a common market, there's literally been no reason to fight.
You know, we could discuss all day about the big russian bear which held Europe together, that there were no reasons to fight and so on. But let's just take a look at this article:
And there the reason for the ECSC, as stated by its "father" Robert Schuman:
-----
He declared his aim was to "make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible" which was to be achieved by regional integration, of which the ECSC was the first step. The Treaty would create a common market for coal and steel among its member states which served to neutralise competition between European nations over natural resources, particularly in the Ruhr.
----
So, would Germany have attacked other countries again without the ECSC? No one knows, because crystal balls are bugged again. But we know that the stated reason for the ECSC (and everything that followed) was the fear that Germany would do this. And this fear lead to the idea of making war against each other impossible. And that worked quite well so far.
So what, European Unification-ists will say anything, it doesn't mean it's grounded in reality.
It's simply a political ideal, and an incredibly out-dated one at that. And I believe it's as deluded as communism, it's simply not how humans work. We don't share cultures, we have different values. Other countries are splitting up in the world today, splitting into their ethnic groups, where the EU is bizarrely trying to combine them.
The EU hasn't been tested. It's not had a single test because for decades the pressure the Cold War forced co-operation, and after the cold war finished we had a massive economic bubble, meaning everyone was swimming in cash.
We've finally had the crash and it doesn't look all that swimmingly amazing or stable in the EU any more.
You think if fascists seized control of Greece they would magically be peaceful because they're in the EU?
That's a nice theory, but the real data doesn't back it up.
In reality, it's a delusion to believe that ethnicities and cultures can be divided by national borders. This hasn't ever worked except maybe on some islands. And not even in Great Britain, which consists of islands.
Even after the crash, Europe (and each and every of its members) is immensely more wealthy than after WWII, and still more wealthy than ever before.
Fascists did seize control of Greece several times, never under EU membership though. The EU did force Greece to get its affairs in order. But it sure wasn't pretty to watch...
But how does that differ to WWII? Sure, reparations, polish corridor (not a reason at all), rise of fascism - but those things happened in a Europe that had sworn it would never fight again at Versailles. LN failed impressively because it was oriented around arms control and security pacts, rather than trade agreements - it attempted to treat the symptoms, not the cause. NATO isn't dissimilar, but functions as the economic end of things is looked after by the EU.
Fundamentally, it's hard to either prove or disprove, as the only reference points we have are other similar historical contexts, but my money is on trade being a great enabler. Worked for the Romans, until they switched to military dominance (because they ended up with a plutarchy due to the traders (senators) getting richer, who ended up with private armies), at which point it all fell apart. Again, many other factors, and all of history is a great big murk from which we have to try to model what happens today.
The 'reason to fight' is the whole difference. In 1930ies, there were all kinds of practical reasons for European nations to win wars of conquest against their neighbours - that would bring them immediate practical and economic benefits, which would offset the costs of that military action unless it escalated to a world war. Especially after Versailles, there were many reasons to fight in Europe.
In 2000, however, there are no practical reasons for such wars (at least in Europe), as annexing a part of your neighbour would gain you little and hurt you a lot due to the trade impact.
> Which developed nations have gone to war with each other since WW2?
Which non-European developed countries have previously gone to war with each other as regularly as European nations?
Also compare the situation in Europe to that in e.g. east Asia with its rather curious barking over tiny islands or even eastern, non-EU Europe where an independent nation was just invaded.
> Which developed nations have gone to war with each other since WW2?
Yugoslavia on the one side and NATO on the other. Like, twice. (And those may have started as internal Yugoslav conflicts, but then, WW1 started as an internal Austro-Hungarian conflict, too.)
It's easy not to fight when there's nothing to fight over and you've got a massive bear beating at the door.
I'm not claiming the EU's done nothing, I think it's made Europe richer, increased growth, etc., I'm claiming the EU had nothing to do with peace in Europe. Europe would still be at peace today with or without a common market. Especially given that the UK didn't join for 25 years and a bunch more in the 80s and then more recently. And the UK invaded Egypt with France before they were both in the EEC.
That was NATO and mutual fear and needing protection from US doing that, not the EU. It was simply being in club capitalism and being very scared of club communism.
And the world changed, become smaller. Which developed nations have gone to war with each other since WW2? No European country invaded Norway for it's oil. The UK is seriously talking about letting Scotland drift away without going to war in it. Territory's not the same as it was.
Again, my claim is that Europe would still be at peace today with or without a common market, there's literally been no reason to fight.