There isn't a period of peace quite like it."Lancasterclaret wrote:Ringo
Yugoslavia was a civil war
Yugoslavia was not in Western Europe
In anytime you care to mention, the period of peace enjoyed by Western Europe is unprecedented in European history. There isn't a period of peace quite like it.
The war ended in 1945, but the US and Western allies disagreements with the Soviet Union had begun well before that when it became obvious that the democratic ideas of the West were not going to apply to anywhere in Eastern Europe. hence NATO was formed in 1948 ( a scant three years after the end of the deadliest war in humankind) because of the real and current threat from Soviet Russia.
The European Coal and Steel community came into being in 1950- the beginnings of the EU with six countries (two axis from the war, four allied) - in less than five years after the end of the war. Whether you like it or not, this is where people started to talk about peace, prosperity etc etc.
All done because of the threat from the East. All done because the realisation that democracy and the western way of life was under threat. That has lasted through the 50s. the 60s, the 70s, the 80s, the 90s, the 00s and beyond.
So the precursor of the EU is set up to help the peace and prosperity of Western Europe, along with NATO. Its unarguable that its contributed to peace and prosperity in Western Europe.
You might not like it, and we are leaving it, but its a vital part of the peace and prosperity that Western Europe enjoys.
Couldn't agree more. Thanks to NATO.
"The European Coal and Steel community". Now this is where your fixation with giving the EU credit it doesn't deserve goes into the realms of fantasy.
How the hell did a body set up by "6 European countries set up after World War II to regulate their industrial production under a centralised authority." Have anything, absolutely anything to do with keeping "Russia which was a credible threat to the west throughout that period." At bay!!!!???
To even suggest that an organisation that was set up to address heavy industrial processes, was responsible for European peace. And not NATO an organisation whose raison d-etre was to protect Europe from the perceived threat of Russia, is ridiculous.
"this is where people started to talk about peace, prosperity "
Laughable Lancaster claret, laughable. If Soviet Russia had decided to invade the West. What would have stopped them, or critically more importantly, made them think again. An organisation. Concerned about steel and coal production. That had sweet jack sh1t. Or an organisation armed to the teeth with weaponry. Weaponry that included nuclear? A NATO that in your very own words, " had a massive technological advantage, which is even more pronounced now. "
You know the answer. I know the answer.
You say it was a "precursor to the EU" that kept the peace in Europe. So even if it were true, ( which it's not) that it did keep the peace. If it was a "precursor to the EU". It wasn't actually the EU was it!!!! It was a "precursor"!!!
The only one single, constant, armed as an equal (or in your opinion, superior) to the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact/Russia. "That has lasted through the 50s. the 60s, the 70s, the 80s, the 90s, the 00s and beyond. Was NATO. Fact.
That's why I agree with the guy who said the followimg-
"but the NATO forces in the period had a massive technological advantage, which is even more pronounced now."
He also said,
"And because Nukes are so apocalyptic, it was the actual troops, guns, tanks, aircraft and ships of NATO that stopped Russia taking over Western Europe like it took over Eastern Europe."
And when he was referring to National Service who supplemented the regs who were part of NATO-
" Between 1945 and the early sixties over 2million young men did their National Service supplementing the regular military at a time when the Cold War was at its height. But for those (NS men you could well be speaking Russian today")
Your words Lancaster claret. Your words. If it wasn't for NATO we could speaking Russian now.........