NATO's Supreme Allied Commander is always an American. In NATO operations, sovereign nations place the forces they contribute (including generals!) under American command. Voluntarily. Do people not realize how rare that is in history?
-
-
Show this thread
-
Alliances aren't about making money. They're about having allies--the sort who fought and bled in Afghanistan after 9/11, even though they weren't attacked. But if you must make it about money--Would've cost billions for US to replace the thousands of allied troops in Afghanistan
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Sorry, this requires revision: "1870-71: Franco-Prussian War, 433K dead 1914-1918: WWI, 17.6M dead, including 116K Americans 1939-1945: WWII, 54M dead in Europe, including 277K Americans 1945: US atomic test 1949: Soviet atomic test 1949-Present: No major European wars"
-
The US is in North America. Why would an American capability deter war in Europe?
-
Sergey actually makes a good point. It is impossible to separate the events to figure out if one would've worked without the other.
-
Technically impossible to know for certain, of course. Just like any alternative history. However, there were major wars in Asia after both US and Soviet atomic tests, but not in Europe. NATO credibly extending American deterrence probably had something to do with that.
-
If we count Korea and Vietnam as "major wars", why aren't the Yugoslav Wars "major wars" in Europe?
-
Many more casualties, involvement of a great power on either side. But there isn't an accepted definition of major war--besides bigger and deadlier than a non-major war--so one could arguably draw the line in a few different places. Still, my point's about size, not the term.
-
Yes the size of the war was smaller but the death count approached 150000 which is not that small of a number.
-
Also NATO did do a series of air stirkes
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Don't forget the role the EU and its predecessors had on this lasting peace, along with being confronted by the horrors of WWI and WWII.
-
Of course. NATO's not the exclusive reason. ECSC, EEC, EU all played a significant role, as you note. I'm not sure if "being confronted by the horrors" is sufficient without the institutions and the commitments they both signal and cultivate. After all, there was a 2nd World War.
-
The horrors of WWII were orders of magnitude worse than the ones in WWI. We also witnessed what new horrors could be in stock for WWIII when Hiroshima and Nagasaki were burned to the ground in milliseconds. Institutions and reckoning were both key factors.
-
Absolutely. It's not either/or.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I think that the United Nations (1945) and the European Economic Community (predecessor of the European Union, 1957) played a bigger part in preventing major European wars than NATO.
-
It's not either/or
-
I said "bigger than" not either/or but I think you greatly overestimate the role of NATO in preventing inter-European conflict. The stated purpose was to ally against USSR. The de facto purpose is enabling USA's imperialist aims.
-
A lot of the USSR was in Europe. A big part of the Soviet Union's expansionist desires was in Europe. Deterring war with the USSR = preventing war in Europe.
-
In the sense that "forming a military pact that pushes all of it's members to the brink of war" prevents war, that is is correct.
-
There are many different ways to prevent war. Economic pacts is just as important as military pacts. They make a stronger bond than when the try to stand alone. Besides the EU hasn't been a perfect marriage either. What matters most is it works.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.