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 1949: NATO founded 1949-Present: No major European wars 2018: "NATO's stupid. What does it do for us anyway?"
-
-
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 threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This happened for centuries under Rome. Happened under Napoleon. Those are just off the top of my head. Its not unusual for lesser nations to place their armies under the command of a greater. Hegemony. I'm not saying rest of your points aren't valid, but this one doesn't stick.
-
Those were usually less voluntary. And often involved small principalities or city-states, rather than sovereign nations. You're right that something similar has happened before. But that's why I wrote "rare" instead of "unprecedented."
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This is just a redefinition downward of "sovereign". Emperors have commanded the generals of their vassal states and auxiliaries in every empire in history. It's pretty much the defining attribute of empire, whether British, Roman, Ottoman, Mongol, Russian, or American.
-
Quibble with the word "sovereign" if you like, but don't ignore the word "voluntarily." Many of those you listed weren't voluntary.
-
"Voluntary" isn't a simple binary, or even a one-dimensional scale of shades of gray; it's a question of traditions, consequences, hopes, ambition, risks, and quid pro quo. Would the Treaty of Titalia have returned Sikkim's land without their help against the Gurkhas?
-
Would Sikkim have continued to exist at all in the 1820s without their alliance with the British? They voluntarily allied with the British and fought under them for a century — but what was their alternative?
-
Similarly, you're suggesting that NATO has prevented WWIII from breaking out in Europe for over half a century. But—quite aside from questions about CIA subversion and US-written constitutions—if that was really the alternative, how "voluntary" was it?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
America also has the largest military in history by far and compared to all NATO members combined. I don't think it's a matter of rarity....
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Because I truly believe that Trump & his ignorant racist hateful base needs a lesson in history & they should also team up with NBC as well2
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I think the History Channel should partner up with CBS ABC Fox and pick a weekend and show the entirety of how NATO came to be..1/
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.