Jebus said:
Indeed, but at least let’s keep it polite. No reason to get flame happy though.
My schtick here is that it seems the Euros are getting happy bashing the US which is fair, up to a point.
But I am not sure if that debt is repayable at all.
You're right, in some ways it is a debt that can never be repayed. But still, in the momentum of WWII, Europe has given in to the USA in many ways. Don't forget: before WWII, Europe ruled the world.
Yes, and no. It was countries like England and France that had colonial empires that insulated them from the more dramatic effects of the Great Depression. But even those colonies were on the way out. These countries provided you with both a source of natural resources and real cheap labor. While World War 1 and World War 2 might have been a catalyst for the end of that system, nationalist and independence movements were often already beginning to show. Absence of those colonies didn’t condition other states- like Italy and Germany, and was one of the grievances for the origins of the Second World War.
So yes, Europe did virtually rule the world. The US was economically more powerful by the end of the 19th Century and should have taken it’s place among world leaders- an move begun in earnest by T. Roosevelt but not recognized until after World War 1.
I agree that Americans have to get off that "We saved your ass in World War 2 (and World War 1 too- incidently)" and get down to reality a bit more.
And it would be about damned time. WWII happened in another age. (litterally)
And about WWI: don't forget that the USA were actually close to joining Germany's side in that war. After all, back then there was a *very* strong German lobby in the USA. They basically only joined the other side because that side was the weakest - that way they could disable a strong economic and militaric competitor.
And one of the reasons for the growth in the US, we took the tired, poor and oppressed of Europe and gave them jobs, taking advantage of excess labor. Yes, the German lobby was strong. Most Americans can still trace their origins to Germany (perhaps a reason why many Americans feel ‘uber alles’?)
But I think PS points out well enough that the US probably would not have joined the war. If anything Wilson was having trouble convincing the US to join the war on behalf of England. I credit much of that to shared interest- the liquidity and free flow of capital.
The other reason was because Kaiser Willie was an asshole.
Lesson 1- the Euros can't be trusted to take care of themselves. (example- see rivalries between states).
Oh sure. May I just point out that in the last decade or so, the USA mainly tried to stop the EU from growing too tight? (example - see recent protest from the USA against the formation of a unified European army)
The EU grew based on the realization of the Europeans that they needed to consider economics of scale. The Euros were threatened by both the US and Asia as market competitors. Look at many of the early anti-trust cases and they are usually being used as a sledge hammer against foreign competition. By growing through a common market the Europeans hoped to achieve better economic competition.
Not really a bad thing- While the US can be considered a national state (which the EU cannot yet be, although it might yet become) the US is also a large common market made up of 50 semi-sovereign bodies regulated through a centralized bureaucracy- what EU is trying to become.
As for an EU army- has been developed, but mostly as a French-German project. That’s great, take the two countries that have the longest military traditions, have conquered the most, give them international reach and see what happens to the rest of the EU. Actually much of the case against an EU army has to do with the removal of the US.
Of course once the US is gone it will be difficult for the US to come back in. This was one reason for all the scurrying at the end of the Cold War not to end NATO. There were two basic reasons for NATO-
(1) keep out the Soviets
(2) keep down the Germans- primarily keep the Europeans from competing against each other.
And let’s be fair, without NATO there could have been no EU.
Why? Because the US plays of the role of balancing and the institution keeps the armies focused. By focusing NATO against the Russians, the countries of Europe didn’t have to worry about building militaries against each other, about the danger of invasion of their neighbor (oops the Germans have gone into Alsace Lorraine, again!) and it could keep potential enemies from fighting it out (a Greek – Turkish war would be bad for NATO so let’s not let those hostilities heat up). This allowed those countries to concentrate on internal issues- social welfare policies and economic development.
NATO provided the integrated security system, allowing the EU to grow through a common market into a European Union- potentially on the way to becoming a big macro-state of integrated Europe.
Which is great for the French who have seen themselves as the natural leaders of Europe. After all they have the superior culture, cuisine and chicks.
Lesson 3- Because of our history and economic ties, things that happen in Europe will economic and social conditions in the US. Because we don't want the Europeans fucking up our quality of life, we have to stop them from fucking up their own continent.
You don't need to worry about Europe fucking up the American quality of life. The American government is doing that all by theirselves.
You’ll get no argument there. The Republicans are doing a great job letting our quality of life slip. By emphasizing family values and the danger of gay marriage to our “traditional values” we are neglecting issues like the decline of the middle class and the failure of our educational system.
Americans note- that this is one of the reasons why the Europeans have a really wonderful quality of life- why Johnny Depp prefers France to Southern California.
Therefore, the US has to keep it's nose in the European continent- frequently stop them from going to war with each other and killing each other.
Allright, outside of Yugoslavia (which was an internal affair) I'd really like to know when, ever since WWII, there was ever a threat of war between European states?
You mean after World War 2 or after the Cold War? Let’s be fair that the French developed their own nuclear weapons so they could have their own nuclear deterrent against the Soviets.
Well, let’s see. Italy did invade Albania recently (for the same reason the US intervenes in Haiti), Turks and Greeks would like to fight it out. Spain and Portugual had facist states for an awfully long time, I remember Iceland and England duking it out over fish, there is that whole Northern Ireland thing, the ETA thing. If you count Eastern Europe, you have had Russian in Moldova and much of Eastern Europe, you also had them invade Hungry and Czechoslovakia, and we can arguably say that most of the countries were occupied by an outside army for about 30 plus years. But that’s if you count Eastern Europe.
While the willingness of Eastern European countries to open their territory to new NATO bases might be seen as kissing up to Western Europe and the US, the reasons might have to do with fairly realistic fears of Russia and it’s meddling in the Russian near-abroad.
Let’s also not forget that the European record with meddling internationally is not that much better than the US.
While it's true that the governments in Europe are a lot different today then back then, in some ways they are still a bunch of cranky old bastards living in an old age home who can't get along and might just try wrestling, even if it breaks their bones.
Heh? European states get along wonderfully. Take France and Germany, for example - they have an enormous history of rivalry between each other. Nowadays, they are as close as two nations can be. And that's the same between all countries in Europe. The only reason why mayor differences occur between European nations nowadays, is because of the USA. Example: Iraq.
Yes, but then you got the Italians messing it up.
The recent relationship between Germany and France has been an alliance growing over a long time and with much hard work. There is no natural affinity between these two states, and again, short of a NATO structure, I doubt it would have worked at all. Now you have the two powerful continental powers working together rather than against each other, a natural balance when compared to the extra-european threats that are posed against them.
Sure, there has been a little argument recently between Poland and Germany about the stability pact, but you can hardly call that a mayor diplomatic issue.
Last time I was in Europe the big problem was the power of German currency. There is also ability of domestic agriculture to muck up politics.
For a long read on the recurring problems and agreements that made EU, check out
Andrew Moravcsik, The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht. Interesting read on the conflicts and bargains of Europe. But note that it misses one big variable- the issue of security making all those economic/trade bargains possible.
Moravcsik writes a lot about Europe. A search on infotrac (if you have access) can provide a lot about Europe for those interested.
Europe is different from the US. We can learn things from them. For instance if we all followed the French lifestyle our asses wouldn't be so damn fat and we wouldn't be dieing of heart disease.
And 30% of the American population wouldn't be poor (and thus there would be less crime), and the American school system would actually teach children something. (example: last week an American girl, age 19, asked me if we have natives in Europe.)
We have actually had the big debates between individualism vs communitarianism that distinguishes Europe from the US. We actually had a big series here that was reprinted from the Economist
Lesson 5 - Euro chicks are hot. If you ignore the historical lessons that they teach us about our origins and the history of the world, the culture or the art, at least check out the chicks.
Leave our chicks alone. They're ours!
Indeed, yet one of the benefits of each world war has been war brides, one of the reason for the baby boom following World War 2.
Lesson 6 - Europe has it's own way of doing things. Trying to figure it out will only give you a head ache. Let them do what they want to. In the US we generally mind each other's business- that's being a good neighbor. Europe is the say way. Sometimes you want to borrow their lawn mower and maybe have them over for BBQ, but try to stay out of their family squabbles because they really don't want you in there. (But note- Lessons 1,2 & 3)
Word. Of course, there aren't any squabbles in Europe where the USA could even make the slightest differences, so that doesn't matter.
That overstates the point a bit. There are plenty of squabbles that the US has made a significant difference, as you pointed out regarding a European Military. We need not point to the Cold War or more recent issues over Yugoslavia.
One recurring theme though has been regionalism. In part the move to create a regional block of an integrated North-South America is in part a response to the EU and it’s sphere of influence.
But generally speaking the US is not that interested in your domestic politics as you shouldn’t be that interested in our domestic politics. Good neighbors means mind your own damn business. While Americans watch and sometimes worry about domestic issues- nasty French farmers, German response to Neo-Nazis, Italian fashion models. Generally speaking most Americans are fairly clueless about Europe. But if you think that’s bad, we know nothing about Canada except that it’s big, white, has trees and polar bears and maybe they have some French speakers.
But to say the US shouldn’t butt it’s nose in, is a bit silly. The US regularly is involved in Europe and Europe is regularly involved in the US. The reason is global capitalization. If you look at the transfers of capital and information around the world, most of it happens between the US and Europe. Look at how the infrastructure of the internet has been laid, with fiber optic cable under the oceans- it’s mostly a matter of the US and Europe. If anything we are closer now than we were before the World Wars- what happens in the US reverberates in Europe and what happens in Europe reverberates in the US.
As PS points out, one cannot realistically expect the US to turn it’s back on events in Europe. The idea of national security rests on the notion of values, what do you value most. Usually that comes down to a matter of quality of life (or having life). As the Europeans affect the quality of life in the US, we take events in Europe very seriously. (Thus lessons 1,2,3)
Lesson 7 - while we might be the big dog on the block, sooner or later another one is going to come a long. Better that it's a big dog that we can get along with than one we don't. Maybe one day Europe will become a big super state with lots of unique sub-cultures but still possessing a legal order, bureaucracy, compulsory jurisdiction over a territory and a monopoly of the legitimate use of force (see Weber for definition of a modern state). If it happens it's a lot better that we can sort our differences out over a beer than over guns.
My, my. diplomacy? I didn't know the USA did that shit.
Tsk tsk, we do diplomacy. We negotiated weapons pacts and treaties and helped keep the world from nuking itself. So the current monkey in the white house excepted, we do diplomacy too.
Just as long as you as you buy McDonalds-
Because no two countries with McDonalds have ever gone to war with each other.
(Once again America’s fat ass has saved the world from war.)
I don't think France ever really paid a debt for World War 2. But I am not sure if that debt is repayable at all.
Twobladed sword, baby. Besides which, there's something inherently evil in calling in favours for debts like those, it kind of takes the goodness out of the act
I agree Kharn, but my point was more that we shouldn’t expect courtesy. In fact I think the idea of America expecting courtesy, respect or gratefulness from anyone is just pussy.
America is like a big grizzly bear. It’s big and sometimes nasty, moves at it’s own pace and is fierce if you piss it off so best leave it alone. It dominates but shouldn’t have to push it’s weight around. It should expect nor receive gratitude for what it does for itself. But most of all, even if it occasionally has friends, in the end it walks alone.
You can’t really compare a state of Europe with the US. None of the states in Europe are comparable in matters of power. This was true even before the World Wars (with the exception of Russia), but it took both wars to make that clear.
welsh said:
Lesson 1- the Euros can't be trusted to take care of themselves. (example- see rivalries between states).
Lesson 2- they like to fight with each other over stupid shit, and they are crazy enough to virtually wipe each other out. Example of stupid shit - see facism. Example of "wipe each other out" see World War 2, see Yugoslavia.
Joking right? Of course we can't live with each other spotlessely, but name one continent that can. That's such bullshit, welsh.
The history of the modern state system originates in Europe and was passed along to the rest of the world through colonialism. No corner of the world do you have as many states involved in commerce and capital exchange, even among themselves. That you have had, historically, so many strong powers in a comparatively small geography meant that states would bump up into each other. Until the middle of the 20th Century, the nexus of international exchange was Europe. Europe was the center in which decisions were made, where things happened. No wonder you kept fighting amongst each other.
But it was because you folks couldn’t get along that two outside powers (and lets think of Russia as historically both as a European and Asian power and the US as a European power in terms of cultural origins only) came along and became the two poles around which the rest of the world rotated.
So yes, there are lots of wars in Africa- but for the most part no one cares because the people there don’t matter. This is why we can turn our backs on a humanitarian disaster like Congo and yet pay so much damn attention to a bunch of arrogant Serbs and Kosovars living in the armpit of Europe. Likewise we can turn our backs on occasional interventions in Latin America- and most of this was in Central America- the indirect empire of the US as much of Africa is of Europe. Even in those cases, interventions and wars were predicated on economic relations not created by the US (which is why Costa Rica has been war free while Nicraragua, Quatemala and others are not). That there are wars in Asia were over nationalism and ideology, that there are wars in the middle east are over oil and ethnicity. Not much in the way of war in Latin America though (and remember that’s part of the US sphere of influence).
The reason why it matters in Europe is that there is a lot of power there, that the neighborhood is crowded, and that you can’t agree because of your national (thereby constructed) identities.
The rise in nationalism was part of the cause of World War 1, the notion of national right and supremacy was part of World War 2. No other corner of the world has started a world war. Indeed, it’s not a surprise that most of histories most important wars take place in Europe- for there in lies the cradle of the modern national state system.
"can't be trusted to take care of themselves" implies that we need constant supervision just to keep ourselves alive. That's simply not true.
You're not claiming the USA never had any trouble? Or Africa? Middle-East? South-America? Are you truely going to claim that Europe is currently the worst amongst these?
Of course not. The US had it’s growing pains. Africa, Middle East. South America has been generally much more peaceful than either. The wars within Africa were pretty bad before the European arrived. Fair enough. But it took Belgium to wipe out 1/3 of the population of the Congo during colonialism in order to get ivory and rubber which were shipped to Europe for your luxury and manufactured goods. Therein lies the rub. The only reason why you saw the creation of social programs in European colonies of Africa was because too many people were dieing under colonialism that you were virtually depopulating the continent.
But the difference is a matter of importance. Europe is more important. The wars there have been more devastating. Yes, a genocide in Cambodia, a terrible war in Korea and Vietnam- but they don’t compare to the wars you have seen in Europe over the last 100 years.
Ok, someone will say, “that was then, this is now.” But it is the arrogance of each generation that they think they will not repeat the mistakes of the past, and thereby fail to learn the lessons of history.
welsh said:
Lesson 3- Because of our history and economic ties, things that happen in Europe will economic and social conditions in the US. Because we don't want the Europeans fucking up our quality of life, we have to stop them from fucking up their own continent.
You have no right. The US directly influences the way of living of Europe, yet we have no right to involve ourselves, unasked, in your affairs (UN matters aside). Equally, the US simply has no right to "stop us from fucking up our continent", these are affairs of only the Europeans and the UN.
Bullshit. Come on Kharn. You had no write to colonize most of the world and have that world power that Jebus was so proud of. You did it because you had power. You have no right to maintain neo-colonial relations, to set the interest rates on loans at levels that countries can not possibly repay them.
Right? What the fuck is right? There are no “rights” there is only power. It is power that determines what is a “Right” and what gets done.
The Europeans have and can regularly stick your noses in our affairs. Remember those trade connections? We are constantly doing business with each other.
And yes we do have an interest in keeping the Europeans from fucking up their continent. Twice in the history of the last century we let you folks fuck up your continent, and twice we lost people in trying to sort out the mess. No offense but if we can prevent a third round, we should.
There are a number of reasons why the world has not seen a major war in the last 50 or so years. One is nuclear weapons- which makes the cost of war to much to bear. The second is that the US and Soviets pretty much came down to a set of norms in how they behaved and neither were prone to do the stupid thing but kept the world pretty much divided between the East and the West. But if there was a third, it was this- the Europeans didn’t get to fuck themselves up again.
If you could take care of yourselves there would be no Kosovo problem. Hell if the Germans hadn’t recognized the sovereignty of break away republics when Yugoslavia was falling apart, there might have been no civil war in Yugoslavia (although I think that is unlikely as well). If you could take care of yourselves there would have been no Dayton, and the US wouldn’t have gotten involved in negotiating over Northern Ireland. If you could take care of yourselves, France might not have dropped out of NATO and maybe we would have been sure they would maintain a deterrence against the Soviets, that Turkey and Greece wouldn’t fight.
welsh said:
Therefore, the US has to keep it's nose in the European continent- frequently stop them from going to war with each other and killing each other.
Yes! Quickly intervene before the English attack the Germans! Oh no, the Russians are poised to invade Poland! We MUST STOP THEM
The nice thing about the last generation of the Europeans was that they remembered World War 2. But in the next generation of Germans you will have leaders who ask, “Hey we are the richest of the Europeans? We are the most populace, the biggest, the most industrial? We have a great culture….. Why shouldn’t we be the leaders of Germany?” Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber alles! Uber Alles!
And so we begin repeating the cycle of politics that led to both World War I and World War 2.
For more read-
Political Science Quarterly, Spring 1996 v111 n1 p1(39), Why Western Europe needs the United States and NATO. Robert J. Art.
(Kharn I can send you the whole thing).
Reality check?
The only ones that have any right to intervene, again, are Europeans and the UN.
Reality Check- without power there is no law, without law there is no “right.” That the Europeans have sovereignty gives them some principle of right that means the US should not involve themselves in the specific affairs of individual countries- but no one takes that notion too seriously, never have, never will. For more- Sovereignty : organized hypocrisy / Krasner, Stephen D. (1999)
That said, there is no “European Regional Sovereignty” . You are just a collection of states and in the international dealing of states you have no right to tell us to bud out when our ass is on the line when you fuck it up.
welsh said:
While it's true that the governments in Europe are a lot different today then back then, in some ways they are still a bunch of cranky old bastards living in an old age home who can't get along and might just try wrestling, even if it breaks their bones.
So you're saying the current American government is living in the here-and-now? I think not. The current popular governmental concepts of "unilateral action" and "might makes right" are pretty archaic.
Kharn you know me better than that. Our current president is a throw back to the aristocratic regimes and dynasties that we fought to get rid of. That he has gotten to power shows two things-
(1) the power of money to buy elections
(2) the foolishness of white middle and lower classes to expect that the Republicans will look after them through a mix of tax breaks and family values, all the while fucking them out of their standard of living, better pay and jobs.
However, believing that “might makes right” or “unilateral action” still rules, is itself short sighted. That’s still the game in Europe, and certainly not in the rest of the world. Don’t be fooled in what appears to be collective action in Europe. The wise ruler knows that his mandate to rule comes from society, and it is to them he must abide. Thus in the world of politics, it’s every many out for himself, and I do what’s best for me and my state- raison d’estat is the name of the game.
welsh said:
Lesson 4 - Europe is different from the US. We can learn things from them. For instance if we all followed the French lifestyle our asses wouldn't be so damn fat and we wouldn't be dieing of heart disease.
Same is true vice versa. But in a way that what makes us different is what makes us stronger.
Or weaker.
welsh said:
Lesson 5 - Euro chicks are hot. If you ignore the historical lessons that they teach us about our origins and the history of the world, the culture or the art, at least check out the chicks.
True dat.
welsh said:
Lesson 6 - Europe has it's own way of doing things. Trying to figure it out will only give you a head ache. Let them do what they want to. In the US we generally mind each other's business- that's being a good neighbor. Europe is the say way. Sometimes you want to borrow their lawn mower and maybe have them over for BBQ, but try to stay out of their family squabbles because they really don't want you in there. (But note- Lessons 1,2 & 3)
Smartest thing you said so far.
Just because you ain’t listening doesn’t mean it ain’t smart.
Look, if the US has the *right* to keep sticking its nose in our affairs, why don't we have the *right* to do the same to you?
But you do stick your nose in our business. That the railroads in the US were largely subsidized by English capital is often a matter overlooked. That we pay attention to the market in Europe, that you do so much business in the US, that your companies lobby in the US just as ours do, is part and parcel of how business and politics is done on both sides of the Atlantic.
welsh said:
Lesson 7 - while we might be the big dog on the block, sooner or later another one is going to come a long. Better that it's a big dog that we can get along with than one we don't. Maybe one day Europe will become a big super state with lots of unique sub-cultures but still possessing a legal order, bureaucracy, compulsory jurisdiction over a territory and a monopoly of the legitimate use of force (see Weber for definition of a modern state). If it happens it's a lot better that we can sort our differences out over a beer than over guns.
Europe being the next big dog is unlikely.
Better Europe than another Russia or China or even Japan. Truthfully, I actually feel better sharing the world with the Europeans than dominating it unilaterally. We may not always agree, but we can get along.
welsh said:
Lesson 8 - Hell, why not, the Europeans are fun and make the world more interesting.
Your demeaning tone is insulting.
Bah! You should see some of the US bashing. You know I love Europe, Kharn. But seriously, I think the current generation is ignoring history at it’s peril. If my tone is demeaning, than perhaps Europe has to do more to gain greater respectability.
ietnam, where it's ability to drop napalm is so fucking cool as to be incincible. I just wanted a change of pace.
]); Leopold II was given the entire region of Kongo - a territory 60 times the size of Belgium - as personal property. The problem is, Leopold II was an evil, evil man. I think his exploits in 'the dark heart of Africa' are known to everybody.
