Are you trying to say Germany didn't launch both World Wars? Which one are you disputing, when Germany invaded Belgium in 1914 or Germany invading Poland in 1939?
Germany didn't "launch" WWI. WWI was "launched" by political and revolutionary pressures triggering a complex of alliances in Europe and the Ottoman Empire. WWII had similarly complex causes. It's a ridiculous simplification to lay the blame for launching these wars on one country alone, regardless of how things went.
There's a lot of apologia for Germany and Austria-Hungary in WW1. But ultimately, Austria-Hungary started the hostilities, shelling Belgrade (cmon), and Germany allied with the aggressor and then also invaded Belgium to get to France. I don't care if you have a "complex alliance" with a clearly aggressive country (Austria-Hungary) invading Serbia. You don't support that period. And Austria-Hungary also invaded Serbia because they had Germany's backing to deal with the repercussions. Russia defending Serbia from invasion and France defending Belgium and themselves isn't an equally culpable standing.
20 million dead. Because Austria-Hungary and Germany invaded other countries. WW2 just further proved that they really were the culpable countries.
The original comment stated that Germany was responsible for starting the two World Wars, not Austria. But to describe Austria as "a clearly aggressive country" is totally inadequate to an accurate view of this history. Austria was a declining multi-ethnic empire with internal ethnic conflicts mostly concentrated in the Serbian Nationalist movement. The Serbs were in turn supported (prior to war) by a militarizing Russia (that allied with France) who was in geopolitical competition with Germany for warm-water ports via the Balkans (sound familiar?). If you were leading Germany at that time, you'd be worried about Russia's ambitions, too. You could do a similar analysis of the complexities that precipitated WWII, not least of these was the incredibly punitive conditions of the Treaty of Versailles. Read Keynes' "The Economic Consequences of the Peace" among many other books about how "stupid" that treaty was. Combine that with the incredible street-level social-political instability of the inter-war years, mass migration, Bolshevism, etc... and you might have a more nuanced answer about how wars are started and who is culpable. In any case, moralizing about war and geopolitics is a sort of category error, imho. What would you have had these countries do differently, I wonder?
You forgot several parts where Serbia also invaded their neighbors, 1912. I can only imagine how history would have gone, if the Balkan Wars did not occur.
20 million dead, because everyone thinks he has to defend some ally.
So First Balkan War around 200k dead. That number could have gone up quickly to 20 million as well, if the Ottomans would have had some nice allies, that come to help as soon as they get invaded.
My point: defence treaties can be as dangerous as an invasion.
how long do you think country needs to behave until it will clear its name?
Also, most of the major powers did some kind of bloody wars in last 100 years, its just happened that Germans lost two wars and winners usually decide who are good guys and who are bad guys.
The war winner does get to do a lot of historical revisionism. That said, I’d be interested in hearing the argument that Germany was the good guy in World War Two.
The sides in that war ranged from ‘Bad’ to ‘Very Bad’ in my opinion.
> I’d be interested in hearing the argument that Germany was the good guy in World War Two.
I didn't say they were good, but I am not sure if they were much worse than soviets and chinese, who received all benefits of winners and were considered as good guys right after ww2.
That’s mostly true but it was a marriage of convenience and did not last long. Churchill’s ‘Iron Curtain’ speech was in March, 1946, only a year after the war ended.
Relations were getting frosty much earlier and Churchill’s opposition to communism long predated the war.
‘I will not pretend that, if I had to choose between Communism and Nazi-ism, I would choose Communism.’ April 1937.
This _was_ very much enshrined in German society for the longest time, many people growing up in the 1980s or 1990s had parents that had witnessed WWII.
Germany is very densely populated but mostly smaller towns and cities and people tend to stay put more, so there's a lot of local history/memory. Imagine small towns where a generation ago everybody knows several people that died in the war and those who stayed home experienced other hardships. The US has been spared this mostly, but even the US smaller scale foreign wars had a toll on military members.
I grew up in Germany, and up until the FIFA World Cup in 2006 I can't remember seeing any person fly a German flag outside their house! Nationalism was a very frowned-upon thing, mostly for "Neo-Nazis", understood to be a slippery slope that lead to wars. The same goes for politics, there was great debate every single time German troops were deployed abroad before ~2010, see eg [1].
But things may be changing, AfD is gaining more and more popular support indicating an uptick in nationalism to me and a stronger feeling of international "importance".
Japan similarly has been reluctant to re-militarize. The essential question is whether they can now see change is required.
Our super power role isn't good for America either (I'm American). We spent too time in the middle east protecting oil, and committed ourselves to stupid wars in Iraq under Bush. Guntanimo Bay and special extradition are grave American errors. I am happy to see that through energy independence we can delink ourselves from the middle east.
I am heartened too see new applicants to Nato, which is a defensive force only.
Going forward neither European weakness nor American habit of leading should play us into anything other than strategic threats namely China. We have to learn to say no.
Once nato partners have a problem on their border we need to compose better and strengthen each other.
I'm inclined to agree: better to temporarily prioritize China over getting better European cooperation if push comes to shove. We can't own European risk more than it can itself.
When antagonizing the bear it isn’t insane to look over one’s shoulder and check that your strongest friend and ally is actually right behind you and not just standing by to see what’ll happen.
The article is pretty spot on. It is the very fundamental structure of Europe that will never let it be a sovereign force ala US.
Europe in the end was an American project and is simply untenable without US support, granted US had its own goals in supporting the Marshall plan. It’s too good to be under the U.S. security umbrella.
Expect more fissures as US-China relations get worse, Europe won’t take the path we would want it to.
I would add that there is a middle ground, Europe need not be a vassal, it can at the very least build up militarily to defend itself. But the larger trend is clear Europe is no longer the priority.
> It is the very fundamental structure of Europe that will never let it be a sovereign force ala US.
I don't know if it's that simple. I think that European thinking has in the last 6 years or so realised much more that 1) a serious war can happen again in in their neighbourhood and 2) the USA's leadership cannot be relied on to be on their side, as much as was assumed before then.
The article talks about "a distracted and politically unreliable America ... a growing awareness that continuing to rely on the United States entails long-term risks"
More EU military spending - rearmament - is the obvious conclusion.
The article claims that this hasn't been achieved. Ok it wasn't expected to be quick or easy. I don't really know what the evidence is that it can't or won't happen.
If opposing "dictators and warmongers" is so important, why were European NATO members so unprepared for the 2022 war? Poland, the Baltics, and other ex-Warsaw Pact countries by and large did their best to wean themselves off the Russian oil and gas teat they fed from during the Cold War, even while Germany and other far wealthier countries did their best to suckle ever more from the same teat. Since energy is fungible, the far higher prices they are now having to pay affect them and the rest of the world, even those like the US and UK that never relied on Russian energy themselves, but at least Poland and the Baltics tried their best.
It's also entirely possible that greater European investment in defense might have dissuaded Russia from the February invasion. Or, at the least, be able to contribute now more than the relatively paltry sums and supplies they have so far sent. Again, the ex-Communist countries by and large both met the 2% GDP spending guideline that their far wealthier NATO fellow members have mostly ignored, and are sending as much gear as they can without endangering their own defense. Sweden and Finland's militaries were and are far better prepared than the average NATO member despite (or, perhaps, because of) not being part of the alliance.
2) Trump at the UN warns that Germany is endangering itself by increasing dependence on Russia. German envoys laugh <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfJv9QYrlwgepe>, including foreign minister Heiko Maas. Who was right, Trump or the Germans?
Both incidents got much coverage in the US and European press, with the usual bien-pensants describing them as yet another example of Trumpian foolishness versus the sensible Europeans. Had the sensible Europeans listened to the Trumpian foolishness even five years ago, Europe would now be secure against Russian threats. Germany (and thus Europe) would not have faced an existential threat to its economy and industry from 1000-2500% rises in gas bills. This is the greatest bungling by German and Europeans in 75 years and, again, it is 100% self-inflicted.
(This is now where the same bien-pensants' sycophants now pull out the "Even a broken clock is right twice a day"/"Trump said everything about anything so was bound to get something right"/"Trump also said uncomplimentary things about NATO so should have been arrested as a traitor" canards. And yes, I've seen all three responses, almost word for word, when I point to the above videos.)
From this American's perspective, if the only accepted definition of "opposition to dictators and warmongers" is, as I said, an America that does all the heavy lifting in European defense while Europeans sit back and criticize, don't be surprised if America isn't so quick the next time to oppose dictators and warmongers on Europe's doorstep.
> If opposing "dictators and warmongers" is so important, why were European NATO members so unprepared for the 2022 war?
I refer you to my grandparent comment: "European thinking has recently realised", that unpreparedness being the main example of the realisation. IDK what you think you're arguing against, that Europe could have realised earlier that neoliberal oil-imports from Russia were not actually going to help peace? yeah, sure, but not what anyone was saying anyway.
> Germany (and thus Europe) would not have faced an existential threat to its economy and industry from 1000-2500% rises in gas bills.
Citation needed, both for "existential economic threat" and "2500% rise in gas bill". Both are ridiculous.
> 100% self-inflicted.
I think that it's nonsense in general that country A's invasion of country B is a "100% self-inflicted error" of country C.
> Had the sensible Europeans listened to Trump, Europe would now be secure against Russian threats.
That's certainly an opinion. Of all the points of view that I have seen today, that definitely is one.
> don't be surprised if America isn't so quick the next time to oppose dictators and warmongers on Europe's doorstep.
No, I won't be surprised at all if the USA elects a sycophant towards dictators and warmongers on Europe's doorstep. No-one will. You've done it once already. That's the point.
>IDK what you think you're arguing against, that Europe could have realised earlier that neoliberal oil-imports from Russia were not actually going to help peace? yeah, sure, but not what anyone was saying anyway.
"oil imports from Russia will help peace" is, in fact, exactly the stance Germany took for about 20 years, until February 2022, with Merkel and her predecessor and successor all leading exponents.
I ask again:
Who was right? Trump or Stoltenberg?
Who was right? Trump or Maas?
Can you answer these questions honestly, or will you eternally avoid doing so with idiocies like "That's certainly an opinion. Of all the points of view that I have seen today, that definitely is one"?
> Europe in the end was an American project and is simply untenable without US support
I think this mixes up past and present.
"Europe (in the 1940s) was an American project" is not something worth arguing the import of.
But "and (today the EU) is simply untenable without US support" something that doesn't seem sensible. Why do you say that? Do you mean the the EU would ... collapse if the US pulled out? Of where?
Perhaps I should have been clearer. I meant the EU, not Europe the people/culture collective. And I certainly wasn’t referencing to a collapse or something, I hope it never comes to that. I don’t think there is a lot of clarity on where EU is headed and yes losing US support may well be catastrophic. It’s a hypothetical for sure but Europe increasingly faces threats to its industry (from China primarily, and some U.S. policies) and also military threats from Russia. It’s unlikely Europe can navigate this without US support and moderations between European countries as the article states.
Europe has strong enough industrial base and educated hardworking population to rebuild modern military and don't be afraid of russia, and also reduce dependence on energy import. They just didn't push in that direction for the last 30 years and now need to work harder to catch up.
Sure Europe was rebuilt by the Allies, but the wars cost the Germans dearly and most did not want the situation to repeat. And up until recently the economy was going quite well, gave people other things to focus on. Standard of living improved, lives were good, why not let the US keep the reigns.
With economic growth slowing since ~2005 and the popular parties losing ground to more nationalistic parties like the AfD, I think there will be a stronger sense of nationalism in Germany and imo Germany was one of the great moderators so far. With that also comes discontent with many US positions and many in Europe feel the US is unfairly pushing their policies and agendas (through, ironically, unfair international treaties, like those the last administration tore up).
Maybe because the most powerful country in Europe launched two world wars in span of less than 100 years?