Europe has a long history of warfare that seemed to have halted around the NATO. I think the presence of a strong military alliance and the presence of peace have a high probability of being connected.
A strong external military force, along with the devastation of European countries with global ambitions in WWII (UK, French, Germany, and co), means there were neither resources nor reason for war in Europe for most of the 20th century. Heck, for most of that time Germany was still split in two.
USSRs occupation of the other half also kept "peace" there (and in conflict between the two sides would have escalated to a full global war, which was in nobody's interest).
Yugoslavia for example was only a state because the different nations were kept under the same rule. When that rule was gone, 60 years of "living together" didn't do anything to prevent ethnic tensions.
How things shape in 10 or 20 years is anybody's guess.
The original claim was that "NATO has probably done just as much to insure peace inside it's countries as the EU has.". The counterpoint was that the Balkan wars invalidated this claim. My response was that a single war in 70 years is hardly evidence against the original claim.
They had all the resources to wreak havoc, occupy and keep hundreds of millions in factory-feudalism. They would have drafted half the world to wage their wars if necessary.
USSRs occupation of the other half also kept "peace" there (and in conflict between the two sides would have escalated to a full global war, which was in nobody's interest).
Yugoslavia for example was only a state because the different nations were kept under the same rule. When that rule was gone, 60 years of "living together" didn't do anything to prevent ethnic tensions.
How things shape in 10 or 20 years is anybody's guess.