[tome]

> there were neither resources nor reason for war in Europe for most of the 20th century

The ambitions of the USSR were a reason for war and they had plenty of military resources.

[coldtea]

>The ambitions of the USSR were a reason for war and they had plenty of military resources.

Actually history has shown that they didn't.

[v_lisivka]

What? There was two invasions by USSR in Eastern Europe since WWII.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact_invasion_of_Czecho...

2: http://www.war-memorial.net/Soviet-Invasion-of-Hungary-3.111

[tome]

Sorry, I've lost the thread of the argument.

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.

What's your line of argument here?

[coldtea]

>Sorry, I've lost the thread of the argument.

I didn't respond to the "thread of the argument" above, I responded directly to the smaller point made in your comment.

My point regarding the whole argument is in my longer comment above.

[pas]

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.