[vasco]

Did I make any argument about who had a bigger role? I just made an argument that because of the US's role, and the fact that right now they have the biggest army, that's what allows them to have this influence in laws in europe. Other people started making comparisons with USSR.

[542354234235]

>also the only reason most of europe has freedom today and not a german dictatorship is the US in WW2

German soldiers killed on the Eastern Front before the final battles of 1945: 2,742,909.

On the Western Front, the Balkans, Africa, Italy, and Northern Europe: 640,541.

I'm no mathematician, but but it seems like it wouldn't have been possible without Russians killing over 75% of the German soldiers and then marching on Berlin. Could Europe have have handled the other 25% without the US? Maybe. Could the US have handled the other 75% without Russia? I am very skeptical.

[vasco]

Lets say I rephrase to:

>also one of the reasons most of europe has freedom today and not a german dictatorship is the US in WW2

How does that invalidate my argument? What is your alternative explanation for why the US has outsized impact on laws in europe today?

[542354234235]

First, you directly stated that the US involvement in WWII was the only reason Europe has freedom and that "is something europeans forget", which is wrong and invalid.

Second, while it is true that US power projection through the military is one of the ways it influences other countries, including in Europe, it isn’t the only way. The US dollar is the most held reserve currency in the world and is the standard for exchange in almost every country, outside of Russia, China, etc., means that most international economic activity passes through US financial institutions. That gives the US a lot of influence, as it means you cannot stray too far afield of US legal norms without risking those trading abilities. When the US pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal and reimposed sanctions, it was the only country doing it, but European trade with Iran also went to almost zero because it was impossible to do business without touching a US bank at some point.

Third, the US bases and military presence in Europe was because of the cold war, not because of anything the US did in WWII. Since WWII wasn’t fought in America, its logistics, manufacturing, etc. were intact, compared to the rubble that was Europe. NATO, basing agreements, the US outsized military spending, etc. were to counter the only other super power, the USSR, and prevent Europe from falling under the iron dome. It was also to prevent the intra-European military competitions and arms races that fueled interstate wars for the previous 1,000 years.

[bombolo]

The dollar being used for exchanges is because the USA is imposing it with their army. The countries that think to do otherwise get bombed, or at the very least their terrorists become suddenly very well armed.

Nowadays europeean countries interventions in Africa are still very similar to proxy wars, despite the EU and all.

[542354234235]

> The dollar being used for exchanges is because the USA is imposing it with their army. The countries that think to do otherwise get bombed, or at the very least their terrorists become suddenly very well armed.

That is complete incorrect. The dollar is used as a reserve currency because it is stable, has a large amount of liquidity in its financial market, it has a stable legal and political system, and the large trade deficit the U.S. runs. The dollar accounted for 60% of foreign reserves and the euro is second place, with 20%. They are followed by the Japanese yen and the British pound. Russia and China are totalitarian governments that artificially control their own currency flows, as does India (controlling currency, not totalitarianism). People don’t want to use other currencies as their reserves because they aren’t stable and reliable the way the US is, not because the US makes them. You see it in the runner up currencies, that are all large economies with democratic stable governments and open financial markets. Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) are trying to make their own version of the euro, so we will see how well that goes and how trusted that is as a currency.

> Nowadays europeean countries interventions in Africa are still very similar to proxy wars, despite the EU and all.

I said “It was also to prevent the intra-European military competitions and arms races that fueled interstate wars for the previous 1,000 years”. Intra means inside and interstate means between states. Proxy wars in Africa are neither inside Europe nor are they between states, since they are literally proxies. Since the last two intra-European interstate wars were WWI and WWII, I’d say small scale proxy wars are a step in the right direction.