[jll29]

The great minds that - after WWII - built the new Europe had in mind that there should never be war again, which is best realized when former enemies become friends and closer bonds are established at multiple levels: politically, economically, culturally (unions, trading exchanges, visits/open borders/teaching common European values in schools).

There is a strong political and cultural foundation in geographic Europe for the political EU: some exemplary giants/EU co-architects:

Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman

European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) Schuman Declaration (1950) [It is only right that the R. Schuman Roundabout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Schuman_Roundabout Rue houses the European quarter in Brussels.]

Konrad Adenauer

Promoted reconciliation with France pro-European

Alcide De Gasperi

Integrated Italy into Western Europe Advocated supranational institutions

Paul-Henri Spaak

institutional designer, key role in the Treaties of Rome (1957) helped design the European Economic Community (EEC) Advocated supranational institutions

Walter Hallstein

1st President, European Commission. Built EC into powerful, independent institution Championed the supremacy of European law

Altiero Spinelli

Wrote the Ventotene Manifesto (while imprisoned by Fascists) Advocated a federal Europe

Winston Churchill

A paradoxical but crucial figure: called for a “United States of Europe” (1946 speech) Influenced Europe’s post-war direction despite UK distance

François Mitterrand

Drove Maastricht Treaty with Helmut Kohl Pushed for the € Symbolized Franco-German partnership

Helmut Kohl

Franco-German friendship exemplified by Mitterand-Kohl personal friendship "Architect of modern Europe" German reunification Key figure behind the EU and monetary union

It's ironic that the name "U.S.E." (United States of Europe) was first proposed by a Brit, alas a smart one, and I'm sure Sir Winston Churchill would have had the oratory abilities to convince his countrymen that his idea had merit, but he did not live to see it. The Federation of Europe or United States of Europe is the logical end-point of the joint vision of all these foundational leaders.

[joe_mamba]

>Franco-German friendship exemplified by Mitterand-Kohl personal friendship

Ironic to call this a "friendship", when Mitterand along with Thatcher were working behind the scenes with the soviets to sabotage and stop Kohl's reunification of Germany. It was anything but a friendship, but more of a concession.

Politics is full of such examples that look friendly to the public, but hide a lot of sabotage and back stabbings in the background. In fact, the later is the norm in politics.

[mmooss]

Maybe you can be friends without always agreeing, and even when competing.

[joe_mamba]

Not when the competition is a zero sum game over critical resources. This isn't a game of table tennis, it's about competition over dominance.

Friendships are just the media facing image. In reality, if a country can gain an advantage over the other they see as an economic adversary, and has the means to enforce it without repercussions, they'll do it. Then they'll meet up in front of the media, shake hands and gaslight the peasants on how this benefits everyone.

The true friendships in between countries are made over decades/centuries over shared blood, heritage and culture because humans are tribalistic and have own group preference. Forcing friendships via political declarations doesn't work.

Let me explain with examples. If Portugal would get attacked a lot of Spaniards would go fight for Portugal voluntarily because of shared history and culture. But if Bulgaria would get attacked, most Spaniards wouldn't volunteer to go die for Bulgaria, even though they're both EU members.

Austria kept torpedoing Romania's Schengen entry just to extract some monetary concession, not exactly something friends do. So if Austria were to hypothetically get attacked tomorrow, a lot of Romanians would cheer rather than want to go help since karma is a bitch. These kinds of petty squabbles are the norm in the EU.

People aren't gonna want to die or sacrifice themselves for the EU flag since it's an artificial construct, kind of like the corporation they work for, not something they feel a sense of belonging and allegiance to like a specific group of people.

[mmooss]

The lowest common denominator, racial ("shared blood", "tribal", and also "culture" in this context) perspective is exceeded time and again, and the ones that do exceed it are the most free, most prosperous, and most powerful - NATO being a clear example, but also all the Pacific alliances around China. The poorest and least safe are the ones that follow your advice, places like Somalia. Or look at the US and NATO ten years ago compared to today.

Most countries can be subdivided seemingly infinitely into groups that could find reasons to fight each other. But humans have other common 'denominators', much higher than that. Spain, the UK, the US, France, China, and many others are unions of subcultures.

You can see so much better in the world. Instead of insisting that evil is inevitable - making you a victim of it - you can work for good. Our ancestors have had great success and made it easy for us to follow.

[joe_mamba]

>the ones that do exceed it are the most free, most prosperous, and most powerful - NATO being a clear example

You're beating it around the bush. Tell me how many Spaniard would voluntarily sign up to die to defend Bulgaria if shit were to hit the fan.

THat's how you measure if strength of alliances stand the test of time, or if they're just worthless pieces of paper from a bygone era of peace and prosperity wrapped up in fake nationalism under a made up flag.

> Or look at the US and NATO ten years ago compared to today.

10 years ago a lot more people in US and NATO countries could more easily afford a house and get a decent paying job with a higher purchasing power. What were you trying to prove with this?

[mmooss]

> Tell me how many Spaniard would voluntarily sign up to die to defend Bulgaria if shit were to hit the fan.

A lot and the evidence is overwhelming. Look at wars all over the world. Russians even sign up to defend Syria, for example. Americans sign up for wars all over the world, which have always been fought with allies - WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Iraq again, Afghanistan. Georgia helped the US in Iraq, along with many others. NATO fought alongside the US in Afghanistan.

> What were you trying to prove with this?

It's evidence of my claim; see the GP.

What's amazing is, despite being handed these wonderful things that made peace and prosperity, and being born and raised in them, people are programmed to say it can't work. Those people are the problem. Instead of opposing them or quitting, get to work - it almost couldn't be easier; someone else has already solved the problem. Compare the people who had to develop the Enlightenment, human rights, the post-WWII international order.

> bygone era of peace and prosperity

The era is what you make it - you are responsible for it. What are you making it, including with these words? Why aren't you solving the problems? The people who built the post-WWII international order, based on human rights, had just been through WWI and were fighting WWII - hardly an era of peace and prosperity - and look what they did.