![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldThe first sentence of a recent tweet made me wonder about Donald Trump as a source of alternate histories--real alternate histories, of course, uchronias.
The problem with this first sentence is that there was no "European Military" in the First or Second World Wars for the simple reason that the two world wars were fought between different European Great Powers. There was nothing at all like the contemporary European Union, certainly no Franco-German alliance like the one that exists now. Had there been such a supranational union of European states before the First World War, these two world wars would never have come about at all.
All that said, what if there was? The prehistory of the modern European Union and European integration generally extends far before 1945, with many liberals and radicals in 19th century Europe seeing a reorganization of the European continent into a federation of free nation-states the only way for the continent to move forward. I can just barely imagine someone like Napoleon III, acting in a somewhat different international environment (supporting liberal German nationalism against Prussia and Austria, perhaps?), favouring something like this.
Was an earlier European integration possible, perhaps organized around a Franco-German core as OTL? Could there have been, by a 1914, something like a European military? It goes without saying that the consequences of this would be enormous, for Europe and for non-Europe both. Was the non-European world was lucky to have Europe not united but tearing itself apart, for instance, to not have a Europe internally united and presented a single face to the outside world? Could an integrated Europe have kept pace with the emerging United States across the Atlantic, not falling prey to economic divisions which surely hindered European growth?
What do you think?
The idea of a European Military didn’t work out too well in W.W. I or 2. But the U.S. was there for you, and always will be. All we ask is that you pay your fair share of NATO. Germany is paying 1% while the U.S. pays 4.3% of a much larger GDP - to protect Europe. Fairness!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 8, 2018
The idea of a European Military didn’t work out too well in W.W. I or 2. But the U.S. was there for you, and always will be. All we ask is that you pay your fair share of NATO. Germany is paying 1% while the U.S. pays 4.3% of a much larger GDP - to protect Europe. Fairness!
The problem with this first sentence is that there was no "European Military" in the First or Second World Wars for the simple reason that the two world wars were fought between different European Great Powers. There was nothing at all like the contemporary European Union, certainly no Franco-German alliance like the one that exists now. Had there been such a supranational union of European states before the First World War, these two world wars would never have come about at all.
All that said, what if there was? The prehistory of the modern European Union and European integration generally extends far before 1945, with many liberals and radicals in 19th century Europe seeing a reorganization of the European continent into a federation of free nation-states the only way for the continent to move forward. I can just barely imagine someone like Napoleon III, acting in a somewhat different international environment (supporting liberal German nationalism against Prussia and Austria, perhaps?), favouring something like this.
Was an earlier European integration possible, perhaps organized around a Franco-German core as OTL? Could there have been, by a 1914, something like a European military? It goes without saying that the consequences of this would be enormous, for Europe and for non-Europe both. Was the non-European world was lucky to have Europe not united but tearing itself apart, for instance, to not have a Europe internally united and presented a single face to the outside world? Could an integrated Europe have kept pace with the emerging United States across the Atlantic, not falling prey to economic divisions which surely hindered European growth?
What do you think?
(no subject)
Date: 2018-12-12 03:28 pm (UTC)Threefour very immediate and obvious thoughts:1. Russia, either Czarist, or early Soviet, would be very nervous about this. The lack of the threat of nuclear weapons makes a conventional invasion of Russia a definite possibility.
2. The Royal Navy combined with the large standing armies of the continental powers? The USA would have some worries also. Look for an early expansion and modernization of the US Navy, possibly combined with an alliance with Japan.
3. The decolonization of Africa and Asia in the 50s & 60s either wouldn't happen, or it'd happen much later. Tensions in the latter half of the 20th century might end up being more North-South, rather than East-West.
4. Given the traditional mutual dislike among Germany, France, and Britain, the alliance night not be terribly stable: we could just end up with the World Wars happening 50 years late. The wildcard here is, who invents the atomic bomb first?
(no subject)
Date: 2018-12-13 12:01 pm (UTC)In which case the situation by 1900 or so is difficult to work out. No reunification of Germany or Italy and states in both areas tied tightly by alliances to the French Crown; a hostile Britain focussed mainly on its interests elsewhere. No Crimean War and very possibly a radically different American history as well, beginning with differences to the War of 1812.