What? Which wars did Europe start? Iraq? No. Afghanistan? No. Venzuela,? No. Gaza? No. Somalia? No. Yemen? No. Ukraine? No. Vietnam? No. WWII? Yes, but that's ancient history. Seems to me nowadays the US is the big war-starter.
Ancient History? That's rich coming from a man who claims to have a PHD in History! Vietnam? It wasn't the U.S. that started that was it? It was France. See my response below.
This is such a nonfactual statement. In what European conflict after 1900 has "Europe" started a war against a non-European foe? Excluding the Russo-Japanese War, in which we did not participate except as a peacemaker, such a condition has not happened. Therefore, I assume you are trying to say Europeans start wars among themselves in order to see with which powers the US allied itself? You do see how that makes no sense?
By your own admission, you have made an assumption.
So, if I may make a second assumption, you must be talking about both WWI and WWII? We did eventually participate in both those wars, but it was because it was in our national interests to do so - it was never about altruism. One could even make the argument we entered when we did in both cases (late) to minimize our cost and maximize the benefits of victory.
Here again we have an assumption.
To give some idea of how much Europe suffered in those wars, Britain endured 384,000 military deaths and 70,000 civilian deaths, or about 1% of a population of 47 million. The US suffered 418,000 deaths, the vast majority of whom were military representing only 0.3% of our population. Moreover, Around 150,000 of those US deaths occurred in the Pacific against Japan. British losses actually exceeded ours slightly in Europe (the UK also fought the Japanese alongside the US). Thus, Britain was hardly sitting around letting the US do the fighting. US losses in the First World War were far less proportionately to the UK and France.
I guess I won't include the either the Central Powers of WWI or Axis Powers of WWII, but they were European nations as well and had horrific losses compared to the US.
Where did I make any statement concerning losses? My statement was " Europe loves to start wars, and then act as if it's the United States that should jump in and do the fighting."
European powers, including Russia, France, Great Britain, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Belgium, etc. have not only fought wars with each other, but a good portion of the Earth as they established their Colonial Empires. Yeah, I'm gonna go there.
France started an entire series of wars in 1853 by attacking Vietnam, and eventually with a little help from Spain, conquered most of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Siam (Thailand) was forced to give up territory on it's eastern border, but still narrowly avoided conflict with France. As a matter of fact, Thailand was the only country in Asia that was never ruled by a European power.
en.wikipedia.org
The next war was started by France in 1945 to regain their former Colony. No sooner had the Japanese, who occupied Vietnam During WWll left, the French moved Military Forces into Vietnam in an attempt to retake the country.
Gen. William Donovan and several OSS Officers advised against the French return to Vietnam, as I'm sure you are both aware. President Eisenhower provided aid to the French in the north, to Diem in the south, and to Laos during Operation White Star.
The French were finally defeated at Dien Bien Phu in 1954, leaving Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in a desperate situation. Both Russia and China were extending their influence in the region, and the U.S. made the mistake of sticking it's finger into the Tar baby that France had created.
Fifty Eight Thousand lost their lives in an attempt to clean up the mess France created. The border wars between China, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand and Cambodia currently in the news, and the Khmer Rouge genocide would likely not have happened if Europe had kept it's greedy fingers out of Asia.
This is just ONE undeniable mess that Europe created, and then acted as if the U.S. should fix it.
I could go on about Algeria, Italian Somalia, the Belgian Congo, etc., but I think you get the picture.
By the way, it is still in our national interests, particularly economic ones, that Europe remain a friendly market for goods and services moving in both directions. Hence, the enduring value of NATO - a treaty organization this nation created.
I have no problem with this. My problem is the denial of the problems, and often wars that it creates. Sure, France had an interest in the Tin, Rubber and Lumber in Vietnam, and keeping markets open was certainly to their benefit. However, the mess they created in the pursuit of their "National Interest" led to the deaths of tens of thousands, and it's a mess they should have cleaned up, not the U.S.
You don't have to conquer people to trade with them.
