King credits EU with Europe's longest peace and prosperity

King credits EU with Europe's longest period of peace and prosperity

Does Europe truly owe its longest war-free period to the European Union? The King asserts that "our continent has lived, with the creation of the European Union, the greatest period of peace, stability and prosperity in its history," a fact he says is "worth remembering." This statement, repeated in official settings, clashes with an uncomfortable reality: the EU now insists civilians must prepare for defense against the Russian threat, under the axiom that "if we want peace, we must prepare for war." Between the triumphant narrative and rearmament, consensus cracks.

How long did European peace actually last after 1945?

The official argument relies on verifiable data: within the integration zone, there has been no conflict since 1945, constituting the longest peace period in continental Western Europe since the Pax Romana. On this pedestal, the narrative of Pax Europaea is built. But the parallel with Rome has a trap: Roman peace was also imposed, not negotiated.

Some argue that the longest period of peace in Europe was not European but Soviet, imposed after the capture of Berlin in 1945 and sustained until the fall of the Wall in 1989. Under this prism, the dismantling of the USSR would have cost 300,000 lives and three million displaced people, with episodes like the Baku pogrom, from which 200,000 fled. The figure is not independently verified, but circulates strongly in analyses questioning the Western narrative.

Holes in the narrative: Yugoslavia and the 19th century

The weakest point of the official thesis is Yugoslavia. The EU is formed by pieces of the former Yugoslavia, and its separation was not precisely peaceful. Belgrade's inhabitants are also Europeans. Do they count? The objection is not minor: if the criterion is geographic, post-war peace has bloody exceptions within the continent itself.

The 19th century does not help either. It is riddled with wars in Europe, and the Belle Époque was nothing more than the final phase of the so-called armed peace, the period during which the military capacity necessary to equip 70 million soldiers developed. When World War I began, it also came after a long period of peace. The parallel with the current conflict worries many.

Prosperity or debt?

The word prosperity generates the most resistance. It is argued that the EU lived sustained by cheap energy subsidized by Russia, and that deciding to cut that source killed the goose that laid the golden eggs. Others point out that Spain was the seventh world power until it entered the then European Economic Community, and that since then it would have become a decadent and corrupt country.

The most optimistic calculation assumes integration brought market, funds, and monetary stability. The pessimistic scenario starts from growing debt and a loss of sovereignty that translates into looting without shots fired. The discussion about whether Spain has been looted without firing a single shot has more traction than it seems.

Migration problem and social fracture

The other axis of discontent is migration. It is claimed that the massive arrival of people does not come to pay pensions, but to sustain a corrupt, selfish, and unsolidary caste that would be taking Europe back to the Middle Ages, with a social model where millions of poor support billionaire rich. It is a harsh thesis, without data backing it up in available material, but it articulates much of the discontent.

The discussion shifts to democratic quality. It is stated that in Spain there is no democratic culture, that Power is deified and shielded, without checks or separation of powers, with ambiguous laws open to free interpretation and always in favor of those who draft them. Beyond formalisms, it is claimed there is no substantial difference in the relationship between Power and the people compared to Francoism. It is an extreme comparison, and as such it is presented.

Who generates the wars it claims to prevent?

The most repeated thesis is that the West is the one generating and needing war. After World War II, Europe had to be rebuilt while Asia and later South America were looted and destabilized through wars, coups, and civil wars. Once the USSR disintegrated, the Balkan war arrived as part of that process, trinc by the war on terror. Peace in Europe would have been a fantasy that will likely end soon.

At the other extreme lies the geopolitical reading: the US would be obliged to defeat or weaken Russia to install an allied oligarchic class that helps combat China. Against this, it is objected that Russian and Chinese cultures will prevent Washington from carrying out its purposes, and that ignoring other cultures and their ways of facing conflicts is dangerous. The classic colonialist reasoning, they say, distorts the perception of reality.

---

The question left floating is simple: if the EU guaranteed peace, why does it now ask civilians to prepare for war? Perhaps the answer is that peace was never an achievement, but a balance between blocks that has broken. Or perhaps, as an increasingly broad current argues, the enemy is no longer outside.