I'll even go one step further...

Hehe... I'm on a roll now.

Can it be assumed that one of the reasons that the "pacifist" view has so taken hold of Europe (and to a lesser degree, North America) is because the Soviets DIDN'T invade and the USSR collapsed WITHOUT armed Western intervention? Is this a possible explanation as to why "diplomacy" is seen as some kind of 100% replacement of a strong military defense?

My whole train of thought here stems from a program that made the case that the Cold War was won BECAUSE a shot was never fired. This is patently false, and the show was nothing more than liberal, revisionist tripe... but the thought struck in my head as to what would cause rational men and women to think this way.

The conflict we avoided in Europe when the USSR collapsed under its own weight was one that had been raging for at least 70 years, and I'm rather convinced that the case can be made that it actually started in 1618 with the start of the Thirty Years War. There is an old adage that says that no war ends... it only has long resting periods. Korea is an excellent example of this... the war that began in 1950 has never "officially" ended, but the armistice is still being observed.

Perhaps the "soft" ending to the threat posed by the USSR to western Europe has given the false impression that military defense and preparations are no longer needed in light of the success of diplomacy. Has this been further supported by the relative "ease" with which Kuwait was liberated in '91? Or the Iraq regime's removal in only weeks in '03?

Europe seems at peace now... but if we look carefully, we see that the same "players" are in control now that were in control (for the most part) for the last 400 years: Great Britain, France, Germany and Russia... with only Russia remaining outside the "European" club (as has always been the case, too).

Thoughts?