Stupid question...I googled..

[dystopian]

mutual defense treaty required France and Britain to defend Czechoslovakia in 1938. Did they? If you want a more recent example, in 1974 Britain reneged on its treaty obligation to intervene when Greece overthrew the government of Cyprus. Why on earth would you imagine that any law ever means a government can't refuse to fight?

Flawed analogies; their legal obligations in the hypothetical future scenario are significantly stronger than they were in the instances you've cited. Furthermore, the failures of the past, particularly in the case of your first example, would only inspire them to not make the same mistake twice. Also; it's patently ridiculous to point to the Cyprian coup of 1974 as evidence for your claim. First of all, it was carried out by the Cyprian National Guard, which at the time made it confusing to figure out exactly what happened and what the response ought to be. Secondly, a mere FIVE days later the original government was reinstated; you can't seriously expect the UK to have figured everything out and responded with force in that short a timespan.

That's a category error. Countries don't want; people want. There would be absolutely no chance that there would be no government officials who wanted to fight and also absolutely no chance that there would be no government officials who wanted not to fight. Which faction would be in a position to get its way and control policy would be a political question.

No, countries *do* want. In this absurd hypothetical scenario you've painted; it would be painfully obvious that the countries must fight if they are to maintain their sovereignty and influence. There might be some idiot politicians who'd try the appeasement route; but they would very much be in the minority and overruled by both law and majority.

In the first place, yes, the third reich was quite so obviously a threat to the rest of them.

No, it really wasn't; that's hindsight talking. The common view of the time held that Hitler would be satisfied with expanding Germany's 'lebensraum' in the east. That's WHY they tried appeasement to begin with. Yet the western European allies attacked him anyway when it became clear he wasn't stopping with the Sudetenland.

And in the second place, the decision not to go to war for Czechoslovakia wasn't based on underestimating the threat; it was based on fear. Increasing the perceived danger doesn't just crank up the reason to go to war; it also cranks up the reason not to go to war. There's a reason animals have fight-or-flight reflexes.

Except this is of course wrong. Yes, the reason not to go to war right away was based on fear... but that was only because there was still reason to think that Germany was acting rationally and would be content with the sudetenland. As soon as it became clear this was not the case, war was the *inevitable* result.

However, a United States that invades an integral core state of the EU over an issue as minor as some of its soldiers standing trial in an international court hosted there, is a US that immediately identifies itself to the world as a supremely irrational actor mad on its own power; and as an existential threat to the European Union as a whole. *That* is why it would result in war. *That* is why even the third reich wasn't as obvious an immediate threat.
You are horribly naive; and severely ignorant of how countries other than the US think; if you imagine this scenario unfolding *without* it starting WW3. It simply isn't possible for this to happen the way you imagine it would.

It *might* be different if the court was hosted in a peripheral EU state (although I doubt it); but it's located in a country that's called the Gateway to Europe for a very good reason. Nobody's going to take that laying down. The Netherlands is very different to France, Germany, and the UK than Chechoslovakia was in 1938. Practically speaking, Chekoslovakia having part of its territory annexed by Germany would be the equivalent (from a US perspective) of a more powerful future Brazil annexing part of Bolivia. A matter of concern, but if the US were reluctant to go to war with Brazil hardly important enough to push them into doing so. The Netherlands being invaded by the US, on the other hand, would be like a Chinese-Russian alliance invading Canada; all of the sudden it's right next door and it's going to have serious consequences to the US economy. Even if they were reluctant to go to war against the Russian-Chinese alliance, the US really would have no other choice. Similarly, France, Germany and the UK really wouldn't have a reasonable option to not get involved in the hypothetical invasion of the Netherlands. Of course, the fact that there's already UK/NL and DE/NL integrated military divisions also weighs in our favor.

 

[Hickdive]

US forces in Somalia, including special forces, in the early nineties were operating under a UN mandate.

UN mandate != UN control.

Tactical control was retained by the US but the authority to be there and the further authority to act aggressively came from the UN.

 

[Bomb#20]

Furthermore, the failures of the past, particularly in the case of your first example, would only inspire them to not make the same mistake twice.

The failures of the past are also evidence of thought processes and political structures with a tendency to suffer that sort of failure. As a rule, "X happened before; therefore X will not happen again." isn't all that strong an argument.

Also; it's patently ridiculous to point to the Cyprian coup of 1974 as evidence for your claim. First of all, it was carried out by the Cyprian National Guard, which at the time made it confusing to figure out exactly what happened and what the response ought to be.

The Cypriot National Guard was commanded by and top-heavy with Greek officers. The notion that this was a domestic coup was patently ridiculous.

Secondly, a mere FIVE days later the original government was reinstated; you can't seriously expect the UK to have figured everything out and responded with force in that short a timespan.

Eight actually; but who's counting? The point is Britain had already refused to intervene by the time they found out Turkey was going to intervene and the Greek government was going to fall, which is what led to Makarios being reinstated.

No, countries *do* want. In this absurd hypothetical scenario you've painted;

Oh for the love of god! This is your absurd hypothetical scenario, not mine. The U.S. obviously would not invade; that didn't stop you from asserting what would happen if, counterfactually, we did. It's not my fault your assertion wasn't self-evidently correct.

it would be painfully obvious that the countries must fight if they are to maintain their sovereignty and influence. There might be some idiot politicians who'd try the appeasement route; but they would very much be in the minority and overruled by both law and majority.

Your faith in your allies is inspiring. No, it would not be obvious that they must fight to maintain their sovereignty. Their influence, sure; but they've been sacrificing that to avoid casualties for decades. (Just as the U.S. has, of course.)

In the first place, yes, the third reich was quite so obviously a threat to the rest of them.

No, it really wasn't; that's hindsight talking. The common view of the time held that Hitler would be satisfied with expanding Germany's 'lebensraum' in the east. That's WHY they tried appeasement to begin with. Yet the western European allies attacked him anyway when it became clear he wasn't stopping with the Sudetenland.

No they didn't; he conquered the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939 and western Europe did nothing; he invaded Poland in September and western Europe reacted by launching the Phoney War. They didn't start serious attacks until he gobbled up Denmark and Norway. But that isn't even the point. The common view of the time held that Hitler would be satisfied with expanding Germany's 'lebensraum' in the east precisely because the western Europeans weren't just afraid of fighting, they were afraid of losing, and people in mortal fear clutch at straws. The same mindset that made them think in 1939 that if they sat still the monster wouldn't come for them would apply ten times over in your ICC scenario -- it's not as though America would be invading in order to annex the Netherlands. The U.S. quit trying to expand its territory a hundred years ago. They'd just be there to kick some ass, get their guy back, and make sure the Europeans got the "Don't mess with Texas." message. So the major European powers would have every reason to believe their sovereignty would be just fine as long as they sat by and did nothing.

Except this is of course wrong. Yes, the reason not to go to war right away was based on fear... but that was only because there was still reason to think that Germany was acting rationally and would be content with the sudetenland. As soon as it became clear this was not the case, war was the *inevitable* result.

Except this is of course wrong. Conquering Czechoslovakia didn't start a war.

You are horribly naive; and severely ignorant of how countries other than the US think; if you imagine this scenario unfolding *without* it starting WW3. It simply isn't possible for this to happen the way you imagine it would.

Proof-by-assertion and proof-by-insult. Typical.

The Netherlands being invaded by the US, on the other hand, would be like a Chinese-Russian alliance invading Canada; all of the sudden it's right next door and it's going to have serious consequences to the US economy. Even if they were reluctant to go to war against the Russian-Chinese alliance, the US really would have no other choice.

Of course we'd have a choice -- especially if it looked like the Russian-Chinese alliance had limited war aims and would be going home on their own.

Of course, the fact that there's already UK/NL and DE/NL integrated military divisions also weighs in our favor.

Now that's a solid argument. If we were already killing British and German troops, that might well tie the political authorities' hands in a way treaties never could.

 

[dystopian]

The Cypriot National Guard was commanded by and top-heavy with Greek officers. The notion that this was a domestic coup was patently ridiculous.

A fact which was hardly going to be clear enough at the time to provide a clear cause for intervention.

Eight actually; but who's counting? The point is Britain had already refused to intervene by the time they found out Turkey was going to intervene and the Greek government was going to fall, which is what led to Makarios being reinstated.

Five or eight days doesn't make a huge amount of difference; either way not particularly clear enough. It's a poor example to use for your argument.

Oh for the love of god! This is your absurd hypothetical scenario, not mine. The U.S. obviously would not invade; that didn't stop you from asserting what would happen if, counterfactually, we did. It's not my fault your assertion wasn't self-evidently correct.

No, I did not come up with the scenario. I merely objected to the absurd claims about what would happen if the US did do the unthinkable and invade. Claims that are born of an arrogant attitude; "We *could* invade you, and we'd get away with it cause AMERICUH!*; an attitude based on ignorance.

Your faith in your allies is inspiring. No, it would not be obvious that they must fight to maintain their sovereignty. Their influence, sure; but they've been sacrificing that to avoid casualties for decades. (Just as the U.S. has, of course.)

No, it *would* be obvious. It has nothing to do with faith in our allies and everything to do with understanding European politics and culture; something you obviously don't.

No they didn't; he conquered the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939 and western Europe did nothing;
he invaded Poland in September and western Europe reacted by launching the Phoney War. They didn't start serious attacks until he gobbled up Denmark and Norway.

Which again, fits perfectly with what I was saying. And as for the 'phoney war'; The fact is they declared war on Germany at that point. Just because they didn't immediately go on an all out and offensive as we'd have done knowing what we know now doesn't mean one should dismiss the seriousness of that declaration of war; especially since the war as being played out at sea at that point was hardly insignificant. Hindsight is 20/20; their lack of initial serious commitment just proves what I've said as to the third reich not being seen as quite the existential threat to western Europe as we now know it was (and as we'd know the US to be if it decided to invade the Netherlands).

The same mindset that made them think in 1939 that if they sat still the monster wouldn't come for them would apply ten times over in your ICC scenario -- it's not as though America would be invading in order to annex the Netherlands.

A distinction which nobody will be impressed by. The US has hardly made itself popular with its wars of non-annexation. It's increasingly seen as a rogue nation; and you're talking about an invasion that centers around the US rejecting *international law* in the most egregious manner possible. When the mafia attacks the courthouse where one of its members is being tried for murder, the response from society and authorities is NOT going to be to shrug their shoulders. And in this case the US would be invading one of it's oldest and strongest allies; which is vastly different from what Hitler did. Hitler was an adversary from the start; his actions were born of megalomania, not madness. Attacking your own allies over something as trivial as having one of your soldiers stand trial in an international court of law is A) bonkers, and B) an act of extreme betrayal. People tend to do bad things to those that betray them.

The U.S. quit trying to expand its territory a hundred years ago. They'd just be there to kick some ass, get their guy back, and make sure the Europeans got the "Don't mess with Texas." message. So the major European powers would have every reason to believe their sovereignty would be just fine as long as they sat by and did nothing.

Except you forget that A), the EU is already immensely pissed with the US over a host of issues, including the ICC itself; a sentiment that would boil over if EU governments did nothing in such an outrageous case; and B) One of the fundamental ideas behind the EU and its increasing integration is to serve as a counterbalance to the US. Again, what you're suggesting in terms of what would happen simply isn't possible; and it demonstrates a severe ignorance as to modern European thinking, politics, and sentiment. The 'don't mess with Texas' comment just serves to establish the underlying reasons why you're imagining this powerwank scenario where the US could get away with it.

Except this is of course wrong. Conquering Czechoslovakia didn't start a war.

Right, because Czechoslovakia was *eastern* Europe. Far away from the west, especially in the age and mindset of the time. As you said, it wasn't until they started doing shit closer to home that the allies became serious. And NL is wedged right in between the three most powerful countries in Europe; serving as a vital economic link into two of them.

Of course we'd have a choice -- especially if it looked like the Russian-Chinese alliance had limited war aims and would be going home on their own.

There is no way the US would sit and do nothing. You are no more inclined to let a hostile entity run rampant in your backyard than we are.

Ultimately, your insistence on a scenario in which the US could; if it wanted to; get away with something like this, demonstrates exactly the kind of common American attitude that ensures it *can't*. I'll let you figure out what that means.