Would the USA exist without Europe?

mindlight · Thursday at 4:48 PM

Historically the answer to this question is of course a no brainer. The USA would not exist at all without Europe in its present successful form. It would probably exist as a collection of smaller less consequential countries.

1)The USA was built-on a European foundation it's constitution is a product of European thinkers like Locke and Montesquieu. It's common law tradition came from Britain and much literature also.
2) It's people mainly came from European countries and it speaks English.
3) it industrialised earlier because of European technical transfers and investments
4) The British freed it from the threat of being broken up into smaller powers dominated by Europe. The French then helped free the USA from the British.
5) Americans are mainly Christians because of European Christianity exported to the continent.

But is the relationship still important today? Is Europe just a godless drain of blood and treasure and would the USA be better off without it?

I am going to argue that the USA would be much diminished by isolationism.

1) Europe and the USA are each others biggest trading partners and it's companies and European companies employ millions on both continents. America without European trade and investment would be much poorer.

2) Europe is a military power magnifier providing bases, forces,intelligence and cash. The combined weight of NATO saw off Soviet Communism and has prevented any major wars since just after WW2

3) Research like CERN, DESY, Medical stuff, innovations are shared and financed by both continents.

4) We share a culture of freedom and Christian faith in a world that is growing steadily less free.

Is Europe essential to continued American global leadership providing benefits to nation and people or a godless cost of blood and treasure Americans no longer want to pay? Would the current power, prosperity and creativity of the USA be possible without a thriving trans- Atlantic relationship?

Pommer · Thursday at 5:12 PM

mindlight said:
Historically the answer to this question is of course a no brainer. The USA would not exist at all without Europe in its present successful form. It would probably exist as a collection of smaller less consequential countries.

1)The USA was built-on a European foundation it's constitution is a product of European thinkers like Locke and Montesquieu. It's common law tradition came from Britain and much literature also.
2) It's people mainly came from European countries and it speaks English.
3) it industrialised earlier because of European technical transfers and investments
4) The British freed it from the threat of being broken up into smaller powers dominated by Europe. The French then helped free the USA from the British.
5) Americans are mainly Christians because of European Christianity exported to the continent.

But is the relationship still important today? Is Europe just a godless drain of blood and treasure and would the USA be better off without it?

I am going to argue that the USA would be much diminished by isolationism.

1) Europe and the USA are each others biggest trading partners and it's companies and European companies employ millions on both continents. America without European trade and investment would be much poorer.

2) Europe is a military power magnifier providing bases, forces,intelligence and cash. The combined weight of NATO saw off Soviet Communism and has prevented any major wars since just after WW2

3) Research like CERN, DESY, Medical stuff, innovations are shared and financed by both continents.

4) We share a culture of freedom and Christian faith in a world that is growing steadily less free.

Is Europe essential to continued American global leadership providing benefits to nation and people or a godless cost of blood and treasure Americans are no longer want to pay? Would the current power, prosperity and creativity of the USA be possible without a thriving trans- Atlantic relationship?

The continent would be here; how/who populated it would have been different.
This could be a nice “writing-prompt”, lets us envision a world where European riff-raff didn’t scurry over to the “home of the brave”!

mindlight · Thursday at 5:17 PM

Pommer said:
The continent would be here; how/who populated it would have been different.
This could be a nice “writing-prompt”, lets us envision a world where European riff-raff didn’t scurry over to the “home of the brave”!

Home of the BRAVES, multiple different tribe based nations, periodically at war with each other, you'd have graduated from bows and arrows by now but Europe would probably have to bomb you occasionally to prevent you acquiring nukes and using them on each other.

Bradskii · Thursday at 6:48 PM

mindlight said:
Historically the answer to this question is of course a no brainer. The USA would not exist at all without Europe in its present successful form. It would probably exist as a collection of smaller less consequential countries.

I think so. Your question prompted me to think how so many areas of the world are so different from each other while sharing a common border.

Look at the counties of Yorkshire and Lancashire in the UK. Both considering themselves to be different to their neighbour. Look at Wales and England. Two different countries sharing a border both within the United Kingdom. Utterly different heritage and culture. And language. Look at France and Germany. Could two countries be more different?

When travelling around Europe very many years ago there was a sense of being somewhere else when you crossed a border because there was almost a small ceremony when you produced your passport and had it stamped. You were then leaving this country and when you stepped over this line you were entering that country. And the language, the signs, the food, the language were all completely different just a few metres away.

Recently driving across Europe it was odd that the borders had effectively ceased to exist. They appeared on Google Maps but there was no physical boundary.

Driving across the US, I had the same feeling moving from one state to another. The differences were sometimes subtle, but in retrospect it was very obvious indeed that places like California and Texas and Mississippi are completely different. As different as Wales, Ireland, Scotland and England are from each other. And we all consider ourselves to be different countries, even having our own flags (and in some cases, our own language). So I think that in some alternative universe, California and Texas and Mississippi would still exist. But there'd be no United States.

mindlight · Thursday at 7:30 PM

Bradskii said:
I think so. Your question prompted me to think how so many areas of the world are so different from each other while sharing a common border.

Look at the counties of Yorkshire and Lancashire in the UK. Both considering themselves to be different to their neighbour. Look at Wales and England. Two different countries sharing a border both within the United Kingdom. Utterly different heritage and culture. And language. Look at France and Germany. Could two countries be more different?

When travelling around Europe very many years ago there was a sense of being somewhere else when you crossed a border because there was almost a small ceremony when you produced your passport and had it stamped. You were then leaving this country and when you stepped over this line you were entering that country. And the language, the signs, the food, the language were all completely different just a few metres away.

Recently driving across Europe it was odd that the borders had effectively ceased to exist. They appeared on Google Maps but there was no physical boundary.

Driving across the US, I had the same feeling moving from one state to another. The differences were sometimes subtle, but in retrospect it was very obvious indeed that places like California and Texas and Mississippi are completely different. As different as Wales, Ireland, Scotland and England are from each other. And we all consider ourselves to be different countries, even having our own flags (and in some cases, our own language). So I think that in some alternative universe, California and Texas and Mississippi would still exist. But there'd be no United States.

Actually Texas, California and Mississippi were each created in a conflict between European historical presence and cultural influences and would not exist as we know them without these.

The Spanish, French and English competed through Mexican and American proxies. The Texans and Californians were in effect an overflow of white settlers from the more populous Eastern states - seeking new land and forming their identity via the Alamo, gold rushes and frontier wars with Mexico. Mississippi was a French colony, conquered by Britain, then a slaver state in the confederacy, there is the white-black, french- English tension helping to inform a distinctive identity and history. It was the Europeans who brought blacks to the Americas as slaves. So without Europe there might have been no blacks. I am not sure the states and cultures we see today could have existed without an influx of European settlers. Texas was demographically stabilised by an influx of Irish after the potato famines for example. But some Irish fought for Mexico due to being catholic and mistreated as immigrants by the dominant WASP culture that formed the USA and on which the English, Germans and Dutch were very influential. This WASP dominance conflicts with the heavy catholic backgrounds of these three states.

Europe is linguistically diverse and this reinforces cultural differences more markedly than in the USA despite economic integration and freedom of movement. The old European tensions are visible in modern American communities. California hosts a lot of Asian immigrants so is slightly removed from its European roots in the Spanish missions and American gold prospectors who got there first.

So there is no real case here for a distinctive American identity that can be separated from the larger European story except by way of development from those roots.

Chesterton · Thursday at 7:58 PM

mindlight said:
Historically the answer to this question is of course a no brainer. The USA would not exist at all without Europe in its present successful form. It would probably exist as a collection of smaller less consequential countries.

1)The USA was built-on a European foundation it's constitution is a product of European thinkers like Locke and Montesquieu. It's common law tradition came from Britain and much literature also.
2) It's people mainly came from European countries and it speaks English.
3) it industrialised earlier because of European technical transfers and investments
4) The British freed it from the threat of being broken up into smaller powers dominated by Europe. The French then helped free the USA from the British.
5) Americans are mainly Christians because of European Christianity exported to the continent.

But is the relationship still important today? Is Europe just a godless drain of blood and treasure and would the USA be better off without it?

I am going to argue that the USA would be much diminished by isolationism.

1) Europe and the USA are each others biggest trading partners and it's companies and European companies employ millions on both continents. America without European trade and investment would be much poorer.

2) Europe is a military power magnifier providing bases, forces,intelligence and cash. The combined weight of NATO saw off Soviet Communism and has prevented any major wars since just after WW2

3) Research like CERN, DESY, Medical stuff, innovations are shared and financed by both continents.

4) We share a culture of freedom and Christian faith in a world that is growing steadily less free.

Is Europe essential to continued American global leadership providing benefits to nation and people or a godless cost of blood and treasure Americans no longer want to pay? Would the current power, prosperity and creativity of the USA be possible without a thriving trans- Atlantic relationship?

I could quibble with a couple things you said. but mostly I think you got it right.

We just want you to be a little more like us. This World Cup has shown that the neo-cons were right in spirit, although not in actions. We want strong partners. And you're not godless yet, but you have a muslim mayor of your largest city. How are we supposed to feel when you someday, in your suicidal empathy, elect a muslim Prime Minister? When there are thousands of them on the streets chanting "death to America"?

Marco Rubio gave a wonderful speech about Europe and America at the Munich Security Conference in February.

Chesterton · Thursday at 8:04 PM

Pommer said:
This could be a nice “writing-prompt”, lets us envision a world where European riff-raff didn’t scurry over to the “home of the brave”!

Or how about a world where Indians built large ships and conquered Europe? Oh man, the Patriarchy! The slavery! No rule of law, and your enemies are physically tortured for your dining and dancing pleasure!

<shudders>

Bradskii · Thursday at 9:17 PM

Chesterton said:
And you're not godless yet, but you have a muslim mayor of your largest city. How are we supposed to feel when you someday, in your suicidal empathy, elect a muslim Prime Minister? When there are thousands of them on the streets chanting "death to America"?

In New York? I missed that. And why associate a Muslim with the term Godless? Get a Muslim, a Jew, a Protestant, an Eastern Orthodox and an atheist in a bar and we'd be talking all night about how to define the god in which each of us believed in. There'd be a reasonable consensus that I'd be the odd one out, but the rest of you would find that you had a lot in common.

Hans Blaster · Thursday at 11:04 PM

A whole thread because a joke was not understood. Oh my.

mindlight · 2026-07-17T05:19:02-0500

Bradskii said:
In New York? I missed that. And why associate a Muslim with the term Godless? Get a Muslim, a Jew, a Protestant, an Eastern Orthodox and an atheist in a bar and we'd be talking all night about how to define the god in which each of us believed in. There'd be a reasonable consensus that I'd be the odd one out, but the rest of you would find that you had a lot in common.

He was talking about Sadiq Khan and London, not New York

mindlight · 2026-07-17T05:34:27-0500

Chesterton said:
I could quibble with a couple things you said. but mostly I think you got it right.

We just want you to be a little more like us. This World Cup has shown that the neo-cons were right in spirit, although not in actions. We want strong partners. And you're not godless yet, but you have a muslim mayor of your largest city. How are we supposed to feel when you someday, in your suicidal empathy, elect a muslim Prime Minister? When there are thousands of them on the streets chanting "death to America"?

Marco Rubio gave a wonderful speech about Europe and America at the Munich Security Conference in February.

I agree with what Rubio said, but he generally sounds more reasonable than people like Hegseth (who called us "pathetic") and Trump (divisive and transactional rather than interested in a real connection). So I wonder if he was talking for his party when he gave these reassuring words, there are a great many isolationists in the Republican party and many of them seem deeply deluded about how America works and has prospered.

The situation in Europe before the Ukraine war was strategically stupid but we are addressing the military deficit and the strategic dependencies we have developed.

Slagging us off will just mean that we take that new and developing strength in alternate directions which are not so compliant to US wishes. There are two main groups arguing this. Personally I want to see us working together and it is clear that Russian and Chinese foreign policy is more about breaking the European alliance with the USA than cultivating it.

1) On the left, people generally do not want to spend money on the military and are blind to the global threat situation but they like the idea of Europe collectively having the strength to oppose American wishes and to carve out its own path. The military could then be an extra tool to force a leftwing political direction.
2) On the right e.g. AFD who want a Germany First policy in which a strong military gives more independence rather than a stronger role in alliance with other powers - who are more pro Russian than pro NATO and have a merely national vision of defense needs. Musk offers support without understanding here.

Regarding migration I think the bigger issue is what drives it. Migrants built the USA but most of those were Christians, bringing the right values to the new community and motivated to make a better life. When we welcome cults, terrorists, 'persecuted' perverts and members of false religions we do ourselves no favors.

mindlight · 2026-07-17T05:38:26-0500

Chesterton said:
you're not godless yet

No quite, but we are long over due for a proper revival. People have been shaken in recent years, but the overwhelming secular nature of our institutions and a woke liberal culture stands in the way. People need to pray.

Bradskii · 2026-07-17T06:01:02-0500

mindlight said:
He was talking about Sadiq Khan and London, not New York

Thousands of people in London chanting Death To America? I missed that as well.

Chesterton · 2026-07-17T11:27:35-0500

Bradskii said:
In New York? I missed that. And why associate a Muslim with the term Godless? Get a Muslim, a Jew, a Protestant, an Eastern Orthodox and an atheist in a bar and we'd be talking all night about how to define the god in which each of us believed in. There'd be a reasonable consensus that I'd be the odd one out, but the rest of you would find that you had a lot in common.

Sadly, we wouldn't find that out.

Chesterton · 2026-07-17T11:31:51-0500

Hans Blaster said:
A whole thread because a joke was not understood. Oh my.

Well, I haven't been to a movie since Rock 'n' Roll High School, 1979.

Chesterton · 2026-07-17T11:55:57-0500

mindlight said:
I agree with what Rubio said, but he generally sounds more reasonable than people like Hegseth (who called us "pathetic") and Trump (divisive and transactional rather than interested in a real connection).

If Hegseth called "European free-loading" pathetic, maybe you should look at yourselves and take the criticism to heart.

mindlight said:
So I wonder if he was talking for his party when he gave these reassuring words, there are a great many isolationists in the Republican party and many of them seem deeply deluded about how America works and has prospered.

He was talking for this administration. Don't confuse the Trump administration with the Republican party.

mindlight said:
The situation in Europe before the Ukraine war was strategically stupid but we are addressing the military deficit and the strategic dependencies we have developed.

Slagging us off will just mean that we take that new and developing strength in alternate directions which are not so compliant to US wishes. There are two main groups arguing this. Personally I want to see us working together and it is clear that Russian and Chinese foreign policy is more about breaking the European alliance with the USA than cultivating it.

All this because of "slagging you off"? We just talk different - more direct. And Trump's more, um, direct than most.

mindlight said:
1) On the left, people generally do not want to spend money on the military and are blind to the global threat situation but they like the idea of Europe collectively having the strength to oppose American wishes and to carve out its own path. The military could then be an extra tool to force a leftwing political direction.
2) On the right e.g. AFD who want a Germany First policy in which a strong military gives more independence rather than a stronger role in alliance with other powers - who are more pro Russian than pro NATO and have a merely national vision of defense needs. Musk offers support without understanding here.

The Left wing doesn't bother me militarily. The AFD have the right idea.

mindlight said:
Regarding migration I think the bigger issue is what drives it. Migrants built the USA but most of those were Christians, bringing the right values to the new community and motivated to make a better life. When we welcome cults, terrorists, 'persecuted' perverts and members of false religions we do ourselves no favors.

According to the demographic science, it may already be too late.

Bradskii · 2026-07-17T18:34:33-0500

Chesterton said:
Sadly, we wouldn't find that out.

You'd not find some commonalities? I find that very hard to believe.

Would the USA exist without Europe?

See in the dark

Future History Slab Carver

See in the dark

Under the Southern Cross I stand...

See in the dark

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding

Under the Southern Cross I stand...

Your turn, Atlanta!

See in the dark

See in the dark

See in the dark

Under the Southern Cross I stand...

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding

Under the Southern Cross I stand...

Similar threads