What was the reason why peace didn't last in Europe?
99995
I don't know. I'm only answering so I can monitor this question to see how quickly Bush gets blamed for it.
476741
There should be an European Union Style community, not totally joining the two countries...
328434
Actually it was started by the assassination because of alliances throughout Europe that caused the war to spread like wildfire.  The assassination was by a Serbian Nationalist and A-H was alied with Germany etc so the alliances drew Europe into the war. Other than that, European countries were searching for expansion of trade and land to acquire wealth and resources and saw war as a away to gain these.  Had Germany won, they would not have been forced to pay $33 billion in reparations that damaged their economy and lead to the uprising of Adolf Hitler who rallied the Germans behind resentment over the Treaty of Versailles for causing the economic depression and wanted to demilitarize Germany and gain wealth through expansion and acquiring resources across Europe which led to WW1... along with his anti-semitism.
569741
Major differences between the EU and Hitler:\n\n1) EU does not want to rule Europe.\n2) EU does not blame problems on the Jews and institute genocide program against them.\n3) EU does not start wars killing millions of people to accomplish its goals.\n\nApart from that, they're practically identical.\n\nEarl: No, being a union does not imply rule.  Having an agreement with someone (basically what the EU is) does not mean you control them.
966948
Europe, and especially western Europe, is in the midst of a crisis of civilizational morale. IT IS DYING. The most dramatic manifestation of that crisis is not to be found in Europe's fondness for governmental bureaucracy, socialism or its devotion to fiscally shaky health care schemes and pension plans, in Europe's lagging economic productivity or in the appeasement mentality and cowardice that some European leaders display toward Islamist terrorism. No, the most dramatic manifestation of Europe's crisis of civilizational morale is the brute fact that Europe is DEPOPULATING itself.\n\nEurope's below-replacement-level birthrates have created situations that would have been unimaginable when the institutions of European integration were formed in the late 1940s and early 1950s. By 2050, if present fertility patterns continue, 60 percent of the Italian people will have no personal experience of a brother, a sister, an aunt, an uncle, or a cousin; Germany will lose the equivalent of the population of the former East Germany; and Spain's population will decline by almost one-quarter. Europe is depopulating itself at a rate unseen since the Black Death of the fourteenth century.And one result of that is a Europe that is increasingly "senescent" (as British historian Niall Ferguson has put it).\n\nWhen an entire continent, healthier, wealthier, and more secure than ever before, fails to create the human future in the most elemental sense -- by creating the next generation -- something very serious is afoot. I can think of no better description for that "something" than to call it a crisis of civilizational morale. Understanding its origins is important in itself, and important for Americans because some of the acids that have eaten away at European culture over the past two centuries are at work in the United States, and indeed throughout the democratic world.\n\nThe demographics are unmistakable: Europe is dying. The wasting disease that has beset this once greatest of civilizations is not physical, however. It is a disease in the realm of the human spirit. David Hart, another theological analyst of contemporary history, calls it the disease of "metaphysical boredom," or boredom with the mystery, passion, and adventure of life itself. Europe, in Hart's image, is boring itself to death.\n\nAnd in the process, it is allowing radicalized twenty-first century Muslims -- who think of their forebears' military defeats at Poitiers in 732, Lepanto in 1571, and Vienna in 1683 (as well as their expulsion from Spain in 1492), as temporary reversals en route to Islam's final triumph in Europe -- to imagine that the day of victory is not far off. Not because Europe will be conquered by an invading army marching under the Prophet's banners, but because Europe, having depopulated itself out of boredom and culturally disarmed itself in the process, will have handed the future over to those Islamic immigrants who will create what some scholars call "Eurabia": the European continent as a cultural and political extension of the Arab-Islamic world. Should that happen, the irony would be unmistakable: the drama of atheistic humanism, emptying Europe of its soul, would have played itself out in the triumph of a thoroughly NONHUMANISTIC THEISM. Europe's contemporary crisis of civilizational morale would reach its bitter conclusion when Notre-Dame becomes Hagia Sophia on the Seine, another great Christian church become an Islamic museum. At which point, we may be sure, the human rights proclaimed by those narrow secularists who insist that a culture's spiritual aspirations have nothing to do with its politics would be in the gravest danger.\n\nWhat is fascinating is those east european countries that tasted the dead fruit of socialism, atheism and communism had shaken it off for good and western europe is demanding its own experience of the walking dead as seen in the vamp
165153
Many reasons.  There was oppression and famine in europe.  The US relaxed it's policy on immigration.  There were jobs to be had in the US.
36153
It didn't last for the USSR! :)
799310
Europeans had an Alliance with the Jews way back during the time of the Crusaders.  They cooperate to control the European economy.
988406
In 1929 Germany couldn't pay the high reparation costs to France that had been decided in the Treaty of Versailles. So France invaded the Ruhr area of Germany, where there was lots of industry, and diverted all of the profits of this area to France.\n\nBecause this meant there was now very little money in Germany, the Weimar Government (of Germany) printed lots of extra money. This resulted in 'hyperinflation' (where there is so much money that it becomes worthless) and meant that people lost all their savings overnight and went bankrupt.\nThis website explains it very clearly:
642614
Europe was broke from two World Wars.  They were already in poor economic shape before the war.  France was once again devastated by fighting on its territories.  Germany, the greatest European power, was divided into two zones, one controlled by the Soviet Union, and the other by France, UK, and the US, though the US had all the power.  Though the USSR was also devastated by the war, the battle of Stalingrad being the most deadly of the war, they quickly rebounded by treating Eastern Europe as an essential colony and stripping war material from East Germany.  The United States had been on the assent for some time, and would have become a superpower regardless of the war, but it just made them that much more powerful that potential German or British challengers.  During the war, at the meeting of Yalta between Roosevelt and Stalin, it was agreed that the USSR would get de factor control over Eastern Europe to administer it as it saw fit.  Later agreements led to the division of conquered Japanese territory, such as Korea.  This division was intended to only be temporary. But because of the ideological differences between the two, it quickly became clear that the U.S. and the USSR would become competitors.  While this led to proxy war in Korea, in Europe it devolved into a stalemate.  KGB battled the CIA, with both rigging elections through the continent.  Berlin was blockade from receiving food, with the West airdropping food in response.  Eventually it became the situation of the iron curtain, with a divided Europe, each side reliant on a superpower to prevent from becoming a battleground between the two. Though some countries showed some independence, mainly France and Yugoslavia, they were largely required to toe the line or fear losing protection.
577243
to avoid troublesome involvement in european affairs.  they thought europes issues should be left to europe without wasting american lives.  this follows the advice of washingtons farewell address
527565
Causes?  \nRise of nationalism, a bizarre dominos of treaties, the assasination of Archduke Ferdinand\n\nEffects?\nNot surprisingly for such a big blockbuster with international appeal there was a sequel 20+ years later.  Big numbers on that one, too.
288527
We were kind of trying to ensure the possibility for expansion.  The Europeans were no longer allowed to colonize, it would be considered unfriendly action if they tried.  And the U.S. stated again it's desire for independence to strive as a nation by telling the Europeans and Britain that they didn't want them interfering in American affairs.  They wanted to remain neutral in Europes war and feared Britain's ulterior motive of thwarting U.S. expansion.
258078
After the "great war", the war to end all wars (WWI), no one wanted to get drawn into another big conflict. They thought the best way to stay out of a war was to avoid confrontation and let Germany do what it wants to.\n\nAccording to the treaty of Versailles, a whole host of restrictions were placed on Germany,.... they couldnt have an airforce, they couldnt have a very big navy, they couldnt put troops in a certain area near France, they couldnt build U-boats, ....\nWhen Hitler came to power, one by one, Germany broke pretty much every single stipulation of the treaty (and wasnt even very secretive about it).  Other countries didnt want to get into a war, so they looked the other way while all this was happening.  Germany decided that it wanted to annex the sudetenland in Czechoslovakia, so they did and other countries let them (Czechoslovakia wasnt too pleased though).\nGermany's invasion of Poland was the last straw and is commonly used to mark the start of WWII in Europe.\n\nEngland's prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, is known for his policy of appeasment.  Other countries looked on while Germany was doing all this, hoping to avoid another war when in reality it let Germany get away with way too much.
653957
Because they thought that they could make a deal with Hitler and they didn't want to fight. Sounds like some people today who were against going into Iraq and Afganistan. History repeats itself.
156914
Main reason is because most international org. (such as League of Nations, United Nations, EA etc.) use diplomacy and not enforcement to enforce peace. While they have been able to maintain peace for the most part (if you think we have higher incidence of warfare today, you should read what was going on in the world in the pre-19th century era--every continent was ablaze with war, strife, looting, occupation etc.), they cannot overcome warfare caused by fanatics like the muslims in this world---these fanatics do not obey rule of law except when it suits them. They need to be vanquished only through warfare. A good example of peacekeeping is the ending of the dispute between UK and Ireland, and one between India and Pakistan--both, while still there, are dormant and mostly at peace except for the actions of the religious fanatics--in the case of Ireland, Christians, and in the case of Pakistan, Muslims.
822773
That is Europe for you. They want our help in time of war (WW  1, WW 2) but ask them in so called Peace time , forget it..Germany & France are the biggest offenders. They have not forgot we beat Germany & set free France in WW 2. Old grudges last long. Who are they going to blame the next time some nuts blow up a skyscraper in Berlin or Paris. Who will they Yell for help to? The terriost are going to LOVE the EU . THey have more rights to their money then you do yours.