While that's a valid observation, similar points were made just before WW1

Far more people have visited other countries now than in 1914. Having said that, once France and Germany were connected by trains it does seem a bit stranger that they would want to fight.

Also you did notice how one European nation, Russia, invaded another European nation, Ukraine, just this year -- right?

And the Russia stock markets crashed afterwards. But the war in the Ukraine is pretty limited with only a few thousand casualties, if it wasn't for the amount of trade esp. gas with Russia, the war might have escalated far more.

Incidentally, I'm not sure Russia counts as part of 'the west'.

Not generosity. The US was building barriers against Stalin's European ambitions.

I know, but despite that it still seems very charitable compared to the treatment of the vanquished in previous wars. If only the allies had shown the same wisdom after WWI...

I thought part of it was Germany starting WW2 as a result of resentment at reparations, so a more generous approach was tried.

[The Marshall Plan was] Not generosity. The US was building barriers against Stalin's European ambitions.

I dunno, it also gave lots of money to Britain too, which is harder to explain that way. (And I just learned from Wikipedia it also offered money to the Soviet Union and its allies, though I guess it expected them to turn it down.)

As a Frenchman with German friends, and family near the border, this seems outrageously stupid.

If the US became completely isolationist, including pulling out all support from NATO and dismantling the nuclear umbrella, I'd predict the next Franco-German war in 20 years max (possibly sooner).

Which what credence?

Why the heck should Germany want to wage war in the next 20 years on France?

Why should an isolationist US lead to a weaker EU instead of the EU coming more together?

Ehrr... France is a nuclear power. Wholly independently so - It isn't like the british deterrent which might get a lot more expensive without US support, the French nukes are French. Made in France, mounted on french rockets, in french submarines that are propelled by french reactors. "Has a firing solution for washington DC right along with the one for Moscow" is what I am saying. Nobody is invading them.

This seems very unlikely to me. Could you explain what you think would cause this war?

You would have gotten an answer if you had stopped at the first question.

Since these debts are paid back, with interest there is no way it could be interpreted as tribute.

Not true for treasury bonds, they roll them over rather than paying them down. The (likely temporary) special status of the dollar in international trade imposed after WWII also means that it is in high demand outside the US, giving us a special place as the source of dollars which can get extra stuff for them.

Regardless, end result is still more stuff for Americans.

Do you think it relies on its military dominance in order to extract that surplus?

Geopolitical power is quite complex. The US does at various points uses it's power to punish countries that act against US economic interests.

It's very hard to estimate the economic values extracted via wiretapping everything and using that information when it's needed.

In general if you would predict based on economic history that value transfer to the party with the military power is happening and you see that value transfer is happening, it should get you thinking. "Cui bono?" is a good question if you are dealing with intransparent complex systems.

If you don't see where the magician uses his skills, that can just means that the magician is good at his craft. If someone is really powerful you usually don't know how they get their results. Information warfare is a key part of US military thinking.

As far as European countries go Germany is the country with the biggest amount of US military occupation and it's the European country that exports the most. Of course it's just correlation ;)

When it comes to dealing with secret power I found Leoluca Orlando worth reading. As major of Palermo he fought the Mafia with makes him know what he's talking about. He did fought the building of US military bases because missile defense isn't the only thing that you can do with military bases. From that perspective it also makes a lot more sense why Russia has such a problem with Star Wars which probably won't work for it's stated purpose anyway.

What about the practical effects? Correct me if I'm wrong, but explicit mercenaries (like Blackwater) give worse results for vastly more money than normal volunteer (paid) soldiers.

I am with you on the preference for incentivizing people to go in to the military, rather than using conscription. Not being able to conscript more soldiers limits our ambitions to smaller wars against inferior powers. Then again, America seems to have a really good track record fighting giant military machines and great empires (Germany, Great Britain) and a really bad track record accomplishing our stated objectives in these regional wars against inferior militaries (Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan). Maybe I should be pushing for us to expend our military might on European plains?