Historically, international political unions that were successful, had the 3 common characteristics below.

1. They were created against a common enemy, real or imaginary. (USA against the British, medieval Europe against the eastern nomadic invaders and muslims.)

2. They gave a new identity and self image to people, and made them FEEL better/winners. (Nobody in the USA thinks of a repeat of e.g. the Ohio-Michigan wars. In medieval Europe, the closer you were to the church and God, the better your popularity was.)

3. The idea of the union was marketed to everyone every day. (American commercials don't just tell you to buy this product but to buy this American product. Medieval Europe had every Sunday a church day for everyone.)

So I guess I have 3 questions:

1. Is the EU created against a common enemy like Russian political threat, Chinese economical pressure, muslim cultural pressure, etc., or is it mainly against the mutual agression of member nations only?

2. Do you FEEL European? A quick look at the map already shows various current national catastrophies like Koenigsberg, Tyrol, Transylvania, Bosnia, Kosovo. In a truely federated Europe, these problem spots would not be taboos but would be directly governed from Brussels.

3. Is the idea of Europe marketed to you, or only to the political elite?

Please write your opinions, I'd like to learn more.
Thanks.

America wasn't formed from an international political union, but whatever.
There was nothing even remotely close to a political union formed in Medieval Europe, unless you consider the HRE to be one. The call for Crusades was answered sporadically, and at first by not a single head of state.
Piety didn't quite work like that. The Church did play a role in the formation of a Christian European identity, but it never had any concrete political union. The debate over that involved more than a century of conflict between the Papacy and the HRE.
...you do realize how far-fetched that is?

I will agree with you that from a cultural standpoint, medieval Europeans were far closer than today. But politically they were miles and miles away. The Catholic Christian identity (which would dissipate with the Reformation) did function as a common European identity.

Knowing the background of the EU creation answers that question.
It began from the European Coal and Steel Community. Economics, pure and simple economics.

I do. But not all Europeans do.
Köningsberg a current national catastrophy??? Neither is Tyrol. Wrong century. And I'm not aware of any current boiling national catastrophy in Transylvania either. Bosnia and Kosovo are being worked with, and they are on the slow track to recovery.

Do you consider 1930's and 40's current?
Considering any move towards federalization has to pass numerous referendums, if the idea is ever presented it would have to be presented to the masses.

This is all highly theoretical. Europe is not going to federalize soon. Maybe in my lifetime, but it will take decades to even get properly moving. There is very strong opposition to federalization from political elements in most nations. The EU is, and for the timebeing, will remain a primarily economic union. The whole constitution debacle was highly overrated.

On other political forums e.g. Network54, Romanians write that they learn to hate Hungarians in public schools as a part of national curriculum. Also members of these forums, of various nationalities, forecast that the next wave of Balkan wars is coming and Macedonia and Transylvania are the most likely starting points.

In my experience, I have never been to Romania, but when I met Romanian turists here in New York, they were friendly UNTIL I made the mistake of telling them about my Hungarian ancestry. Also, at a Barbeque party, I met a Romanian couple who were friendly UNTIL my wife who never heard of Romania told them that I was of Hungarian origin. Then they stopped talking to me.

So I think the 1930's and 40's are very much alive in Europe, and ready to explode. I think the basic question is: is Europe capable/equipped to face/handle the REAL feelings of its REAL citizens?

Forum members are hardly reliable people when it comes to predicting anything. Romanians and Hungarians have no love for each other, but to the extent of war? Not bloody likely.
Especially when the powerful levers of the EU and Russia can easily extinguish any conflict by threatening economic sanctions.

Besides, only Hungary is a member of the EU right now. (And that with restrictions) Romania is scheduled to join in 2009, but that might not go on time. When you speak of "Europe" you clearly mean the EU, and the EU is still largely an economic, not a political, union. It is a mistake to assume it is a political one as well, at least right now.

For a comparative story, Greece and Turkey. They have been at each others throats for a greater part of the last century, with a few close wars. Now, their relations are much warmer, Greece even endorses Turkey's EU membership. Why? If Turkey joins the EU, the likelyhood of conflict (a war which Greece would probably loose) plummets.

The 40's are dead. Their legacy lives, but the problems of their time are not current problems. The ethnic map of Europe was largely redrawn after WWII, with the problem of national minorities greatly diminishing.
Austria and Italy will not go to war over Tyrol.
Germany would not want the wasted chunk of land known as Kaliningrad back.
The borders of Europe are pretty much a settled question, with few border disputes remaining.

I think you miss the whole point, ausa999, of the EU; it was as an attempt to break from the warring past that it was initiated! This includes not just ww2, but all of the associated myths, grounded in superstition and unreason, from which they derived.

Its an attempt, not to forge alliances which are founded in a collegiate ignorance in which all find the fellow-feeling in which they can barbarically share...thats the point - énlightenment, if you will. America tried it but have grown tired of some of its trappings of late...

__________________
"A man's work is nothing but this slow trek to rediscover, through the detours of art, those two or three great and simple images in whose presence his heart first opened."

I thought that EU member is EU member, I didn't know there are various classes of membership ... what kind of restrictions are these?

Does this suggest that the non-EU Turkey is the potential agressor in this case? (And EU membership would reduce its agressive tendencies?)

This is very interesting! Do you mean that redrawn = deported/assimilated forcefully? How is the problem diminishing? (I think e.g. the Tyrol autonomy was ended in the 90s(?) and 88% of Tyrol germans were "strongly inspired"(?) to leave.) I think I may be wrong, what are the processes you are referring to?

This surprises me. Modern german identity is based on the big german philosophers and scientists like Kant, Euler, Hagel, etc., who lived and worked in Koenigsberg. I agree that some border disputes remain, and I sense that the EU cannot yet take charge of these(?).

So what kind of "sharing" is the nature of EU is based upon? Only economic and not cultural? I am not sure if I understand your American reference, because the USA is both an economic and a cultural union. Can it be, that this "enlightment" is a search for a common denominator between ALL ethnicities of Europe?

They aren't called restrictions, but Hungary is not a member of the monetary union. And there are limits placed on the rights of Hungarian workers to move into Europe for the next few years. They also aren't part of the Schengen agreement.
They are still in a transitional phase of being integrated into the EU.
They threat of war between the two has declined, but yes it does. They almost went to war in 1996, but since 1999 their relations have improved. No EU member states have gone to war against each other.
This topic is covered in any history book that deals with the settlement of WWII. Ethnic groups moved with the new borders drawn in Eastern Europe. Genocides in Yugoslavia redrew the ethnic map. They relocated to their respective nations, many fleeing the Red Army.
Most European countries are nationally heterogenous, immigrants form a more remarkable minority than specific national minorities.
I do not know enough about the specific case of South Tyrol, but the last time it was a major issue was when Mussolini was in office.
Kaliningrad is inhabited almost exclusively by Russians. It serves as the only ice-free port of the Russian (Red) Navy. Even if Germany wanted it back (they don't, they agreed to relinquish claims over old territory back in the 80's), Russia would just laugh.
The only disputes I can think of are ones with new EU joining states. Maybe the EU will deal with them, maybe not. Either way, it is not a major issue.