[Goose]

I am all for NATO, but I think this may overstate the case that membership in NATO supported peace. I might argue it was mostly the other way around. With the exception of Greece/Turkey, NATO accepted nations that were low risks for conflict with other NATO countries.

I agree, but maybe not for the reasons one might expect. Historically, France and Germany had a long history of armed conflict. So do France and Italy. While at the end of WW II things were sweetness and light, there was no certainty it would stay that way. NATO is a significant part of the reason it did. Soviet Russia was obviously quite willing to support things that would sow discord in Europe. If there were no NATO, fomenting discord would certainly have been much easier. There were large Communist parties in France and Italy that would have helped and neither of those countries were pictures of stability in the 50s and early 60s. For example the FRG could have been a political "squeeze" target that without NATO to defend themselves might have felt the need to Ostpolitik much earlier and much more "comprehensively". France's withdrawal from the military arm of NATO and the expulsion of all NATO bases from France did send lots of shock waves. A authoritarian regime in France (which General de Gaulle arguably was)  or Italy might have turned to armed conflict to distract the population.  The Force de frappe was arguably a step that enabled such action and was at least partially done for political reasons. NATO gave everybody else some certainty that France couldn't intimidate them by force.

Arguably, the enticement of NATO’s protection motivated factions with certain countries/regions to settle their differences so they could join.

IMO true. It also reassured all nations within NATO that if one of their neighbors (NATO or otherwise) "goes rogue" they won't have to fight them alone. NATO therefore makes it unnecessary for European nations to form "alliance blocks" that (while ostensibly defensive in nature) historically created the need for other nations to form counterbalancing alliance blocks. Today, since they are all in NATO, they are all already in a defensive alliance. It also makes such rogue actions much less attractive :-). With guys like Orbán around such action is always possible.

[Goose]

I am all for NATO, but I think this may overstate the case that membership in NATO supported peace. I might argue it was mostly the other way around. With the exception of Greece/Turkey, NATO accepted nations that were low risks for conflict with other NATO countries.

I agree, but maybe not for the reasons one might expect. Historically, France and Germany had a long history of armed conflict. So do France and Italy. While at the end of WW II things were sweetness and light, there was no certainty it would stay that way. NATO is a significant part of the reason it did. Soviet Russia was obviously quite willing to support things that would sow discord in Europe. If there were no NATO, fomenting discord would certainly have been much easier. There were large Communist parties in France and Italy that would have helped and neither of those countries were pictures of stability in the 50s and early 60s. For example the FRG could have been a political "squeeze" target that without NATO to defend themselves might have felt the need to Ostpolitik much earlier and much more "comprehensively". France's withdrawal from the military arm of NATO and the expulsion of all NATO bases from France did send lots of shock waves. A authoritarian regime in France (which General de Gaulle arguably was)  or Italy might have turned to armed conflict to distract the population.  The Force de frappe was arguably a step that enabled such action and was at least partially done for political reasons. NATO gave everybody else some certainty that France couldn't intimidate them by force.

Arguably, the enticement of NATO’s protection motivated factions with certain countries/regions to settle their differences so they could join.

IMO true. It also reassured all nations within NATO that if one of their neighbors (NATO or otherwise) "goes rogue" they won't have to fight them alone. NATO therefore makes it unnecessary for European nations to form "alliance blocks" that (while ostensibly defensive in nature) historically created the need for other nations to form counterbalancing alliance blocks. Today, since they are all in NATO, they are all already in a defensive alliance. It also makes such rogue actions much less attractive :-). With guys like Orbán around such action is always possible.