Lots of other reasons, such as the European Coal and Steel Community, which had the purpose "to make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible".
Peace absolutely was their primary motivation because it's impossible to have any sort of prosperity when neighboring states are waging a brutal war every generation. The rivalry of France and Germany has existed since long before German unification and was long considered to be unavoidable. Which is why the primary goal of the ECSC to prevent either nation from independently producing weapons of war.
During WW1 and WW2, some countries (France and the UK) pooled their resources so they could fight together better.
Then a few years after the war, the European Coal and Steel Community was created to regulate coal and steel in six countries under a single authority. Including West Germany, which had only been formed from the occupied territories a year before. It was certainly not unrelated to military force.
Its initial aims included making war between member states impossible, and eventual democratic unification of all of Europe. The later institutions up to the EU grew out of it.
So although it was completely peaceful, it's still an outcome of WW2.
You are technically right but the driving forces were France and Germany. Those two countries have a long history of wars and one of the goal of the European Coal and Steel Community, which started the whole thing, was to bring peace in the long term by ensuring close ties between the two countries. My grandfather who fought the Nazi in the French "resistance" once told me that whatever I thought politically about Europe, I should back it of all my weight because then I wouldn't have to see history repeat itself.
That was the main argument for global trade already in 1914. France was Germany's most important commercial partner, and vice-versa. All German rifles had stocks made from French walnut wood! All French locomotives had German-made tubing! This stupid mantra was repeated ad nauseam after 1991, too, with silly op-eds from Friedman and friends about how two countries with McDonald joints in both can't be at war and similar inanities. Surprise surprise, such wars happened many times since then (the latest being, of course, Russia vs Ukraine).
Before WW1 people also believed that large scale European conflict couldn't happen any more because of the economic entanglement. In hindsight, that notion looks pretty stupid.
To the contrary, the strategic importance of trains specifically caused the Great War, and basically plunged Europe into 40 years of total war conflict.
Most of the great powers didn't want war, but Germany clearly did. For a single assassination to legitimately trigger a war between Germany and France is silly. It was the trigger, but the tension was already there. They would probably have taken any excuse to go to war.
> 'make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Coal_and_Steel_Commun...
reply