• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Germany speaks out in favour of European army

Peace has a way of allowing people to entertain impractical things. When put to the test, their "integration" will crumble. They couldn't even come together over Bosnia and Kosovo. For Afghinstan they individually bicker over responsibility. And for Iraq they completely ran in different directions.

Who will be the Commander? A Frenchy? A German? A Turk? A former Soviet Bloc citizen? A Brit? Will they share command thereby placing nationality and culture under like commanders making them little more than what they are now? Will individual governments give up their citizens to EU laws over their own? It has nothing to do with being a "hardcore nationalist." It's about logistics and culture.

An EU military is unlikely and impractical. But it would be entertaining to see them try. Right now, they can't even individually move their troops internationally without American aid. Nor can they support themselves properly without American air support.

1. Bosnia and Kosovo has never been a member of the EU.
2. We dont have a common defense yet, so we dont have to agree on Afganistan.
3. Same as 2, yet now our voice is more united than it was before Iraq. I doubt the same would happen again, and if it did, it wouldnt matter more than it did with Iraq, where it mattered non at all, except to the US who whine over the French and the Germans not coming along in their illegal war.
4. Many commanders. Europe already have a command structure, and the command is shared just like political responsibility in the EU.
5. A future European military would probably have to swear allegiance to "western values" first and then nationality. The European military will remain two-tier, it will for a long time remain national where the nations pool their military resources in a far more effective way to MAKE UP the European military. Europe is not like the US, and you using the US as the starting point for understanding European politics and a European military is completely invalid.
6. Its a complete lie that you say European militaries cant do this and that. Its a delusion. They can, and they are doing. But the difference a united military effort will make is that the European military will be reformed to being a more multi functional force rather than a stand by defense force mostly, like most of the currently are.
 
1. Bosnia and Kosovo has never been a member of the EU.

And Haiti's not a member of the U.S., yet America does what it must to safe guard it region. 75 years after World War I and 50 years after World War II Europeans had a hard time figuring out if genocide and military aggression is a bad thing in Europe? Maybe thinking more about right and wrong instead of whether or not it is supposed to be your problem would have saved some lives throughout the twentieth century on the European landscape. Would this be the reason Europe's sense of morality is so depraved?

2. We dont have a common defense yet, so we dont have to agree on Afganistan.

Your common defense is America. And if you can't agree on a black and white issue like Bosnia or Afghanistan what makes you think this "common defense" will (Wasn't NATO supposed to be about a common defense?) But what is it that Europe needs to defend against anymore anyway? I doubt you are going to slaughter each other anymore. The only real future threat is civil, but your kind still refuse to acknowledge what is ahead.

3. Same as 2, yet now our voice is more united than it was before Iraq. I doubt the same would happen again, and if it did, it wouldnt matter more than it did with Iraq, where it mattered non at all, except to the US who whine over the French and the Germans not coming along in their illegal war.

Well, America's "illegal" war involved getting rid of a Western dictator and a corrupt European UN mission and was the start of dealing with a wrecked region of terror breeding. Europe's "illegal" wars sucked the the world in more than once and involved the deaths of hundreds of millions of people. Maybe Europeans should place a few things into perspectives instead of rushing to define America as the evil upon the earth. No one's caused or instigated more death upon this earth than Europeans.

But, calling America's activity with Iraq as "illegal" helps Europeans feel better doesn't it? Next thing you'll be calling us Nazis...oops...too late.


4. Many commanders. Europe already have a command structure, and the command is shared just like political responsibility in the EU.

So...no commander, but a committee? Is this supposed to be a military or not?

5. A future European military would probably have to swear allegiance to "western values" first and then nationality. The European military will remain two-tier, it will for a long time remain national where the nations pool their military resources in a far more effective way to MAKE UP the European military. Europe is not like the US, and you using the US as the starting point for understanding European politics and a European military is completely invalid.

European politics is represented with two World Wars, a Cold War, and a neglected Bosnia. What is being suggested from Europe is nothing more than a ceremonial entity. It's a NATO without the power across the sea (and channel).

6. Its a complete lie that you say European militaries cant do this and that. Its a delusion. They can, and they are doing. But the difference a united military effort will make is that the European military will be reformed to being a more multi functional force rather than a stand by defense force mostly, like most of the currently are.

Lie? We have an entire twentieth century full of examples of what European militaries can and can't do. I have trained with European militaries. They were uselsess in the Gulf War. They were a disaster in Somalia. They stood by under UN helmets and watched genocide in Bosnia before Clinton kicked out the UN and they had to be commanded around by American generals just to get them into somewhat usable positions. Their actual combat roles have been largely ineffective in Afghanistan, which is why British and American forces are always the leaders and always the more active. European militaries have the inability to fight effectively with combined arms, because they lack the combined arms. American air transport is still necessary to move European forces around. American air support is still being taken away from American ground troops because European ground troops haven't the support of their own.

The only thing a united European force will be is a much larger burden to Americans. At least you are manageable in small units.
 
Last edited:
No, not really, they are only free to do what member states agree on. The EU is not a state in itself like the US.

Anyways.. I mean, American perspective on this would be interesting. Would you see it as helpful, dangerous, detrimental or what exactly?

I don't think it matters one whit. An army is only useful....if you use it. Europe is so completely pacificist I can't see them creating a useful army much less using it.
 
I don't think it matters one whit. An army is only useful....if you use it.

Wow. You been reading the neocon playbook Dutch? You realize an army can be very useful without ever firing a shot right? For an example I refer you to the US military during the Cold War.
 
And Haiti's not a member of the U.S., yet America does what it must to safe guard it region. 75 years after World War I and 50 years after World War II Europeans had a hard time figuring out if genocide and military aggression is a bad thing in Europe? Maybe thinking more about right and wrong instead of whether or not it is supposed to be your problem would have saved some lives throughout the twentieth century on the European landscape. Would this be the reason Europe's sense of morality is so depraved?

You acted as the EU had some kind of responsibility to help in the Balkans, we did not. Yet, we did.

Your problem is that you cant get over the second world war.. Today is 2010 by the way. Perhaps I should start mentioning the American civil war, and how France saved America, in every discussion where it is relevant, and even more when it isnt relevant. Just to answer you people.

Your common defense is America. And if you can't agree on a black and white issue like Bosnia or Afghanistan what makes you think this "common defense" will (Wasn't NATO supposed to be about a common defense?) But what is it that Europe needs to defend against anymore anyway? I doubt you are going to slaughter each other anymore. The only real future threat is civil, but your kind still refuse to acknowledge what is ahead.

Nothing is black and white. Those examples certainly arent.

European common defense is not America. We have national defense first, we spend 200 billion € on national defense, between all the EU members. On top of that, we have had the NATO alliance for many decades. And a few decades ago, we started building what is the beginning of a common defense for Europe, which have progressed and developed ever since.


Well, America's "illegal" war involved getting rid of a Western dictator

What?

and a corrupt European UN mission and was the start of dealing with a wrecked region of terror breeding.

What?

Europe's "illegal" wars sucked the the world in more than once and involved the deaths of hundreds of millions of people. Maybe Europeans should place a few things into perspectives instead of rushing to define America as the evil upon the earth. No one's caused or instigated more death upon this earth than Europeans.

Perhaps its time Americans get over world war 2 already. Or perhaps they cannot, considering its their only great and good achievement ever, the only time they did the right thing, for someone else than themselves.

Also, perhaps its time Americans learn by the second world war, rather than from it.

But, calling America's activity with Iraq as "illegal" helps Europeans feel better doesn't it? Next thing you'll be calling us Nazis...oops...too late.

Doesnt make us feel better, it just makes us the only ones who care about international law and preventing another NAZI Germany like country from commiting the same mistakes again.

So...no commander, but a committee? Is this supposed to be a military or not?

The American fetishm with elected dictators and single people in power is well known. Europe is not taking this road anymore, nobody wants a president to rule a whole country or a single commander to rule much of the armed forces.


European politics is represented with two World Wars, a Cold War, and a neglected Bosnia. What is being suggested from Europe is nothing more than a ceremonial entity. It's a NATO without the power across the sea (and channel).

Clearly you still live in 1950. Perhaps I could update you into 2010, would you like some education?
 
I don't think it matters one whit. An army is only useful....if you use it. Europe is so completely pacificist I can't see them creating a useful army much less using it.

Using it? What is wrong with you?

An army is for defense purposes, not for offensive purposes. (unless you want to join other empires like Napoleons, NAZI Germany, Imperial Japan and so fourth, whom did have armies for offensive purposes.)
 
Wow. You been reading the neocon playbook Dutch? You realize an army can be very useful without ever firing a shot right? For an example I refer you to the US military during the Cold War.



The U.S. military fired shots all over the globe during the Cold War.
 
You acted as the EU had some kind of responsibility to help in the Balkans, we did not. Yet, we did.

Only after American boots crossed the ocean, once again, and forced you. Until America's involvement, European powers were quite content deliberating over it passing judgement.

Your problem is that you cant get over the second world war.. Today is 2010 by the way. Perhaps I should start mentioning the American civil war, and how France saved America, in every discussion where it is relevant, and even more when it isnt relevant. Just to answer you people.

Second World War? What about the Cold War? When the Berlin Wall came down an American presence was still in Germany. Bosnia and Kosovo was in the 90s. Today is 2010. What has changed?


European common defense is not America. We have national defense first, we spend 200 billion € on national defense, between all the EU members.

Well that's very nice, but a National Guard hiding behind an advanced American machine is hardly something to parade around. Until you can completely defend yourselves, your common defense is the American/British shield and umbrella. Both of which I want back across the ocean for a few decades so that same old lessons can be learned.



What do you mean "what?" Saddam Hussein was a dictator for the West during the Iran/Iraq War. His greatest supplier of weapons came from France. During the 90's he was allowed his throne and his station of oppression because the West wished it so. He was a "western" dictator. The Cold War has more examples. The New Imperialsim era has a plethora of these from Europe alone. The colonial period celebrated this concept of population control. Hussein was one of the last hold outs and he held out because we assured it.


Perhaps its time Americans get over world war 2 already.

It would be eay if there weren't a World War before that one. Or a Cold War after....Bosnia after....Kosovo after.... Hell, a big part of Clinton's foriegn policy agenda in Europe was ensuring a stable Russia and partnership so that Europe no longer had to be our burden. We are merely waiting for the next trip across the ocean for Europe's sake.

Or perhaps they cannot, considering its their only great and good achievement ever, the only time they did the right thing, for someone else than themselves.

I'm pretty sure that even most of Europe would chastize you greatly for this bout of glorified ignorance. Perhaps you have America confused with a mirror.


Also, perhaps its time Americans learn by the second world war, rather than from it.

Oh we did learn. After two world Wars instigated by Europeans, we learned that left to your own devices the world couldn't be safe and that it would cost American lives in the end. This is why we stuck around for the Cold War and why we have tried to make you play nice with each other since the Berlin Wall came down. With America's youth, you would think that Europe would be more parental instead of childish in your resentments towards the upstarts across the Atlantic.

But perhaps it is Europe that has finally learned the lesson. This attempt to create a "unified" military may be exactly what you have to do in order to ensure your own defense for a change so that America can focus more on our own issues. If only we had a Cold War to primarily look inward at someone else's expense. But we aren't so bad. Due to our culture, we don't have any where near the immigrant and terror issues you have even after your Cold War dedicated focus inward.

....it just makes us the only ones who care about international law.....

Because it absolves you of responsibility and gives you an excuse to turn away. Did you know that the UN labeled Kosovo as "illegal?" Even the high and mighty French chose to ignore this bit of international law. Hmmm...the hypocracy of Europeans is only surpassed by the Arabs in the Middle East.


The American fetishm with elected dictators and single people in power is well known. Europe is not taking this road anymore, nobody wants a president to rule a whole country or a single commander to rule much of the armed forces.

A dictator in America? Do even think before you type or is emotion such a strong thing for you that you can't contain your absurdity? Every military needs a commander and every country needs a leader. And in 50 years, the nations of Europe will continue to have single leaders. What people "want" and what is practical are often two different things.


Clearly you still live in 1950. Perhaps I could update you into 2010, would you like some education?

The Cold War lasted until 1989 and Bosnia and Kosovo was in the 1990s. I'm pretty sure these dates mean that it was not the 1950s. But please....eduate me as to the latest scheme or dream Europeans have to re-model themsleves. In the end, you are a cycle. Your pacifist "nothing bad can happen" attitudes today existed post World War I and pre-World War II. You spent a Cold War doing nothing but benefitting under the "nothing bad can happen" attitude and the 90's griping that there is a reality outside your borders for which you have to take part in for a change. Please enlighten me of Europe's latest "new" attitude.

Left to Europe, the world would be denied until we can label something World War III.
 
Last edited:
Good maybe when the Europissants start defending themselves we can finally bring our military personal back home.

I'd love to see this. Of course we would just be setting ourselves up to having to cross the Atlantic Ocean when too much American blood has to be spilt to balance it out again. We tried to stay our of WWI, but in the end had to go and make a difference. We tried to stay our of their affairs dutring WWII, but in the end had to go make a difference. We tried to stay out of Bosnia and Kosovo, but in the end had to go do what they would not on their lone. America has learned its lessons. Whether they like it or not, they will be parented until they grow up.
 
Using it? What is wrong with you?

An army is for defense purposes, not for offensive purposes. (unless you want to join other empires like Napoleons, NAZI Germany, Imperial Japan and so fourth, whom did have armies for offensive purposes.)

And this is why Europe's need for military aid thrived throughout an entire century. Why there even existed a Vichy France. You went from colonizing and brutalizing the world to slaughtering each other to thinking that a military is only for defense. If you build your military around the idea that they only have to hold the wall until upstarts across the ocean come to the rescue (just to be criticized for it anyway) then your military will always be exactly as I have described.

An "army" should be effective which means it should be prepared and trained for offense as well as defense. History is full of failures who built their army's around the idea that holding a wall will suffice.


The reason your kind think this is because Americans and Russians were your offense in two world wars while you were selling each other out. During the Cold War it was Americans that were your offensive muscle. During Bosnia it was Americans that continued to be the muscle and work horse. And today, 2010, nothing has changed except the Europan fantasy that "armies are for defense only." I believe Kuwait had a defensive military. It took outsiders to be the offense for them. Sound familiar?
 
Last edited:
How would this work with NATO? Or issues of national sovereignty and security? I know the EU has conducted military exercises but I don't see this happening, or if it does it won't form a military of any great significance. It'll probably be formed primarily for the purposes of international peacekeeping, which would be redundant with other international militaries. So again, I don't see this happening.

I could see greater cooperation between EU members national militaries.
 
I'd love to see this. Of course we would just be setting ourselves up to having to cross the Atlantic Ocean when too much American blood has to be spilt to balance it out again. We tried to stay our of WWI, but in the end had to go and make a difference. We tried to stay our of their affairs dutring WWII, but in the end had to go make a difference. We tried to stay out of Bosnia and Kosovo, but in the end had to go do what they would not on their lone. America has learned its lessons. Whether they like it or not, they will be parented until they grow up.

You guys didn't do practically anything in WW1, you showed up at the very end. The Canadian Corps made more of a difference in WW1 than the Americans.
 
How would this work with NATO? Or issues of national sovereignty and security? I know the EU has conducted military exercises but I don't see this happening, or if it does it won't form a military of any great significance. It'll probably be formed primarily for the purposes of international peacekeeping, which would be redundant with other international militaries. So again, I don't see this happening.

I could see greater cooperation between EU members national militaries.

It would be purely ceremonial and centered around an ideal. A unified European military implies that individual governments would always be on the same page. And as tribal as Europeans are this is impossible. They scoff at our sense of nationalism (which has never reared such an ugly head as Europe has reared), but they have merely replaced their sense of nationalism with tribalism. They are divided on Afghanistan and they were divided on Iraq. They were divided on Bosnia and they were divided on Kosovo. They are divided on economic issues. They are divided in loyalties to allies. They have a history of screwing each other over and selling out. I guess history is supposed to teach us that Europe is "unified?" The first opportunity they have they will be true to their history.
 
You guys didn't do practically anything in WW1, you showed up at the very end. The Canadian Corps made more of a difference in WW1 than the Americans.

Perhaps you should read up on Belleau Wood and Chateau-Thierry. It was the Marine Corps and some American soldiers that finally stopped Ludendorf's advance to Paris and finally turned the war around. It was here where Ludendorf had to halt and re-direct his focus. For two days, German soldiers were being picked off and denied advance. It took them two days before they found the body of a dead American to realize that American Marines were fighting in this location and papers throughout Europe (to include Germany) recognized it. And it was at this point in the war where the allies finally pushed back to win.

After years of stalemate even Ludendorf knew that he had to push before the Americans got involved to tip the balance. He was right. Canadians were just like the rest. They were beaten down and advancing backwards before Americans showed up.

This 27 day battle was of such significance that it is memorialized to this day in France. Had we not showed up, Europe was facing a Vicky, Normany situation (like World War II). So whatever everyone's input, this cannot be denied unless you are unaware of the event.


But we didn't have to show up at all. Like World War II, Europe's civil war was Europe's business. We've had business deals with dictators and brutes before without having to go to war with them or agreeing to their behaviors. Germany would have been no different and it would have saved American lives.
 
Last edited:
I think you're overstating America's role in Europe's affairs. America did not single handily win WW1 or WW2 or "clean up" the Yugoslavian wars follow that country's break up. But I agree with your assessment of problems with an EU military, giving up some sovereignty in economic affairs is one thing especially if it benefits everyone involved. But no nation is going to give up its military entirely, thats a step too far, so an EU army will have to complement national militaries and never be stronger than them. Also it's use will have to be decided by probably 100% agreement between each EU member
 
Perhaps you should read up on Belleau Wood and Chateau-Thierry. It was the Marine Corps and some American soldiers that finally stopped Ludendorf's advance to Paris and finally turned the war around. It was here where Ludendorf had to halt and re-direct his focus. For two days, German soldiers were being picked off and denied advance. It took them two days before they found the body of a dead American to realize that American Marines were fighting in this location and papers throughout Europe (to include Germany) recognized it. And it was at this point in the war where the allies finally pushed back to win.

After years of stalemate even Ludendorf knew that he had to push before the Americans got involved to tip the balance. He was right. Canadians were just like the rest. They were beaten down and advancing backwards before Americans showed up.

This 27 day battle was of such significance that it is memorialized to this day in France. Had we not showed up, Europe was facing a Vicky, Normany situation (like World War II). So whatever everyone's input, this cannot be denied unless you are unaware of the event.


But we didn't have to show up at all. Like World War II, Europe's civil war was Europe's business. We've had business deals with dictators and brutes before without having to go to war with them or agreeing to their behaviors. Germany would have been no different and it would have saved American lives.

I'll grant that American participation was more important than I had thought. However, as Wiseone said, you never single handedly won either of the world wars (despite all the bravado chest thumping you give yourselves), and even if the Spring Offensive had succeeded, it's doubtful that Germany would have been able to hang on to all of that territory for long.
 
I think you're overstating America's role in Europe's affairs. America did not single handily win WW1 or WW2 or "clean up" the Yugoslavian wars follow that country's break up.

I'm not overstating anything. What is common these days is for people (Europeans and our own ignorant Americans) to understate American contribution and result. I didn't state it single handedly did anything.

What I did state was that it was the Battle of Belleau Wood that turned the tide and prevented the Allies from losing WWI and it was the American fist at Normany and Italy in the west that worked hand in hand with the Russian fist in the east. Allied with Britain in the struggle against Nazi Germany while also conducting naval warfare against Japan in the etire Pacific? It participated with Britain in ousting German forces from North Africa, invaded Germany's ally, Italy, and opened the Second Front at with Normandy. It was also American diplmacy and muscle that pushed Europe into dealing with "Yugolsvaia" in the 90s. It was Clinton that kicked the UN out of Bosnia and it was American commanders that positioned European forces as they bickered ad bickered. It was also Clinton that forced the French to take part in the bombings of Kosovo. In both "Yugoslavia" wars America flew the vast percentage of all sorties. Who's region was this? 50 years after WWII and we still had to bear the brunt of the effort in the European theater?

But for the ultimate "**** you" to those who wish to downplay America's contribution and matter when it came to these things......there were far more Americans killed in Europe than Frenchmen.


229,000 American soldiers died in Europe.
217,000 French soldiers died in Europe.


Wasn't it their country that needed liberated? Pretty sacrificial of us for it not being our own land. Perhaps if we erase those American deaths and kept them at home Russia would have crossed through Paris eventually. Out with the Nazis...in with the Soviets. Europe would have still been screwed.

But what I find pathetic is how we are criticized for coming late to thewir party. Little regard is given the fact that we didn't have to come at all. Little regard is given to the fact that the rest of the 413,000 dead Americans soldierts were already fighting the Japanese in the Pacific for years in what was our own problem. Today, we get the Zeebras (representative of exactly what I detest about Europe) that or contribution was minor as if the French liberated themselves or that Russia was just around the corner and surely would have left afterwards (like they did with Poland, Iran, and Turkey). Little regard to how much America has sacrificed so that they could spend decades licking their wounds while we focused on regional stability throughout their colonial vacuumes (leaving us to take all their blame in the future).

I don't overstae anything. I know my military history and I know the mess Europe's created over the centuries. This is why I will not let someone like Zeebra spew his venom and falsehoods uncontested. This is why I bring up the French torture machine in Algeria, which saw to hundreds of thousands of people publicly and truly tortured as a matter of policy, whenever he and other Europeans portray America as the ultimate evil for a handful of waterboarding occurrences. This is why I bring up the global carnage, which was the result of their instigated World Wars, every time they wish to portray America as the ultimate evil for taking out Hussein and freeing Muslims to kill each other in Iraq.

No matter what the stumble or error for which America constantly corrects and moves forward, we will never be Europeans. No matter how hard they wish to exact every little thing America does to the disasters of European invention and ingenuity we will never be their equals in a department they all but monopolize. This new attitude of "holier-than-thou" will last until they have to re-discover who they are.
 
I think even your overstating the American importance to halting the Spring offensive. If American units were not there than obviously that part of the line would have been manned by other allied formations, now what units would have been there and how well they would have done is total and complete speculation. And as to how that fact would have changed the offensive as a whole, since other parts of the line would have been weaker to cover that part where the Americans would have been, is also total speculation.

But I doubt that offensive would have ended the war for Germany either way, it was a LONG way to Paris when that offensive ended. If the American units were fresher and thus were able to stop them sooner than European units could have, which is arguable, there was still a lot of territory to cover and advance through.
 
I'm going to make another topic in the warfare forum to discuss this, since this top was originally about an EU Army.
 
Hide the Jews.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckrk1iqYdfM&feature=PlayList&p=D7920FA36506CE68&index=5"]YouTube- WW II Video, Nazi National Anthem[/ame]
 
I'll grant that American participation was more important than I had thought. However, as Wiseone said, you never single handedly won either of the world wars (despite all the bravado chest thumping you give yourselves), and even if the Spring Offensive had succeeded, it's doubtful that Germany would have been able to hang on to all of that territory for long.

Well, I realize the common attitude, so many years later by generations that didn't participate or endure it, is to pat each other on the back for fear that too much credit in one place will make others feel bad, but history is history.

America never single handedly won any global war or effort. Nobody's really ever stated this. This attitude has mostly come from those Europeans abroad who breathed a breath of fresh air for the first time in years only after an American tank went through their town. Some of this attitude rightly comes from the American population of the era who saw almost a single handed effort in the Pacific only to double the amount of American troop death in Europe. Later generations would have to constantly remind Europeans that their complaints that we came late to their party wouldn't have hasd to come at all if they handled business on their won as we did in the Pacific.

Today's attitude is a result of resentment and social need to re-capture pride and glory. France's atitude towards NATO and constant **** blocking of American efforts in the global regions over the decades was their way of "proving" that they are independant and powerful again. Germany has had to contend with the fact that they are defined as history's producer of ultimate evil and their generations have been paying for this blow ever since.

But no matter why the general attitude about America's involvements in Europe's affairs exist, it can only be denied that it was a key ingredient every single time by those who are so deep in their resentments that they stoop to labeling Americans as Nazis or declaring that "America's done nothing good for nobody except for WWII (- compliments of Zeebra)" Do you honestly think Afghanistan is any different? If it was Paris that Al-Queda struck, American forces would still be the most aggressive and the most prevailent ingredient to that effort. Bosnia and Kosovo proves what they expect of us.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom