Europe and the Rest of the World - A Military Analysis

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boohugh

Effective military training is designed to break recruits so it can mould them from scratch, therefore by definition it shouldn't matter what background or culture those recruits come from. If you don't train them correctly in the first place, then unwanted traits will undoubtedly get into the system. I don't think it's fair to say one culture is less suited than others though. You could pick out all sorts of traits in Western European culture that make people unsuitable to be in the armed forces, many of which would be exactly the same as those mentioned in the article and probably many others too. The only difference being there is a generally higher standard of training in Western Europe so those traits are generally eliminated and replaced with traits desired for an effective military.

---

again, i want to stress that i am forwarding this article for discussion, not advocating it as a total explanation for; "why arabs can't win wars" award.

and while i accept the point that training is their to break down unhelpful social conventions and behaviours, you can certainly appreciate that a rigid class structure "almost to the point of being a caste system" would inhibit the culture of learning/training that permits the reinvention of these individuals as soldiers? also that it likewise encourages a clear distinction between the officer and the grunt, which discourages the creation of a class of authority-wielding non-com officers that intrinsically bridge the expected social divide.

this article does not answer 'all', but nor too does it claim too, and i certainly don't think the explanation should be written off as insignificant.

my grandfather in the picture above joined as a grunt from an unimportant family, and was then put through sandhurst on the officer-training program where he won the sword of honour at passing out, and he spent his whole life conscious of the percieved difference between himself and his fellow officers, how much more debilitating must that prove institutionally in arab forces in the 80's to today?

I don’t see how culture, in a broader sense, can be ruled out as a factor of military performance.

Organizational and political mind-set is also a type of culture. The military its self can be said to be a culture.

The world view of a people or a state can effect training and doctrine. Authoritarian governments may discourage initiative and inventiveness in their officer corps.

Likewise, training and tactics can be effected by culture in both a broader and narrower sense.

These biases can lead to improper training methods and miss judging situations.

I think most of us have heard of the war averted because of bullet grease. Was that other than cultural?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

These biases can lead to improper training methods and miss judging situations.

I think most of us have heard of the war averted because of bullet grease. Was that other than cultural?

---

Was that not a war started though?? Anyway I always thought the Indian mutiny was more down to a lack of strong central control and the sense among the military castes who tended to be Muslim that they were being pushed out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Wow, I wish I was luckey enough to have such great surviving family heirlooms. The best I got was a picture of my great great grandfather in WW1 dress uniform.

---

I have some photos of my Great-Grandfather in the Carrickfergus Fire Service, the Northern Irish football team (I think it's that team, I'm not sure), and, er, a minstrel band O_O

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

I have some photos of my Great-Grandfather in the Carrickfergus Fire Service, the Northern Irish football team (I think it's that team, I'm not sure), and, er, a minstrel band O_O

---

Cool was that before 1950 Subotan if it was before 1950 then there was no Northern team as such, however there were two teams from two rival associations, but both claimed to be Ireland and drew players from the entire Island. FIFA had to intervene to sort it out eventually for the Brazil World Cup in 1950.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

You don't understand Europeans all that much Vuk, I'm a total noob of course but in the European mind it's not rock&roll but c-minor. But if you think we lack the fortitude, look at the effects of 9/11 on America, isn't the biggest trauma that you can be attacked on own soil, what would an invasion do?

---

I really hope that I am wrong Frags (for the sake of both the US and Europe), but I am not so sure. What if Europe would be suddenly attacked on the weekend without warning? How long would it take their military to mobilize and meet the threat? Against a determined attack (and esp if several large cities have been nuked), how long before their resolve breaks. If you hate war and think of it as the most horrible thing in the world that must be avoided at all costs (instead of as one of the most horrible things that some times is necessary and that you need to be ready for...a much wiser approach imho), will you try to avoid it at ALL costs? Will you give up your freedom or settle into a disadvantageous peace that will make your citizens the slaves of another?
You don't understand Americans. When we were attacked on our own soil we were shocked because that is not supposed to happen in America, and instead of abhorring war, everyone in America was making ready for it. You punch us and you may take us by surprise, but we will see red and we will tear off your head. You cannot abhor war the way that Western Europeans do and still have an effective military. Yes, you have to know that war sucks, but you have to ready, able, and WILLING at any moment to go to war. If your country is attacked, you cannot have questions about right and wrong (is it right to go to war or not? Maybe we can appease them), you have to have worked that out in advance, you have to stand for yourself, and you have to counterattack fervently.
Look how the European's love of appeasement and avoidance of war messed things up with WWII. Making big webs of alliances and prizing peace over freedom has never stopped wars. It has only postponed them, and made it that when war does come, it will be much bigger than before.
If more countries had the attitude of sitting on their porch with a shotty (yes, a creative hyperbole), and were more willing to use military force against someone who transgressed against them, you would not have wars.
WWI happened because people thought that their ridiculous webs of alliances would keep them safe and they let their guard down. WWII happened because the Europeans would do anything to avoid another World War...and because of that they caused one. You cannot control the bad guy and what he does, you can only control yourself and what you do.


EDIT:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJY-fBXCncw

Take this Canadian's attitude as an example of the right attitude. No one is afraid of a military or a country that is timid about going to war. People are only afraid of a military or country that knows that some times it is the right thing, knows that there is such a thing as 'evil', and is ready to combat 'evil' when it sees it. (and by evil I do not mean in the military sense, but people or a nation or a leader with no regard for humanity and that poses a direct threat to the citizens of your or and ally's country. Take Hitler as an example of that)

Vuk, your entire premise is based on the supposition that humanity can only live in two states: war and not-yet-war. I don't think that's true.

Hmm what if we were suddenly attacked in Europe, I fail to see how any country in the world would not be caught by a surprise attack, Pearl Harbour anyone.

Plus if more countries were willing to use force we would have more war not less, it stands to reason as there are a lot of very small countries around the world who even at 100% recruitment would be unable to defend themselves.(at least conventionally)

Basically you cant base your entire policy on some kind of innate fear of invading hordes from the steppes.

Maybe he had this in mind: http://www.fusedfilm.com/2009/11/rol...e-day-sequels/

Quote:

---

What if Europe would be suddenly attacked on the weekend without warning? How long would it take their military to mobilize and meet the threat? Against a determined attack (and esp if several large cities have been nuked), how long before their resolve breaks.

---

Attacked by who? China? China's government is incompetent, thier navy is restriced to brown water operations and their economy relies on exporting to western countries. Russia? They might not be as much of a wreck as they were in the early nineties anymore but they still aren't in the position to take the world stage again. India? Same economic problems as china not to mention a complete lack of motive. Realy all the countries that could theoretically pull an invasion off on their lonesome dont want to and everyone else aren't powerful enough to even consider taking on NATO. It isn't the cold war anymore, we dont need a army numbering in the millions because there isn't an enemy at the gates and I dont see that changing any time soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

I really hope that I am wrong Frags (for the sake of both the US and Europe), but I am not so sure. What if Europe would be suddenly attacked on the weekend without warning? How long would it take their military to mobilize and meet the threat? Against a determined attack (and esp if several large cities have been nuked), how long before their resolve breaks.

---

What if that happens to the USA but instead of cities they nuke your airbases?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

If you hate war and think of it as the most horrible thing in the world that must be avoided at all costs (instead of as one of the most horrible things that some times is necessary and that you need to be ready for...a much wiser approach imho), will you try to avoid it at ALL costs? Will you give up your freedom or settle into a disadvantageous peace that will make your citizens the slaves of another?

---

Totally. But what you don't seem to get is that this is our attitude BEFORE someone nukes our cities. AFTER our cities have been nuked by surprise we don't think anything anymore as we're all dead anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

You don't understand Americans. When we were attacked on our own soil we were shocked because that is not supposed to happen in America, and instead of abhorring war, everyone in America was making ready for it. You punch us and you may take us by surprise, but we will see red and we will tear off your head.

---

It wasn't supposed to happen but it did, and it happened because America was sitting on the front porch with it's shotty, only problem being that it used the middle east as it's front porch. The terror threats against Europe only started when we joined you in your retaliatory campaign. That's not even to say I'm against that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

You cannot abhor war the way that Western Europeans do and still have an effective military. Yes, you have to know that war sucks, but you have to ready, able, and WILLING at any moment to go to war. If your country is attacked, you cannot have questions about right and wrong (is it right to go to war or not? Maybe we can appease them), you have to have worked that out in advance, you have to stand for yourself, and you have to counterattack fervently.

---

And what tells you that Europeans would not do that? Just that we don't start wars all the time?
Because we're not the ones who start using violence you think we're unable to strike back?
Look at school shootings, some really tame people can go really crazy and get a huge bloodlust if they feel wronged.
Europe is simply beyond the macho posturing and military penis comparisons that keep aggression levels between countries high and increase the chance of war, you seem to mistake that for an unwillingness to defend ourselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Look how the European's love of appeasement and avoidance of war messed things up with WWII. Making big webs of alliances and prizing peace over freedom has never stopped wars. It has only postponed them, and made it that when war does come, it will be much bigger than before.

---

Oh really? Then why has there been no inner-european war within Europe since WW2? Or are you going to tell me that France is secretly preparing to start one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

If more countries had the attitude of sitting on their porch with a shotty (yes, a creative hyperbole), and were more willing to use military force against someone who transgressed against them, you would not have wars.

---

Yes, absolutely, take Israel and it's peaceful existence for example...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Take this Canadian's attitude as an example of the right attitude.

---

He forgets what I said above, basically that Al Queda's main problem is America sitting on their countries with a shotty telling them what to do to avoid getting crushed. It's easy to see how this attitude prevents conflicts.
Iran is another example of the creation of peace by meddling in other countries' affairs in the most obvious ways.

Quote:

---

Exactly! I've been saying this for years, just like the Polish cavalry charge against tanks in World War II! Because that totally happened.

You want to see a modern army? The Revolutionary Guard of Iran. Strictly not Arab, but Arabicised.
You want to see the fourth largest navy in the world? Turkey. Strictly not Arab, but Arabicised.

So what constitutes Arab culture? I think it's not too far from the truth to say that Morocco, Yemen, and Syria basically share the same basic Arab cultural fundaments, but how about Iran? Or Turkey? Or say Afghanistan? As for your point on Iraq, I don't think it was just superior technology and discipline of the Coalition that led to success in a relatively short time, but also the fact that Iraq had been bombed to hell about ten years earlier.

Try the same thing in Iran, see how that works.


And for me, speaking as a European, and staunchly pro-European, I think the fact that we've learned a very hard lesson sixty years ago, by basically experiencing on our own the pure horror war brings. Strife is natural, personal combat is natural. War not so much. War completely manipulates some basic human emotions and gets people so far as to kill another person outside of self-defence. The fact that we have learned the hard way about what what war means for husbands, fathers and sons, wives, mothers, and daughters, and brothers and sisters is what would make Europe as an entity superior. The fact that we treat war as a very last resort is what's so important. In this day and age we cannot afford to glorify war anymore. It's too risky.

---

persian culture is not arabian culture turkish culture is not arabian culture. they share a religion, past that they are drastically different. turkey especially is far distant from arabian culture and the persians have had their own culture for millennia.

Quote:

---

gaelic" styly of warfare anymore, outside of the Black Watch (and even then they were formed by the pro-Unionist highland aristocracy as a dumping ground for cleared highlanders)

---

i hope your kidding....... it was addressed to gaelic cowboy good job trying to latch onto everything i say and try to embarrass me though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Vuk, your entire premise is based on the supposition that humanity can only live in two states: war and not-yet-war. I don't think that's true.

---

I would like to think that it is not true, but I think a careful study of history shows that it is true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

we dont need a army numbering in the millions because there isn't an enemy at the gates and I dont see that changing any time soon.

---

Again, I am NOT making an argument as to the size of militaries! A small, well prepared army with a willing populace behind it can beat the hell out of a bloated, scared army without the support of its citizens. I don't think that you understand what I am arguing. Looking back at some of the previous pages that I missed, it seemed that Centurion and Strike have absolutely no idea what I was arguing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

What if that happens to the USA but instead of cities they nuke your airbases?

The same thing that happens if we are attacked with conventional forces, only with less aircraft.

Totally. But what you don't seem to get is that this is our attitude BEFORE someone nukes our cities. AFTER our cities have been nuked by surprise we don't think anything anymore as we're all dead anyway.

Wrong, that apocalyptic nonesense was invented to scare children. A nuclear war would NOT mean the end of humanity. Heck, we got things a lot better than nukes now. They are only mentioned as a scare tactic. (And to be honest, it literally may help our war effort if the likes of New York City, Chicago, and Miami are nuked. ~;) I don't think I would mind that too much. :P)

It wasn't supposed to happen but it did, and it happened because America was sitting on the front porch with it's shotty, only problem being that it used the middle east as it's front porch. The terror threats against Europe only started when we joined you in your retaliatory campaign. That's not even to say I'm against that.

No, it happened because America has started to suffer from the same spinlessness as Europe (America's problem being a different discussion.) and not nipping the Middle East problem in the bud before it turned into what it turned into. Too afraid of what our Eurobuddies would think maybe...

And what tells you that Europeans would not do that? Just that we don't start wars all the time?
Because we're not the ones who start using violence you think we're unable to strike back?
Look at school shootings, some really tame people can go really crazy and get a huge bloodlust if they feel wronged.
Europe is simply beyond the macho posturing and military penis comparisons that keep aggression levels between countries high and increase the chance of war, you seem to mistake that for an unwillingness to defend ourselves.

You see, being prepared for war and starting wars are completely different things. I am always ready for a fight, and because of that 99% of guys don't want to pick a fight with. Guess what? I have NEVER started a fight in my life. Wars don't happen when there is mutual fear. When you remove that factor, bad people will take advantage or weak good people. That is the truth. You can be unarmed, good, and taken advantage of. You can be armed, bad, and take advantage of others, or you can be the third option: Armed, good, and not taken advantage of. You seem to think that to be ready (and even willing) for a war means that you have to start one. The guys who can get away with never being in a fight are the ones who are always ready and willing for one. Mutual fear breeds mutual respect. You cannot have love and good will without respect. You cannot have lasting respect without some degree of fear. It is a brute justice, but what keeps one from cracking the head of another is the fear that he could get his own head cracked.


Oh really? Then why has there been no inner-european war within Europe since WW2? Or are you going to tell me that France is secretly preparing to start one?

lol, first of all, don't get me started on France. Second of all, war is only being prevented temporarily through the military readiness of countries outside of Europe. That will not last forever.


Yes, absolutely, take Israel and it's peaceful existence for example...

Israel is a state that was founded by violence and terrorism, and is now the constant victim of violence and terrorism. It actually is a very good example. If it was not for the military readiness of Israel, it would NOT exist! Every Jew in Israel would be beheaded! They survive only because of their military readiness.

He forgets what I said above, basically that Al Queda's main problem is America sitting on their countries with a shotty telling them what to do to avoid getting crushed. It's easy to see how this attitude prevents conflicts.
Iran is another example of the creation of peace by meddling in other countries' affairs in the most obvious ways.
What you are describing is sitting on someone else's porch, and not your own. It is something that both the US, but esp Russia has been guilty of in the last few decades. I am not supporting such a policy, and never argued that America is perfect. America has consistently bungled foreign policy and has done some thing that, quite frankly, I think is shaming to our country. That however has nothing to do with the discussion of military readiness, and a war ready populace. (Again, where America is not perfect, but far better than their anorexic, scarf wearing counterparts across the Atlantic.

---

yes i do....... western europe in your mind cannot effective armies. this is bull. pure and simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Cool was that before 1950 Subotan if it was before 1950 then there was no Northern team as such, however there were two teams from two rival associations, but both claimed to be Ireland and drew players from the entire Island. FIFA had to intervene to sort it out eventually for the Brazil World Cup in 1950.

---

It was before 1950, but I honestly can't remember any such details, as the photo is back home and I'm at university. I'll dig it out once I go back home and get back to you :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

I really hope that I am wrong Frags (for the sake of both the US and Europe), but I am not so sure. What if Europe would be suddenly attacked on the weekend without warning? How long would it take their military to mobilize and meet the threat? Against a determined attack (and esp if several large cities have been nuked), how long before their resolve breaks.

---

Not that much different compared to Americans. You just think you'll last longer because you have guns everywhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

You don't understand Americans. When we were attacked on our own soil we were shocked because that is not supposed to happen in America, and instead of abhorring war, everyone in America was making ready for it. You punch us and you may take us by surprise, but we will see red and we will tear off your head. You cannot abhor war the way that Western Europeans do and still have an effective military. Yes, you have to know that war sucks, but you have to ready, able, and WILLING at any moment to go to war.

---

When the 7/7 bombings hit London (in fact when any terrorist bombing has hit any part of the UK including from the IRA), there's always been a sense of "we had it coming", thanks to our close association with American foreign policy.

Quote:

---

If your country is attacked, you cannot have questions about right and wrong (is it right to go to war or not? Maybe we can appease them), you have to have worked that out in advance, you have to stand for yourself, and you have to counterattack fervently.

---

good god I can't believe I'm hearing this. This sounds like a parody of a line from Starship Troopers.

Quote:

---

If you hate war and think of it as the most horrible thing in the world that must be avoided at all costs (instead of as one of the most horrible things that some times is necessary and that you need to be ready for...a much wiser approach imho), will you try to avoid it at ALL costs? Will you give up your freedom or settle into a disadvantageous peace that will make your citizens the slaves of another?

---

Who is going to attack us? The European Union binds us together and suppresses the easiest way to form divisions and conflict, nationalism. Russia is a wheezing power, who's primary threat is shutting off oil (Equivalent to trying to drown a man in your own blood) and China doesn't care about the EU. If anyone else attacked us our small professional armed forces would kerb-stomp them. Manufacturing fear of a non-existent enemy is completely abhorrent.

Quote:

---

Look how the European's love of appeasement and avoidance of war messed things up with WWII. Making big webs of alliances and prizing peace over freedom has never stopped wars. It has only postponed them, and made it that when war does come, it will be much bigger than before.

---

Wow, just wow. I am absolutely stunned that you are comparing the interbellum peace in Europe to the post-war/communist peace in Europe. The two are linked solely in that they took place on the same continent. The entire structures of the two different peaces are so different, economically, socially, politically, historically... It just blows my mind that you think such a comparison is possible.

Quote:

---

WWI happened because people thought that their ridiculous webs of alliances would keep them safe and they let their guard down. WWII happened because the Europeans would do anything to avoid another World War...and because of that they caused one. You cannot control the bad guy and what he does, you can only control yourself and what you do.

---

No it didn't! NATIONALISM was the root cause of the Second World War! The failure of the League of Nations and European countries to suppress caused the Second World War.

Quote:

---

If more countries had the attitude of sitting on their porch with a shotty (yes, a creative hyperbole), and were more willing to use military force against someone who transgressed against them, you would not have wars.

---

Give me one example where a state of constant militarisation has prevented war.

Quote:

---

I would like to think that it is not true, but I think a careful study of history shows that it is true.

---

Europe (at least the parts in the Union) is a post-conflict continent. A war between the member states is absolutely unthinkable.

Quote:

---

Wrong, that apocalyptic nonesense was invented to scare children. A nuclear war would NOT mean the end of humanity. Heck, we got things a lot better than nukes now. They are only mentioned as a scare tactic. (And to be honest, it literally may help our war effort if the likes of New York City, Chicago, and Miami are nuked. I don't think I would mind that too much. :P)

---

Please show me your sources indicating that civilisation would not vanish entirely and permanently from this Earth if there was ever a nuclear war.

Quote:

---

You see, being prepared for war and starting wars are completely different things. I am always ready for a fight, and because of that 99% of guys don't want to pick a fight with. Guess what? I have NEVER started a fight in my life. Wars don't happen when there is mutual fear. When you remove that factor, bad people will take advantage or weak good people. That is the truth. You can be unarmed, good, and taken advantage of. You can be armed, bad, and take advantage of others, or you can be the third option: Armed, good, and not taken advantage of. You seem to think that to be ready (and even willing) for a war means that you have to start one. The guys who can get away with never being in a fight are the ones who are always ready and willing for one. Mutual fear breeds mutual respect. You cannot have love and good will without respect. You cannot have lasting respect without some degree of fear. It is a brute justice, but what keeps one from cracking the head of another is the fear that he could get his own head cracked.

---

An individual =! society =! international relations. This is really a pretty simple concept to grasp.

Quote:

---

lol, first of all, don't get me started on France

---

No no no, I'm going to get you started on France. What about France? Do you have a Wikileak detailing plans by France to annex the left bank of the Rhine?

Quote:

---

. Second of all, war is only being prevented temporarily through the military readiness of countries outside of Europe. That will not last forever.

---

No, peace within Europe is permanently prevented through co-operation and an abhorrence of nationalism in all EU member states.

Quote:

---

Israel is a state that was founded by violence and terrorism, and is now the constant victim of violence and terrorism. It actually is a very good example. If it was not for the military readiness of Israel, it would NOT exist! Every Jew in Israel would be beheaded! They survive only because of their military readiness.

---

That has not been the state of affairs in Israel since at the very latest the 1990s.

Quote:

---

What you are describing is sitting on someone else's porch, and not your own. It is something that both the US, but esp Russia has been guilty of in the last few decades. I am not supporting such a policy, and never argued that America is perfect. America has consistently bungled foreign policy and has done some thing that, quite frankly, I think is shaming to our country. That however has nothing to do with the discussion of military readiness, and a war ready populace. (Again, where America is not perfect, but far better than their anorexic, scarf wearing counterparts across the Atlantic.

---

Right, because isolationism did absolutely nothing to cause the Second World War. Nothing at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Again, I am NOT making an argument as to the size of militaries! A small, well prepared army with a willing populace behind it can beat the hell out of a bloated, scared army without the support of its citizens. I don't think that you understand what I am arguing. Looking back at some of the previous pages that I missed, it seemed that Centurion and Strike have absolutely no idea what I was arguing.

---

And I keep saying over and over the reason we are not idiot spatan wannabes, chomping at the bot to get stuck into the next enemy, is becuase we dont need to be nor do we particually want to be. We have no big enemies to defend from, we have no big wars to fight, all the wars we have been in the last 60 odd years has been over seas and as far as I can see there is no power with an interest in invading Europe that can stand up to what we allready have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

i hope your kidding....... it was addressed to gaelic cowboy good job trying to latch onto everything i say and try to embarrass me though.

---

Sorry, as you lacked a comma in your sentence after "Gaelic", it was possible for me to interpret it incorrectly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

yes i do....... western europe in your mind cannot effective armies. this is bull. pure and simple.

---

Yes, that is it broadly, but I meant that your answers seemed to imply that you had no idea WHY I was arguing that, or on what I based my argument on.
Bull? Not really. If you are gun shy, you will not be able to defend yourself. It is like in a martial arts class, during sparring and free-fighting. There are people there with all the skills in the world, but who are gun shy. Someone who enjoys fighting more, or who has confidence in themselves and is USED to either harsh training techniques or real fights will mop the floor with them. They are just too scared. That is the situation in Europe. Training and military discipline is not harsh enough to prepare citizens for war, and European society makes preparing them for war even harder.

Vuk, you do realise that if all the European Union's armed forces were considered as one, then the European Union's military is the second largest in the entire world, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

Vuk, you do realise that if all the European Union's armed forces were considered as one, then the European Union's military is the second largest in the entire world, right?

---

So what? I am not arguing about size. I am arguing about society and citizenry ONLY.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

No it didn't! NATIONALISM was the root cause of the Second World War! The failure of the League of Nations and European countries to suppress caused the Second World War.

As I said before, you cannot control the other guy's actions, only your own. That may have been Germany and Russia's cause to attack (or whatever you believe it was), but that was not what caused the allies to allow it to happen. The Allies' (as they later were known) militaries were in a state of slump, and everyone was so scared of war that Hitler knew they would let him do whatever he wanted until it was too late. If the allies were not so darned afraid of war and stood up for themselves and each other, WWII would never have happened.


Give me one example where a state of constant militarisation has prevented war.

You see, that is really funny. A war is a historical event where two sides clearly state their reasons, so you can point to many instances of war, but there not being a war (ei Peace) is a non-event where no one gives a reason, and therefore impossible to pull up provable, concrete examples. I will put it like this though, every period of peace a country or people have ever enjoyed is must likely due to military readiness. The fact that Europe is not filled with war now for instance.

Europe (at least the parts in the Union) is a post-conflict continent. A war between the member states is absolutely unthinkable.

Unthinkable? lol The charade that is the EU will only last so long before weaker members are fed up with being exploited by more influential members, or until a foreign war comes to their turf and the member states disagree as to where they stand.

Please show me your sources indicating that civilisation would not vanish entirely and permanently from this Earth if there was ever a nuclear war.

Fine, the lack of reliable, scientific sources that it WOULD vanish permanently from this earth. I have yet to see one.

No no no, I'm going to get you started on France. What about France? Do you have a Wikileak detailing plans by France to annex the left bank of the Rhine?

lol, you like to assume much, don't you my friend?

No, peace within Europe is permanently prevented through co-operation and an abhorrence of nationalism in all EU member states.

lmao, do you really believe that bollox?

---

Vuk, you are clearly forgetting that this is no longer the McCarthyist age. Shoving people away or kicking them out of the country just won't work anymore. Look at the possibilities we have, look at what's been happening in Egypt and Tunisia. The world isn't so black and white as we made it out to be half a millennium ago. Since you're not European, you clearly don't know what it's like to live over here. How many languages do you know, for starters? How many did you have to learn in school?

In the Netherlands, we learn four languages: Dutch, English, French and German. Those are obligatory. We have to continually deal with people here, we can't just bomb them, take the plane home, pat eachother on the back and say "well there's a job done good, Jethro, see ya at the pub at 8". The fact that we're surrounded by so many of our neighbours which have, throughout the hundreds of years declared war against eachother has led us to realise something: war is bad. Y'know, it's not because we're "weak" or "psychologically unfit for battle", it's because we have collectively murdered 6 million Jews, 20 million Russian civilians and soldiers and who knows how many others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Vuk, you are clearly forgetting that this is no longer the McCarthyist age. Shoving people away or kicking them out of the country just won't work anymore. Look at the possibilities we have, look at what's been happening in Egypt and Tunisia. The world isn't so black and white as we made it out to be half a millennium ago. Since you're not European, you clearly don't know what it's like to live over here. How many languages do you know, for starters? How many did you have to learn in school?

In the Netherlands, we learn four languages: Dutch, English, French and German. Those are obligatory. We have to continually deal with people here, we can't just bomb them, take the plane home, pat eachother on the back and say "well there's a job done good, Jethro, see ya at the pub at 8". The fact that we're surrounded by so many of our neighbours which have, throughout the hundreds of years declared war against eachother has led us to realise something: war is bad. Y'know, it's not because we're "weak" or "psychologically unfit for battle", it's because we have collectively murdered 6 million Jews, 20 million Russian civilians and soldiers and who knows how many others.

---

You have collectively murdered 6 mil Jews and 20 mil Rus civs? No, a guy named Hitler did, and the only guilt the rest of Europe should feel is that their countries were not ready for the threat. Seriously, quit it with the guilt stuff! How many Jews have you personally gassed Hax? How many did you support being gassed? How many did you allow to be gassed? How many did you want gassed? I guarantee you that the answer to all those questions is 0. You have no reason what so ever to feel guilty. Would you feel guilty if you have never in action or thought committed any sexual crime against anyone, but you found out that your grandfather was a rapist? Of course not, that was not your fault, it was out of your control, and you have no reason to feel guilty. Guilt is not healthy for anyone. Yes, you can look back on history and use it to avoid making mistakes, but to feel 'collective guilt' is plain BS.

I don't even know where to begin with the rest of your post... I will have to answer later, as I have research for my paper to do now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

You have collectively murdered 6 mil Jews and 20 mil Rus civs? No, a guy named Hitler did,

---

Hitler personally killed six million people did he then ???? I think you might find that apart from WW1 he prob never killed anyone himself. Hitler did however preside over a vile regime with people who think war solves things, collective resposibility is a legitimate tack for the german people of the day because of the crimes committed against all humanity.

Having a society reject aggressive militarism is something to be cherished.

Quote:

---

So what? I am not arguing about size. I am arguing about society and citizenry ONLY.

---

Who cares about how the citizenry act in wars? Also, your comments suggesting that Europe is "gun-shy" are kinda blown to bits by the fact that we collectively have a larger army than you.

Quote:

---

As I said before, you cannot control the other guy's actions, only your own. That may have been Germany and Russia's cause to attack (or whatever you believe it was), but that was not what caused the allies to allow it to happen. The Allies' (as they later were known) militaries were in a state of slump, and everyone was so scared of war that Hitler knew they would let him do whatever he wanted until it was too late. If the allies were not so darned afraid of war and stood up for themselves and each other, WWII would never have happened.

---

We could have controlled nationalism in Germany, had the nationalism unleashed by WWI been effectively kept in check by the LoN, and the countries had been linked together economically. Of course that's naturally a what-if scenario, but given it's success post-WWII, I have every reason to have faith that such a system would have prevented another continental war.

Quote:

---

Unthinkable? lol The charade that is the EU will only last so long before weaker members are fed up with being exploited by more influential members

---

This statement reveals that you don't actually know anything about the EU at all. The smaller and weaker members like the EU! Where is the exploitation you talk about? Is South Carolina going to secede all over again because it's "fed up" with being exploited by California and Texas?

Quote:

---

or until a foreign war comes to their turf and the member states disagree as to where they stand.

---

I repeat; who is going to invade our turf? Russia?

Quote:

---

You see, that is really funny. A war is a historical event where two sides clearly state their reasons, so you can point to many instances of war, but there not being a war (ei Peace) is a non-event where no one gives a reason, and therefore impossible to pull up provable, concrete examples. I will put it like this though, every period of peace a country or people have ever enjoyed is must likely due to military readiness. The fact that Europe is not filled with war now for instance.

---

Ok sure, I was asking you to provide the unprovable. But militaristic societies are definitely more aggressive and more prone to starting wars - Japan is a good example of this. Used to be aggressive, started loads of wars, now is as pacifist as a monk, too pacifist even (Given that there is a crazy neighbour next door; a problem that does not exist in Europe.)

Quote:

---

The fact that Europe is not filled with war now for instance.

---

Are you trolling me? Or do you seriously believe that the peace in Europe is maintained through constant military suspicion of one another?

Quote:

---

Fine, the lack of reliable, scientific sources that it WOULD vanish permanently from this earth. I have yet to see one.

---

That's such a completely ignorant and worthless opinion that it's not worth contesting. It is self-evidently wrong.

Quote:

---

lol, you like to assume much, don't you my friend?

---

In case you didn't notice, that was sarcasm.

Quote:

---

lmao, do you really believe that?

---

Believe? I know it.

P.S. It's spelt "bollocks"

Quote:

---

You have collectively murdered 6 mil Jews and 20 mil Rus civs? No, a guy named Hitler did, and the only guilt the rest of Europe should feel is that their countries were not ready for the threat. Seriously, quit it with the guilt stuff! How many Jews have you personally gassed Hax? How many did you support being gassed? How many did you allow to be gassed? How many did you want gassed? I guarantee you that the answer to all those questions is 0. You have no reason what so ever to feel guilty. Would you feel guilty if you have never in action or thought committed any sexual crime against anyone, but you found out that your grandfather was a rapist? Of course not, that was not your fault, it was out of your control, and you have no reason to feel guilty. Guilt is not healthy for anyone. Yes, you can look back on history and use it to avoid making mistakes, but to feel 'collective guilt' is plain BS.

---

No, I may have not had a personal hand in what Jew was killed, I may not have shot a Russian soldier, and I did not execute Sophie and Hans Scholl, however, since the advent of the industrial age, the concept of nationalism and the start of the colonisation, Europe had been poised for a large-scale conflict that would leave an imprint that would be felt for many generations. And no, guilt is not the right way to explain what we should feel, but I'd rather call it awareness. With everything we do, speaking in political terms, we should be aware of the effects nationalism had on Europe and how easy we all slipped into something that destroys the very essence of our humanity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Vuk, you are clearly forgetting that this is no longer the McCarthyist age. Shoving people away or kicking them out of the country just won't work anymore. Look at the possibilities we have, look at what's been happening in Egypt and Tunisia. The world isn't so black and white as we made it out to be half a millennium ago. Since you're not European, you clearly don't know what it's like to live over here. How many languages do you know, for starters? How many did you have to learn in school?

In the Netherlands, we learn four languages: Dutch, English, French and German. Those are obligatory. We have to continually deal with people here, we can't just bomb them, take the plane home, pat eachother on the back and say "well there's a job done good, Jethro, see ya at the pub at 8". The fact that we're surrounded by so many of our neighbours which have, throughout the hundreds of years declared war against eachother has led us to realise something: war is bad. Y'know, it's not because we're "weak" or "psychologically unfit for battle", it's because we have collectively murdered 6 million Jews, 20 million Russian civilians and soldiers and who knows how many others.

---

Hax rides to the intellectual rescue again!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Wrong, that apocalyptic nonesense was invented to scare children. A nuclear war would NOT mean the end of humanity. Heck, we got things a lot better than nukes now. They are only mentioned as a scare tactic. (And to be honest, it literally may help our war effort if the likes of New York City, Chicago, and Miami are nuked. I don't think I would mind that too much. :P)

---

I didn't say we'd all be wiped out, but I live in a city, what's the point in preparing to be a good soldier if I'm the first to die before we even know it's war anyway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

lol, first of all, don't get me started on France. Second of all, war is only being prevented temporarily through the military readiness of countries outside of Europe. That will not last forever.

---

Please explain how the readiness of countries outside of Europe prevents war inside Europe?
Why don't those ready countries prevent war in Africa?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Israel is a state that was founded by violence and terrorism, and is now the constant victim of violence and terrorism. It actually is a very good example. If it was not for the military readiness of Israel, it would NOT exist! Every Jew in Israel would be beheaded! They survive only because of their military readiness.

---

Except you claimed earlier that this readiness is the only way to get peace, yet they are still under attack from many paramilitary and terrorist groups from the neighboring countries. Such a threat doesn't really exist in Europe, the Netherlands aren't under a constant siege from their neighbors and nobody supports armed groups that keep bombing the dutch people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

You don't understand Americans.

---

And you don't understand Europeans, at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

Do you have a Wikileak detailing plans by France to annex the left bank of the Rhine?

---

"France's plans to annex the West Bank revealed?"

“Training and military discipline is not harsh enough to prepare citizens for war, and European society makes preparing them for war even harder.”
Funny enough it is what I was thinking of the US and their over weighted population.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

Who cares about how the citizenry act in wars? Also, your comments suggesting that Europe is "gun-shy" are kinda blown to bits by the fact that we collectively have a larger army than you.

---

Europe is also about twice the population of the US as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

We could have controlled nationalism in Germany, had the nationalism unleashed by WWI been effectively kept in check by the LoN, and the countries had been linked together economically. Of course that's naturally a what-if scenario, but given it's success post-WWII, I have every reason to have faith that such a system would have prevented another continental war.

---

How would you have controlled nationalism in Germany short of splitting it into several nations and having a near permanent standing foreign militaries on both sides of the border like in the cold war?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

Are you trolling me? Or do you seriously believe that the peace in Europe is maintained through constant military suspicion of one another?"

---

Well, I'd imagine that the US and Russian Armies at the border helped a lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

"France's plans to annex the West Bank revealed?"

---

Hahahaha this genuinely made me lol :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noncommunist

Europe is also about twice the population of the US as well.

---

2/3rds actually, but I get your point. Thing is, Vuk claimed we were gun shy, which surely cannot be the case if we have such a large military.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noncommunist

How would you have controlled nationalism in Germany short of splitting it into several nations and having a near permanent standing foreign militaries on both sides of the border like in the cold war? .

---

I didn't say it would be easy, and I'm far too drunk at this moment in time to lay down any specifics about what might have been done. If you remind me, I'll catch you up on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noncommunist

Well, I'd imagine that the US and Russian Armies at the border helped a lot.

---

I do not think so. Europeans in general have realised that inter-European war is pointless and only brings pain. Even if the Russkies and the Americans had withdrawn, we still would have built the European Union without them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

Thing is, Vuk claimed we were gun shy, which surely cannot be the case if we have such a large military.

---

Being gun shy is not the absence of guns, but the unwillingness to use them. (see martial arts example)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I didn't say we'd all be wiped out, but I live in a city, what's the point in preparing to be a good soldier if I'm the first to die before we even know it's war anyway?

You wouldn't have to worry about that. Russia knows that if it attacks Europe it will have the US to worry about, so they would probably take out just a few European cities to scare the European populace, and then use the rest on America. They would be a scare tactic, but do very little real damage to the European war effort in the scheme of things. Also, Russia lacks good delivery systems, so with any type of missile defense system, they would probably be limited to only hitting cities on the borders.

Please explain how the readiness of countries outside of Europe prevents war inside Europe?
Why don't those ready countries prevent war in Africa?

Africa is not important enough to the US or Russia. Europe is important to Russia, and therefore it is important to America that Europe does not fall into Russian hands. (Europe is our foothold on the continent if you will) If an analogy would help, think of it like this: America and Russia are two big dogs, and Europe is the little scrap of meat that they fight over.

Except you claimed earlier that this readiness is the only way to get peace, yet they are still under attack from many paramilitary and terrorist groups from the neighboring countries. Such a threat doesn't really exist in Europe, the Netherlands aren't under a constant siege from their neighbors and nobody supports armed groups that keep bombing the dutch people.

Some times you need war to end war. Radical islam is a disease that eats away at the fabric of society, and it will not stop unless they are completely destroyed by allied powers...something that so far Americans and Euroswieners seem unwilling to do.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

No, I may have not had a personal hand in what Jew was killed, I may not have shot a Russian soldier, and I did not execute Sophie and Hans Scholl, however, since the advent of the industrial age, the concept of nationalism and the start of the colonisation, Europe had been poised for a large-scale conflict that would leave an imprint that would be felt for many generations. And no, guilt is not the right way to explain what we should feel, but I'd rather call it awareness. With everything we do, speaking in political terms, we should be aware of the effects nationalism had on Europe and how easy we all slipped into something that destroys the very essence of our humanity.

---

Thus, YOU have not killed such and such people. Modern Europeans have not either. Definitely, look back on history to learn how to avoid mistakes, but don't take on the guilt of others was my point. Personally I think that you are looking back at history and coming to the wrong conclusions, but whatever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

Who cares about how the citizenry act in wars? Also, your comments suggesting that Europe is "gun-shy" are kinda blown to bits by the fact that we collectively have a larger army than you.

Not really. When I say gun-shy, I mean afraid to use a gun and ESP afraid to stand up against one, not to own one. Like in my martial arts analogy, I know people who have all the skills in the world, but who clam up when it comes to a fight, and then get the blood beaten out of them.

We could have controlled nationalism in Germany, had the nationalism unleashed by WWI been effectively kept in check by the LoN, and the countries had been linked together economically. Of course that's naturally a what-if scenario, but given it's success post-WWII, I have every reason to have faith that such a system would have prevented another continental war.

BS

This statement reveals that you don't actually know anything about the EU at all. The smaller and weaker members like the EU! Where is the exploitation you talk about? Is South Carolina going to secede all over again because it's "fed up" with being exploited by California and Texas?

Are you saying that France is not economically exploiting the rest of Europe then?


I repeat; who is going to invade our turf? Russia?

Maybe. How is this for a scenario. NK (north korea) goes to war with US. US goes to war with NK. China goes to war with US. Germany and Britain join US. Russia takes advantage of the situation and invades Poland. Germany declares war on Russia. France joins Russia. WWIII. Will it happen? I have no idea. It could though, and it is probably as likely to as to not. No one thought WWI was going to happen when it did. No one thought that WWII would either.

Ok sure, I was asking you to provide the unprovable. But militaristic societies are definitely more aggressive and more prone to starting wars - Japan is a good example of this. Used to be aggressive, started loads of wars, now is as pacifist as a monk, too pacifist even (Given that there is a crazy neighbour next door; a problem that does not exist in Europe.)

Being aggressive and being defensive are two different things that I think you have a hard time differentiating. Hitler was aggressive. The USSR was aggressive. Through most of its history the US has been defensive. In the last century Britain has been mostly defensive.

Are you trolling me? Or do you seriously believe that the peace in Europe is maintained through constant military suspicion of one another?

I never said that. Through the military readiness of the US and the USSR. Russia wanting the juicy scrap of meat that is Europe, and America trying to keep it out of Russia's hands. Military readiness is not the same as military suspicion BTW. Why do you deliberately use negative words like that?

That's such a completely ignorant and worthless opinion that it's not worth contesting. It is self-evidently wrong.

Someone is condescending. Actually Sub, I hate to break it to you, but the fairy tale of nuclear apocalypse is just that...a fairy tale. What good does it do Russia to nuke Europe into a desert? Nothing. Russia would only gain something by conquering and occupying Europe. Also, if there is non-lethal, but dangerous nuclear fall-out blowing everywhere, how would they move their own (limited) troops in to occupy Europe and mop up? Get real.

Believe? I know it.

Cause you teacha told ya so?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Hitler personally killed six million people did he then ???? I think you might find that apart from WW1 he prob never killed anyone himself. Hitler did however preside over a vile regime with people who think war solves things, collective resposibility is a legitimate tack for the german people of the day because of the crimes committed against all humanity.
Having a society reject aggressive militarism is something to be cherished.

---

I never said he directly killed him. What I said is that it was Hitler who killed them (indirectly as it were) generations ago, and the last three generations could not possibly be held responsible.
The problem is that there will always be people who think that war will get them what they want, and if everyone else is not willing to use their military against them, then they will be right. War DOES solve problems. It defeated Hitler, and if Europeans were not so gun-shy and passionate on avoiding war, they would have stopped Hitler before he became a threat. The pansy Europeans of that generation are responsible for every life lost in that war. Unfortunately lots of innocent Americans had to die to help a bunch of ungrateful European cowards clean up their own mess. No, I am not of course saying that the European military of that time were cowards (well, other than the Italian ones), but the politicians and cultural leaders were. They led the world into one of the worst wars ever with their cowardice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

Or do you seriously believe that the peace in Europe is maintained through constant military suspicion of one another?

---

Well... fear, suspicion and large armies kept the peace in 1914 did it not?...oh wait.

Hey, remember Phillip? He took ideas from Epaminondas and ran with them. Well, I'm Epaminondas. It's amusing. Vuk is as European as they come, man. How the hell does he even scrape by the time to post all this jazz? I thought he worked full-time at Arby's?

@Vuk, who knows maybe you are right and Americans are better fit for war, but how would you know it never reached America. Let's say North-Korea invades you, if they are as nasty to your civilians as they are to their own you are very lucky, it will completely shake up a population that never imagined such a thing being possible. In area's uncontrolled by North-Korea there will be martial law, there won't be enough food and there will be riots, the American army will inevitably kill American citizens, are you really ready for that? Ready to pick up what you can and flee your house? How would you know you are, just a hunch? The most dangerous people in the world live in Eastern Europe in the Balkans, they know about all that, there's not a generation that hasn't seen it there. Europeans are not weak, we have about the same capacity for war, but militarism makes us really nervous. I live near a barracks and a military airport, never see someone in uniform, it's invisable. But it's there

well thats a sort of silly example frags. i mean lol. their fleet is so rusty it would sink on the way over.

but what is vuk is saying used to be true say.... around ww1 and ww2 as well as earlier that americans were better for conscription troops than most western europeans. in that time in americas history before the urbanization movements many more of our citizens were apt to use weapons and military lifestyle from the life we led. no i feel besides the soutth (where we draw the majority of our troops) this is no longer the case. now i would say americans are more nationalistic and patriotic (for wars) than the average european but give the european a legitimate threat to his security and he can fight as well as anyone.

Not so silly, the scenario has been simulated over and over and North-Korea won every time, they can't beat you but neither can you beat them.

Not saying that Vuk is wrong, I simply don't know. What I do think is that being overly confident is like the oak that snaps in a storm instead of bending a little

I'm wondering if Vuk or anyone else can provide any evidence that European soldiers would fold in the way that he is claiming. I would think the results of war games would be the only semi-reliable way to gauge such things.

Surely Germany, France, or any other nation would fear war with America on a macro level for macro reasons, but is there any factual basis for the claim that, say, a battalion of Marines would crush a battalion of Fallschirmjäger? Would 1st Battalion, 77th Armor Regiment of the 1st Armored Division running Abrams rout PanzerLehr Battalion 93 of 1st Panzer Division running Leopard 2's? I've read the after action reports from the last time Americans were obliged to actually fight Germans and it was in fact the latter who were left decidedly unimpressed with tactical performace of the former.

Don't get me wrong, I love the American military. It is certainly the most technologically advanced in the world (we've paid for it!), but it is also manned by some of the best citizens America has to offer - which is far more important than tech. However, this kind of hubris is dangerous and is exactly what the Pentagon has tried to tamp down after the 1st Gulf War. Americans haven't fought a competent enemy in a long time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

What I do think is that being overly confident is like the oak that snaps in a storm instead of bending a little

---

Ah yes, like all the people chanting "Christmas in Paris" or "Christmas in Berlin" when they entered the cattle wagons that brought them to the front and then ended up crying and peeing in their pants in a trench.
Such is the value of being ready and willing to go to war.

Quote:

---

Actually Sub, I hate to break it to you, but the fairy tale of nuclear apocalypse is just that...a fairy tale. What good does it do Russia to nuke Europe into a desert? Nothing. Russia would only gain something by conquering and occupying Europe. Also, if there is non-lethal, but dangerous nuclear fall-out blowing everywhere, how would they move their own (limited) troops in to occupy Europe and mop up? Get real.

---

How about you get real and tell us what good it does Russia to invade Europe in the first place?
What do we have that they can't get much easier through peaceful means while they collect all our money by selling us gas?

Quote:

---

The problem is that there will always be people who think that war will get them what they want, and if everyone else is not willing to use their military against them, then they will be right. War DOES solve problems.

---

Think about what your saying here Vuk, you are trying to claim that a generic trait common to all people is specific to European people. Cooporatation is far more common to the human condition that you give credit for, I am glad I don't actually live in your imagined absolutist world.

Quote:

---

It defeated Hitler, and if Europeans were not so gun-shy and passionate on avoiding war, they would have stopped Hitler before he became a threat. The pansy Europeans of that generation are responsible for every life lost in that war.

---

Amazing lack of either historical perspective or even just common sense here.

Quote:

---

Unfortunately lots of innocent Americans had to die to help a bunch of ungrateful European cowards clean up their own mess.

---

Quote:

---

No, I am not of course saying that the European military of that time were cowards (well, other than the Italian ones), but the politicians and cultural leaders were. They led the world into one of the worst wars ever with their cowardice.

---

I suppose it had nothing to do with the fact the depression had hit Europe badly and the various economies could not afford a war, most were not capable of mobilising early or properly enough for war cos they were economically weak. Also pretty much all the material I have ever read says that everyone believed the war was coming but each side was trying to delay till it would be advantageous for them.

You have a real John Wayne complex Vuk, A mans gotta do what mans gotta do and all that silly rubbish, you do realise the West was actually won by shopkeepers right.

Also I just realised 7 pages for a thread that pretty much was debunked on page one.

Vuk is wrong about Europeans but going to defend him anyway, when you strip it it's about resolve, and that can be cultural. Take Japanese kamikazi's or jihadists, a point of no return a western won't soon cross. Why wouldn't there be a difference between the quite militarist USA and the more pacifist(oh so lol@that by the way) Europe

edit, and leaders were cowards, taking the Netherlands wasn't as fun as the Germans expected it to be it cost them dearly , but the leaders pretty much surrendered before the invasion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Vuk is wrong about Europeans but going to defend him anyway, when you strip it it's about resolve, and that can be cultural. Take Japanese kamikazi's or jihadists, a point of no return a western won't soon cross. Why wouldn't there be a difference between the quite militarist USA and the more pacifist(oh so lol@that by the way) Europe

---

No it cannot be defended not in the terms that he see's it, plus kamikazi and jihadi tactics are born out of desperation not superior cultural mores.

Vuk see's european pacifism as basically suspect, just because people do not like the idea of messing about in foreign climes with young mens lives does not mean they will demand surrender upon invasion by mythical alien hordes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

No it cannot be defended not in the terms that he see's it, plus kamikazi and jihadi tactics are born out of desperation not superior cultural mores.

Vuk see's european pacifism as basically suspect, just because people do not like the idea of messing about in foreign climes with young mens lives does not mean they will demand surrender upon invasion by mythical alien hordes.

---

He's wrong about how hard Europeans will fight when needed, but a a place having a pacifist culture has never been that much of an argument to anyone. Goes back as far as you want to date it, Alexander of Macedon was disgusted by the decadence that comes from pacifism, he thought of it as a maelstrom of corruption

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Why wouldn't there be a difference between the quite militarist USA and the more pacifist(oh so lol@that by the way) Europe

---

Maybe there is a difference, but when one looks at say early 50's and mid/late 60's I would say Americans don't like long wars with no clear purpose. And why should they?

north korean military would certainly get their @@@@@ raped by the us military pardon my prison french. that has never been DISPROVEN frags.

That is true, without backing from china or russia north korea would fall in battle quickly.
The problem comes when the population turns to gureilla tactics, seeing as they are 10 times more fanatical about obeying thier "glorious leader" than anyone else on this earth I think they would become a worse problem to an invading army than the taliban or the viet cong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

north korean military would certainly get their @@@@@ raped by the us military pardon my prison french. that has never been DISPROVEN frags.

---

They haven't tried, but I'm not kidding the scenario of a Nort Korean attack has been simulated many times and you lose, how would you stop such a tip of the spear. You don't really like South Koreans that much youknow

Realy. I guess it depends on the defenition of winning. Getting the north koreans to surrender and bow thier heads to the US? Impossible. But just being able to hold them at the border long enough for thier economy and society to collapse due to attrition there by forcing them to sue for peace just to keep from revolt? I think that is a possible win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Realy. I guess it depends on the defenition of winning. Getting the north koreans to surrender and bow thier heads to the US? Impossible. But just being able to hold them at the border long enough for thier economy and society to collapse due to attrition there by forcing them to sue for peace just to keep from revolt? I think that is a possible win.

---

I think what Frags is referring to is the senario whereby the North would in the early stages of the war cruise well down the peninsula at first. The amount of troops required to hold the shear mass of Koreans would need to be far higher, USA war games have borne that out on several occasions.

The US would sacrifice territory for time to allow it's fleet time to unload more troops and jets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

I think what Frags is referring to is the senario whereby the North would in the early stages of the war cruise well down the peninsula at first. The amount of troops required to hold the shear mass of Koreans would need to be far higher, USA war games have borne that out on several occasions.

The US would sacrifice territory for time to allow it's fleet time to unload more troops and jets.

---

Well yeah. But to take it to Vuk, how resolved do you think you will be, I'm pretty sure I'm a coward when things go wrong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Well yeah. But to take it to Vuk, how resolved do you think you will be, I'm pretty sure I'm a coward when things go wrong

---

I don't understand what your talking about here frag, do you mean if the enemy invaded would I resist??? How would I know that really, I mean every situation is different.

I might take to the hills like my grandfather and engage the enemy IRA Flying Column style, but equally I might wait a while till the enemy drew down from aggressive operations so that my actions have better chance of succeeding. I might decide to engage in peaceful protest or anarchic street protest who knows the idea is hypothetical we can never know.

nono that's all on me, I wouldn't be a hero I think. Not nasty either but certainly not heroic

IF THERE WOULD BE WAR I WOULD BEAT ALL OF YOU GIRLS YOU'VE GOT NOTHING ON ME

All YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO LOUIS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Take Japanese kamikazi's or jihadists, a point of no return a western won't soon cross.

---

It is unlikely the West will adopt those sort of suicide tactics no, but then we don't need to to achieve out tactical and strategic objectives. An incident just the other day proves that Western European soldiers are willing to get themselves killed if they think it will achieve other objectives (namely helping his mates).

I find is quite amusing and, at the same time, rather depressing that almost everyone in this thread has failed to acknowledge the work Western European soldiers are doing in Afghanistan. A friend of mine was pictured in the Daily Telegraph a couple of weeks ago because he was part of a bomb disposal team that defused a record number of IED's in 1 operation, but I guess he doesn't have any courage or fighting spirit to do that stuff because he's Western European, right?

Vuk, if you want to talk about the resolve of Western European soldiers just take a few minutes to think about all the ones that are giving their lives and performing heroic deeds every single day that you never hear about for what is, basically, a US war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

All YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO LOUIS

---

I like where this thread is going! Reason at last!

Once the world has surrendered to my invincible manliness and record-breaking testosterone levels, I shall make you king of Ireland. And viceroy of the two Americas, on which a feudal system shall be imposed by elevating all Irish Americans to nobility. And you'll be governor-general of England, which shall be mercilessly exploited as a colony of Cork.

Gee thanks louis, the one place where gaelic would willingly go all hitler on and you will make him governer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boohugh

Vuk, if you want to talk about the resolve of Western European soldiers just take a few minutes to think about all the ones that are giving their lives and performing heroic deeds every single day that you never hear about for what is, basically, a US war.

---

Which was a point I tried to bring up earlier.

US news seldom covers any topic other than their own viewpoint and how it effect them. Leaving them rather insulated from a clear picture of how things really are.

Most countries are guilty of this to some extent but not quite at those levels.

Vuk’s military Analyse is based on sheer prejudices.

When arguing about history he failed to understand that all the European existing countries showed a great resilience in the past. If not, they vanished in the mist.
WW2 is the last major conflict in Europe. Can we tell Vuk that the British and Allies (excluding USA at this date) pilots were quite resilient and never show this “coward ness” nor the Polish, French, Yugoslav, Dutch, Italians and others partisans fighting the Nazi War Machine at a very heavy cost (100 hostage for 1 German killed and 50 for 1 injured) and for a lot the them death camps and Night and Fog operation.
Nor the German soldiers failed to defend their country until the very last moment…

So, Vuk, where in History Europeans show pacifism so big that they surrendered without a fight… Well, seeing your level in history I am quite sure of your answer…:laugh4:

By the way, do you really think that without the Italians Rommel would have succeeded so well in Africa?
Look at the Italian Tanks specifications: Just to climb in it what an act of heroism…

Now, I was a volunteer in the French Army, professional soldier for 5 years. We are few in the Org. members who made this choice and some are still in the Forces.

Vuk, until you give a precise and detailed study about the methods of training showing the superiority of the USA system.

To doubt of the determination and courage my comrades in arms is outrageous.
I trained as paratrooper I was 18.
Not for the efficiency of nowadays paratroopers but to cross the door is still an experiment…
Then I went for a NCO training school. Starting as greenies with a platoon of 36 we were 15 at this end of a year of training and on these 15 only 5 were graduated at the last 3 weeks for the Pre-Selection for Special Forces.
We were aggressive, sure of our professionalism and our abilities to fight, we were arrogant and proud.
Until you go for it, you can’t understand.
I don’t doubt it is the same process in each European army and in the US.

Your so-called analyse in based on nothing real. Just wind created by your imagination with no roots in the reality.

And the better use for an Army is when it is not needed. Yes, it was frustrating when I was 20, to be trained and never to do the job you are ready for. BUT it was better for my country and her neighbours…

Europe probably forgot more about wars then you will ever learn.

Louis, can I be the Marquis de La Nouvelle Orléans, Comte de Baton Rouge et Governeur (plenipotentiaire) de la Nouvelle France et Arcadie? Please...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Which was a point I tried to bring up earlier.

US news seldom covers any topic other than their own viewpoint and how it effect them. Leaving them rather insulated from a clear picture of how things really are.

Most countries are guilty of this to some extent but not quite at those levels.

---

I am not trying to insult those who fight and die for their country, but simply saying that I believe that there are far too few and in between in Western Europe for those countries to hold out against a determined attack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

Vuk’s military Analyse is based on sheer prejudices.

When arguing about history he failed to understand that all the European existing countries showed a great resilience in the past. If not, they vanished in the mist.
WW2 is the last major conflict in Europe. Can we tell Vuk that the British and Allies (excluding USA at this date) pilots were quite resilient and never show this “coward ness” nor the Polish, French, Yugoslav, Dutch, Italians and others partisans fighting the Nazi War Machine at a very heavy cost (100 hostage for 1 German killed and 50 for 1 injured) and for a lot the them death camps and Night and Fog operation.
Nor the German soldiers failed to defend their country until the very last moment…

So, Vuk, where in History Europeans show pacifism so big that they surrendered without a fight… Well, seeing your level in history I am quite sure of your answer…:laugh4:

By the way, do you really think that without the Italians Rommel would have succeeded so well in Africa?
Look at the Italian Tanks specifications: Just to climb in it what an act of heroism…

Now, I was a volunteer in the French Army, professional soldier for 5 years. We are few in the Org. members who made this choice and some are still in the Forces.

Vuk, until you give a precise and detailed study about the methods of training showing the superiority of the USA system.

To doubt of the determination and courage my comrades in arms is outrageous.
I trained as paratrooper I was 18.
Not for the efficiency of nowadays paratroopers but to cross the door is still an experiment…
Then I went for a NCO training school. Starting as greenies with a platoon of 36 we were 15 at this end of a year of training and on these 15 only 5 were graduated at the last 3 weeks for the Pre-Selection for Special Forces.
We were aggressive, sure of our professionalism and our abilities to fight, we were arrogant and proud.
Until you go for it, you can’t understand.
I don’t doubt it is the same process in each European army and in the US.

Your so-called analyse in based on nothing real. Just wind created by your imagination with no roots in the reality.

And the better use for an Army is when it is not needed. Yes, it was frustrating when I was 20, to be trained and never to do the job you are ready for. BUT it was better for my country and her neighbours…

Europe probably forgot more about wars then you will ever learn.

Louis, can I be the Marquis de La Nouvelle Orléans, Comte de Baton Rouge et Governeur (plenipotentiaire) de la Nouvelle France et Arcadie? Please...

---

Again, you miss my point. The Euros of today are NOT the Euros of yesterday. Society (throughout the Western world...including in the US) has degraded to an all time low. I doubt that ever in history were people so useless. History shows that useless citizens don't make good soldiers, and people are more useless now than ever.

I got homework to do now, so I am afraid that I will have to leave this discussion for a while.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

I am not trying to insult those who fight and die for their country, but simply saying that I believe that there are far too few and in between in Western Europe for those countries to hold out against a determined attack.

---

People will do amazing things when it's their homes on the line. Just because we dont want to die in a ditch in the bog end of afghanistan for americans (I'm assuming this is why you came to this conclusion) doesn't mean we wont fight to the death to defend ourselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

People will do amazing things when it's their homes on the line. Just because we dont want to die in a ditch in the bog end of afghanistan for americans (I'm assuming this is why you came to this conclusion) doesn't mean we wont fight to the death to defend ourselves.

---

What if the preservation of your country requires you fighting an enemy on foreign soil? What if the preservation of your country requires you to help an ally in a war that you are not involved in?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

IF THERE WOULD BE WAR I WOULD BEAT ALL OF YOU GIRLS YOU'VE GOT NOTHING ON ME

---

You can't use would, should or could in an if-sentence, try again please. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

I am not trying to insult those who fight and die for their country, but simply saying that I believe that there are far too few and in between in Western Europe for those countries to hold out against a determined attack.

---

What determined attack? Who would be determined to attack us because of all our oil and other natural ressources?

vuk you have no right to say anything you are not in the armed forces nor will you ever be. so for you to say you are superior and your nation produces superior citizens is simply ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Not really. When I say gun-shy, I mean afraid to use a gun and ESP afraid to stand up against one, not to own one. Like in my martial arts analogy, I know people who have all the skills in the world, but who clam up when it comes to a fight, and then get the blood beaten out of them.

---

Western European citizens dislike guns because they see them (other than for sport) as solely instruments of harm, and not something which would be effective for use in personal or national defence, ever. We are completely realistic about firearms, and realise that your Glock is pretty useless in the face of an invasion or a nuclear strike or whatever. It has nothing to do with a "degraded society".

Quote:

---

We could have controlled nationalism in Germany, had the nationalism unleashed by WWI been effectively kept in check by the LoN, and the countries had been linked together economically. Of course that's naturally a what-if scenario, but given it's success post-WWII, I have every reason to have faith that such a system would have prevented another continental war.

---

Quote:

---

BS

---

Then why did it work after the Second World War? It wasn't because there were foreign troops on German soil; Germans recognised that the Second World War's genesis lay in nationalism, as did the rest of Europe.

Quote:

---

This statement reveals that you don't actually know anything about the EU at all. The smaller and weaker members like the EU! Where is the exploitation you talk about? Is South Carolina going to secede all over again because it's "fed up" with being exploited by California and Texas?

---

Quote:

---

Are you saying that France is not economically exploiting the rest of Europe then?

---

Of course not. Sure, CAP is a pain in the butt (A cap in the ass?), but everyone in Europe benefits from the EU.

Quote:

---

I repeat; who is going to invade our turf? Russia?

Maybe. How is this for a scenario. NK (north korea) goes to war with US. US goes to war with NK. China goes to war with US. Germany and Britain join US. Russia takes advantage of the situation and invades Poland. Germany declares war on Russia. France joins Russia. WWIII. Will it happen? I have no idea. It could though, and it is probably as likely to as to not. No one thought WWI was going to happen when it did. No one thought that WWII would either.

---

And I presume later the Martians will team up with Brazil and invade the Congo, causing the Central African Republic to declare war on Australia to seize the key resources of uranium in the Outback? Your "scenario" veers into the nigh-impossible at the bolded text and goes absolutely off the wall with the underlined text.

Quote:

---

Ok sure, I was asking you to provide the unprovable. But militaristic societies are definitely more aggressive and more prone to starting wars - Japan is a good example of this. Used to be aggressive, started loads of wars, now is as pacifist as a monk, too pacifist even (Given that there is a crazy neighbour next door; a problem that does not exist in Europe.)

---

Quote:

---

Being aggressive and being defensive are two different things that I think you have a hard time differentiating. Hitler was aggressive. The USSR was aggressive. Through most of its history the US has been defensive. In the last century Britain has been mostly defensive.

---

That you are trying to reduce incredibly complicated foreign policies and states of society into single-word definitions that are essentially synonyms of "BAD" and "GOOD" is staggering. This isn't analysis, it's lazy generalisation.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Are you trolling me? Or do you seriously believe that the peace in Europe is maintained through constant military suspicion of one another?

---

I never said that. Through the military readiness of the US and the USSR. Russia wanting the juicy scrap of meat that is Europe, and America trying to keep it out of Russia's hands. Military readiness is not the same as military suspicion BTW. Why do you deliberately use negative words like that?

---

As I said before, the EU would have been forged even without the Cold War. And for god's sake man, read the Long Telegram before forming an opinion of the USSR's foreign policy, please.

Quote:

---

That's such a completely ignorant and worthless opinion that it's not worth contesting. It is self-evidently wrong.

---

Quote:

---

Someone is condescending. Actually Sub, I hate to break it to you, but the fairy tale of nuclear apocalypse is just that...a fairy tale. What good does it do Russia to nuke Europe into a desert? Nothing. Russia would only gain something by conquering and occupying Europe. Also, if there is non-lethal, but dangerous nuclear fall-out blowing everywhere, how would they move their own (limited) troops in to occupy Europe and mop up? Get real.

---

That doesn't even make any sense! WHY, WHY would Russia invade Europe? Russia is already struggling to contain the nationalism of a few crazy dirt farming Islamists in Chechnya; why would they only worsen those nationalists tensions by attempting to ANNEX Europe? International relations is a tad more complicated IRL than in TW y'know.

And you remind me of what Mao Zedong said about nuclear war:

"AMONG historians who think Mao Zedong was mad as well as bad, it is common to cite his stated belief that proper revolutionaries should not fear nuclear war. The Chinese leader memorably shared this view with a 1957 gathering of world communist bosses in Moscow, alarming even that grisly assembly of toughs and killers. True, between a third and a half of the world’s population might be killed in a nuclear conflagration, Mao breezily predicted. But with most survivors living in the socialist block, “imperialism would be razed to the ground”, and the world would belong to the Reds."

http://www.economist.com/node/17573255

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Believe? I know it.

---

Cause you teacha told ya so?

---

No, the EU isn't taught at all in schools over here. But nationalism is something we are collectively extremely wary of; if someone waves a Union Flag outside his house, people will generally think he's a bit of a nutter.

In contrast, you seem to have absorbed quite a conventional view of the American military and foreign policy. America = the best, Europe = wimps, Russia and China = bad.
I never said he directly killed him. What I said is that it was Hitler who killed them (indirectly as it were) generations ago, and the last three generations could not possibly be held responsible.

Quote:

---

The problem is that there will always be people who think that war will get them what they want, and if everyone else is not willing to use their military against them, then they will be right. War DOES solve problems.

---

"War solves problems" was pretty much the mantra to which blood thirsty nationalists in the former-Yugoslavia "fought" under.

Quote:

---

The pansy Europeans of that generation are responsible for every life lost in that war. Unfortunately lots of innocent Americans had to die to help a bunch of ungrateful European cowards clean up their own mess.

---

This is just wrong, based off wild assumptions and fantasy.

No, I am not of course saying that the European military of that time were cowards (well, other than the Italian ones), but the politicians and cultural leaders were. They led the world into one of the worst wars ever with their cowardice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Society (throughout the Western world...including in the US) has degraded to an all time low. I doubt that ever in history were people so useless. History shows that useless citizens don't make good soldiers, and people are more useless now than ever

---

O_O

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

I am not trying to insult those who fight and die for their country, but simply saying that I believe that there are far too few and in between in Western Europe for those countries to hold out against a determined attack.

---

Funny, because I don't think there's an army in Europe with a recruiting problem, even for their infantry.

Nor are the European ex-soldiers hear knuckleheads, irrc Banquo and Sigurd have both seen some hairy combat, and they're mods and some of the Backroom's finest contributors to boot!

Face it Vuk, you're way off base.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

What if the preservation of your country requires you fighting an enemy on foreign soil? What if the preservation of your country requires you to help an ally in a war that you are not involved in?

---

'We' do, we left you a relatively safe Uruzgan, courtesy if your Dutch and Australian allies. Was considered to be very dangerous

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

What if the preservation of your country requires you to help an ally in a war that you are not involved in?

---

How are we supposed to help an ally in a war when we are not involved in it?

I can't believe you fools are actually taking the guy seriously, man. His unproven prejudices reek of either an ignorant arby's worker or a troll. Neither option demands serious attention from us. Roll with it. Just lock the damn thread, man, holy cow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah

I can't believe you fools are actually taking the guy seriously, man. His unproven prejudices reek of either an ignorant arby's worker or a troll. Neither option demands serious attention from us. Roll with it. Just lock the damn thread, man, holy cow.

---

We also have prejudices, the psycho American soldier mowing down everything he sees. A military culture is to blame, all Americans adore weapons after all (except New Yorkers they are metropolitans)

Fair game no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah

I can't believe you fools are actually taking the guy seriously, man. His unproven prejudices reek of either an ignorant arby's worker or a troll. Neither option demands serious attention from us. Roll with it. Just lock the damn thread, man, holy cow.

---

But we're Europeans, we like the idea of crushing him under our proverbial heels until he weeps for what he said about us. :mellow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Again, you miss my point. The Euros of today are NOT the Euros of yesterday. Society (throughout the Western world...including in the US) has degraded to an all time low. I doubt that ever in history were people so useless. History shows that useless citizens don't make good soldiers, and people are more useless now than ever.

---

Eventually we will all become useless through technology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Eventually we will all become useless through technology.

---

Europe will simply field the first soulless cyborg army and then the resolve of our civilization hardly matter. :2thumbsup:
Skynet is British after all. ~;)

EDIT: Looks like the British are already preparing.

Note to all posters:

Civility please, and a dash of decorum would be appreciated.

Analyses/discussion of national character etc. can easily touch on another poster's sense of identity and become offensive even if you did not intend same. Please show some respect.


Regarding the argument:

1. Attempts to link an argument to "culture" can be difficult as the meaning of the term itself is somewhat equivocal. You need to clearly set out the definition of culture that you are using and then keep your arguments therefrom consistent in order to make your point clearly. I believe culture and identity ARE relevant components of the differences in military ability etc., but I don't know that I would make the links quite so directly as some above have done.

2. It becomes rather difficult to assume that the modern Euro approach to militarism is either "good" or "bad." There have been times in history when military force was the correct and/or best response to a situation. There are many times when it has been a poor choice or shown to have been poor in the long run. Is nationalism bad? Yes and no. Again, there are advantages and disadvantages all around.

Can we just lock this thread?

It's clearly nothing but mularkey only serveing to indulege him in some sort of odd interaction, which in real life is clearly denied to him becuase he lacks what momma called "the social graces"

This post will probably earnd me a ban

VIVA THE BOURGEOISIE VIVA THE INTELLECTUAL VIVA THE IVORY TOWER

I regert nothing except the personal attacks weren't harsher and the socialzation more ostracized

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Europe will simply field the first soulless cyborg army and then the resolve of our civilization hardly matter. :2thumbsup:
Skynet is British after all. ~;)

EDIT: Looks like the British are already preparing.

---

Not necessarily cyborgs, just fleets of drones. We are beginning to see drones enter full scale military operations, and I don't think it won't take longer than 25-30 years before fully functional and capable drone tanks are deployed on the battlefield. Foot soldiers might be trickier.

Labor is already obsolete in manufacturing and only slave wages make humans better workers than robots operating 24/7 without any breaks or shifts. Services are constantly consolidating to reduce the expenses of hiring people to do the jobs, and in some cases technology has made some service positions obsolete as well.

Efficiency will force us to leave each other behind in the job market.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Can we just lock this thread?

It's clearly nothing but mularkey only serveing to indulege him in some sort of odd interaction, which in real life is clearly denied to him becuase he lacks what momma called "the social graces"

This post will probably earnd me a ban

VIVA THE BOURGEOISIE VIVA THE INTELLECTUAL VIVA THE IVORY TOWER

I regert nothing except the personal attacks weren't harsher and the socialzation more ostracized

---

Don't you have better things to do like...I don't know, watching a tree grow or something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah

His unproven prejudices reek of either an ignorant arby's worker

---

The correct response to a thread like this is to correct the factual inaccuracies and challenge the underlying assumptions, not mock the poster's occupation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

The correct response to a thread like this is to correct the factual inaccuracies and challenge the underlying assumptions, not mock the poster's occupation.

---

Yeah, and it really does not make him look smart when he gets the poster's occupation wrong. :P

Actually, I think Strike's last post was probably a good idea.