Why can't Europe defend itself?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar..._Member_States

Quote:

---

The combined defence budgets of the 27 EU member states in 2008 amounted to €200.2 billion ($260.4 billion). This represents 1.63% of European Union GDP[2], second only to the US military's €477.4 billion ($620.5 billion) 2008 defence budget, which represents 4.5% of United States GDP. The EU figures include the spending for joint projects such as the Eurofighter and joint procurement of equipment.

---

You mean to tell me then the EU can not defend itself? I mean, Why do we have to fight all the wars and keep bases all around the world. Do the Europeans love their softy Pension benefits from the Government they can't defend themselves if the big ban Russian/Chinese/Arab come knocking?

Oh, we can.

However, we are not as, how to put it? "Eager" - to get into conflicts.

China has a lot of ground to cover before they reach us.
Russia can not tackle us.
Arabs... You got to be joking?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shibumi

Arabs... You got to be joking?

---

Hey now, we've spent upwards of two trillion in the last nine years taking it to the Arabs. And ... uh ... look at how well that's turned out!

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...rmania/VID.jpg

Oh boy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Hey now, we've spent upwards of two trillion in the last nine years taking it to the Arabs. And ... uh ... look at how well that's turned out!

---

And look at England in Afghanistan in the 1800's. Well over a 100 years prior and even then the English, the most powerful nation in the world got whoop by them. Mongols got crushed by the Egyptians in 1260's.
Don't underestimate them.


How can you prove Russia won't? Overran you guys (part of Europe anyhow) once before....

They can't afford it; they spend all their money on firefighters.

"Defend" is different to invading / pissing off the locals.

I agree that Europe has become complacent in its defence and has a very poor organisation in terms of strengths and duplication.

America uses its defence policy as part of it's Pork Barrel orders to placate areas whose industries are failing.

~:smoking:

Europe has gonna weak... all they do is condemning fights anywhere... maybe an alien invasion will teach them a lesson or two...

We can just think of a better use for that 3 trillion dollars...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

They can't afford it; they spend all their money on firefighters.

---

:laugh4:

Nice quip Sasaki-san.

My answer would be that Europe chooses to defend themselves with a network of alliances and economic ties along with a good deal of "jaw-jaw."

Since, aside from the Balkans in the immediate aftermath of the Cold War, there hasn't been a lot of harm done to the Europeans, it is pretty hard to say they've got it wrong.

Should NATO be disbanded there would need to be a shift in the approach, but right now it works well.

“maybe an alien invasion will teach them a lesson or two...” Or maybe the 1,357,000 names written in the 36,785 towns and villages' Monuments from the WW1 and the 238,000 from the WW2 taught (Europe) France a lesson or two as to stop to fight each other and to stop to attack others.
So we learned our lessons: War is bad.

As foreign invasion, I am the first generation that didn’t seen one, thanks you. I have still time, but hopefully it won’t happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiKingWarmanCake88

And look at England in Afghanistan in the 1800's. Well over a 100 years prior and even then the English, the most powerful nation in the world got whoop by them. Mongols got crushed by the Egyptians in 1260's.
Don't underestimate them.


How can you prove Russia won't? Overran you guys (part of Europe anyhow) once before....

---

You mean "Great Britain".

In any case - the Afgans didn't "whoop" the Empire, they just faught it to exhaustion. Or, more to the point, they did what they are doing to America now.

Can we defend ourselves?

Yes, but we dod not have long-range Force projection, the whole of Europe has three Aircraft Carriers between all its nations. How many does the US have these days? 12?

That's where your money is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiKingWarmanCake88

How can you prove Russia won't? Overran you guys (part of Europe anyhow) once before....

---

More than once, actually, but since Russian GDP is waaaay smaller than EU's, they really can't do it, they'd get spanked. And they have no reason to. Since they can't and they don't want to, there is no real reason to afraid, is there?

China, kind of similar to Russia.

Arabs, now that is a joke...

Quote:

---

You mean "Great Britain".

---

Wouldn't you rather say "The United Kingdom"? I'm feeling sorry for all the soldiers from Man being left out of it all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiKingWarmanCake88

You mean to tell me then the EU can not defend itself?

---

Erm, according to that excerpt the EU represents the 2nd largest military budget (after the USA). And unlike the USA the EU doesn't make a point of annoying the people of Okinawa on a semi predictable basis. Instead we prefer to deal with Somali pirates which is less expensive and more useful altogether. :shrug:

Quote:

---

I mean, Why do we have to fight all the wars and keep bases all around the world.

---

You do know that the USA chose to do that. There was no military need for the USA to invade Iraq, it just felt like it. You can agree or disagree with the motives but the point remains that as long as the USA continues to remain a meddlesome power it is going to get tied up in all sorts of regional conflicts. That's not so different from the EU but what is different is that as long as the USA's approach to exerting influence is by sending in its armed forces the USA is going to be tied up in all sorts of regional wars. It's much cheaper to supply a conditional bilateral loan than to spray a country with bullets and not get what you want either. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Do the Europeans love their softy Pension benefits from the Government they can't defend themselves if the big ban Russian/Chinese/Arab come knocking?

---

They won't. For starters who's going to finance the Russians, Chinese, and Arabs if they did? Right now it's the Europeans (well the Arabs not so much, the USA pumps in lots of money there as well). But especially China has no interest in killing off the market which fuels Chinese growth and provides China with cheap capital; Russia has its own problems to deal with -- and both China and Russia are conveniently preoccupied with the USA because both would dearly love to tell the USA to suck it up.

The one thing they do is stealing IP. But no army is going to stop that from happening, as the USA has been beginning to realise in the past few years: guns don't buy you much on the Internet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Wouldn't you rather say "The United Kingdom"? I'm feeling sorry for all the soldiers from Man being left out of it all.

---

That's just how it is, we're the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". The Manx are not part of the UK, they are a crown dependency, they have their own government, with the Queen as Head of State, although they still have have British citizenship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

The Manx are not part of the UK, they are a crown dependency

---

That sounds like a sweet deal. How do I go about applying to be a "crown dependecy"?

Quote:

---

That's just how it is, we're the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". The Manx are not part of the UK, they are a crown dependency, they have their own government, with the Queen as Head of State, although they still have have British citizenship.

---

Intriguing.

We don't like to defend ourselves, seeing how we're cheese-loving surrender monkeys. Not just the French, all of us.

Only corrupt countries - state power used for private gain - spend more than 2% on defense. Such as the basket cases of socialist Greece, mobster-ran Bulgaria, and neoliberal America. :smug:


Massive defense spending is just a means to get one's snout in the through filled with taxpayer's money. Nobody militarily threatens Europe or America, and one does not need to fight a mule powered Taleban with an aircraft carrier.
(Rather, if you use a $1.5 trillion dollar of equipment to fight somebody with $22,50 worth of equipment, and you don't win instantly, then obviously you are not getting your money's worth and you need to spend it all more wisely.)

The EU has learned the lesson that war is not supposed to be encouraged and supported at the drop of a hat. Also, there are no more great enemies or rivalries to be fought out. The world was consolidated into two spheres, and now with free market capitalism coming out as the dominant, the world is connected to the point where everyone is supporting each other economies. We support the Chinese, the Chinese support someone else and etc...all the way until it reaches back to us. Anyone who says the Chinese will attack us is wrong. Anyone who says that Russia will attack us is wrong. China needs to sell crap, Russia needs to sell natural gas.

Arab threats all stem from the Isreali-Palistinian conflict, it serves as the great tool for recruiting destabilizing terrorists. If we simply manage to come to a peaceful solution to that conflict, the world will be likely be safer then it has been for a long time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Arab threats all stem from the Isreali-Palistinian conflict, it serves as the great tool for recruiting destabilizing terrorists. If we simply manage to come to a peaceful solution to that conflict, the world will be likely be safer then it has been for a long time.

---

Well mostly from a combination of internal instability, and Western interference. See if you are upset about the local dictator abusing his power and having his “police”/intelligence service harass you every time you speak out against him, then if you learn that he's supported by some foreign power some of your feeling of frustration, aggression and hatred is going to be redirected onto that foreign power. As it happens, that power is often the USA and (less visibly) the EU.

All of your self-entitlement programs don't help match ethiter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Arab threats all stem from the Isreali-Palistinian conflict, it serves as the great tool for recruiting destabilizing terrorists. If we simply manage to come to a peaceful solution to that conflict, the world will be likely be safer then it has been for a long time.

---

Oh, well then, any minute now world peace will break out. 'Cause the Israelis and Palestinians are such reasonable people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiKingWarmanCake88

All of your self-entitlement programs don't help match ethiter.

---

Match who or what and why? There's just no compelling military threat to Europe. Our armed forces are quite capable; we simply do not have world domination aspirations just yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

That sounds like a sweet deal. How do I go about applying to be a "crown dependecy"?

---

First you cut off your tail. Second you find some ancient military conflict which you then resolve by you ceding your formal independence from the Crown in exchange for substantial de-facto autonomy. Next you continue to be utterly insignificant in every way you can and you do not challenge Great Britain in any respect. If you're lucky nobody notices you and your status becomes one of those old relics of the past and nobody will bother with the trouble of reorganising your domain.

"World domination aspirations" :/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

The world was consolidated into two spheres, and now with free market capitalism coming out as the dominant, the world is connected to the point where everyone is supporting each other economies. We support the Chinese, the Chinese support someone else and etc...all the way until it reaches back to us. Anyone who says the Chinese will attack us is wrong. Anyone who says that Russia will attack us is wrong. China needs to sell crap, Russia needs to sell natural gas.

---

They used this exact same argument about economic interconnectedness making war improbable right before the First World War. Improvements in technology have made states today more capable of being self-sufficient than at any time in the past, there's really no reason to be complacent that a war won't come about over conflicts of interest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

That sounds like a sweet deal. How do I go about applying to be a "crown dependecy"?

---

There's nothing you can do about it, you blew your chance so it's up to us now if we want to take you back. And we're still in a huff with you after 1776, so don't get your hopes up...

http://i.cdn.turner.com/pga/cs/sites...urope_left.png

:knight:

http://www.rydercup.com/2010/europe/



:knight:

http://i.cdn.turner.com/pga/cs/sites...urope_left.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

They used this exact same argument about economic interconnectedness making war improbable right before the First World War. Improvements in technology have made states today more capable of being self-sufficient than at any time in the past, there's really no reason to be complacent that a war won't come about over conflicts of interest.

---

The problem here seems to be that the two states that could threaten us the most finance their armies by selling stuff to us. If they attack us, they will run into great financial problems. And if you look at history, many times when Europe as a whole was under attack, it managed to work together and fend of the attackers, the Austrians alone didn't drive the Ottomans back for example, neither did the spanish do their reconquista solely with spanish soldiers. Except the USA perhaps, I don't see anyone successfully invading a Europe that stands united unless they use nukes. Another question would be why? What ressources? Since when has Europe got any ressources left? Russia surely doesn't need any more land than it has right now, China could find a lot of easier targets to expand, so why would either of them attack the hand that pays them? The results would be devastating, first they'd lose their army, then they'd go bankrupt and to top it off, some 12 US carriers and 3 european ones might start bombarding their homeland if they hadn't already surrendered at that point.not to forget that other countries might side with Europe, I'm not sure China has all that many friends in Asia either, some wannabe-autonomous regions could rebel, some neighbors try to side with Europe to get a piece of the Chinese cake. Russia isn't even as much a threat as China, the cold war is over, i wouldn't even think they have any interest in attacking Europe at all, they want to be influential and get a say in this or that, but I think they're too clever to actually bite. We also helped them out when they're in trouble, maybe that doesn't do a lot to a pragmatic leader, but can such a leader start a very dangerous war against the will of a large part of the citizentry?

Europe isn't half as defenseless as few here seem to think, next I'm going to open a thread called "Is america unable to build decent guns or why does the Abrams tank use a 120mm Rheinmetall gun from Germany?" ~;)

I don't see why we are talking about europe being able to defend itself or whether anyone is going to attack it (although the OP starts on that point it seems like we can leap beyond that...). It seems like the more contentious issue has to do with being able to project power around the world and contain aggressive dictators. Does anyone have an idea what the world would look like if the US didn't have that ability? What would south korea look like? That's the only concrete thing I can think of. So the question seems to be, should Europe shoulder its share of that, or can they just shrug it off as "world domination aspirations"?

Whether you agree with the US's current attempts is irrelevant, unless you want to argue that all such attempts are necessarily bad in the way you argue they are.

Well, there are people even in the US who think an isolationist policy and letting other states deal with their own matters without interference is the best way to go. The world would look different, for example less people in South America would be angry at the US for installing puppets in their country, there would be no Palestinia-Israel conflict ( :mellow: ) and less people in Arabia would turn to terrorism to oppose US bases in Arabia, South Korea might be North Korea now, Vietnam might be North Vietnam now but then how is that any of our business? If the soldiers of Korea want to worship their "great" leader while their families starve, that's their decision. As Afghanistan shows, some people just don't value their freedom a lot when you force it onto them. :shrug:

@Husar: Much of what you said is circumstancial. There is real competition for resources and China is pushing its weight in the new scramble for Africa. As for the practicality of war, that has been shown to be a very changeable thing throughout history, depending on various changes in relations between society/politics/the military, which are far too complex to predict. I agree the circumstances right now make war unlikely, but so what, things change more than ever these days, only seventy years ago we had the first truly total war. Things might have reversed since then but there's no reason to assume that trend will continue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

It seems like the more contentious issue has to do with being able to project power around the world and contain aggressive dictators. Does anyone have an idea what the world would look like if the US didn't have that ability? What would south korea look like? That's the only concrete thing I can think of. So the question seems to be, should Europe shoulder its share of that, or can they just shrug it off as "world domination aspirations"?

---

While such measures might protect western strategic interests, I'm not convined they will spread democracy and create a lasting peace. The strength/roots of democracy lie in society, not in the political system itself. There are many social preconditions for democracy, like a strong middle class, an industrialised economy,centralised government etc. There can't be created overnight, and they weren't created overnight in South Korea either.

Of course, you could point out the state of affairs in North Korea, which was historically always one with the south, but I would argue that things have only been able to get the way they have done there because of international influence, artificially propping up the regime. Unfortunately things are now so bad you can't take away the food aid without everybody dying, but again that's because of foreign influence, hindering the natural deveopment of the state.

Having American troops running round having 'regime changes' seems superficial to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Oh, well then, any minute now world peace will break out. 'Cause the Israelis and Palestinians are such reasonable people.

---

I said the solution is simple: get a peaceful end to the conflict. I didn't say that implementing it would be simple. Getting a peaceful solution will be the most difficult diplomatic achievement in human history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

They used this exact same argument about economic interconnectedness making war improbable right before the First World War. Improvements in technology have made states today more capable of being self-sufficient than at any time in the past, there's really no reason to be complacent that a war won't come about over conflicts of interest.

---

1. The level of economic interconnectedness wasn't on the same level as we see today.
2. I would think that having your empire encompassing enough land across the world to be roughly the size of Europe itself would make you pretty damned self sufficient as well. Today, countries do not have such an advantage to the same extent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

1. The level of economic interconnectedness wasn't on the same level as we see today.
2. I would think that having your empire encompassing enough land across the world to be roughly the size of Europe itself would make you pretty damned self sufficient as well. Today, countries do not have such an advantage to the same extent.

---

1. True, but why do you presume that we are heading in a straighforward direction of increasing economic interconnectedness? History shows that it seems to fluctuate wildly. After the development of free trade in the 16th century, the absolute monarchs restricted it with mercantilism with the political desire for self-sufficiency. Then you had Adam Smith and the free market 18th century etc. But then there was enlightened despotism and a revival of protectionism even in more liberal states like Britain. And then there was the free market again, but then there was the First World War, and the concept of fascism brought the heyday of economic self-sufficiency and the obliteration of international trade with the far-left/far-right. And fair enough we know are in a period of more economic interconnectedness, but so what, who says this time it will last?

2. You would be surprised, there's an emerging consensus among historians that imperialism was actually purely fuelled by abstract values eg nationalism, and colonies were in fact quite a financial drain on their imperial overlords. Furthermore, the nature of production in the colonies would make them pretty irrelevant to the resources demanded for warfare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

1. True, but why do you presume that we are heading in a straighforward direction of increasing economic interconnectedness? History shows that it seems to fluctuate wildly. After the development of free trade in the 16th century, the absolute monarchs restricted it with mercantilism with the political desire for self-sufficiency. Then you had Adam Smith and the free market 18th century etc. But then there was enlightened despotism and a revival of protectionism even in more liberal states like Britain. And then there was the free market again, but then there was the First World War, and the concept of fascism brought the heyday of economic self-sufficiency and the obliteration of international trade with the far-left/far-right. And fair enough we know are in a period of more economic interconnectedness, but so what, who says this time it will last?

2. You would be surprised, there's an emerging consensus among historians that imperialism was actually purely fuelled by abstract values eg nationalism, and colonies were in fact quite a financial drain on their imperial overlords. Furthermore, the nature of production in the colonies would make them pretty irrelevant to the resources demanded for warfare.

---

1. Modern economics arguably didn't start until Adam Smith. So the 16th century wasn't learned from due to the fact economics as a social science had not progressed to the point where people were actively discussing it on the level needed to improve human knowledge about economies. From the 18th century until the 19th the despots and enlightened states alike didn't know that economics wasn't a zero sum game, the influence of economists wasn't where it should have been. Rulers learned from that in time. Then in in the twentieth century, rulers put ideology and nationalism above economic theory, twice. They have now learned from that as well. Now there has been 70 years of uninterrupted free trade between the US and the EU and about 25-30 years of relatively uninterrupted free trade across the entire world, including Russia and China and the overall world economic has been growing at an incredible rate (until recently). Leaders know this. Nothing says this time will last if we elect people who put their ideologies above what is actually practical. (unrelated)This is why the Tea Party scares me on some level.(/unrelated) However, by simply putting in people who do listen to the economists, we can be assured that protectionism won't be advocated ever again.

2. I will need to read more about that consensus before I can comfortably comment on your statement.

Quote:

---

2. I will need to read more about that consensus before I can comfortably comment on your statement.

---

iirc, the argument is that countries who invested at home rather than abroad ended up doing better.

@rhyf: I don't know if it's even so much about spreading democracy...as in preventing aggressive wars. Like north korea attacking south korea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

iirc, the argument is that countries who invested at home rather than abroad ended up doing better.

---

Britain's and France's empire were much larger then Germany's at the beginning of WW1 and they certainly spent more effort in making and maintaining an empire abroad then Germany did. Why did Germany lose?

Not attacking you, just putting forth questions popping in my head. Which is why I should probably read about it before commenting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Britain's and France's empire were much larger then Germany's at the beginning of WW1 and they certainly spent more effort in making and maintaining an empire abroad then Germany did. Why did Germany lose?

Not attacking you, just putting forth questions popping in my head. Which is why I should probably read about it before commenting.

---

Why was Germany able to compete at all? Because they invested more at home? Wasn't one of the causes of the American Revolution the fact that parliament was trying to actually get some money out of the colonies? I have to think the British profited a lot from India though...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Things might have reversed since then but there's no reason to assume that trend will continue.

---

So you think there will be a nuclear war over ressources and we'll all die in the end? Because that's kinda the only way for China to beat the US, and incidentally will lead to destruction of China as well, it's a MAD scenario, also incidentally a lot of western nations are moving away from ressource-based economies. Whether that is a good or a bad idea is for another topic, but at the moment we don't seem to have a lot of incentive to compete with China over steel, in fact we're selling them our steel production facilities. Oil may be a factor but sooner or later electric cars are going to become more normal I hope and some guys in Saxony or so have found a way to make plastic from wood, hah! I just think there are many factors to such things and there isn't all that much of a reason to assume things will change as well.
In a nuclear war, having a huge armed force won't help Europe either. And if we actually need a huge force, we can still stock up, at the moment though a lot of nations have a tendency to go for smaller, better equipped and more specialized force, of course you can claim to know better than the defense minister of Germany for example, but I'm not sure I would believe you. ~;)
Those smaller forces are also meant for things like proxy wars, but I doubt we'll get something like a carrier anytime soon, more likely the forces would be flown into a friendly country nearby.

I remember reading a paper on the internet some while back about the likely senario of a China/USA nuclear war and how it might end.

The author came to the conclusion that while China would lose but they could deal a crippling blow to the USA with less than a dozen nukes and USA would crumble due to her reliance on the major population centers for economic and industrial strength.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Match who or what and why? There's just no compelling military threat to Europe. Our armed forces are quite capable; we simply do not have world domination aspirations just yet.

---

Capable of what? Smoking cigarettes, being out of shape, shooting their allies, and running at the first sign of resistance? You say that Russia would not be able to invade Europe...that is BS. Russia has the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world, and it would only take the threat of using them to bring all of Europe quivering to its knees. Russia could probably take most of Europe in a few months, and it would be a great opportunity for them to get American armies (coming to aid their worthless European allies) onto the European mainland, so that they could do considerable damage without having to seriously fight the American Navy. Of course if that did happen, they would no doubt have China as an ally, which would really ruin America and Europe's day. If such a scenario, the only serious hope that America would have would be in getting India as a military ally. With such a large population, and funded and aided by America, it could prove to be quite a distraction to the Chinese.
You are out of your minds if you really think that Russia is not a threat to Europe. They are extremely capable, have experience, and have a lot of nukes.
When it gets down to it, it really does not matter per say how big the military is, but the quality of the citizenry (from which military personnel and decision makers will be drawn). Strong people will hold out, weak people will not. Western Europe could be taken over by a rabid 100 year old grandmother with a butter knife.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

.... Western Europe could be taken over by a rabid 100 year old grandmother with a butter knife.

---

Clearly, I would not enjoy Thanksgiving dinner at your house....




Couldn't resist.

The Russians a threat? I heard the Poles are developing a new weapon that will stop any Russian invasion: Cluster Vodkas. Of course some pesky Islamic countries are trying to ban it for being a Weapon of Mass Consumption.

Or something like that...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Why was Germany able to compete at all? Because they invested more at home? Wasn't one of the causes of the American Revolution the fact that parliament was trying to actually get some money out of the colonies? I have to think the British profited a lot from India though...

---

Idk about how much Germany spent at home, I just know they didn't have the empire England and France did and didn't have to spend nearly the amount of money and effort like they did trying to keep control over 1/4th of the worlds land.

The problem in America wasn't getting the money, the problem was not giving them representation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Idk about how much Germany spent at home, I just know they didn't have the empire England and France did and didn't have to spend nearly the amount of money and effort like they did trying to keep control over 1/4th of the worlds land.

---

Yeah, that fits in with "not profiting that much off of empire building". And I think germany became an economic powerhouse through industrializing.

Quote:

---

The problem in America wasn't getting the money, the problem was not giving them representation.

---

The british trying to pull a profit or stop their losses (can't remember which) from the colonies was the driving force I'm pretty sure. America couldn't be represented...their interests were too separate from the british interests. They would have had no power in parliament even with representatives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Yeah, that fits in with "not profiting that much off of empire building". And I think germany became an economic powerhouse through industrializing.

---

So again, I am just wondering if that consensus has answer for why Germany still lost even though it focused on itself. Is the general idea that if the war happened later, Germany would have surpassed Britain and France enough to defeat them?

Quote:

---

The british trying to pull a profit or stop their losses (can't remember which) from the colonies was the driving force I'm pretty sure. America couldn't be represented...their interests were too separate from the british interests. They would have had no power in parliament even with representatives.

---

I don't get it, they would have no power in Parliament anyway but we can't have been represented because their different interests are going to mess up the direction Britain wanted to go in?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

So again, I am just wondering if that consensus has answer for why Germany still lost even though it focused on itself. Is the general idea that if the war happened later, Germany would have surpassed Britain and France enough to defeat them?

---

That consensus idea is about economic and monetary benefit. And it's two against one besides...

Quote:

---

I don't get it, they would have no power in Parliament anyway but we can't have been represented because their different interests are going to mess up the direction Britain wanted to go in?

---

If they had given the US a few representatives they would not have had enough votes to repeal the taxes.

I don't think the industrial decline seen in Britain had much to do with its colonies. It seems more like the newcomers being more competitive and innovative and the old dog not being able to learn new tricks.

The modern global economy is doing more importing/exporting than ever so we rely more on each other. The wildest China has done recently was to cut off Japan from some rare minerals and that lasted a few days IIRC. Among the greater powers no one is saber rattling like we saw a hundred years ago in Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

That consensus idea is about economic and monetary benefit. And it's two against one besides...

---

Well that's true. Either way you will have to excuse me that I am not just going to go along with your statement about this consensus without looking into it first. You are probably right though, but I'm not one to just run my mouth without having some knowledge/research on the subject.

Quote:

---

If they had given the US a few representatives they would not have had enough votes to repeal the taxes.

---

So why deny them the votes? If they can't stop the taxes anyway then give them representatives and prevent a rebellion over no representation from breaking out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Well that's true. Either way you will have to excuse me that I am not just going to go along with your statement about this consensus without looking into it first. You are probably right though, but I'm not one to just run my mouth without having some knowledge/research on the subject.

---

I have only heard the theory in passing. Seems plausible though.

Quote:

---

So why deny them the votes? If they can't stop the taxes anyway then give them representatives and prevent a rebellion over no representation from breaking out.

---

It wouldn't have prevented anything...they would have just (rightly) said that they weren't truly represented. Besides with the revolution you have that weird thing where the british became convinced that we were going to rebel so they clamped down and then we became convinced they were going to become tyrannical and acted rebellious and then that further convinced them etc and so on. Not the most logical time period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

It wouldn't have prevented anything...they would have just (rightly) said that they weren't truly represented. Besides with the revolution you have that weird thing where the british became convinced that we were going to rebel so they clamped down and then we became convinced they were going to become tyrannical and acted rebellious and then that further convinced them etc and so on. Not the most logical time period.

---

Well I think that is a bit extrapolating. I'm sure there would have been moderates who would have been pacified by the gesture and that the only ones left would have been the ones who were looking for a reason in the first place. Would those die hard people have rallied everyone anyway? Possibly. All I know is that there would have been no harm in giving them the representatives if it was a rebel or rebel situation and the benefit would have been the ability to keep taxing a rich region for while longer.

Nukes kinda made standing army's absolete.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

I don't think the industrial decline seen in Britain had much to do with its colonies. It seems more like the newcomers being more competitive and innovative and the old dog not being able to learn new tricks.

---

Indeed there is the real reason the colonies cost Britain money it was because of tarriffs levied against it's own colonies never mind France or Germany.


No wonder it cost Britain money to have colonies they were trying to tax colonial industry to be more expensive than at home

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Does anyone have an idea what the world would look like if the US didn't have that ability? What would south korea look like? That's the only concrete thing I can think of.

---

And what would Iraq look like? Or Vietnam, or the middle east at large? See for every good there's also a bad to mention there. You are forgetting that this was not just the USA being generous in supporting the “good cause” it was (certainly later on) as much if not more the USA acting in what it believed to be its self interest.

Quote:

---

So the question seems to be, should Europe shoulder its share of that, or can they just shrug it off as "world domination aspirations"?

---

Europe does not have to act in the USA's best interests. Just like the USA does not have to assist the UK either. And for what it's worth Europe is plenty often involved in “its share of that” at the USA's request. But why should we buy into this whole “big armies” thing now? For simply projecting force it is sufficient to have a few highly trained corps and some relatively expensive kit; loads of grunt power is not necessary.

Quote:

---

Whether you agree with the US's current attempts is irrelevant, unless you want to argue that all such attempts are necessarily bad in the way you argue they are.

---

I'm not even saying the current situation is that bad. What I'm saying that there are alternatives which so far seem to work equally well or equally bad but do not require as much day to day management of scrapheaps and are cheaper due to that. So why should we copy the USA to no gain?

It's worse than not necessary - a large conventional army is expensive to move around, liable to cause bad press (killing locals or dying) and often ineffective. Intel-led special forces along with high tech backup isn't the silver bullet but is comparatively cheaper, harder for the enemy to hit and a lot easier to withdraw.

America and Americans appear to be incapable of understanding that their wants may not be the best for the rest of the world.

~:smoking:

This topic seems to have grown a bit, so time for a more in-depth reply.

The question of Europes to do, and not to do in world politics is imho closely attached to USA's.

USA have by now a long and quite often not so proud history of meddling in world affairs. Colonies has been mentioned, and that is of course also tied in.

Europe has, contrary to USA, a long history. And as luck has it, we once in a while learn from it. We have long since learnt the cost of having colonies, and now do what we can to cut our losses. "Fortress Europe" has been mentioned as the new EU policy in world affairs, right or wrong I do not know.

The EU has the golden opportunity to let the USA handle the fire zones and get the ill will, while Europe lean back and take the morale upper ground while still getting the better of the financial outcome.

When the US is to stupid to understand that they are on a down hill tendence, there really is no need for Europe to spend much on defense. Could this come back and beat the EU in the behind? Well, possibly. But the world would have to change a lot, and rapidly, for that to be a problem. Attacking the EU as a whole has never really been done, and it would be extremly hard. One big benefit the EU have is that various regions are very well suited for defense, with an army that both will have high morale, as well as good gear and local knowledge.

Thus, the EU has no need to spend much on defense, and even less on offensive military power as the US is doing the job for them.

Europe can defend itself and does. One of the reasons that euro-weenies don't project power is a hangover from empire. One of the consequences of the USA entering WWII was their insistence on the colonial powers dismantling their empires.

You're asking to have it both ways. :dizzy2:

Then there's the economic situation at the moment. The difference between Europe and the USA is that our political systems evolved over centuries, whilst the USA got a brand new shiny one from the off. That's why the USA is broadly more right wing than Europe.

As an aside, during the American Revolution, Paul Revere would never have said "The British are coming", as he would have considered himself British. Strange I know to the modern American ear but there we are. Rather he said "The Regulars are out".

The colonialists considered themselves the true heirs of the English Civil War a hundred years earliier.

Makes more sense if you think about it.

:book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

Capable of what? Smoking cigarettes, being out of shape, shooting their allies, and running at the first sign of resistance?

---

Huh, sounds like much the same old “I'm of nationality $x. The $x army is the only model of an army in the world worth considering. These heretics are not following the One True Model, therefore they are weak and useless.” cue being proven wrong time and again.

As for the rest, may I borrow your time machine some day? It's almost a copy of the 20's-50's military thinking. That's been debunked so thoroughly before now, but in case you hadn't noticed: we live in the 21st century. The big Russian army contains 3 components:
(1) New Russian high tech. Start ups from the 1990s/early 2000s now making a splash. Good but nothing exceptional, and given the lack of money in the Russian army nothing that will wow us.
(2) Thoroughly corrupt military chain of command, and a lot of young people who simply join the army for the food and shelter; lot's of typical bootcamp “games”. Not really an effective fighting force, just a large one.
(3) Lots of old equipment. Lots and lots of it. No money to maintain it. Kursk.

Don't believe me? Believe the utter military fiasco (in terms of time, money and people required) that is Chechen. A few people with AK's and some home-grown DIY bomb tech manage to occupy the Russian army for how long now?

Quote:

---

Western Europe could be taken over by a rabid 100 year old grandmother with a butter knife.

---

No we bought her off: she's been Queen of the United Kingdom for some time now. It's you who must fear the rabid 100 year old grandmother now.

The original question of the thread is already wrong. Europe can defend itself from any regional threats. China is too far away to be a threat and Russia being a trade partner and with a GDP similar of Spain is not a serious threat to Europe anymore. In conventional forces Europe is stronger then Russia and the Nuclear arsenal of France and UK will assure that Nuclear war would mean the end to Russia also. So the only country that could hypothetically be a military threat to Europe is USA. Are you suggesting we should start a arms race with US? The truth is that Europe doesnt need a bigger military spending we already have and even those costs could be reduced by cutting off overlapping spending via more integrated military structure on EU level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Huh, sounds like much the same old “I'm of nationality $x. The $x army is the only model of an army in the world worth considering. These heretics are not following the One True Model, therefore they are weak and useless.” cue being proven wrong time and again.

As for the rest, may I borrow your time machine some day? It's almost a copy of the 20's-50's military thinking. That's been debunked so thoroughly before now, but in case you hadn't noticed: we live in the 21st century. The big Russian army contains 3 components:
(1) New Russian high tech. Start ups from the 1990s/early 2000s now making a splash. Good but nothing exceptional, and given the lack of money in the Russian army nothing that will wow us.
(2) Thoroughly corrupt military chain of command, and a lot of young people who simply join the army for the food and shelter; lot's of typical bootcamp “games”. Not really an effective fighting force, just a large one.
(3) Lots of old equipment. Lots and lots of it. No money to maintain it. Kursk.

Don't believe me? Believe the utter military fiasco (in terms of time, money and people required) that is Chechen. A few people with AK's and some home-grown DIY bomb tech manage to occupy the Russian army for how long now?



No we bought her off: she's been Queen of the United Kingdom for some time now. It's you who must fear the rabid 100 year old grandmother now.

---

First of all, history shows what makes a good military and what doesn't. Technology changes over time, but basic principles generally do not.
Second of all, you are completely forgetting Russians two main advantages:
1. A stockpile of nukes so big they could obliterate Europe.
2. They know that Europe is scared of conflict, and would cave in at even the threat of a full scale nuclear war. They on the other hand are very willing to fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Only corrupt countries - state power used for private gain - spend more than 2% on defense. Such as the basket cases of socialist Greece, mobster-ran Bulgaria, and neoliberal America. :smug:

---

needless to say i disagree with you.

2.0% should be the minimum a country spends, at least if they are a NATO member.

Nukes are good to have a few of, but frankly their unlikely to be ever used in a state to state setting as the gains are less than the losses.

Europe has enough nukes to make MAD a reality. In total there's a couple of hundred warheads.

The principles of warfare have been radically altered over the last 100 years, unless you're using very vague principles. WW1 especially shows the fallacy of "nothing has altered". One modern destroyer could single-handedly smash entire fleets from only a few decades ago; nice big tank collections can be scrapped within hours with weaponry mounted on troops / planes / hum-vees / helicopters. Nothing can be made heavy enough any more, which was certainly far less the case not so long ago.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

Capable of what? Smoking cigarettes, being out of shape, shooting their allies, and running at the first sign of resistance? You say that Russia would not be able to invade Europe...that is BS. Russia has the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world, and it would only take the threat of using them to bring all of Europe quivering to its knees. Russia could probably take most of Europe in a few months, and it would be a great opportunity for them to get American armies (coming to aid their worthless European allies) onto the European mainland, so that they could do considerable damage without having to seriously fight the American Navy. Of course if that did happen, they would no doubt have China as an ally, which would really ruin America and Europe's day. If such a scenario, the only serious hope that America would have would be in getting India as a military ally. With such a large population, and funded and aided by America, it could prove to be quite a distraction to the Chinese.
You are out of your minds if you really think that Russia is not a threat to Europe. They are extremely capable, have experience, and have a lot of nukes.
When it gets down to it, it really does not matter per say how big the military is, but the quality of the citizenry (from which military personnel and decision makers will be drawn). Strong people will hold out, weak people will not. Western Europe could be taken over by a rabid 100 year old grandmother with a butter knife.

---

:laugh4:
So you think Europe is full of weak people? So what? America is full of fat people, and China is becoming fat, too. No challenge for a healthy european population.
If you think nukes are a problem for Europe, then what about nukes being a problem for Russia? The UK and France have nukes, Germany and possibly others have US nukes stationed on their territory(I don't really need to explain why we don't have our own, do I?), it's not completely one-sided.
Another question is who will Russia extort with their gas prices after nuking all their customers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

:laugh4:
So you think Europe is full of weak people? So what? America is full of fat people, and China is becoming fat, too. No challenge for a healthy european population.
If you think nukes are a problem for Europe, then what about nukes being a problem for Russia? The UK and France have nukes, Germany and possibly others have US nukes stationed on their territory(I don't really need to explain why we don't have our own, do I?), it's not completely one-sided.
Another question is who will Russia extort with their gas prices after nuking all their customers?

---

Weak, both mentally and physically. How can a people who hate themselves and despise the idea of defending themselves ever stop a serious invasion? Russia won't have to nuke Europe into a waste land, it only has to threaten Europe and make a few examples, and I guarantee you that most of Europe would surrender. After that, Europe becomes part of the new Bloc, and can only buy Russian goods.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

First of all, history shows what makes a good military and what doesn't. Technology changes over time, but basic principles generally do not.

---

Indeed. All Ivan needs to do is show Marius, Marcel and Franz some Cold steel and they'll run crying to the atlantic.

What time machine have you stepped out of? What on earth is all that guff verging on "superior races"...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

After that, Europe becomes part of the new Bloc, and can only buy Russian goods.

---

Well, if we can have more or less the same level of freedom and wealth under whatever new overlords, then, frankly, I don't care about which macho type tries to tell me he is ruling the world and that I'm a weakling. If that's what makes him happy, let him. I'm happy with my house, my car, my fridge full of food, my cellar full of wine and beer, some money on my savings accounts, firefighters nearby and enough free time and money to go on a holiday every once in a while.

If working your butt off with no holidays and no social security to maintain an awfully expensive army that needs to wage war every once in a while to justify its' existence is what makes you happy, then by all means, carry on. As long as you keep said army out of here (unless for defending me on your expenses), it's all fine by me ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

Weak, both mentally and physically. How can a people who hate themselves and despise the idea of defending themselves ever stop a serious invasion? Russia won't have to nuke Europe into a waste land, it only has to threaten Europe and make a few examples, and I guarantee you that most of Europe would surrender. After that, Europe becomes part of the new Bloc, and can only buy Russian goods.

---

This is hilarious.

Funniest thread of the day.

Europeans being scared of conflict, probably, also much better at war because of it, nobody wants to die. Europe is a continent with an insanily bloody history, the US a place of peace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

the US a place of peace.

---

Perhaps, it certainly does a good job of fighting its battles on foreign soil, thereby avoiding the need to do so at home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

And what would Iraq look like? Or Vietnam, or the middle east at large? See for every good there's also a bad to mention there. You are forgetting that this was not just the USA being generous in supporting the “good cause” it was (certainly later on) as much if not more the USA acting in what it believed to be its self interest.

---

What kind of self interest? Well that's a big tangent probably. But you are shooting yourself in the foot here. If the US is doing a bad job, then Europe should step up.

Quote:

---

Europe does not have to act in the USA's best interests. Just like the USA does not have to assist the UK either. And for what it's worth Europe is plenty often involved in “its share of that” at the USA's request. But why should we buy into this whole “big armies” thing now? For simply projecting force it is sufficient to have a few highly trained corps and some relatively expensive kit; loads of grunt power is not necessary.

---

I'll leave the military argument aside because saying what kind of force is needed is too big a question for me :book:

But how is this about Europe acting in the USA's interests? Surely it is about Europe acting in the worlds best interest. You have to answer up to that.

Quote:

---

I'm not even saying the current situation is that bad. What I'm saying that there are alternatives which so far seem to work equally well or equally bad but do not require as much day to day management of scrapheaps and are cheaper due to that. So why should we copy the USA to no gain?

---

What alternatives work well?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

Well, if we can have more or less the same level of freedom and wealth under whatever new overlords, then, frankly, I don't care about which macho type tries to tell me he is ruling the world and that I'm a weakling. If that's what makes him happy, let him. I'm happy with my house, my car, my fridge full of food, my cellar full of wine and beer, some money on my savings accounts, firefighters nearby and enough free time and money to go on a holiday every once in a while.

If working your butt off with no holidays and no social security to maintain an awfully expensive army that needs to wage war every once in a while to justify its' existence is what makes you happy, then by all means, carry on. As long as you keep said army out of here (unless for defending me on your expenses), it's all fine by me ~:cheers:

---

How is it about "ruling the world"? If some muscular guy said he was going to try and stop a woman being raped would you say that you were too busy going on vacation in your unburnt house with a cellar full of heinaken?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shibumi

The EU has the golden opportunity to let the USA handle the fire zones and get the ill will, while Europe lean back and take the morale upper ground while still getting the better of the financial outcome.

---

Yes, that is the accusation made of Europe. It may be a golden opportunity economically, but is it justifiable?

***********

Bear in mind we're discussing a theoretical point in which large western militaries are an important preventative and policing force. The question of whether it is good or possible in reality is kind of hardcore.

The US is a place of historical peace as all the locals were slaughtered in relatively quick order by invaders / current populace and have left scant records of their history. What there was of it indicates they were not peaceful per capita.

Domestic deaths in the USA from weaponry would put the death tolls of some minor conflicts to shame.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

Capable of what? Smoking cigarettes, being out of shape, shooting their allies, and running at the first sign of resistance?

---

Why are you bringing the American military up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

What kind of self interest? Well that's a big tangent probably. But you are shooting yourself in the foot here. If the US is doing a bad job, then Europe should step up.

But how is this about Europe acting in the USA's interests? Surely it is about Europe acting in the worlds best interest. You have to answer up to that.

Bear in mind we're discussing a theoretical point in which large western militaries are an important preventative and policing force. The question of whether it is good or possible in reality is kind of hardcore.

---

There are cases where the US has arguably intervened in the interests of "world peace" and global good. These are arguably thinner on the ground of late. I would say the more positive examples lie around 50+ years ago, with the possible recent exception of Balkan missions e.g. Kosovo.

Do you really think the prime motivational factor for the US' adventurism since WW2 has been anything other than in its own interest, or that of its ideology? If it has and continues to claim the motive of "world peace", it has always been world peace on the USA's terms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

How is it about "ruling the world"? If some muscular guy said he was going to try and stop a woman being raped would you say that you were too busy going on vacation in your unburnt house with a cellar full of heinaken?

---

Some would argue that that woman is not being raped but merely enjoying kinky sex and that the muscular guy is calling it "rape" because he's a macho who thinks kinky sex is wrong and who's also wanting to show the bystanders that he has muscles.

It doesn't matter to you anyway, because you'll burn at the stake tonight for falsely accusing me of having a cellar filled with dishwater "Heineken" :brood: (though luck if you forgot to pay your 75 $ :tongue:) When will you learn that "Heineken" is not beer, let alone good beer. My cellar is filled with Ciney, Leffe, Floreffe, Quintine, Kriek Boon, the finest French and Spanish wines, champagne and a delicious bottle of Spumante.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

Do you really think the prime motivational factor for the US' adventurism since WW2 has been anything other than in its own interest, or that of its ideology? If it has and continues to claim the motive of "world peace", it has always been world peace on the USA's terms.

---

Unfortunately though the war in Iraq was clearly all about oil, there are still those that think that the US, UK, etc, went in there to "liberate" people from an evil dictator with (nonexistent) WMD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

There are cases where the US has arguably intervened in the interests of "world peace" and global good. These are arguably thinner on the ground of late. I would say the more positive examples lie around 50+ years ago, with the possible recent exception of Balkan missions e.g. Kosovo.

Do you really think the prime motivational factor for the US' adventurism since WW2 has been anything other than in its own interest, or that of its ideology? If it has and continues to claim the motive of "world peace", it has always been world peace on the USA's terms.

---

This argument is self defeating like tellos's unless you are just talking about the tangent or arguing for a "power corrupts..." kind of thing.

Is it in the USA's self interest to live in a world with less dictatorships? That's why I don't get arguing for "self interest". Do you mean "selfish interest"? i.e. it's bad for other people but good for us?

Listen if we can wage a 40 year moral war on drugs, you don't think morals are a big part of our foreign policy too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

Some would argue that that woman is not being raped but merely enjoying kinky sex and that the muscular guy is calling it "rape" because he's a macho who thinks kinky sex is wrong and who's also wanting to show the bystanders that he has muscles.

It doesn't matter to you anyway, because you'll burn at the stake tonight for falsely accusing me of having a cellar filled with dishwater "Heineken" :brood: (I hope you payed your 75 $ or it'll be the last time you insulted me that way :tongue:) When will you learn that "Heineken" is not beer, let alone good beer. My cellar is filled with Ciney, Leffe, Floreffe, Quintine, Kriek Boon, the finest French and Spanish wines, champagne and a delicious bottle of Spumante.

---

Clearly you've been brainwashed. What kind of totalitarian regime do you have in belgium? Why haven't the other European countries liberated you? I guess it'll be the US's job again :undecided:

The USA had NO problem with dictatorships as long as they leant towards the right direction. Latin America to the Middle East through Asia dictators were feted as long as they didn't go red.

USA liberating Europe again? Do we have to wait 4 years this time too?

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

Well, if we can have more or less the same level of freedom and wealth under whatever new overlords, then, frankly, I don't care about which macho type tries to tell me he is ruling the world and that I'm a weakling. If that's what makes him happy, let him. I'm happy with my house, my car, my fridge full of food, my cellar full of wine and beer, some money on my savings accounts, firefighters nearby and enough free time and money to go on a holiday every once in a while.

If working your butt off with no holidays and no social security to maintain an awfully expensive army that needs to wage war every once in a while to justify its' existence is what makes you happy, then by all means, carry on. As long as you keep said army out of here (unless for defending me on your expenses), it's all fine by me ~:cheers:

---

lmao, that is the attitude that I am talking about! If someone does not value Freedom, then they will not fight to keep it.
I hate to break it to you Andres, but that is hardly what most places in the Soviet Bloc looked like. If Russia conquers Europe, it will be to control them and exploit their resources. Life will not longer be a box of chocolates for you as others work and fight so that you can enjoy your Freedom and high-standard of living.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

Indeed. All Ivan needs to do is show Marius, Marcel and Franz some Cold steel and they'll run crying to the atlantic.

What time machine have you stepped out of? What on earth is all that guff verging on "superior races"...

---

As I said, I am not talking about weapon specific principles.
"superior races"? I would love to see how you came up with that considering that I never mentioned race. (and in fact, majority of Europeans are of the same race as majority of Americans)
The difference is simply in values and character. Most Europeans do not believe that Freedom is sacred and would not be willing to fight for anything but their right to strike, get free health care, or in some other way avoid work and leave things to the more industrious. Europeans are for the most part lazy, and cowardly. No one likes work, and no one likes fighting, but the difference is that some realize that they need to be done and have the courage and industry to step up and do them for their own good, and others like living in a dream world where they think that everything will take care of itself with no effort from themselves.
I am sorry to say it, but I have no respect for someone who is not willing to work and for someone who does not believe that somethings are worth fighting for. Such a person is a willing slave, and as such, does not ask for respect and is not worthy of it.
I am not saying this about you or anyone in particular, and I understand that there are many Europeans who do value work and are willing to fight for things they hold sacred, but they are a minority.
How can a society unused to work and unused to fighting ever hope to survive the horrors and hardships of a sustained war that would test the resolve of the toughest?