Europe and the Rest of the World - A Military Analysis

[Vuk]

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.

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…

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.

[Greyblades]

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.

[Vuk]

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?

[Centurion1]

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.

[Fragony]

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

[Greyblades]

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?

[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.

[Fragony]

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?

[Husar]

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.

[PanzerJaeger]

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.

[Vuk]

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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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

[Subotan]

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".

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

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

[Husar]

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.
Skynet is British after all.

EDIT: Looks like the British are already preparing.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

[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

[Vuk]

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?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Europe will simply field the first soulless cyborg army and then the resolve of our civilization hardly matter.
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.