no. the eu doesn't have the right to draft anyone bcs we as citizens dont have the right to vote for who will hold the highest office of the EU. i personally have no loyalty to for the EU so it can fuck off. also, the last time i checked, the EU is falling apart.
and every member nation already has an army so its pointless.
... Even if that was true, which it is not, how would that stop them from drafting anyone and why would they even need to draft anyone? Also as I have pointed out the national armies in the EU faces massive problems not to mention the fact that in the case we need to defend ourselves we would not be able to effectively combine our forces and would quite easily be destroyed one by one.
The EU should ideally become independent from the US. This entire EU army totally useless as long as US soldiers are deployed in Germany and elsewhere in Europe due to WWII. The goal of the EU should really be European independence. Second of all, if this army is going to be deployed only for defense of European territory that would be nice, unfortunately this army will be used as expendable forces of the US so that the US can continue to play world police.
The EU was created by the same gang that rules America:) The EU will never be independent, its whole purpose is to serve globalist world conquest. Europe can be independent if the EU is dismantled.
It is impossible. The EU has to go, and European nations need to restore their sovereignty and identity. Nonwhite immigrants will have to go back home, too.
@lorawhite14 If we cannot turn the EU into a patriotic institution, it must be destroyed and a patriotic version will have to be created. We need an institution to oversee European solidarity and brotherhood so that we do not fall into brotherwars again. Europe is only strong if we dont fight each other.
Globalization is a reality and it will be one in the future. As our world is growing ever closer together through diplomacy, trade and telecommunication, it is unchangeable fact that we are becoming one big community. You can either accept this or hold your little tantrums. And if you choose to do the latter, you better log off the internet right now because that's also part of globalization. You can go live in a log cabin in some remote New England forest like Thoreau if that makes you happy.
TL;DR version: the reason the EU needs one is the same reason it won't work. The EU's current version is managed the same way it manages everything else, by Byzantine and balkanized bureaucracies.
That is a fair point but on the flip side there is already a lot of conflicts as it is and Europe is not really able to handle it. A good example is the frequent airspace violations done by Russian military planes or the abyssal performance during various middle eastern missions.
In its current form it is meant for mainly peaceful missions such as assisting during natural disasters and they are not equipped or intended to defend EU against a hostile nation.
ONE F-35 costs as much as 12 homes for elderly, 1 hospital, 156 parks, 47 elementary schools , 12.145 playgrounds. We just bought 34 F-35's for $6,53 billion. (under US pressure) And that's just the initial price: it will probably get more expensive. That means we'll have to live with less homes for elderly, hospitals, parks, elementary schools and playgrounds.
Not necessarily. You are making the assumption that the money you spent on defense would have been spent on playgrounds or schools instead which only makes sense if you actually had to choose between them. Generally the government gets everything it wants and pays for it either using loans or increasing revenue such as taxes depending on the situation.
The govt will get it from taxes, of course. Thus either a $6,53 billion tax hike or less homes for elderly, hospitals, parks, elementary schools and playgrounds.
A developed nation will always opt for higher taxes instead of removing support for elderly care, health care and education. Its a fairly easy thing to justify spending on or in the case where its just a particularly expensive year they might chose to take a loan and wait for a better year to repay it.
Those are all expected problems of developing nations and comes down to people living longer, have higher expectations on education and healthcare as well as more expensive treatments and equipment.
The Euro fighter is risky, because of the Brexit. There was also a Dassault but both Dassault and SAAB withdrew theemselves from the competition because NATO had of course written the specifications' book in a way only fitting the F-35.
So we are just going to ignore the whole British Empire and all the bullshit Spain was up to are we? Not to mention the whole reason Poland-Lithuania started its conflict with Sweden which ultimately dashed the Swedish Empire or how Austria and Prussia fought both eachother and France for who would be the center of the new "Germany"?
The British empire never tried to conquer Europe, in fact in played a major part in freeing Europe four times from those who tried to conquer it. Poland fighting for its freedom against Sweden or two Germanic countries like Austria vs Prussia are not the same thing as trying to conquer Europe.
Britain has had plenty of ambitions inside Europe including innumerable attempts at conquering France to gain a stepping stone into mainland Europe. This resulted in England owning various parts of France at various times not to mention its claim of the straight of Gibraltar and various islands in the Mediterranean. That said with colonization going strong they sort of got sidetracked along the way.
The only reason Poland was under Swedish control was because it had previously attacked Sweden and lost.. Horribly I might add. As for both Prussia and Austria they were both vying for control over the future super state of Germany and basically the domination of Europe with it, especially considering they were both pro-war nations. Its a common saying that where as kings had armies, the Prussian army had a king.
Britain never attempted to conquer France. The English maybe did but then again the plantagenet Norman French who had lands in Normandy, Aquitainne, Brittany and elsewhere did but they weren't really English and French was their first language and they all had French names. They tried to regain their lost lands in the hundred years war.
The spainish head of state signed away gibalter on a piece of paper. The Swedish were always warring with others. https://youtu.be/5zgkySBTUIw
Signing over something with a piece of paper eh? Ever heard of Anschluss? Also why do you think Britain acquired those strategic positions? Because it established British dominance over Europe, especially after their victory against the Spanish navy.
Anschluss was banned by the treaty of Versailles unless you support that. Anschluss is happening right now under the EU. Also people forget that at the time of Anschluss 1938 that Austria was a dictatorship with only one political party. Britain wasn't claiming dominance over Europe but dominance over the trade routes to India via the straights of Gibraltar, Malta, Minorca, Cyprus, ionanian island and The Suez canal. The British navy took Gibraltar from Spain with the help of the dutch during the War of the Spanish Succession 1701–1714. Britain gained a lot during that war but most importantly France and Spain were prevented from bein United into a global unstoppable superstate, holland was set free from spain, France gave up it's Italian pocessions, The Portuguese and their empire remained independent and most importantly the balance of power in Europe was maintained.
Imagine the French king had gained full control of the riches, navy and armies of the Spainish, Dutch and Portuguese empires and the Italian city States. No one could have stopped the French king from conquering the rest of Europe.
This video from the 80s accurately protrays British foreign policy on Europe for the last 300 years, not one of dominance but of division. https://youtu.be/ZVYqB0uTKlE
It was before countries like France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Holland etc were individual nations. They were all small kingdoms. Remember Charlemagne is the founder of of France, the Holy Roman empire and Germany.
First of all the Frankish kingdom was larger before Charlemagne, secondly he inherited two kingdoms after his brother died and gave him his share and his conquering gave him an approximate third. Also his son Louis the Pious divided the empire into 3 kingdoms who was actually the one that sort of cemented both Germany and France by this division.
By your own image only the very lightest green was taken during Charlemagne time and before that Francia extended quite a far way into Germany and is thus larger than France today or the kingdom that Francia got divided into after Charlemagne.
Europe will be on the side of Europe only when the globalists and their anti-European EU project is dead and buried. The EU exists to destroy Europeans and enslave them.
@lorawhite14 You bet. Centralizing power breads agenda corruption. Countries don't need totalitarianism, they need to make their own decisions and that can't happen under the globalist agenda.
USA pays just as much as anyone else though? That 2% number he brings up is not going to NATO but how much countries should spend on their own military to be "ready" in case something were to happen.
@WhitePanther88 No, Central powers were bad. European army would include France, UK and other EU countries, right? I mean, Germany would be a member too, but it's no longer German empire.
The UK wants out of the EU, France is the most powerful military in Europe but may not want to lose sovereign control of its military to a German dominated EU.
@WhitePanther88 I guess France and Germany can come to an agreement, and UK may still change their mind. The other EU countries will decide about backing up either Germany or France.
Well Germany is talking about expanding their military, they are prolific arms manufacturers but maybe they don't want to invest so many billions and they may have trouble recruiting Germans volunteerily. Italy is pretty powerful too but they may opt out of it, Spain too leaving eastern European countries who are not happy with the EU right now. The thing about France Is they may not join at all, they've only even been a member of NATO since 2009. All things considered NATO as it stands is a lot cheaper than an EU military as they'd basically have to train the required number of personal, equip it and maintain it if NATO is dissolved and the US, Britain and Canada turn over the entire defence of Europe to the EU. Currently there is 60,000 US personnel stationed in Europe which can be increased to 400,000 at any time. The entire us armor and air power element in Europe is larger than most other militaries.
@WhitePanther88 The Eu countries has developed their economy under the protective veil of US funded NATO for sure and its more like the price US paid for help Eu provide them for becoming the Super-Power. Now few Eu countries are having very good time with the current status of UN and NATO like Germany, France and Britain but other historical superpowers like Italy have to opt to their old ways to save their economy (trade) The Italy is now working to make a deal with Chinese to help develop their economy by acting as gate way between the Eu and China and other poor Eu countries are suffering very badly, while few are making trillions and When we have this imbalance of titer "things turn out to be crazy" I was thinking may be the brexit will act as huge indicator for countries advancing their motives and ditching Eu after they have used it for benefits (its time to change), now people are angry at countries that are actually suffering from its consequences (Spain, Italy)
@WhitePanther88 Not true, France was the NATO member since the beginning, they withdrew from it in 1966, but they returned in 2009. I presume that Germanic countries would support Germany (Netherlands, Scandinavian countries, and Austria of course), while the Romanic countries would support France (Italy, Spain, Romania, Portugal). Who knows, maybe UK and France decide to make alliance with Russia, like they did in the WW1. Even Germany might accept that, after all, they were allies with Russia too, in the past (League of the Three Emperors, Holly Alliance).
@AlphaGhost Well, that's true, USA would have never become super-power without the European science (Tesla, Einstein, Zworykin, Fermi, Sikorsky, Von Braun etc) - all Europeans ;)
France was part of Nato but weren't apart of NATO for fourty years, what I said was true. They were longer out of NATO than part of it. Actually all those latin countries you mention are Germanic because they were all conquered by Germanic invaders at the fall of the Roman Empire. Spain by the go the and vandals. France by the Frank's, Belgians and almacs. Italy by the Lombards. England by the Saxons and angles.
@WhitePanther88 They were one of the founders, along with UK and USA. Even when they left, they were still allies with NATO. I know, but those countries eventually freed themselves from the Germanic invaders, and assimilated them, otherwise they wouldn't speak Romanic languages (Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian, Moldovan, Walloon). England was not Latin country, it was ruled by the Romans before the Anglo-Saxon invasion, but most of the population were Celtic. The remaining Celts in the UK still live in Wales, Cornwall, Scotland, North Ireland and The Isle of Man (Republic of Ireland is currently the only independent Celtic country).
Those countries did not free themselves, they were assimilated by those Germanic, its why the only place Latin is spoke is in Rome instead of all over the former Roman Empire. The Frank's even had France named after them and even went on to form the holy Roman empire under Charlemagne which comprised of what is now France, germany, Austria, Luxembourg, Belgium and Italy. The Frank's also sent up the crusader States. Ireland, the isle of man and Scotland are a mix of celtics, norse/danes and norman/French. England was like Gaul before Germanics conquered it and replaced them.
@WhitePanther88 LOL, nope, they assimilated the Germanic tribes, that's why they speak Romanic languages, not Germanic. Italian is a sister language of Latin. France was named after the Franks, but french language is Romanic, not Germanic. Gauls were Celtic, not Romanic. Present-day French people are a mixture of Romans, Gauls and Franks, but their language is based on Latin.
Vikings invaded England when it was already conquered by the Anglo-Saxons, so it was basically a war between two different branches of Germanic ethnicities. Germanic languages are divided into 3 branches:
Celts have their own languages, they were not Romanic. Present-day Celts are restoring their languages:
During the Empire's decline, and after its fragmentation and the collapse of Western half in the fifth and sixth centuries, the spoken varieties of Latin became more isolated from each other, with the western dialects coming under heavy Germanic influence (the Goths and Franks in particular) and the eastern dialects coming under Slavic influence. The dialects diverged from classical Latin at an accelerated rate and eventually evolved into a continuum of recognizably different typologies. Scandanavian are their own separate ethnicity. If you look at your map the green part of Scotland was colonised by the irish gaels and the picts were the orginal inhabitants of Briton pushed North by the Romans. That green area if Scotland and parts of Ireland would be conquered by the Vikings who after the Viking age would be known as gallowglass. The norman/vikings would eventually conquer large strips of Ireland, Scotland, France, England and Wales.
@WhitePanther88 Gothic and Frankish language have extinct, and the influence didn't change the Romanic nature of those languages (grammar, orthography, accent), only some Germanic words were adopted, and Romanized. Every language in the world has dialects, nothing unusual about that :) I know about the Picts, but they have extinct, or assimilated by the Celts (present-day Scots). Yup, but the Vikings eventually had to withdraw from those lands, or were also assimilated by the Celts.
As you can see, all of the modern Celtic languages have their own wikipedia:
The Vikings didn't withdraw they assimilated others but we're later conquered, they settled and intermarried but became later strong independent people's in their own right separate from those they had conquered just like the Rus in Russia or the Normans of Normandy or the dubliners of Ireland or the gallowglass of Scotland
@WhitePanther88 Nope, they both extinct, Latin still exists as an official language in Vatican, while Frankish and Gothic have no native speakers for centuries. Frankish has influenced French with lots of loanwords, but French language is obviously not Germanic, it's Romanic, those words were Romanized. There are no pure languages in the world, every language has loanwords from other languages, more or less, but language families have clear distinctiveness.
The Vikings just conquered the regions in present-day UK, they never assimilated anyone, otherwise, the British people would speak different language, related to Scandinavian branch of Germanic languages, but as we know, they don't... because Vikings were assimilated... just like they were assimilated by the Slavs in Russia, and by the Celtic people in Ireland. Vikings were great warriors, but their cultural influence was very weak... that's why present-day Scandinavians are too timid and overly liberal.
@WhitePanther88 Nope. French is Romanic language, Frankish was Germanic and it no longer exists, as you can see, it is listed as an extinct language, and the differences between French and Frankish are very clear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankish_language English is a Germanic language with some elements of Latin, but mostly based on Anglo-Saxon, Jutish and Frisian. The Vikings never assimilated anyone, they only conquered them, and latter they got assimilated. That's why not many people speak Norse/Scandinavian languages.
They no longer exist because they became French, spainish, Catalan, italalian, Portuguese etc. Rhe vikings set up successful colonies in Russia and were call the Rus, in France they were called the Normans, in England viking kingdoms joined with the Anglo saxons, in Ireland they built most of the town's and cities and assimilated the Irish up until the Normans came, in Scotland they became the gallowglass and became Lord of the isles. Sure they took native wives but with trade and conquest they prospered growing in number. It's history look it up. William the conqueror was a Norman and a viking descendant like most of his people, his cousin was arold hadrada king of Norway. upload.wikimedia.org/.../Viking_Expansion.svg
@WhitePanther88 No, they didn't became French, Spanish, Catalan, italian, Portuguese etc - because those languages are all Romanic. Frankish was Germanic and it extinct. Only some elements of that language were absorbed into those languages. Lol, I know abut the Viking colonies in Russia, France, England and Ireland... guess what - they were all assimilated. The only modern Viking lands are Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Faroe Islands and Greenland. Viking culture was weak, that's why they couldn't assimilate anyone, not even the Eskimos... all the Vikings were good at was war, they were great warriors, but not very good in assimilation, their whole culture has crumbled, that's why the present-day Scandinavians are so weak against the middle-eastern immigrants.
Vikings were good at assimilation that's why the Anglo Saxon language disappeared in England. Their colonies were successful nearly everywhere and they assimilated other cultures in to theirs. That's why scily still proudly remembers the Normans and why in England and Ireland the top richest people are all descendants of the Normans. The Vikings arrived in Greenland before the Eskimos but left due to climate change, starvation and discease forced them to leave.
@WhitePanther88 LOL, nope, Anglo-Saxon evolved into present-day English, not in Swedish, Norwegian or in Danish ;) English language is closely related to Frisian and Dutch, it's not Scandinavian branch of Germanic languages. Oh really, haha, I've never heard of an English lord called Sigrid, Olaf, Viggo, Gustav, Hjalmar, Lars, Bjorn etc 🤣 Vikings never assimilated any culture, it was actually vice versa. I like Vikings too, but they were simply to weak in cultural sense. Isles of Scilly were irrelevant for the British to impose their Anglo-Saxon influence, but even the population of Scilly speaks English, not Norse. Nope, Eskimos were on Greenland thousands of years before the Vikings (about 2500 BC).
@WhitePanther88 Guys please get an Ancesterol-PAGE (DNA test with reverse genome tracing) to detect actual origin of your race in EU and in either case tone down these notifications.
Its enough ask the fucking admin of website or go to whatever hell you want to ! You sound like your guys were discussing something absolutely important that I messed up or stuff like that, you don't know about this notification its your "fault and idiocy" on your part not mine. You can go forward and ask admin about it and She goes by name of something "bee" related.
@AlphaGhost What kind of racism, are on some drugs or something? Yeah sure, I'll just ask the admin, despite the fact there is no logical reason why would you get the notification, cause you're not the Asker. Anyway, for your information, notifications can be turned off in your Settings.
You guys crying about Germanic and Frech-Anglo speaking tribes and one conquering other for GoD know Why? Thanks for informing me about this cuz I am looking forward to get rid of this shit convo.
Last time I checked France and Germany could field a larger army than Russia by themselves. Not to say they have but they could if they wanted to. Russia is actually not all that powerful, especially now when most of its military is obsolete and needs retraining.
Its true though. Even if we just look at the rough numbers: France+Germany Population : 150 million people Economy: 6.954 Trillion dollars
Russia Population: 144.5 million Economy: 1.579 trillion dollars
Beyond that Russias tanks and aircraft is woefully out of date and Russia is trying to rush to modernize them. They can't even afford to fully implement its new generation tanks.
@tartaarsaus Wow!! Those will be so cool for the 5 minutes until you can't properly maintain them and the enemy finds a way to bypass all your expensive stealth technology!
Not really. In fact, it is a zionist-communist-muslim entity. In the globalist world, capitalists and communists collide. Antifa is funded by Soros, the corporations back the now outright socialist Democrats, and the Cultural Marxist narrative is pushed by the capitalists. There is an unholy union of globalists and communists, and they bring in muslims so they can destabilize western society even more.
@lorawhite14 But.. Communism is left wing and Islam is right wing and the European union is not a colony... Its just wrong on basically every single word.
Islam is there just to create chaos and undermine cohesion. They are using it as a weapon. And the global elites have struck a deal with communists to create a kind of global socialist system with them on top and masses below, who will get a bunch of free stuff and be controlled by a large police force. They want to destroy nationalism and white people as a cohesive force. Once they have a rootless, mixed population of consumers, they think they can manage ruling over it and maintain high status, living in gated communities.
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
37Opinion
no. the eu doesn't have the right to draft anyone bcs we as citizens dont have the right to vote for who will hold the highest office of the EU.
i personally have no loyalty to for the EU so it can fuck off.
also, the last time i checked, the EU is falling apart.
and every member nation already has an army so its pointless.
... Even if that was true, which it is not, how would that stop them from drafting anyone and why would they even need to draft anyone? Also as I have pointed out the national armies in the EU faces massive problems not to mention the fact that in the case we need to defend ourselves we would not be able to effectively combine our forces and would quite easily be destroyed one by one.
The EU should ideally become independent from the US. This entire EU army totally useless as long as US soldiers are deployed in Germany and elsewhere in Europe due to WWII. The goal of the EU should really be European independence. Second of all, if this army is going to be deployed only for defense of European territory that would be nice, unfortunately this army will be used as expendable forces of the US so that the US can continue to play world police.
Completely possible but considering the tattered EU-USA relations I doubt the EU will follow USA's requests in the near future.
I sure hope so.
The EU was created by the same gang that rules America:) The EU will never be independent, its whole purpose is to serve globalist world conquest. Europe can be independent if the EU is dismantled.
@lorawhite14 We will turn the EU into a patriotic institution. The welfare of the European people shall be the supreme law.
It is impossible. The EU has to go, and European nations need to restore their sovereignty and identity. Nonwhite immigrants will have to go back home, too.
@lorawhite14 If we cannot turn the EU into a patriotic institution, it must be destroyed and a patriotic version will have to be created. We need an institution to oversee European solidarity and brotherhood so that we do not fall into brotherwars again. Europe is only strong if we dont fight each other.
I agree.
Countries with different cultures, views, attitudes, history should all share a single army. What could possibly go wrong?
Not like countries in such a system could ever have a major dispute between them. lol
Ever heard of the formation of Germany? Or the USA? Or the British Empire? I could go on you know.
I think Soros paid you to write that globalist crap.
Sadly his check bounced.
So will this evil shit you keep promoting for money.
Harsh words. I did spend like 30 minutes writing this you know.
How much did they pay you to brainwash people with globalist schemes to enslave us all?
5 perfectly seasoned aborted fetuses and 5 million golden Illuminati coins.
You are betting on the wrong horse. And when your side loses, well...
RIGHT ON, BINGO!
Globalization is a reality and it will be one in the future. As our world is growing ever closer together through diplomacy, trade and telecommunication, it is unchangeable fact that we are becoming one big community. You can either accept this or hold your little tantrums. And if you choose to do the latter, you better log off the internet right now because that's also part of globalization. You can go live in a log cabin in some remote New England forest like Thoreau if that makes you happy.
@BlueCoyote So, you want to bend over and take a f**ken without any opposition? That's exactly how they win, it's called indoctrination.
@ThisAndThat
I don't really get what you're talking about.
@BlueCoyote The globalist are depending on the masses accepting their agenda.
TL;DR version: the reason the EU needs one is the same reason it won't work. The EU's current version is managed the same way it manages everything else, by Byzantine and balkanized bureaucracies.
What you just said makes literally no sense.
i think this will just create conflict in a very peaceful group of countries
That is a fair point but on the flip side there is already a lot of conflicts as it is and Europe is not really able to handle it. A good example is the frequent airspace violations done by Russian military planes or the abyssal performance during various middle eastern missions.
It exists
en.wikipedia.org/.../Common_Security_and_Defence_Policy
I did talk about that in the introduction and why I dont think its enough in its current form.
In its current form it's not as aggressive as the orange lame duck wants it to be.
In its current form it is meant for mainly peaceful missions such as assisting during natural disasters and they are not equipped or intended to defend EU against a hostile nation.
ONE F-35 costs as much as 12 homes for elderly, 1 hospital, 156 parks, 47 elementary schools , 12.145 playgrounds.
We just bought 34 F-35's for $6,53 billion. (under US pressure)
And that's just the initial price: it will probably get more expensive.
That means we'll have to live with less homes for elderly, hospitals, parks, elementary schools and playgrounds.
Not necessarily. You are making the assumption that the money you spent on defense would have been spent on playgrounds or schools instead which only makes sense if you actually had to choose between them. Generally the government gets everything it wants and pays for it either using loans or increasing revenue such as taxes depending on the situation.
The govt will get it from taxes, of course. Thus either a $6,53 billion tax hike or less homes for elderly, hospitals, parks, elementary schools and playgrounds.
The IMF and ECB won't raise our debt limit. Thus no loaned money.
A developed nation will always opt for higher taxes instead of removing support for elderly care, health care and education. Its a fairly easy thing to justify spending on or in the case where its just a particularly expensive year they might chose to take a loan and wait for a better year to repay it.
We're already saving on everything: no surveys to detect prostate cancers. Not enough teachers. Retirement age pushed to 67 for everyone.
Those are all expected problems of developing nations and comes down to people living longer, have higher expectations on education and healthcare as well as more expensive treatments and equipment.
Yes, those F35s will diminish our life expectancy, education and healthcare.
I doubt it. That said the F35 purchase is a bit of a strange choice considering there is the Euro fighter and Gripen.
The Euro fighter is risky, because of the Brexit.
There was also a Dassault but both Dassault and SAAB withdrew theemselves from the competition because NATO had of course written the specifications' book in a way only fitting the F-35.
The Euro-fighter should be able to be produced and maintained in the EU though?
Partly in the UK
Pretty sure one of the requirements is that it should be able to be locally produced so Germany can probably make it as well if needs be.
The UK itself got convinced to buy American
I think it was less a convincing as Britain was heavily involved in pushing the development to maintain technological advantage.
Is it 1939 all over again?
https://youtu.be/Oz8ll7pT8fAIf it was, is Europe prepared?
Germany just has a new plan to unite Europe under them.
That has literally been the plan of every European nation to date.
Not really since the age of exploration. The last countries to try that was Germany, Sweden and France.
What about Britain, Poland/Lithuania, and Austria just to name a few?
I said the last countries.
So we are just going to ignore the whole British Empire and all the bullshit Spain was up to are we? Not to mention the whole reason Poland-Lithuania started its conflict with Sweden which ultimately dashed the Swedish Empire or how Austria and Prussia fought both eachother and France for who would be the center of the new "Germany"?
The British empire never tried to conquer Europe, in fact in played a major part in freeing Europe four times from those who tried to conquer it.
Poland fighting for its freedom against Sweden or two Germanic countries like Austria vs Prussia are not the same thing as trying to conquer Europe.
Britain has had plenty of ambitions inside Europe including innumerable attempts at conquering France to gain a stepping stone into mainland Europe. This resulted in England owning various parts of France at various times not to mention its claim of the straight of Gibraltar and various islands in the Mediterranean. That said with colonization going strong they sort of got sidetracked along the way.
The only reason Poland was under Swedish control was because it had previously attacked Sweden and lost.. Horribly I might add. As for both Prussia and Austria they were both vying for control over the future super state of Germany and basically the domination of Europe with it, especially considering they were both pro-war nations. Its a common saying that where as kings had armies, the Prussian army had a king.
Britain never attempted to conquer France. The English maybe did but then again the plantagenet Norman French who had lands in Normandy, Aquitainne, Brittany and elsewhere did but they weren't really English and French was their first language and they all had French names. They tried to regain their lost lands in the hundred years war.
The spainish head of state signed away gibalter on a piece of paper.
The Swedish were always warring with others.
https://youtu.be/5zgkySBTUIw
Signing over something with a piece of paper eh? Ever heard of Anschluss? Also why do you think Britain acquired those strategic positions? Because it established British dominance over Europe, especially after their victory against the Spanish navy.
Anschluss was banned by the treaty of Versailles unless you support that. Anschluss is happening right now under the EU. Also people forget that at the time of Anschluss 1938 that Austria was a dictatorship with only one political party.
Britain wasn't claiming dominance over Europe but dominance over the trade routes to India via the straights of Gibraltar, Malta, Minorca, Cyprus, ionanian island and The Suez canal. The British navy took Gibraltar from Spain with the help of the dutch during the War of the Spanish Succession 1701–1714. Britain gained a lot during that war but most importantly France and Spain were prevented from bein United into a global unstoppable superstate, holland was set free from spain, France gave up it's Italian pocessions, The Portuguese and their empire remained independent and most importantly the balance of power in Europe was maintained.
Imagine the French king had gained full control of the riches, navy and armies of the Spainish, Dutch and Portuguese empires and the Italian city States. No one could have stopped the French king from conquering the rest of Europe.
https://youtu.be/ZVYqB0uTKlE
This video from the 80s accurately protrays British foreign policy on Europe for the last 300 years, not one of dominance but of division.
https://youtu.be/ZVYqB0uTKlE
Historically things never ends well for anyone planning to conquer Europe, regardless of who they are or how powerful they are.
Holy Roman emperor Charlemagne?
Well for starters he only managed to control 3 kingdoms and after his death everything went to shit.
It was before countries like France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Holland etc were individual nations. They were all small kingdoms. Remember Charlemagne is the founder of of France, the Holy Roman empire and Germany.
First of all the Frankish kingdom was larger before Charlemagne, secondly he inherited two kingdoms after his brother died and gave him his share and his conquering gave him an approximate third. Also his son Louis the Pious divided the empire into 3 kingdoms who was actually the one that sort of cemented both Germany and France by this division.
upload.wikimedia.org/.../...pire_481_to_814-en.svg
By your own image only the very lightest green was taken during Charlemagne time and before that Francia extended quite a far way into Germany and is thus larger than France today or the kingdom that Francia got divided into after Charlemagne.
That's a lot. He also had to conquer his brothers as his father divided up his kingdom
He maybe expanded the empire by 1/3rd?
Are you for a NWO one world government mark of the beast? That's what you're advocating for.
He certainly gets his check from them:)
Exactly! Because that makes so much more sense then the fact that Europe will have to be on the same side in any conflict in the future.
Europe will be on the side of Europe only when the globalists and their anti-European EU project is dead and buried. The EU exists to destroy Europeans and enslave them.
@lorawhite14 You bet. Centralizing power breads agenda corruption. Countries don't need totalitarianism, they need to make their own decisions and that can't happen under the globalist agenda.
We need national sovereignty.
@lorawhite14 This was the exact reason I voted for Trump and will continue to do so.
@lorawhite14 National sovereignty, AMEN to that.
Anything that stops Trump bitching about how much America pays for NATO.
USA pays just as much as anyone else though? That 2% number he brings up is not going to NATO but how much countries should spend on their own military to be "ready" in case something were to happen.
I think it's a pretty good idea but we need to keep the soldiers orders from their home countries in mind, and who leads them and their ideologies.
Excellent idea, it would be like new Triple Entente.
You mean central powers.
@WhitePanther88 No, Central powers were bad. European army would include France, UK and other EU countries, right? I mean, Germany would be a member too, but it's no longer German empire.
The UK wants out of the EU, France is the most powerful military in Europe but may not want to lose sovereign control of its military to a German dominated EU.
@WhitePanther88 I guess France and Germany can come to an agreement, and UK may still change their mind. The other EU countries will decide about backing up either Germany or France.
Well Germany is talking about expanding their military, they are prolific arms manufacturers but maybe they don't want to invest so many billions and they may have trouble recruiting Germans volunteerily. Italy is pretty powerful too but they may opt out of it, Spain too leaving eastern European countries who are not happy with the EU right now.
The thing about France Is they may not join at all, they've only even been a member of NATO since 2009.
All things considered NATO as it stands is a lot cheaper than an EU military as they'd basically have to train the required number of personal, equip it and maintain it if NATO is dissolved and the US, Britain and Canada turn over the entire defence of Europe to the EU.
Currently there is 60,000 US personnel stationed in Europe which can be increased to 400,000 at any time. The entire us armor and air power element in Europe is larger than most other militaries.
@WhitePanther88 The Eu countries has developed their economy under the protective veil of US funded NATO for sure and its more like the price US paid for help Eu provide them for becoming the Super-Power.
Now few Eu countries are having very good time with the current status of UN and NATO like Germany, France and Britain but other historical superpowers like Italy have to opt to their old ways to save their economy (trade)
The Italy is now working to make a deal with Chinese to help develop their economy by acting as gate way between the Eu and China and other poor Eu countries are suffering very badly, while few are making trillions and When we have this imbalance of titer "things turn out to be crazy"
I was thinking may be the brexit will act as huge indicator for countries advancing their motives and ditching Eu after they have used it for benefits (its time to change), now people are angry at countries that are actually suffering from its consequences (Spain, Italy)
@WhitePanther88 Not true, France was the NATO member since the beginning, they withdrew from it in 1966, but they returned in 2009.
I presume that Germanic countries would support Germany (Netherlands, Scandinavian countries, and Austria of course), while the Romanic countries would support France (Italy, Spain, Romania, Portugal).
Who knows, maybe UK and France decide to make alliance with Russia, like they did in the WW1.
Even Germany might accept that, after all, they were allies with Russia too, in the past (League of the Three Emperors, Holly Alliance).
@AlphaGhost Well, that's true, USA would have never become super-power without the European science (Tesla, Einstein, Zworykin, Fermi, Sikorsky, Von Braun etc) - all Europeans ;)
France was part of Nato but weren't apart of NATO for fourty years, what I said was true. They were longer out of NATO than part of it.
Actually all those latin countries you mention are Germanic because they were all conquered by Germanic invaders at the fall of the Roman Empire. Spain by the go the and vandals. France by the Frank's, Belgians and almacs. Italy by the Lombards. England by the Saxons and angles.
@WhitePanther88 They were one of the founders, along with UK and USA. Even when they left, they were still allies with NATO.
I know, but those countries eventually freed themselves from the Germanic invaders, and assimilated them, otherwise they wouldn't speak Romanic languages (Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian, Moldovan, Walloon).
England was not Latin country, it was ruled by the Romans before the Anglo-Saxon invasion, but most of the population were Celtic.
The remaining Celts in the UK still live in Wales, Cornwall, Scotland, North Ireland and The Isle of Man (Republic of Ireland is currently the only independent Celtic country).
Those countries did not free themselves, they were assimilated by those Germanic, its why the only place Latin is spoke is in Rome instead of all over the former Roman Empire. The Frank's even had France named after them and even went on to form the holy Roman empire under Charlemagne which comprised of what is now France, germany, Austria, Luxembourg, Belgium and Italy. The Frank's also sent up the crusader States.
Ireland, the isle of man and Scotland are a mix of celtics, norse/danes and norman/French.
England was like Gaul before Germanics conquered it and replaced them.
@WhitePanther88 LOL, nope, they assimilated the Germanic tribes, that's why they speak Romanic languages, not Germanic.
Italian is a sister language of Latin.
France was named after the Franks, but french language is Romanic, not Germanic.
Gauls were Celtic, not Romanic. Present-day French people are a mixture of Romans, Gauls and Franks, but their language is based on Latin.
Vikings invaded England when it was already conquered by the Anglo-Saxons, so it was basically a war between two different branches of Germanic ethnicities.
Germanic languages are divided into 3 branches:
Celts have their own languages, they were not Romanic. Present-day Celts are restoring their languages:
During the Empire's decline, and after its fragmentation and the collapse of Western half in the fifth and sixth centuries, the spoken varieties of Latin became more isolated from each other, with the western dialects coming under heavy Germanic influence (the Goths and Franks in particular) and the eastern dialects coming under Slavic influence. The dialects diverged from classical Latin at an accelerated rate and eventually evolved into a continuum of recognizably different typologies. Scandanavian are their own separate ethnicity.
If you look at your map the green part of Scotland was colonised by the irish gaels and the picts were the orginal inhabitants of Briton pushed North by the Romans. That green area if Scotland and parts of Ireland would be conquered by the Vikings who after the Viking age would be known as gallowglass. The norman/vikings would eventually conquer large strips of Ireland, Scotland, France, England and Wales.
@WhitePanther88 Gothic and Frankish language have extinct, and the influence didn't change the Romanic nature of those languages (grammar, orthography, accent), only some Germanic words were adopted, and Romanized.
Every language in the world has dialects, nothing unusual about that :)
I know about the Picts, but they have extinct, or assimilated by the Celts (present-day Scots).
Yup, but the Vikings eventually had to withdraw from those lands, or were also assimilated by the Celts.
As you can see, all of the modern Celtic languages have their own wikipedia:
Irish: https://ga.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teangacha_Ceilteacha
Scottish: gd.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%A0nanan_Ceilteach
Welsh: https://cy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ieithoedd_Celtaidd
Breton: https://br.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yezho%C3%B9_keltiek
Cornish: https://kw.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yethow_Keltek
Manx: gv.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%87hengaghyn_Celtiagh
Gothic and Frankish languages are not extinct, they just melded with Latin.
The Vikings didn't withdraw they assimilated others but we're later conquered, they settled and intermarried but became later strong independent people's in their own right separate from those they had conquered just like the Rus in Russia or the Normans of Normandy or the dubliners of Ireland or the gallowglass of Scotland
@WhitePanther88 Nope, they both extinct, Latin still exists as an official language in Vatican, while Frankish and Gothic have no native speakers for centuries.
Frankish has influenced French with lots of loanwords, but French language is obviously not Germanic, it's Romanic, those words were Romanized.
There are no pure languages in the world, every language has loanwords from other languages, more or less, but language families have clear distinctiveness.
The Vikings just conquered the regions in present-day UK, they never assimilated anyone, otherwise, the British people would speak different language, related to Scandinavian branch of Germanic languages, but as we know, they don't... because Vikings were assimilated... just like they were assimilated by the Slavs in Russia, and by the Celtic people in Ireland.
Vikings were great warriors, but their cultural influence was very weak... that's why present-day Scandinavians are too timid and overly liberal.
Nope. Frankish became French and so on...
English is a blend of Latin, Saxon and Norse
The Vikings assimilated others.
@WhitePanther88 Nope. French is Romanic language, Frankish was Germanic and it no longer exists, as you can see, it is listed as an extinct language, and the differences between French and Frankish are very clear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankish_language
English is a Germanic language with some elements of Latin, but mostly based on Anglo-Saxon, Jutish and Frisian.
The Vikings never assimilated anyone, they only conquered them, and latter they got assimilated. That's why not many people speak Norse/Scandinavian languages.
They no longer exist because they became French, spainish, Catalan, italalian, Portuguese etc.
Rhe vikings set up successful colonies in Russia and were call the Rus, in France they were called the Normans, in England viking kingdoms joined with the Anglo saxons, in Ireland they built most of the town's and cities and assimilated the Irish up until the Normans came, in Scotland they became the gallowglass and became Lord of the isles. Sure they took native wives but with trade and conquest they prospered growing in number. It's history look it up. William the conqueror was a Norman and a viking descendant like most of his people, his cousin was arold hadrada king of Norway.
upload.wikimedia.org/.../Viking_Expansion.svg
@WhitePanther88 No, they didn't became French, Spanish, Catalan, italian, Portuguese etc - because those languages are all Romanic. Frankish was Germanic and it extinct.
Only some elements of that language were absorbed into those languages.
Lol, I know abut the Viking colonies in Russia, France, England and Ireland... guess what - they were all assimilated.
The only modern Viking lands are Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Faroe Islands and Greenland.
Viking culture was weak, that's why they couldn't assimilate anyone, not even the Eskimos... all the Vikings were good at was war, they were great warriors, but not very good in assimilation, their whole culture has crumbled, that's why the present-day Scandinavians are so weak against the middle-eastern immigrants.
Vikings were good at assimilation that's why the Anglo Saxon language disappeared in England. Their colonies were successful nearly everywhere and they assimilated other cultures in to theirs. That's why scily still proudly remembers the Normans and why in England and Ireland the top richest people are all descendants of the Normans. The Vikings arrived in Greenland before the Eskimos but left due to climate change, starvation and discease forced them to leave.
@WhitePanther88 LOL, nope, Anglo-Saxon evolved into present-day English, not in Swedish, Norwegian or in Danish ;)
English language is closely related to Frisian and Dutch, it's not Scandinavian branch of Germanic languages.
Oh really, haha, I've never heard of an English lord called Sigrid, Olaf, Viggo, Gustav, Hjalmar, Lars, Bjorn etc 🤣
Vikings never assimilated any culture, it was actually vice versa. I like Vikings too, but they were simply to weak in cultural sense.
Isles of Scilly were irrelevant for the British to impose their Anglo-Saxon influence, but even the population of Scilly speaks English, not Norse.
Nope, Eskimos were on Greenland thousands of years before the Vikings (about 2500 BC).
@WhitePanther88
Guys please get an Ancesterol-PAGE (DNA test with reverse genome tracing) to detect actual origin of your race in EU and in either case tone down these notifications.
@AlphaGhost Why would you be getting any notifications? You're not the asker. Oh, right, maybe it's your duplicate profile huh?
@AlphaGhost she's right, don't act like a cunt.
@WhitePanther88 No guys its wired I am really getting these notification...
@AlphaGhost How can it be wired to you? You can't follow GaG questions any more, that option no longer exists, so explain yourself?
I am not looking to do anything (fight) with you but this thing is showing under "New activity" and I am getting notifications of your comments 24/7.
@AlphaGhost Oh really, and how come you're not getting new activity from other, newer questions and mytakes?
Its enough ask the fucking admin of website or go to whatever hell you want to !
You sound like your guys were discussing something absolutely important that I messed up or stuff like that, you don't know about this notification its your "fault and idiocy" on your part not mine.
You can go forward and ask admin about it and She goes by name of something "bee" related.
You are not soooooooooooo imp I will waste my time listening to you to breaking the "Records of Racism" and insecurity about eachother.
@AlphaGhost What kind of racism, are on some drugs or something? Yeah sure, I'll just ask the admin, despite the fact there is no logical reason why would you get the notification, cause you're not the Asker.
Anyway, for your information, notifications can be turned off in your Settings.
You guys crying about Germanic and Frech-Anglo speaking tribes and one conquering other for GoD know Why?
Thanks for informing me about this cuz I am looking forward to get rid of this shit convo.
@AlphaGhost You are very welcome :D
I don't know if I agree with this or not, but it was an interesting read.
I think we should create army and destroy world so i can die and not go to school anymore. Thanks!!
Lol.
Anything to get out of class, right?
If you like tyranny, yeah.
Bad idea that will only serve to weaken the EU.
EU- lets form an EU army
Russia: that's cute lol
Last time I checked France and Germany could field a larger army than Russia by themselves. Not to say they have but they could if they wanted to. Russia is actually not all that powerful, especially now when most of its military is obsolete and needs retraining.
Russian military is obsolete? France and Germany could take on Russia lol that's just wishful thinking.
www.globalfirepower.com/...s-comparison-detail.asp
www.globalfirepower.com/...s-comparison-detail.asp
Its true though. Even if we just look at the rough numbers:
France+Germany
Population : 150 million people
Economy: 6.954 Trillion dollars
Russia
Population: 144.5 million
Economy: 1.579 trillion dollars
Beyond that Russias tanks and aircraft is woefully out of date and Russia is trying to rush to modernize them. They can't even afford to fully implement its new generation tanks.
1. Global firepower is a shit site. Using that site, North Korea has the most powerful navy.
2. Europe beats Russia in population pool, industry capacity, purchasing power, GDP.
And as a nice commodity, most of the Russian economy relies on European purchases of their natural resources.
A side with more money, production capabilities, more modern weapons and a larger population generally always wins wars
@Soteris
Well, Russia has its shiny new stealth plane.
Due to their economy they are going to buy a grand total of 12(!!!) Of them. Wow!
@tartaarsaus Wow!! Those will be so cool for the 5 minutes until you can't properly maintain them and the enemy finds a way to bypass all your expensive stealth technology!
@Soteris the USA has a combat ready rate of 50% on its F-22 so, maybe Russia at 60%, that means Russia would have 7 of those shiny planes.
That will really change the tide of the war!
The European union is a communist Muslim colony
Pretty sure that is an oxymoron.
Not really. In fact, it is a zionist-communist-muslim entity. In the globalist world, capitalists and communists collide. Antifa is funded by Soros, the corporations back the now outright socialist Democrats, and the Cultural Marxist narrative is pushed by the capitalists. There is an unholy union of globalists and communists, and they bring in muslims so they can destabilize western society even more.
@lorawhite14 But.. Communism is left wing and Islam is right wing and the European union is not a colony... Its just wrong on basically every single word.
Islam is there just to create chaos and undermine cohesion. They are using it as a weapon. And the global elites have struck a deal with communists to create a kind of global socialist system with them on top and masses below, who will get a bunch of free stuff and be controlled by a large police force. They want to destroy nationalism and white people as a cohesive force. Once they have a rootless, mixed population of consumers, they think they can manage ruling over it and maintain high status, living in gated communities.
The euro is already shit bro
In what way is the Euro as a currency shit?
Too much instability in Europe and it affects everyone. Like Greece is fucking all of Europe with their shit economy
What an absolutely terrible idea
Why so?