FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Politics

US to EU: "Buy our arms or NATO won't defend you"

Jump to newest
 

By *ara J OP   TV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

The bellicose nature of US trade policy under Trump is laid bare in minutes of meeting between US and EU officials on May 22 and correspondence leaked to the Spanish newspaper El Pais.

The US fears the proposed EU defence pact - the so-called EU Army - will shut out the US defence industry and build up a European defence industry.

Michael Murphy of the US state department accused the EU of poisoning NATO by restricting procurement to EU member states.

"If the language of policies of the European Defense Fund and Permanent Structured Co-operation (PESCO) guidelines are not changed, then the EU will have to choose: either renounce using the best technological capabilities that exist with the US and its NATO allies, or to develop them on their own.

"When a crisis occurs and European defenses fail, your citizens will not be impressed that the weapons used were only from the European countries.

"The EU and many of its governments presented European defence initiatives as part of a European security policy, and we believed you. At least some of you are developing an industrial policy under cover of a security policy.

"Any important crisis in Europe will inevitably require a common response with the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and Norway. If the EU develops a separate defence industry, our armies could become less inter-operational and could not fight together."

So there we have it.

El Pais opined: "The United States made very clear that if the project continues on its current basis, the EU will have to defend itself with its own weapons, which would leave Europe in a position of obvious inferiority."

Sickle at the tit of the United States and keep its military-industrial complex prospering, or you are on your own.

This is America First in practice.

As they say in China, America First means America Alone.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Fair play to the US, they have stuck their necks out many times to ensure that Western Europe did not fall into the hands of the Nazis or the Soviets. The EU should be looking to pay their way in NATO, not build a nefarious new army of their own.

As for Germany, they have a proven track record of building armies then attempting to take over the world. Let them get their hands on French, let alone British nukes and Putin will look like a ragtime dolly.

Chamberlinesque libtards will continue to look the other way while a massive German army goose steps around central and Western Europe, taking control of country after country. This time aided and abetted by the French, who it seems have surrendered yet again, only this time before a single shot has been fired.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *thwalescplCouple
over a year ago

brecon

So, the EU vare a bit grumpy because the Yanks want them to buy their kit.

Let's cast our minds back to some conflicts that, if the Yanks had pulled out or not got involved, could mean that the political map of the world might be, historically, quite a bit more "red", or, more recently, controlled by Muslim extremists shall we?

WW2

Korea

Vietnam

Cuba

Gulf war 1

Gulf war 2

Afghanistan

And,whilst running your eye over the list, let's not forget who paid out the most, (USA Vs EU) both in financial and human cost, shall we?

Also, think about the current military spending (USA Vs EU), to keep the world safe....no wonder the Yanks are a bit miffed.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ostafunMan
over a year ago

near ipswich

A nato country is committed to spending a percentage of gross national income on defence the only 2 countries in the eu that do this are Britain and poland you cant blame the yanks for being pissed off.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"Fair play to the US, they have stuck their necks out many times to ensure that Western Europe did not fall into the hands of the Nazis or the Soviets. The EU should be looking to pay their way in NATO, not build a nefarious new army of their own.

As for Germany, they have a proven track record of building armies then attempting to take over the world. Let them get their hands on French, let alone British nukes and Putin will look like a ragtime dolly.

Chamberlinesque libtards will continue to look the other way while a massive German army goose steps around central and Western Europe, taking control of country after country. This time aided and abetted by the French, who it seems have surrendered yet again, only this time before a single shot has been fired."

You really should cut down on watching US war movies and read a little more.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ara J OP   TV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

If you think the aspiration of the EU is to "keep the world safe", then you do not understand the purpose of the defence pact.

The US chooses to exert its military power across the globe in order to protect what it sees as its interests in regions.

It did so through multilateralism - alliances and partnerships built on respect and trust.

Trump sees that as American weakness.

He is shredding the multilateralist mindset, the rules-based order that underpinned a united response to the conflicts you list above.

America First and multilateralism are incompatible.

We see democratic allies being bullied and abused, and tyrants and autocrats feted and admired.

He is throwing the rules-based order into confusion and creating uncertainty in places where certainty has held sway for decades.

Destabilising and disruptive, he wants to reposition everything around what is in the interests of American consumers.

He is shredding American statecraft and global hegemony for domestic popularity.

The Chinese can see it, the Russians can see it and the Europeans can see it.

America First.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ara J OP   TV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East


"A nato country is committed to spending a percentage of gross national income on defence the only 2 countries in the eu that do this are Britain and poland you cant blame the yanks for being pissed off."

Pissed off they might spend it in European factories rather than American ones.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *V-AliceTV/TS
over a year ago

Ayr


"WW2

Korea

Vietnam

Cuba

Gulf war 1

Gulf war 2

Afghanistan

And,whilst running your eye over the list, let's not forget who paid out the most, (USA Vs EU) both in financial and human cost, shall we?

"

There was no EU in WW2.

Poland sustained more deaths and casualties in WW2 alone, than the USA has in every war it's ever fought since 1775.

The EU know that NATO is a busted flush without the USA; but they also know the USA can't be relied on to defend Europe any more.

So, it makes sense for EU countries to look to their own defence and build their own weapons in their own factories employing their own workers.

If the US military-industrial complex doesn't like it; too bad.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ostafunMan
over a year ago

near ipswich


"A nato country is committed to spending a percentage of gross national income on defence the only 2 countries in the eu that do this are Britain and poland you cant blame the yanks for being pissed off.

Pissed off they might spend it in European factories rather than American ones.

"
The point is they are not spending it in any factories if you want a defense force you cant expect someone else to pay for it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ara J OP   TV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

The EU27 spend zero on defence procurement? You might want to check your facts.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ess n BenCouple
over a year ago

Didcot


"WW2

Korea

Vietnam

Cuba

Gulf war 1

Gulf war 2

Afghanistan

And,whilst running your eye over the list, let's not forget who paid out the most, (USA Vs EU) both in financial and human cost, shall we?

There was no EU in WW2.

Poland sustained more deaths and casualties in WW2 alone, than the USA has in every war it's ever fought since 1775.

The EU know that NATO is a busted flush without the USA; but they also know the USA can't be relied on to defend Europe any more.

So, it makes sense for EU countries to look to their own defence and build their own weapons in their own factories employing their own workers.

If the US military-industrial complex doesn't like it; too bad."

No there was no EU in WW2 but if was not for the USA there would be no EU now

Just remember what happened when Germany had armies in Europe we had WW1 and WW2 short memories

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago

North West

The current US President is behaving like a neighbour from hell. One who threatens to put up Leilanda if you don't do as he says.

Actually, much of the world is wising up to his nonsense and simply ignoring him until normal service can be resumed.

Why shouldn't European countries manufacture their own armaments? Already Trump is demonstrating his intent to play the twat if he doesn't get his own way, therefore making contingencies for that is inherently sensible.

Meanwhile in Brexit Britain our NHS has gone from getting a $350 million a week cash injection to being part of the negotiating sweetener in a US trade deal. Nice...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ostafunMan
over a year ago

near ipswich


"The EU27 spend zero on defence procurement? You might want to check your facts."
Think you are on a different page all nato countries are committed to spending 2% of gross national income.The uk and poland are the only countries in the eu that meet this commitment the eu at the moment dont have a defense force hence zero procurement.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ara J OP   TV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

This has become an issue because of repeated statements by Trump to leave NATO.

One week it is obsolete, the next it is essential, the next he walks out (as he did during a speech by Mrs Merkel at a NATO summit, interrupting her along the way.)

One week he demands two per cent spending, the next he demands four.

He overlooks the fact that Article 5 - the collective defence mechanism - has only ever been invoked by the US.

On that occasion, all European states came to the aid of the US in Afghanistan.

He is a wrecking ball.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ara J OP   TV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East


"A nato country is committed to spending a percentage of gross national income on defence the only 2 countries in the eu that do this are Britain and poland you cant blame the yanks for being pissed off.

Pissed off they might spend it in European factories rather than American ones.

The point is they are not spending it in any factories if you want a defense force you cant expect someone else to pay for it."

Your quote.

European members of NATO are not spending any money on procurement.

Not all members of the EU are in NATO. Most are.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ostafunMan
over a year ago

near ipswich


"A nato country is committed to spending a percentage of gross national income on defence the only 2 countries in the eu that do this are Britain and poland you cant blame the yanks for being pissed off.

Pissed off they might spend it in European factories rather than American ones.

The point is they are not spending it in any factories if you want a defense force you cant expect someone else to pay for it.

Your quote.

European members of NATO are not spending any money on procurement.

Not all members of the EU are in NATO. Most are."
Im sorry i dont get your point,my point is as said the nato members who are in nato are not meeting their commitments apart from the uk and poland .Whats hard to understand about that?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ostafunMan
over a year ago

near ipswich


"A nato country is committed to spending a percentage of gross national income on defence the only 2 countries in the eu that do this are Britain and poland you cant blame the yanks for being pissed off.

Pissed off they might spend it in European factories rather than American ones.

The point is they are not spending it in any factories if you want a defense force you cant expect someone else to pay for it.

Your quote.

European members of NATO are not spending any money on procurement.Sorry i missed the question mark when i read your previous post now understand what you are on about.No i didnt say they were not spending any on defense i said they are not meeting the amount they are committed to. Germany for example only spend 1%.

Not all members of the EU are in NATO. Most are."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ostafunMan
over a year ago

near ipswich


"A nato country is committed to spending a percentage of gross national income on defence the only 2 countries in the eu that do this are Britain and poland you cant blame the yanks for being pissed off.

Pissed off they might spend it in European factories rather than American ones.

The point is they are not spending it in any factories if you want a defense force you cant expect someone else to pay for it.

Your quote.

European members of NATO are not spending any money on procurement.Sorry i missed the question mark when i read your previous post now understand what you are on about..

Not all members of the EU are in NATO. Most are."
No i didnt say they were not spending any on defense i said they are not meeting the amount they are committed to. Germany for example only spend 1%

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ara J OP   TV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

"The point is they are not spending it in any factories."

Capital purchases are procurement.

Anyway, is it obvious yet?

Trump sees a market for the US defence industry.

Part 1: Threaten to abandon European security unless they spend more money on arms

Part 2: Make sure they spend it in US factories.

It's called America First.

Nothing to do with the security of Europe, everything to do with US jobs and trade deficits.

What the threats have succeeded in doing, however, is alert European leaders to the need to look after their interests.

We've been here before in the 1930s. It was called protectionism, when countries retreat from global and collective interests into pursuit of their own national interest.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago

North West


"A nato country is committed to spending a percentage of gross national income on defence the only 2 countries in the eu that do this are Britain and poland you cant blame the yanks for being pissed off.

Pissed off they might spend it in European factories rather than American ones.

The point is they are not spending it in any factories if you want a defense force you cant expect someone else to pay for it.

Your quote.

European members of NATO are not spending any money on procurement.Sorry i missed the question mark when i read your previous post now understand what you are on about..

Not all members of the EU are in NATO. Most are.No i didnt say they were not spending any on defense i said they are not meeting the amount they are committed to. Germany for example only spend 1%"

I heard somewhere that the UK spends only hits 2% because we include military welfare and pension payments in that calculation.

The 2% should really be about front line defence spending. Taking out military welfare and pensions and the grotesquely skewering amount for Trident and our spending is probably completely piss poor.

Let's not beat about the bush here, our front line army will fit in Wembley stadium with seats to spare. Take out the REMF's and support staff and it wouldn't even fill the away end.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ara J OP   TV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

I heard something like, too.

It's creative accountancy on the part of Whitehall.

CT spending and aspects of overseas aid were the budgets I heard that had been magically re-invented as defence spending for the purposes of NATO book-keeping.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ostafunMan
over a year ago

near ipswich

you heard somewhere it must be right then.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago

North West


"you heard somewhere it must be right then. "

Well you tell me how the “allegedly” 5th largest economy in the world spends 2% of its GDP on defence but can’t maintain a credible and independent front line fighting force anymore?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ostafunMan
over a year ago

near ipswich


"you heard somewhere it must be right then.

Well you tell me how the “allegedly” 5th largest economy in the world spends 2% of its GDP on defence but can’t maintain a credible and independent front line fighting force anymore?"
I think most of it is spent on technology,new aircraft carriers and a nucular deterrent.Large frontline forces are old hat these days you have to move with the times.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ara J OP   TV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

The Royal Navy is gobbling up vast chunks of defence spending.

New submarines, new Trident missiles, new warheads, new aircraft carriers and the flotilla of ships and subs that need to accompany them.

The conventional war machine is being decimated in the process.

If you look at the last two spending reviews, the UK does not have the capacity or capability to engage in any sort of conventional conflict unilaterally.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *avidnsa69Man
over a year ago

Essex


"Fair play to the US, they have stuck their necks out many times to ensure that Western Europe did not fall into the hands of the Nazis or the Soviets. The EU should be looking to pay their way in NATO, not build a nefarious new army of their own.

As for Germany, they have a proven track record of building armies then attempting to take over the world. Let them get their hands on French, let alone British nukes and Putin will look like a ragtime dolly.

Chamberlinesque libtards will continue to look the other way while a massive German army goose steps around central and Western Europe, taking control of country after country. This time aided and abetted by the French, who it seems have surrendered yet again, only this time before a single shot has been fired."

This satire right?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ara J OP   TV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

Provocative comment from a US commentator on the D-Day events on Sky: The Allied invasion would not have happened if America had been lead by Trump and his America First mindset

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"you heard somewhere it must be right then.

Well you tell me how the “allegedly” 5th largest economy in the world spends 2% of its GDP on defence but can’t maintain a credible and independent front line fighting force anymore?I think most of it is spent on technology,new aircraft carriers and a nucular deterrent.Large frontline forces are old hat these days you have to move with the times. "

So why should we and the EU buy our kit from the US.

The US is largely focused on conventional warfare. I.e, firearms, artillery ect.

They buy a lot of their new drone tech off us and Israel.

They buy a lot of engineering data rights from Japan, Germany, ourselves

Their hardware is largely considered cheap tack by friends I have in the forces and in the Royal Navy - designed for a large, mass deployment army, not really designed for the era of technical warfare we are heading into.

So I'll return to the point, why should any nation increase their trade deficit buying US kit suitable for the 90's, but not really for the 2020's and forward?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Fair play to the US, they have stuck their necks out many times to ensure that Western Europe did not fall into the hands of the Nazis or the Soviets. The EU should be looking to pay their way in NATO, not build a nefarious new army of their own.

As for Germany, they have a proven track record of building armies then attempting to take over the world. Let them get their hands on French, let alone British nukes and Putin will look like a ragtime dolly.

Chamberlinesque libtards will continue to look the other way while a massive German army goose steps around central and Western Europe, taking control of country after country. This time aided and abetted by the French, who it seems have surrendered yet again, only this time before a single shot has been fired.

You really should cut down on watching US war movies and read a little more."

You really should explain yourself properly instead of just making sloppy remarks. What am I supposed to read more of? It was the 75th anniversary of d day yesterday. Tell me, who was it that was threatening the entire world for the second time in fifty years?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Fair play to the US, they have stuck their necks out many times to ensure that Western Europe did not fall into the hands of the Nazis or the Soviets. The EU should be looking to pay their way in NATO, not build a nefarious new army of their own.

As for Germany, they have a proven track record of building armies then attempting to take over the world. Let them get their hands on French, let alone British nukes and Putin will look like a ragtime dolly.

Chamberlinesque libtards will continue to look the other way while a massive German army goose steps around central and Western Europe, taking control of country after country. This time aided and abetted by the French, who it seems have surrendered yet again, only this time before a single shot has been fired.

You really should cut down on watching US war movies and read a little more.

You really should explain yourself properly instead of just making sloppy remarks. What am I supposed to read more of? It was the 75th anniversary of d day yesterday. Tell me, who was it that was threatening the entire world for the second time in fifty years? "

You and other users have made sweeping remarks painting the American policy makers (note, I'm not slagging off the individual service people's at the time) as heroes and saviours of Europe.

The American policy of assisting Britain and her allies in WW1 and 2 was purely economic until they were dragged in through two respective events. If anything, until the US got involved, you can really say they were just making money off the war.

Armies need food, equipment and raw materials. The US treated the early period of both wars as a trade oppertunity.

As for the wars someone else mentioned, these are more complex, with resource control and trade, or ideological differences at the forefront. They were really US wars, not global wars. They are the mark of a hegemonic nation, much like how Britain waged hegemonic wars in the 1800-early 1900's.

Really, all I can suggest is look for specific books on the geopolitics of the period. If you don't like to read, high quality content is now available on YouTube and podcasting services.

To round off. On my dad's Norwegian side of the family we have a few Finnish people brought into the family via marriage.

I love talking to them. Though, they get very bitter at the narrative over the US being heroes in the second world war and the war against the Soviets.

The Fins were occupied and left virtually alone, for the entire second world war period, until the formation of the EEC formation. Even then, the American's, French and British explicitly said they could only offer preferencial trade to Finland to avoid inflaming Soviet conflict.

Just a thought, maybe listen to something which doesn't have the anglosphere rose tinged glasses.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Fair play to the US, they have stuck their necks out many times to ensure that Western Europe did not fall into the hands of the Nazis or the Soviets. The EU should be looking to pay their way in NATO, not build a nefarious new army of their own.

As for Germany, they have a proven track record of building armies then attempting to take over the world. Let them get their hands on French, let alone British nukes and Putin will look like a ragtime dolly.

Chamberlinesque libtards will continue to look the other way while a massive German army goose steps around central and Western Europe, taking control of country after country. This time aided and abetted by the French, who it seems have surrendered yet again, only this time before a single shot has been fired.

You really should cut down on watching US war movies and read a little more.

You really should explain yourself properly instead of just making sloppy remarks. What am I supposed to read more of? It was the 75th anniversary of d day yesterday. Tell me, who was it that was threatening the entire world for the second time in fifty years? "

The nazis

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Fair play to the US, they have stuck their necks out many times to ensure that Western Europe did not fall into the hands of the Nazis or the Soviets. The EU should be looking to pay their way in NATO, not build a nefarious new army of their own.

As for Germany, they have a proven track record of building armies then attempting to take over the world. Let them get their hands on French, let alone British nukes and Putin will look like a ragtime dolly.

Chamberlinesque libtards will continue to look the other way while a massive German army goose steps around central and Western Europe, taking control of country after country. This time aided and abetted by the French, who it seems have surrendered yet again, only this time before a single shot has been fired.

You really should cut down on watching US war movies and read a little more.

You really should explain yourself properly instead of just making sloppy remarks. What am I supposed to read more of? It was the 75th anniversary of d day yesterday. Tell me, who was it that was threatening the entire world for the second time in fifty years?

The nazis "

Not the first time...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Fair play to the US, they have stuck their necks out many times to ensure that Western Europe did not fall into the hands of the Nazis or the Soviets. The EU should be looking to pay their way in NATO, not build a nefarious new army of their own.

As for Germany, they have a proven track record of building armies then attempting to take over the world. Let them get their hands on French, let alone British nukes and Putin will look like a ragtime dolly.

Chamberlinesque libtards will continue to look the other way while a massive German army goose steps around central and Western Europe, taking control of country after country. This time aided and abetted by the French, who it seems have surrendered yet again, only this time before a single shot has been fired.

You really should cut down on watching US war movies and read a little more.

You really should explain yourself properly instead of just making sloppy remarks. What am I supposed to read more of? It was the 75th anniversary of d day yesterday. Tell me, who was it that was threatening the entire world for the second time in fifty years?

You and other users have made sweeping remarks painting the American policy makers (note, I'm not slagging off the individual service people's at the time) as heroes and saviours of Europe.

The American policy of assisting Britain and her allies in WW1 and 2 was purely economic until they were dragged in through two respective events. If anything, until the US got involved, you can really say they were just making money off the war.

Armies need food, equipment and raw materials. The US treated the early period of both wars as a trade oppertunity.

As for the wars someone else mentioned, these are more complex, with resource control and trade, or ideological differences at the forefront. They were really US wars, not global wars. They are the mark of a hegemonic nation, much like how Britain waged hegemonic wars in the 1800-early 1900's.

Really, all I can suggest is look for specific books on the geopolitics of the period. If you don't like to read, high quality content is now available on YouTube and podcasting services.

To round off. On my dad's Norwegian side of the family we have a few Finnish people brought into the family via marriage.

I love talking to them. Though, they get very bitter at the narrative over the US being heroes in the second world war and the war against the Soviets.

The Fins were occupied and left virtually alone, for the entire second world war period, until the formation of the EEC formation. Even then, the American's, French and British explicitly said they could only offer preferencial trade to Finland to avoid inflaming Soviet conflict.

Just a thought, maybe listen to something which doesn't have the anglosphere rose tinged glasses.

"

I’m aware of the lend lease and all the other debts we owed to the US from the beginning of WW2. I also know that we could have lost the war had the Japs attacked the Soviets instead of the US.

There may well be a myriad of different reasons behind the two world wars and who was allied to who. None of it makes a shred of difference to me. I still don’t and never will trust the Germans, and have no time whatsoever for the French...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"Fair play to the US, they have stuck their necks out many times to ensure that Western Europe did not fall into the hands of the Nazis or the Soviets. The EU should be looking to pay their way in NATO, not build a nefarious new army of their own.

As for Germany, they have a proven track record of building armies then attempting to take over the world. Let them get their hands on French, let alone British nukes and Putin will look like a ragtime dolly.

Chamberlinesque libtards will continue to look the other way while a massive German army goose steps around central and Western Europe, taking control of country after country. This time aided and abetted by the French, who it seems have surrendered yet again, only this time before a single shot has been fired.

You really should cut down on watching US war movies and read a little more.

You really should explain yourself properly instead of just making sloppy remarks. What am I supposed to read more of? It was the 75th anniversary of d day yesterday. Tell me, who was it that was threatening the entire world for the second time in fifty years?

You and other users have made sweeping remarks painting the American policy makers (note, I'm not slagging off the individual service people's at the time) as heroes and saviours of Europe.

The American policy of assisting Britain and her allies in WW1 and 2 was purely economic until they were dragged in through two respective events. If anything, until the US got involved, you can really say they were just making money off the war.

Armies need food, equipment and raw materials. The US treated the early period of both wars as a trade oppertunity.

As for the wars someone else mentioned, these are more complex, with resource control and trade, or ideological differences at the forefront. They were really US wars, not global wars. They are the mark of a hegemonic nation, much like how Britain waged hegemonic wars in the 1800-early 1900's.

Really, all I can suggest is look for specific books on the geopolitics of the period. If you don't like to read, high quality content is now available on YouTube and podcasting services.

To round off. On my dad's Norwegian side of the family we have a few Finnish people brought into the family via marriage.

I love talking to them. Though, they get very bitter at the narrative over the US being heroes in the second world war and the war against the Soviets.

The Fins were occupied and left virtually alone, for the entire second world war period, until the formation of the EEC formation. Even then, the American's, French and British explicitly said they could only offer preferencial trade to Finland to avoid inflaming Soviet conflict.

Just a thought, maybe listen to something which doesn't have the anglosphere rose tinged glasses.

I’m aware of the lend lease and all the other debts we owed to the US from the beginning of WW2. I also know that we could have lost the war had the Japs attacked the Soviets instead of the US.

There may well be a myriad of different reasons behind the two world wars and who was allied to who. None of it makes a shred of difference to me. I still don’t and never will trust the Germans, and have no time whatsoever for the French..."

We live in a modern Europe, the France and Germany you spout your ignorance about is in the past..

Go and travel, for fucks sake your living in some imaginery bubble served by the rhetoric of the small minded little Englander..

I have served alongside the troops of both of those countries and that you still think in the way you do is a gross misrepresentation of those democracies..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Europe should have their own army, we have the capabilities

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Fair play to the US, they have stuck their necks out many times to ensure that Western Europe did not fall into the hands of the Nazis or the Soviets. The EU should be looking to pay their way in NATO, not build a nefarious new army of their own.

As for Germany, they have a proven track record of building armies then attempting to take over the world. Let them get their hands on French, let alone British nukes and Putin will look like a ragtime dolly.

Chamberlinesque libtards will continue to look the other way while a massive German army goose steps around central and Western Europe, taking control of country after country. This time aided and abetted by the French, who it seems have surrendered yet again, only this time before a single shot has been fired.

You really should cut down on watching US war movies and read a little more.

You really should explain yourself properly instead of just making sloppy remarks. What am I supposed to read more of? It was the 75th anniversary of d day yesterday. Tell me, who was it that was threatening the entire world for the second time in fifty years?

You and other users have made sweeping remarks painting the American policy makers (note, I'm not slagging off the individual service people's at the time) as heroes and saviours of Europe.

The American policy of assisting Britain and her allies in WW1 and 2 was purely economic until they were dragged in through two respective events. If anything, until the US got involved, you can really say they were just making money off the war.

Armies need food, equipment and raw materials. The US treated the early period of both wars as a trade oppertunity.

As for the wars someone else mentioned, these are more complex, with resource control and trade, or ideological differences at the forefront. They were really US wars, not global wars. They are the mark of a hegemonic nation, much like how Britain waged hegemonic wars in the 1800-early 1900's.

Really, all I can suggest is look for specific books on the geopolitics of the period. If you don't like to read, high quality content is now available on YouTube and podcasting services.

To round off. On my dad's Norwegian side of the family we have a few Finnish people brought into the family via marriage.

I love talking to them. Though, they get very bitter at the narrative over the US being heroes in the second world war and the war against the Soviets.

The Fins were occupied and left virtually alone, for the entire second world war period, until the formation of the EEC formation. Even then, the American's, French and British explicitly said they could only offer preferencial trade to Finland to avoid inflaming Soviet conflict.

Just a thought, maybe listen to something which doesn't have the anglosphere rose tinged glasses.

I’m aware of the lend lease and all the other debts we owed to the US from the beginning of WW2. I also know that we could have lost the war had the Japs attacked the Soviets instead of the US.

There may well be a myriad of different reasons behind the two world wars and who was allied to who. None of it makes a shred of difference to me. I still don’t and never will trust the Germans, and have no time whatsoever for the French..."

I wonder if citizens of countries we invaded never will trust and have no time whatsoever for us.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top