The letter from Verhofstadt to Chirac and Blair...

Theoretically, Europe can spend as much as the USA on defence, it's just that it doesn't. Why? Because it's lacking the political will. As for "As long as there's the British and the Americans there's hope", well, that's got to be one of the most arrogant statements I've heard on this board yet. I'm damn happy not all British are like that.

 

You do realize the country doing the most to protect Europe from invasion has always been...The United States. That's why it's 'not balanced'!


Not true. Well part of it. Europe has defended itself fairly well before the U.S. came around. We've always been seen as the 'isolationist' Americans. It wasn't until WWI, I think, that the U.S. took an active role in the defense of Europe. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this statement.

 

You do realize the country doing the most to protect Europe from invasion has always been...The United States. That's why it's 'not balanced'!

True but I was pointing out which countries actually protects EU and why EU countries strategically speaking army should unite. In case US ain't there

I see no way for this trend to be reversed in the next 30 years

War would change that trent

FID US became isolists again after the first WW. Only after the WW2 US became active (due to USSR and entire West - Europe was in ruins)

 

Exactly right. I was concerning myself with the last 50 years, as that is the most relevant time period, and the time where the difference in power between the US and Europe has manifested itself.

I neglected to note that during the Cold War, European nations did spend more on defense, and had a very large role in defending themselves from the USSR...but still in reality under the American aegis.

It is since the fall of the USSR that the true atrophy has occurred for European defense. As GAP said, that is a matter of political will, primarily.

 

I neglected to note that during the Cold War, European nations did spend more on defense, and had a very large role in defending themselves from the USSR...but still in reality under the American aegis.

I suspected that, quite sad that it cut it's funding.

It is since the fall of the USSR that the true atrophy has occurred for European defense.

I think it has to do that there are no more enemies at our borders. If you know what I mean. If you check European history most Enemies were always at the border.

Now enemies are now somewhere in the middle - east.

That's something Europeans never experienced. So we think it's a time of peace.

 

Europe is in a rather touchy spot when it comes to defense spending. There is no threat to Europe from within or without. The Russian Bear is no longer a serious threat, since its conventional forces have gone to pot and Belarus and the Ukraine being between the Russian Federation and Eastern Europe. Likewise, we have NATO, which is restraining the only single nation that is capable of altering the European balance of power: Germany. By keeping Germany militarily restrained, she is not able to threaten French security. Therefore, the reason that Europe has been at peace is because German militarism continues to be checked.

 

Come on now, I highly doubt that the military restraints on Germany is what's keeping the peace in Europe. If those restraints were lifted, I highly doubt Germany would be trying to conquer the rest of Europe.

 

No, but the perceived security blanket provided by America (vis-a-vis NATO) is what allowed the treaty of Rome to progress, and allowed an atmosphere where the EU could be formed without power politics and balence of power and force.

The 'German Problem' has been solved, and found a political solution.

 

You never know, it's only been what, ten years since Germany reunited? Everyone knows a united Germany needs a war every twenty years or so to feel like a real nation.

Those crazy Germans.

It will require an outside threat to unite Europe, and even then it will take a strong leader to keep it from fragmenting again.

 

I'll just point out that from 1871-1914, Germany was not at war.

Yes, a true pan-European government will be no easy task to organize or lead. The EU will only evolve into a real government over time - perhaps fifteen to twenty years down the road we'll see a unified Europe.

The checking of German military power has been at the forefront of European security for quite some time. Prior to German unification in 1871, France was the dominant continental power and the Germanies were her stomping grounds. But when Prussia and the smaller states were unified - through a series of alliances and wars - by Bismarck, Europe suddenly faced a new security paradigm: central Europe was no longer occupied by a series of diverse and numerous states - and Prussia.

The creation of Germany posed a direct threat to France, and this was rapidly demonstrated in 1870 with the Franco-Prussian War. At the conclusion of the war, the German Second Reich was declared. Then we have two World Wars which were all triggered by German actions whether its the implementation of the Von Schleiffen Plan in August 1914 or undertaking Operation Case White on September 1, 1939.

 

To be fair most of the military powers PreWWI were looking for an excuse to use their little toys.

And the forty year time period is a statistical anomoly created by German expansion in Africa and the Pacific rim, so there.


Anyways, if there isn't a threat to security I don't think a "United" Europe will include all of the states in the EU.

 

You never know, it's only been what, ten years since Germany reunited? Everyone knows a united Germany needs a war every twenty years or so to feel like a real nation.

Those crazy Germans.

I hope that was an joke...

Anyways, if there isn't a threat to security I don't think a "United" Europe will include all of the states in the EU.

true for example UK our "friends" on that weird peninsula