It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Will the europeans ever be powerful?

page: 26
1
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

Originally posted by El Tiante
given the eu demographic death spiral


- Such a short-term view of the stats is hardly much use to anyone (unless you are pushing this silly and utterly pointless anti-Europe/EU agenda).

Only 30yrs ago we were all fretting about Malthusian futures and far too large populations and the baby boomers reproducing.





Does Demography Favor American "Unipolarity"?

Just how long America's "unipolar moment" may last is, naturally, a matter of speculation. The latest version of the National Security Strategy of the United States, released by the White House in September 2002, implies that the moment could continue indefinitely-and that U.S. policies could facilitate its indefinite continuation. Some analysts, on the other hand, believe that the moment is likely to be fleeting,[2] while others argue with equal vehemence that "structural factors" in the international security equation favor the maintenance of American pre-eminence for many years to come.[3]

For those who envision an impending end to U.S. international pre-eminence, a principal candidate for restoring "multipolarity" to the world system is a Europe genuinely whole and free--i.e., a Europe united under the aegis of the ongoing European Union (EU) project. (The other oft-bruited candidate is China.)

Yet even those who talk of a possible future European Supermacht point to a number of stumbling blocks that could complicate or forestall Europe's ascendance on the world stage, and one of the factors most often discussed in this regard is the region's demographic trends. Charles A. Kupchan, for example, warns that "the EU's demographic problem is no doubt a serious one," and explicitly identifies Europe's population problems as a factor that might prevent the region from evolving into a force that could counterbalance the United States in the global arena.[4]

He is hardly the only current commentator to describe the population question as an underbelly of potential strategic vulnerabilities for tomorrow's Europe. Contemporary Europe's troubling demographic particulars are by now well-known:

*Europe's birthrate is the lowest ever recorded during peacetime for any major part of the planet, and the continent's current fertility rate reaches only two-thirds of the level necessary for long-term population replacement;

*Europe's population is also the world's "grayest", with a median age of nearly forty years and nearly one in six citizens sixty-five years of age or older;

*and on current trajectories, absent massive new influxes of immigrants, Europe's population is set to age still further and to enter into an indefinite decline.[5]

To be sure, worried talk about Europe's "demographic weaknesses" (low fertility, enervated oldsters, and incipient population decline) is not exactly a new theme in European history.[6] But how realistic are concerns for Europe today? Do demographic trends significantly handicap European prospects for mobilizing-and projecting-economic and political power in the years immediately ahead? Will population disadvantage Europe in its (mainly friendly) long-term competition with the United States?

...

At the moment, the lowest fertility level for the population
of any nation or equivalent administrative area
would probably be that of Hong Kong, where current
childbearing patterns are on a course for 0.94 births per
woman per lifetime.14 Against this standard, European
fertility levels do not establish the absolutely lowest
levels of human fertility reported today. But Europe’s are
nevertheless the lowest levels for any large population
grouping on the planet—now or at any previous point in
recorded history.


www.aei.org...



If you only knew how easy it is to make you eruos look silly.

[edit on 3-5-2006 by El Tiante]




posted on May, 3 2006 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Your cut and paste does not address the issue.

But then that is hardly the point, right?

The only one looking silly here is you, so go ahead, talk to yourself (here and whatever other boards the mods let you get away with spamming this nonsense).

Enjoy your pissing contest with you as the sole contestant.

How exciting.



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Your cut and paste does not address the issue.

But then that is hardly the point, right?

How exciting.


It is precisely on point. This thread address whether europe will be powerful again. I demonstrate unequivocally, via multiple, independent sources, that they will not. That may make some uncomfortable, but facts often do.

[edit on 3-5-2006 by El Tiante]



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   
el tiante, you again?


shiit man are you are still going on about 'europeans' AGAIN ive just done a search on your posts and its like ALL YOU EVER TALK ABOUT!!


your obsessed, i mean you like started loads of threads in the euro politics forums a few months ago, your defiantly jealious of us in some way.

whats wrong are you bitter your ancestors got booted to america or something?, or did they come on the banana boat from the south?

well we do get free health care/education/unemployment benefits over here

so i can understand why you are jealous















[edit on 3-5-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Unlike the US, Europe will surive, like it always has. Europe will maintain it's position, there's a possibility of strenghtening it, but EU certainly won't become less important.

When the time is there, and the US economy crashes - which will definitely happen - the position of the US will change into a superpower in terms of nuclear weapons, but it influence on global matters won't be similar to today's influence/power.
In the end, China will replace the US as 'main' trading partner.

For you Ami's, I'd again recommend to read: DollarCollapse.com.



[edit on 3-5-2006 by Mdv2]



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mdv2
Unlike the US, Europe will surive, like it always has. Europe will maintain it's position, there's a possibility of strenghtening it, but EU certainly won't become less important.

When the time is there, and the US economy crashes - which will definitely happen - the position of the US will change into a superpower in terms of nuclear weapons, but it influence on global matters won't be similar to today's influence/power.
In the end, China will replace the US as 'main' trading partner.

For you Ami's, I'd again recommend to read: DollarCollapse.com.




[edit on 3-5-2006 by Mdv2]


Wow that a great site, I’ll go buy some gold straight away. Oh look the site has link to buy gold! No agenda there, I’m sure.

You’re right though, gold has been a GREAT investment. Let’s see how it’s done over the past 25 years when adjusted for inflation vs. the S&P 500.

Hey, look, the S&P 500 and Altria did better than gold. Gold is the little black line at the bottom.



Economic collapse? In the last 6 years America has endured recession, stock market crashes, enormous terrorist attacks, devastating hurricanes, oil shocks and war. Despite ALL of that, America’s economy is ROARING ahead at nearly 5% growth and employment is less than 5%!

America’s debt to GDP ratio is less than the eu and has more than three times the growth.

Seriously, get a clue.

[edit on 4-5-2006 by El Tiante]

[edit on 4-5-2006 by El Tiante]



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Blah blah blah yes europe has alot of nucler weapons good technology and so on. But when it actually comes to fighting a war the only country to prove it in the last 50 years is the Uk( Falklands, Iraq) France is completly useless (Vietnam) Italy( Come on) Germany( Yes if they were allowed) Spain ( a little but have now withdrawn after the madrid bombings) It´s all about politcal will and courage.

[edit on 4-5-2006 by Peruvianmonk]



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
France is completly useless (Vietnam)


well i seem to remember the americans not having too much luck in vietnam aswell.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 11:19 AM
link   
That´s true but we are talking about Europeans not Americans. In world war two France folded extremley quickly even with a well equipped army. There is just no will or courage in Europe for a fight, Mabye becasue of the destruction of world war 2.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   
(1940) when france surrendered the german nazis were in full swing, france was classed as a major 'superpower' back then,

but nazi germany in the 1940's was the most powerful country in the world!!

greater than britain with its empire
great the america
greater than than russia

i think britain was the only country in europe that never got invaded during WW2 thanks a great show of strength & determination by the RAF in the 'battle of britain'. (if the nazis won that, the war would have been over)!!

but the germans greatest downfall was killing all the jews, it cost them the war really.








[edit on 4-5-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
In world war two France folded extremley quickly even with a well equipped army. There is just no will or courage in Europe for a fight


- There was a 'will', your statement is simply untrue and ignorant of the facts.


Mabye becasue of the destruction of world war 2.


- I think you meant to say World war 1 but in any event no, I don't think so.

Far nearer the truth is that whilst everyone was expecting a rerun of WW1 the Germans (despite having originally planned to do just that) changed the 'game plan' and did things no-one was expecting.

They defeated not only the French but also the British BEF then (and if the US had fielded an army in France back then there is absolutely no reason to imagine they would have done any better either).



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 12:50 PM
link   
"Um, that would be no."

You just cut and paste without looking at the numbers, don't you?
But clearly nothing is ever going to change your mind anyway.
'Bye.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
but nazi germany in the 1940's was the most powerful country in the world!!

greater than britain with its empire
great the america
greater than than russia



Economically, no, military, yes.



Originally posted by st3ve_o
i think britain was the only country in europe that never got invaded during WW2 thanks a great show of strength & determination by the RAF in the 'battle of britain'. (if the nazis won that, the war would have been over)!!


That's how the Brits like to see it, and of course the RAF did a great piece work. But Britain actually never got invaded because of Hitler's mad decision making policies. He commanded the Luftwaffe to stop bombing important war industrial targets / airfields. If he wouldn't have done that, there wouldn't have any British air resistance left to fight the luftwaffe.

During the Battle of Britain, Hitler made a serious mistake in allowing his commanders to switch the emphasis of air attacks from the British airfields to British population centers. Fortunately for England and the rest of the world, Hitler's decision allowed the RAF to regroup and destroy more and more attacking German bombers"



Originally posted by st3ve_o
but the germans greatest downfall was killing all the jews, it cost them the war really.


Concur, if they didn't kill them, but instead, used them to work (with decent food, and living conditions), they would have had a bigger chance to win the war. In the end, it was (again) Hitler's insane decisions that made the Germans lose the war.

Besides, another aspect of losing the war, was by the Japanese attack on Pearl Habour, which caused the US participation in the war. Without the US its logistical support Britain would have had a much tougher time to fight the Germans.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 01:04 PM
link   

That's how the Brits like to see it, and of course the RAF did a great piece work. But Britain actually never got invaded because of Hitler's mad decision making policies. He commanded the Luftwaffe to stop bombing important war industrial targets / airfields. If he wouldn't have done that, there wouldn't have any British air resistance left to fight the luftwaffe.

During the Battle of Britain, Hitler made a serious mistake in allowing his commanders to switch the emphasis of air attacks from the British airfields to British population centers. Fortunately for England and the rest of the world, Hitler's decision allowed the RAF to regroup and destroy more and more attacking German bombers"



at the end of the day, that is what they did!!

it's no good doing something and saying afterwards "if only we did this, if only we did that" if the plan doesn't work out













[edit on 4-5-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mdv2
But Britain actually never got invaded because of Hitler's mad decision making policies.


- Generally I think there is truth in this but I also think there were several flaws in the German military and several strengths often over-looked in the British sides' (particularly the Royal Navy) that pretty much ensured Germany could never actually 'win' against the UK.


He commanded the Luftwaffe to stop bombing important war industrial targets / airfields. If he wouldn't have done that, there wouldn't have any British air resistance left to fight the Luftwaffe.


- I disagree.

The reason why they switched was to try and draw the RAF en mass into the air so as to be slaughtered.
Obviously the implications of a functioning radar net and a proper coordinating system was something the German command had yet to grasp.

The fact remains that thanks to the RAF being able to pick and choose when and where to engage the Luftwaffe it was the Luftwaffe that was suffering worrying (from their POV) losses they could not make good (a factor that was to dog them throughout the whole war).


if they didn't kill them, but instead, used them to work (with decent food, and living conditions), they would have had a bigger chance to win the war.


- The irony is that Jewish veterans from WW1 were one of the single largest decorated 'groups' in Germany.
Clearly they fought long and hard and with much valour for Germany, to deny them normal citizenship and all the rest on to outright murdering them in the manner the nazis did is the height of insanity.......but then what else was WW2 anyway?


In the end, it was (again) Hitler's insane decisions that made the Germans lose the war.


-Indeed.
.....oh, and the western allies having 'Ultra' and the Russian's having penetrated the nazi command.

Once they had run out of steam (without securing very much in the way of natural resources, especially oil) and lost the initiative the result was never in any doubt.


Without the US its logistical support Britain would have had a much tougher time to fight the Germans.


- Yeah but it wasn't 'free', it was trade and loans.
The US swapped huge parts of the old British Empire and almost all our gold and foreign reserves for that 'support'.

I don't blame them, certainly in the beginning everyone thought we were going down so I suppose ensuring payment was not unreasonable.
But it absolutely was not free aid.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
That´s true but we are talking about Europeans not Americans. In world war two France folded extremley quickly even with a well equipped army. There is just no will or courage in Europe for a fight, Mabye becasue of the destruction of world war 2.



Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
That´s true but we are talking about Europeans not Americans. In world war two France folded extremley quickly even with a well equipped army. There is just no will or courage in Europe for a fight, Mabye becasue of the destruction of world war 2.



In WW2 the whole of Europe was over-run. The democracies were taken to pieces by the NAZI military machine that had been building up for years. I very much doubt that the USA would have been able to defend against such a machine. The fact that the French lost 200,000 or so killed demonstrates the fact that they did not just surrender like cowards as many revisionists like to believe. The French have much to be ashamed of in WW2 (Vichy), but the resistence and Free French fought with distinction.

I think that if you look at the military actions of various European nations since the 1950s you will see that they have been more widely deployed in dangerous situations than many want to believe. Just because they don't get in set-piece enterprises (like Iraq and Vietnam) does not mean they have been sitting at home...

I could go on!

Regards



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

- Generally I think there is truth in this but I also think there were several flaws in the German military and several strengths often over-looked in the British sides' (particularly the Royal Navy) that pretty much ensured Germany could never actually 'win' against the UK.


I assume they could never have invaded Great Britain by sea. You're right, the German navy barely had any power, this, in contrast to the British navy, which made it impossible for the Germans to invade Great Britain by sea. By air would have been possible.

Besides, I think Germany started the war too early in order to win. Donitz always claimed Britain could be defeated, by cutting off their supply channels (from the US) if he had a bigger availability of U-boats. According to his statements he needed 300 units. Churchill once said something similar to this ''if something scared me during that war, it was their terrible U-boats'' Midway the war, the Germans only produced 2 U-boats a month.

However, back on topic, another problem the Germans would have experienced, were the terrible landing grounds at the British coasts, the cliffs would have made it quite hard to easily penetrate.




He commanded the Luftwaffe to stop bombing important war industrial targets / airfields. If he wouldn't have done that, there wouldn't have been any British air resistance left to fight the Luftwaffe.




Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- I disagree.

The reason why they switched was to try and draw the RAF en mass into the air so as to be slaughtered.
Obviously the implications of a functioning radar net and a proper coordinating system was something the German command had yet to grasp.

The fact remains that thanks to the RAF being able to pick and choose when and where to engage the Luftwaffe it was the Luftwaffe that was suffering worrying (from their POV) losses they could not make good (a factor that was to dog them throughout the whole war).


I didn't state the reason for the switch, did I?




if they didn't kill them, but instead, used them to work (with decent food, and living conditions), they would have had a bigger chance to win the war.



Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- The irony is that Jewish veterans from WW1 were one of the single largest decorated 'groups' in Germany.


I didn't know the Jewish veterans were one of the most decorated individuals in Germany. Thanks, nice to know.

What I actually meant, there was a shortage of labor forces in Germany, to work in its war industry. Speer used penal servitude to increase the hard needed production of military supplies. The use of well feeded jews could have provided this required increase to fight the Russians. Halve dead slaves don't have such a high production level as healthy ones.

But let there be no misunderstanding, what Hitler did to the jews, gypsies may never happen again.


Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Once they had run out of steam (without securing very much in the way of natural resources, especially oil) and lost the initiative the result was never in any doubt.


In my opinion the main reasons were both: logistic and supply problems (the Russian destroyed everything, while being pushed back into Russia, and as stated before, Hitler's policies. Throughtout the whole war he made rather stupid decisions, especially in the military field, on both the western and eastern front. Not to forget the stupid decision to force Rommel to commit suicide.

Other ridiculous decisions, Hitler took:

-Operation Barbarossa / Hitler-Stalin pact; timing
-Allowing the British to escape from Dunkirk
-Not allowing the production of the world's first turbojets (1942)
-Lack of use of dive bombers to destroy the allied fleet in the Mediterranean, North Sea, and Atlantic, like the Japs did.
-Not taking Gibraltar
-Not bombing the USSR's Baku oil fields
-Many more, but generally: not listening to his military staff




Without the US its logistical support Britain would have had a much tougher time to fight the Germans.



Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Yeah but it wasn't 'free', it was trade and loans.
The US swapped huge parts of the old British Empire and almost all our gold and foreign reserves for that 'support'.

I don't blame them, certainly in the beginning everyone thought we were going down so I suppose ensuring payment was not unreasonable.
But it absolutely was not free aid.


Didn't state if was for free, neither meant it. However, without the supplies Hitler would have has a much easier task to accomplish his plan to invade Great Britain.

[edit on 4-5-2006 by Mdv2]



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mdv2
By air would have been possible.


- In theory I agree but then Germany didn't have the heavy lift transport they would have needed to get tanks into theatre.

I still don't see it myself.


Besides, I think Germany started the war too early in order to win.


- Yeah I think their original plan (the Z plan?) was for a war in 1942.


Churchill once said something similar to this ''if something scared me during that war, it was their terrible U-boats'' Midway the war, the Germans only produced 2 U-boats a month.


- True but they were also the old (barely better than the WW1 vintage) type 7c U-boats.....and with the 'impetus of war' delayed further there is no guarantee much of the high tech would have come any quicker, in fact surely there is every reason to expect most if not all of it later?

Ultra (which in any scenario 'we' would have had thanks to the Poles and French as well as Britain's scientists) would still IMO mean the defeat of the U-boat.


-Not allowing the production of the world's first turbojets (1942)


- This one I wouldn't go along with.
The jet was heavily dependant on materials Germany just didn't have (same thing happened in the artillery and cannon areas with a severe lack of things like tungsten)


-Lack of use of dive bombers to destroy the allied fleet in the Mediterranean, North Sea, and Atlantic, like the Japs did.


- Well I'd say that by the time the mediterranean campaign really got going (1941, from Crete onward) Ultra was ensuring the Germans were always having a hard time of it. I'm not sure Ju87's would have been able to tackle an alert and prepared fleet.


-Not taking Gibraltar


- This takes us back to knock-on effects and priorities.
They couldn't do everything - what they did on such limited resources was surprising enough.
Like all these interesting 'what if's' the question has to be that if they did try and 'do' Gib then what got left out and not done?


However, without the supplies Hitler would have has a much easier task to accomplish his plan to invade Great Britain.


- Ok, I can see what you mean (even if I don't agree that was ever a likely possibility.
IMO no sea crossing = no heavy weapons = eventual defeat ).

BTW just for your interest -

The UK will repay debts owed to the US dating from the World War II by the end of this year, the government says.

Under the lend-lease programme, which began in March 1941, the then neutral US could provide countries fighting Hitler with war material.

The US joined the war soon after - in the wake of the attack on Pearl Harbour - and the programme ended in 1945.

The final payment of £45m will be made by the 31 December, meeting a 1945 obligation to repay the debt in full.

news.bbc.co.uk...



[edit on 4-5-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by El Tiante
If you only knew how easy it is to make you eruos look silly.

As opposed to unbridled population growth being so much better. The US became a net importer of food in December 2004. The U.S. population is expected to grow to 400 million by the year 2050. Doesn't take a genius to figure out that brings along its own set of problems.

gristmill.grist.org...



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 04:51 AM
link   
fascinating discussion there guys, I generally concur with sminkleys posts relating to the BoB etc but, just for the record, I believe the single biggest factor that prevented the UK from capitualing under German invasion before the end of 1940 was the exitance of the English Channel. The greatest natural defence we could have wished for. Had the UK been simply another land border for the Germans to cross we would have been overrun as quickly as the rest of the continent due to the strength, effiiciency, and euphoria of unbridled success that the Wermacht was carrying before it.

Germany could not have mounted an all out military conquest of these islands in the same manner and so the Battle of Britain and the Battle of the Atlantic were all about wearing us down to the point where we had to surrender and invite them in. In this battle we fought magnificently despite what the revisionists would like to think.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join