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.

 

European Union, a military superpower?

page: 7
1
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 07:05 AM
link   
It is amazing to me, that we Brits have this in-built ability to act as the US puppy dog and to always run yapping round our master's heels for little or no reward.

The case of Diego Garcia is a wonderful illustration of this, and is also another wonderful example of British skullduggery.

Once apon a time, Russian and US strategists were searching for a foothold in the Indian Ocean. They stumbled, almost together and quite by chance, apon the chain of small and sparsely inhabited islands of the Chagos Archipelago, owned by we Brits.

Diego Garcia lies about one thousand miles south of India and is obviously of great strategic value to whoever builds an airbase or naval facility on her.

We Brits were broke, had very little interest in the poor islanders and the consequencies of our actions, but we needed pennies from the US and that is exactly what we got.

At the US government's behest, we forcibly removed all the inhabitants who did not or would not work for the US and dumped them in urban slums on the islands of Mauritius and the Seychelles - 1200 miles from their homes.

That left about 45 or 50 Diego Garcians who were willing to work for the US Government and whoever decided to build their base on the island.

What did we Brits get from this deal?

For an open ended lease, we were paid the princely sum of £5M. Not in hard cash, mind you, but a price reduction off the initial arming of our new Polaris Missile equipped nuclear submarines!

In an earlier reply to this post, I lamented the sad fact that the basic human rights that America holds so dear for it's own, does not apply to others it controls.

Nobody replied to my post and I suspect that many of you reading this, probably think I am anti-US/America. I most certainly am not!

What I loathe about America, is the double standards they employ when dealing with matters of foreign policy and human rights. And this takes us back to Diego Garcia and what has happened since the US DOD established it's base there.

In the end, all the indiginous population were forcibly removed. The US brought in their own civilian workforce to maintain the base there.

To date, following an action in the British High Court, based on information obtained under our FOI Act, the High Court has found against both the British and American governments, but fell short of granting reposession of Diego Garcia to the surviving islanders or from awarding any monetry compensation.

Now, the islanders are suing both the U.S. and British Governments for compensation and the right to return.

Jeannette Alexis, one of the plaintiffs recently said:



'The Americans and the British always talk about the champions of human rights. What they did to us they should rectify, they should look after us. You know, they should do what they preach.'




posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Some of these vehicles are inferior, some aren't. The Leclerc is an undefeated tank, the Harrier has achieved a 2:1 kill ratio, the A400M can fly farther than any American military cargo plane.



Europe cannot be categorized as military power

That's right. It can't. We Europeans (us Brits, the French, the Germans etc.) develop good fighters, bombers, tanks, etc., but we do not produce much of them. We don't produce enough. And our militaries number too few people. THAT'S WHY EUROPE IS NOT A MILITARY POWER.

However, it's better than maintaining a numerous military using crappy equipment, like China does.

And besides, Britain has 200 nukes and enough plutonium to produce 12500 more (never mind France), so why should we call Europe weak?



(i believe us Brits are no.1 on military technology spending?)

Unfortunately, no. The US and France spend more. Our entire military budget accounts for 2.1% of our GDP. Read this: www.conservatives.com...

[edit on 24-11-2006 by DissolveTheCND]



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 02:38 AM
link   
Wow, some of you are SOOOOO IGNORANT...

Nazi Germany lost WWII SOLELY because of Britain. The sinking of the battleship DRS Admiral Graf Spee, the first WWII battle lost by Germany, was a Commonwealth affair, no Soviets involved. The battleship was sunk by two RN ships and one RNZN ship. Britain was the FIRST country to defend itself against German aggression.

Had Japan not attacked Singapore, the British empire could have defeated Germany and the USSR alone. We had unassailable factories in Australia, Canada, Africa and the Middle East. We commanded soldiers from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Australia, NZ, Canada, Africa, etc.

How many colonies did Germany have in America? How many in Africa? How many in the Middle East?



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by chinawhite
America is one of the most liberal societies on earth, if it continues to be one, it will continue to dominate.


Liberal? Maybe when compared to China or Iran, but certainly not like the EU.

Unless you need to own a gun and drive when your 14...

This was a joke right?



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by DissolveTheCND

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by chinawhite
America is one of the most liberal societies on earth, if it continues to be one, it will continue to dominate.


Liberal? Maybe when compared to China or Iran, but certainly not like the EU.

Unless you need to own a gun and drive when your 14...

This was a joke right?


No.

The US is no way anywhere near the level of "liberalness" of the EU. Wether that is a good thing or a bad thing is another matter, mind you.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 03:09 AM
link   
I haven't read everything here, but it seems to have deteriorated into just squabbling between Americans and Europeans.

Europe is an economic superpower.

Europe is not a military superpower.

America is both an economic and military superpower.

Europe could easily become a military superpower if they wanted to.

My $0.02, €0.02, and £0.02.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by DissolveTheCND
Wow, some of you are SOOOOO IGNORANT...

Nazi Germany lost WWII SOLELY because of Britain. The sinking of the battleship DRS Admiral Graf Spee, the first WWII battle lost by Germany, was a Commonwealth affair, no Soviets involved. The battleship was sunk by two RN ships and one RNZN ship. Britain was the FIRST country to defend itself against German aggression.

Had Japan not attacked Singapore, the British empire could have defeated Germany and the USSR alone. We had unassailable factories in Australia, Canada, Africa and the Middle East. We commanded soldiers from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Australia, NZ, Canada, Africa, etc.

How many colonies did Germany have in America? How many in Africa? How many in the Middle East?


Good way to introduce yourself on a thread... Hmm....

Nazi germany lost because of the Soviets. We (the UK) would have lasted maybe another year or two without US help. It's all well and good having the Empire, but we were cut off and losing Merchant shipping faster than could be replaced, so the Empire meant squat. There is no argument, we were being starved.

It's akin to Rome being besieged. It's ok to control most of the world, but if the enemy is at your front door kicking you in the teeth, then your going to lose.

The Soviets may have lost without western help, but that only made a difference while they shifted factories eastward.. Once they were setup, they churned out munitions and equipment like no mans business and kicked the Germans all the way back to Berlin.

I had to laugh at the bit where you claimed the British Empire could have defeated BOTH the Soviets and the Nazi's...



I still am....



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I haven't read everything here, but it seems to have deteriorated into just squabbling between Americans and Europeans.


Doesn't it always? It's like to brothers arguing.... Gives me something to do on a night shift anyway



Originally posted by djohnsto77
Europe is an economic superpower.

Europe is not a military superpower.

America is both an economic and military superpower.

Europe could easily become a military superpower if they wanted to.


Indeed. i agree wholeheartedly.


Originally posted by djohnsto77
My $0.02, €0.02, and £0.02.


Is the conversion rate accurate there? I thought US dollars were mickey mouse money compared to the pound or euro?
Hehehehehe



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 03:17 AM
link   



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 03:28 AM
link   
Now, stumason, *snip*

Your claim that "we'd survive for only a year" is ridicolous. WE are the nation that defeated the Kriegsmarine. Britain is the homeland of Alan Turing, the guy who broke the German codes. Even before he did, the Kriegsmarine was ineffective against us. Most ships they sunk were American ships.

The Soviet Union didn't lose WWII solely because we and the Americans helped them.
*snip*


Mod Edit: Terms & Conditions


2) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive and/or hateful manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.


[edit on 2006/11/25 by Hellmutt]



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by DissolveTheCND
Now, stumason, *snip*

Your claim that "we'd survive for only a year" is ridicolous. WE are the nation that defeated the Kriegsmarine. Britain is the homeland of Alan Turing, the guy who broke the German codes. Even before he did, the Kriegsmarine was ineffective against us. Most ships they sunk were American ships.


Hmm, missed the insult. Shame. never mind.

No, I think you'll find it is universally agreed that without US help, the UK was doomed to lose. You seem to blissfully ignorant of the facts. The Kriegmarine was, as a surface fleet, tiny and insignificant compared to the RN. It was chased around the Atlantic by nothing more than a flotilla. The rest of the RN spent it's time chilling out in Scapa Flow or escorting convoys.

The U-Boat threat was a whole different kettle of fish. You are right, there was alot of US shipping sunk. Do you know why? They were called Liberty ships. Massed produced merchant vessels, which was the only way to replace the losses inflicted by the U-boats. We won the the Battle of the Atlantic in 1943, AFTER the US entered the war and replaced our lost shipping. Had the US not entered in 1941, we would have been starved into submission.

Regardless of any rosy pictures you might have of british heroism, which was undeniable, heroism does not win wars. It is a fact that we were within a year of defeat before the US joined in. Bash it all you like, but I would really be interested if you could provide any evidence to back up your claims.


Originally posted by DissolveTheCND
The Soviet Union didn't lose WWII solely because we and the Americans helped them.
*snip*


EH? They didn't lose. But, if I understand your inexplicably poor english, I think you mean "The Soviet Union didn't win the war solely because we and the Americans helped them"..Anyhoo, grammar lesson over..

The amount of supplies given to the Soviet Union in comparison to what was consumed was tiny. The Soviets won the war by sheer stubbon-mindedness, Soviet organistation of the State and a hell of a lot of blood.

It's a common thing to think that the Soviets where a bit player in WW2, but in reality, they are the ones who won the war.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
....
It's a common thing to think that the Soviets where a bit player in WW2, but in reality, they are the ones who won the war.


Well, Mr. DissolveTheCND has already dissolved himself, but I recently stumbled upon an intersting book excerpt, published in Britain by a british author:


How we didn't win the war . . . but the Russians did

....
After talking at Cambridge recently about the preponderance of the eastern front and the scale of the Red Army’s triumph, I was accosted by an angry young British historian. “Don’t you realise that we were pinning down 56 German divisions in France alone,” he said. “Without that the Red Army would have been heavily defeated.” What is less acknowledged is that without the Red Army pulverising 150 divisions, the allies would never have landed.

....

Proportions, however, are crucial. Since 75%-80% of all German losses were inflicted on the eastern front it follows that the efforts of the western allies accounted for only 20%-25%. Furthermore, since the British Army deployed no more than 28 divisions as compared with the American army’s 99, the British contribution to victory must have been in the region of 5%-6%. Britons who imagine that “we won the war” need to think again.

...

The Americans arrived too late and in too few numbers to play the dominant role. The forces of democracy played their part in the defeat of fascism, but were left controlling less than half the continent. In the greater part of Europe one totalitarian tyranny was replaced by another. More often than not, the rhetoric of “freedom” and “liberation” was misplaced.

Source



This a line of thinking I have seen emerging in various historical articles lately, and it becomes apparent that the so-called "Churchillian history model" is simply too west-centric. That poses the question whether the USA and Britain, both states that still define themselves and their place in the world to a good part by their real or alleged contribution to the "saving of Europe", do not have a seriuosly flawed view of themselves.

Anyway, I quote this article here because the topic has evolved in this direction, for further discussion we should use existing threads or open a new one.

[edit on 25/11/2006 by Lonestar24]



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   
You can't calculate Who won, by divisions destroyed or any other trivial meter. But the fact is that German OKW was never too worried about the Western Allies, but considered that the war would be won when Russia collapses.

But despite all the numbers, at 1944 USSR was forced to choose to invade 1 out of two cities they were targetting Berlin or Helsinki, they couldn't spare the troops needed to knock down 10 finnish divisions... So the game was close on all fronts.

Oh and a side note, USA has lost less soldiers in combat since the Civil War than what Germany and Russia lost in Stalingrad alone... And you really think normandy was tough...



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
It's a common thing to think that the Soviets where a bit player in WW2, but in reality, they are the ones who won the war.




True in every respect. While we Americans and British like to think we started the end of the war with Overlord, it really was the Soviets bleeding the Germans to death literally. If the Germans could have diverted even 1/5 of the resources on the Eastern Front to NorthWest France, Rommel would have shoved us back into the sea and could have then gone back and taken care of Italy.

Make no mistake, the Soviet Union paid a huge price during WWII. Without the Soviets. the war would have been vastly different.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
Make no mistake, the Soviet Union paid a huge price during WWII. Without the Soviets. the war would have been vastly different.


Indeed they did. At least half the total casualties of the war were Soviets. Around 20-25 million, I believe.



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 06:55 AM
link   
For the last two thousand years the number one rule of european warfare has been:


1. DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES TRY TO INVADE RUSSIA!!!!!!!!!

Nobody who has ever tried to conquer those lands has ever succeeded!

The mongals gave about the best effort and even they only got the southern parts.

THE LIST OF PEOPLE WHO TRIED AND FAILED IS MASSIVE



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by northwolf[/i

Oh and a side note, USA has lost less soldiers in combat since the Civil War than what Germany and Russia lost in Stalingrad alone... And you really think normandy was tough...


Well i do and i believe the allied soldiers which fought in Normandy would probably agree...that is if the majority of them were still alive today.

And no matter what the scale loss of life is loss of life.
[edit on 27-11-2006 by Jodiat]

[edit on 27-11-2006 by Jodiat]



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 05:34 AM
link   
I Didn't mean to disrespect US Vets who fought at normandy, but it's just so sickening that media glorifies them and disses those who fought at even worse battles.

Leningrad... Kharkov... Raate Road... Dieppe... bad places, hard fights and just as important as those that americans fought and average Joe hasn't heard of those.



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 09:12 AM
link   
So true!!!
Reason D-Day get's the most credit though, is due to it is the initial time we attack back at Germany and fight them back, which leads to the victory of World War II for the allies.

And too say, without the Soviet's, the war would of been ill in favor towards the allies...
Without the British and it's colonies, it would be ill.
Without the United States supplies and support near the end, the war may of been won still, but it would of lasted much longer and contained many more battles and deaths.



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 09:47 AM
link   
i always been taught the war couldn't have been won without any of the major 3 players (russia/britain/america).

but i'm sick of hearing who won the war, my grandad fought in WW2 from beginning till the end. but so did many other people from other nations, witout ANY of those sacrifes and bravery victory could never have been achieved.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join