The differences between America and Europe

[Ned]

It is amazing how the article mirrors and explains a lot of the discussion here. It also clarifies what the US and the rest of the world should do until Europe reverses its decline in military power:

Ignore Europe.

[Paul Hanson]

America should only pay attention to those with a strong military?

[Gatekeeper]

DanS:

I guess I still find it hard to believe that the "German problem" exists today. I mean ... haven't the policies of the past 55 years pacified those barbarians yet? (And before anyone jumps down my throat, I am half-German, and my daddy was full German ... so I can diss my heritage, IMHO. My other half is a mix of Northern European blood.)

Gatekeeper

[Chris 62]

Fairly interesting, but I'm not 100% sold on the conclusions the author reached in certain areas.

Most Europeans do not see the great paradox: that their passage into post-history has depended on the United States not making the same passage. Because Europe has neither the will nor the ability to guard its own paradise and keep it from being overrun, spiritually as well as physically, by a world that has yet to accept the rule of “moral consciousness,� it has become dependent on America’s willingness to use its military might to deter or defeat those around the world who still believe in power politics.

If we follow the author's logic all the way, then accepting the EU's way of doing things means that the EU will be in grave danger, simply because there will be no way to defend itself.

There is another danger, suppose, and this is hypothetical, that one of the EU states has a surge of nationalism, and elects a right wing leader, the whole EU system would crash like a house of cards should one of it's members turn aggressive (say a belligerent Germany or even France, and before the stupid French jokes begin, ol Boney did pretty well with them 2 centuries ago, don't forget) and there is no US ally willing to put a stop to it.
Rearmament wouldn't take nearly as long as the article's author suggests, Germany managed it in less then 20 years, including a great depression, imagine what an economic powerhouse like Germany could do in our modern world.

Some of his points I do agree with, and I don't agree with the "velvet glove" approach many here seem to prefer (this may be a by-product of my military service as well as being a historian, both tell me that appeasment in any form leads to disaster), even though it may well prove more effective in some areas of the world.

It was interesting reading about the European appeal to morals and scrupples, which seems a bit absurd considering that many nations (including the USA to some degree) show a total disreguard to both if it doesn't suite their aims (and Europe is guilty of this also).

Not many of the Euros here have commented on the article, but I would think they would view it in a hostile fashion and disagree with the bulk of it, as it basically says they are irrelivant and without the US they are doomed.

[Kropotkin]

Originally posted by Chris 62
There is another danger, suppose, and this is hypothetical, that one of the EU states has a surge of nationalism, and elects a right wing leader, the whole EU system would crash like a house of cards should one of it's members turn aggressive (say a belligerent Germany or even France, and before the stupid French jokes begin, ol Boney did pretty well with them 2 centuries ago, don't forget) and there is no US ally willing to put a stop to it.

There's always that possibility and that would probably mean the end to the EU. But is it likely? IMHO opinions the democracy institutions in western Europe is much stronger now than during the 30s. A extreme right wing (or pehaps extreme left wing) regime would more likely appear in the central European periphery and the effect of that wouldn't be quite as drastic (if it's not Russia of cource but that's outside the EU).

If it happens it's also possible that it will go as back in the 30s. Most European countries are not very aggressive but they are not defenceless. As you said yourself it's all hypotetical and everything could of cource happen.

[Sandman]

I don't see Europe as weak.

1. European militaries are superior in terms of technology and funding to everyone, except the USA and maybe Japan. These countries do not pose a threat.

2. Military spending is not the only source of 'power'.

[Ecthy]

This is like a satire. An Israeli posting a clearly pro-US article and calling anyone who'd not agree with it a "lightheaded troll" in advance, Americans like OzzyKP, who've been known to be totally dumb nationalists (in the common sense, racists in the Snapcase sense) agreeing with it completely for they agree with everything that is pro-US, Americans raising points such as "the German problem", Canadians thinking themselves as a superior nation that has always been what Europe tries to be and blah, blah, blah.

This thread, especially in connection tothe article, is a parody on anything that has ever happened on Apolyton, especially the fact that the actual debate has started before any European ever posted. It's worth more than a laugh that a bunch of American can on its own rate an article that is about Europe and Ameria as well, and especially their relation to each other.

This could be funny if it wasn't so horrible.

[Chris 62]

What, you didn't attack me?

I feel slighted.

[Saint Marcus]

great article

[DinoDoc]

Don't hold back, Andz. Tell us what you really think.

BTW, how was the article pro-US? For the most part, I got the feeling that it was fairly neutral.

[Ecthy]

Yeah, because it has that very "neutral" surface, but the points are expressed in such a bigoted way it's hardly readable. If you can't see how it's pro-US then I can't help you either.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
If you can't see how it's pro-US then I can't help you either.

Saint Marcus liked the article. I'd say that rips a huge hole in the pro-US theory about the article's content.

PS You just hated the bit about the German problem.

[Ecthy]

The title, "Power and weakness". As at least one of you has pointed out, Europe doesn't even wantto be powerful and kill innocent people in city bombings. The author, however, seems to rate military strength of a country as the highest of all possible goals.

The choice of words, as in "European timidity" when it could be "tendency to consideration", the comparison of the soviet union with Hitler Germany,"appeasement polciy" huh. It's like a) the Soviet Union had been expressing its wil to militarily expand into the west before, which would give a reason to that comparison and b) the terminology "But appeasement is never a dirty word to those whose genuine weakness offers few appealing alternatives. For them, it is a policy of sophistication. " What a bigot, we just called it diplomacy.

While pointing out Europe was a lot closer to the danger ofa hot war, he still presents the consequences as examples for European weakness, while it was just the will to live on and safe lives on both sides.

[Ecthy]

DD, if St Marcus liked the article, he'd post it. Saying "great article" is pretty much an expression of indifference. Plus, I don't really give a damn what St Marcus thinks abou the article, or how you rate his statement.

I know many of you think I'm just the "lightheaded troll" or "lacking the mind" kind of person for this. But when I read through the article and this thread I see who actually lacks the mind for a halfway objective analysis of the situation.

"Ignore Europe." is basically the bestz example for that. Followed by the "German problem".

[Ecthy]

Before you ask, I didn't finish reading it, I was too much repelled by what I had read. It couldn't get any worse, and there was no chance he'd improve. If he actually does, he's pretty inconsistent. So the only possible chance for the article turning good is a big fat ".. Not." at the end. Which would be silly.

So I'm right. But I forgot, I'm just too stupid to see how neutral this article is, right Chris and Siro?