German Chancellor Favors Creation of European Army

[joka]

European Union | 23.03.2007

German Chancellor Favors Creation of European Army


http://www.dw-world.de/image/0,,2378573_1,00.jpg (http://www.dw-world.de/popups/popup_lupe/0,,2415318,00.html)

The European Union should move towards forming a common army, Germany’s Angela Merkel said in an interview focusing on the chancellor’s vision for the future of the bloc.


Just ahead of weekend celebrations marking the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, the foundations of the European Union, Chancellor Merkel said she envisioned a single European army for the future of the 27-member bloc in the next decades.

"We need to get closer to a common army for Europe," she told the mass-circulation Bild newspaper in an interview published Friday.

The call for a European armed forces is not new. Last year, Polish President Lech Kaczynski said his country wanted a new 100,000-strong European army created to work with NATO in trouble spots in the world or to defend Europe.

Speaking on the future goals of the EU, Merkel, whose country currently holds the six-month rotating presidency, said the bloc needs "an EU constitutional treaty which is suited to the decision-making mechanism of a larger EU."

I'm starting to like Angie more and more. :)

[MichaelF]

I'm starting to like Angie more and more. :)

While a Federal Army is the logical next step.....

Who is the CinC? The (unelected) President of the European Commission? I imagine that you'd at least want someone who was directly elected.

You'd have to have commonality across all echelons.
That means, instead of "France contributes a Brigade (equipped with French gear), Germany contributes a Division (formed along the Heer TO&E)", an independant organization, completely seperate from (and unanswerable to) the national militaries, must be set up.
It needs a secure budget (meaning money comes from the EU, not the member-states), a means of independant recruitment, a Chain of Command that goes from the newest soldier on up to the EU CinC without going through the French or German .gov.


IOW, it's a potential nightmare for the individual member-states. The EU could go to war regardless of opposition from them. Take a look at the early US and see what kind of fun that can be (when you have a federal .gov capable of operating independantly of the, still powerful, member-states).

As I said, a good idea. One that is fraught with stresses that could split the EU, however.

[Snoshi]

Good idea, but i dont think that it will work.

[oldsoak]

It might work if its role is to defend European territory or if Europe becoames a neutral entity - it wont work if its sent abroad because no-one wants the
body bags coming home.

[Switek]

This almost the same what our president Kaczyński proposed her few months, ago.... hm...

[theholeinthedonut]

It's a necessity for sure, but I have my doubt we will be prepared to pay the price.

[cosimo]

My gut feeling tells me there will never be a european army. I think it would require far too much organisation, cost a fortune, never be used and not act as any sort of deterent. I have nothing solid to base this on, as I said, just a gut feeling.

[Switek]

It's a necessity for sure, but I have my doubt we will be prepared to pay the price.

prica as price but there will be neverending debate, who will be supplier of that army, the level of unification (weaponry, uniforms, logistic and more)

and basic question:

Who the hell is going to be supreme commander?

[Victis Honor]

thats not the main problem, fund is the problem. This will only work if nation armies get way smaller, and the fund/manpower that will free up can be put into the EU army. When teh $$ is there the problem of trainign and stuff liek that comes up, for the long term training and staging area's need to be made (already allot fo bitching about current bases let alone new ones, in nl atleast).

Nations have there own ways of doing things so early on when offciers/men from member country (already trained) will have there own way of doing things. And not to froget that Language will be a obstacle to, what language will it use.

I think it will only work if its 100% build from the ground up, new trainings for officers and men. Maybe begin small and work from there.

[AROUETLJ]

It will never happen, so our Yank friends need not worry. You see, the EU is run by a bunch of hippies. And my own country tops the list.

[Xaito]

It can work - we have already german-france and german - netherland corps etc - its a good Idea too.

[Atlantic Friend]

Before a common army, a common government would be needed - or at the very least a common agency that would effectively assume direct command of this army in times of crisis, answerable before the EU and only the EU.

[Laworkerbee]

It will never happen, so our Yank friends need not worry. You see, the EU is run by a bunch of hippies. And my own country tops the list.

Why would Americans worry about something that lessons our security commitments?

If the Europeans were to put together an army they could start taking on some responsibility in the world and giving a hand to such places as Darfur.

[AROUETLJ]

Why would Americans worry about something that lessons our security commitments?



Well, for some strange reason, they do. They see it as the EU undermining NATO.

[Count Lippe]

not going to happen, as long as Europe doesn't put its act together...:|

[Laworkerbee]

Was thinking about this and pretty much came to the conclusion that you can't have a European army until you have people\soldiers who see themselves more as Europeans than French, German, Danish, etc..

Until then nothing will come of it in my opinion

[Sharp]

came to the conclusion that you can't have a European army until you have people\soldiers who see themselves more as Europeans than French, German, Danish, etc..


This is not right.
By serving in Europe you also directly serve your country.
Join an european army can be interesting for a soldier, in a different way than serve in the own army of his country, considering that the missions , hardware and status will be different. Serve in a multi national environment can be pretty exciting and one of the greatest personal experience you can live/hope for.

[Laworkerbee]

This is not right.
By serving in Europe you also directly serve your country.
Join an european army can be interesting for a soldier, in a different way than serve in the own army of his country, considering that the missions , hardware and status will be different. Serve in a multi national environment can be pretty exciting and one of the greatest personal experience you can live/hope for.

I see your points but I don't think your understanding what I'm trying to convey.

What I'm saying is unless you are united as Europeans ie; not seeing each other as French, German, Danish or other you are not going to have an effective fighting force in my opinion.

[Mr. JOSHUA]

I see your points but I don't think your understanding what I'm trying to convey.

What I'm saying is unless you are united as Europeans ie; not seeing each other as French, German, Danish or other you are not going to have an effective fighting force in my opinion.


Well said, its like people putting their political affiliation before their country here in America, like saying, "I ain't gonna fight with that faggety democrat" or "I will not serve with that scumbag republican".

[MichaelF]

Of course, the EU Army will need naval and air assets (transport and logistics, if nothing else), and they had better not be dependant on member-states for those.

[perdurabo]

If the Europeans were to put together an army they could start taking on some responsibility in the world and giving a hand to such places as Darfur.

or like ISAF? KFOR? SFOR? Kongo? oh wait we Europeans are/where already there p-)

[zulu261]

Wont happen, just too much problems.

1. Which language? English? Heard an average French or Italian speaking English? During combat, there will be a huge amount of "WHAT THE FVCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?" on the radio.

2. Which ranks?
3. Who is the head of the army?
4. Equipment?

That would be the biggest problem, because every country wants its weapon industry to do the job and every country think it has got the best MBT, rife, ship etc.

[AROUETLJ]

Look, you're all talking balls. Merkel isn't talking about an "EU army", but an army made up of different national contingents which would serve a common defence policy articulated by the EU Council of Ministers and Commission. When we haven't even got a common defence and security policy, I should think an EU army is out of the question.

[Kitsune]

Wether one wants to have an European Army depends on the vision one has for the future of Europe. I am not one of the guys who try to prevent a common European commonwealth of sorts or who want only a European common market for the future. The challenges the world of tommorrow will pose demand more than that: Europe should finally aim to develope its ability to defend itself, without outside, or more specifically, American support.

Still, I do not want the European Union to becom a Federated State, what is more, I believe that this aim would be not realistic: too many people are still attached to their national states and that will continue to be the case the foreseeable future.

Therefore, my vision of Europe's future is that of a loose Confederacy where the ultimate souvereignity still rests with the single states it is comprised of. For such a Confedereation of European States (instead of a European Federeated State) a common conventional Army would be unecessary.

There may be one exeception to this, though. If Europe ever wants to be independent, Europeans ever again want to be able to defend themselves again, Europe will need a nuclear arsenal of its own. It must not be large, a few hundred warheads would suffice. And for such a strategic nuclear force whose function would be largely to be a force de dissuasion a common European organisation would make sense, since this structure would signify that all of Europe is under its protective umbrella.

[Get_It]

Strange to see this coming up right now. To my knowledge, first was the Polish President Lech Kaczynski bringing this up, then the former Portuguese President António Ramalho Eanes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramalho_Eanes) - that, at least to the opinion of many officers, took good care of the Portuguese Armed Forces after the Carnation Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnation_Revolution) - and now Germany's chancellor.


Why would Americans worry about something that lessons our security commitments?
I don't fully agree that the US would have to worry about this, but they might get worried if this makes them lose many of their bases in Europe.


If the Europeans were to put together an army they could start taking on some responsibility in the world and giving a hand to such places as Darfur.
I doubt that, this European army thing would probably only act as a defense force. For such places as Darfur state members will probably prefer to be part of some UN mission - and it would probably be cheaper, since that way it's the whole UN paying for any required transport and equipment instead of just the EU.


Was thinking about this and pretty much came to the conclusion that you can't have a European army until you have people\soldiers who see themselves more as Europeans than French, German, Danish, etc..

Until then nothing will come of it in my opinion

I see your points but I don't think your understanding what I'm trying to convey.

What I'm saying is unless you are united as Europeans ie; not seeing each other as French, German, Danish or other you are not going to have an effective fighting force in my opinion.
I don't think that as a problem. The way I see it, a possible European army will be like a Foreign Legion, and anyone that joins it will be more of looking for a career and a job that pays well, instead of a nationalist/patriot joining up to defend his nation or to act in the best interests of his country.

But still, this whole thing confuses me a little. A European army? Meh.
Best regards,
EDIT:

Look, you're all talking balls. Merkel isn't talking about an "EU army", but an army made up of different national contingents which would serve a common defence policy articulated by the EU Council of Ministers and Commission. When we haven't even got a common defence and security policy, I should think an EU army is out of the question.
Oh, that sounds better. The member states might not have a common defense - and I doubt that will have one in next decade - but this might as well act like one. European contingents with common training, common equipment, and more independent from NATO would be great, but probably would have short legs since most people wouldn't like their soldiers being commanded directly by a EU council without their country having much to say on the subject.

Best regards,

[zulu261]

And not to forget that Angi has to say such things at the moment because shes running the EU...

[tsuri]

Well, for some strange reason, they do. They see it as the EU undermining NATO.

US has control over NATO. They like to keep that control.


This almost the same what our president Kaczyński proposed her few months, ago.... hm...

Nothing radically new on both terms. This project is in the works for more than 50 years now



Who the hell is going to be supreme commander?

A EU army is a project we can attack after thorough reform. This leaves multiple choices.

1) The Council President. After reforms that are most likely, he or she will serve for a longer period of time, namely 2 and a half years.
2) The Foreign Minister. Serves for 5 years, not that logical of a choice though.
3) The High Representative of the CFSP. Very likely choice.

The most likely step would be the creation of a small European Rapid Reaction Force that could be quickly deployed. A large scale army is at this point of integration, impossible. But it is a goal for the future and a very logical one but there are more pressing concerns.


What I'm saying is unless you are united as Europeans ie; not seeing each other as French, German, Danish or other you are not going to have an effective fighting force in my opinion.

It is not neccesary to have people that are European patriots at all. They are there but not neccesary. By working with an EU military unit, you protect the interests of your nation.

[Kitsune]

Strange to see this coming up right now.

It does not. The article is from 23.03.2007. It is just that Joka seems to live in a specially backward part of the "European Union", one that gets the news about one month later than the rest. Probably somewhere in Poland...

[Switek]

...
Nothing radically new on both terms. This project is in the works for more than 50 years now

A EU army is a project we can attack after thorough reform. This leaves multiple choices.

1) The Council President. After reforms that are most likely, he or she will serve for a longer period of time, namely 2 and a half years.
2) The Foreign Minister. Serves for 5 years, not that logical of a choice though.
3) The High Representative of the CFSP. Very likely choice.

The most likely step would be the creation of a small European Rapid Reaction Force that could be quickly deployed. A large scale army is at this point of integration, impossible. But it is a goal for the future and a very logical one but there are more pressing concerns.


It is not neccesary to have people that are European patriots at all. They are there but not neccesary. By working with an EU military unit, you protect the interests of your nation.

So we are talking about something like political fiction what can will become true no later than in 10-15 years.. I guess

[tsuri]

So we are talking about something like political fiction what can will become true no later than in 10-15 years.. I guess

Umm.. of course.. We already made the EU Budget up to 2013. Where do you want to squeeze in a military? European Integration is a slow, incremental process.

[Freibier]

There was this certain euro army with "volunteers" from all over europe, with a myriad of sometimes conflicting interests, that kicked serious butt in WWII ...

[Laworkerbee]

There was this certain euro army with "volunteers" from all over europe, with a myriad of sometimes conflicting interests, that kicked serious butt in WWII ...

Oh God please don't go there p-)

[Freibier]

just playin devils advocate :-P

[Laworkerbee]

In reality it was a great example

[Switek]

There was this certain euro army with "volunteers" from all over europe, with a myriad of sometimes conflicting interests, that kicked serious butt in WWII ...

AFAIK, we Poles and Greeks refused to participate in your noble club...

[Freibier]

In reality it was a great example

Oh God please don't go there p-)

[AirCommando]

"German Chancellor Favors Creation of European Army"
She means with brave British rifleman, commanded by exelent German generals, with a Italian dining facility, with French patriotism, with dutch rules (of free smoking), Greek working hours (most closed.....), Skandinavian equippment (new, new, new.....) and the Swiss legal advisers (because neutral)?

[Thor]

In reality it was a great example
If you put aside the political angle of that era it indeed shows the potential of an European Army...

[Switek]

If you put aside the political angle of that era it indeed shows the potential of an European Army...

Well, WW2 is a bad example. Fortunatelly Wehrmach and SS weren't European Army. There were some decent nation which didn't cooperate with nazis.... Without US help democracies would be defeated by nazis or bolsheviks.

[teutateswolf-n]

Bad idea!!!
And, at the end, it will not work.
I'm from the wise opinion of Voltaire that we should better take care of our own garden.
Firstly, ideologically, there is the problem of identity. My nation is my country, my people (in my case, Belgium), and not Europe. Europe is a region of the world, and not a country. I'm part of that region. But, I'm European, just like I'm from Earth, or I'm from the Human species.
Secondly, "empire" is always a bad idea that cannot be sustainable and that is always terrible at the local level.
Thirdly, such kind of idea is just a cover for the decline of Europe, instead to take real and pragmatic measures to save us.

Europe is not the USA. It's a mistake to compare. The states of the USA are states in an ancient meaning, and are not nations. They are more like provinces. There are many ethnic origins in the USA, but it's not the same than to unify the people of Europe.It's more like people from various ethnic groups migrating to France or UK. Then, it's absolutely not the same process and the same situation than the USA. It's completely stupid to compare Europe to the USA and to say that we should be a federation or a confederation and to have a common army. The confusing comparisson between Europe and the USA is used to justify ideologically imperial projects.
And why should Europe plays the global power, the global police, like the USA, and to cooperate with the USA in that game?! (and on the same time to be a global rival of the USA in a very ambigous relationship)
It's suicide!!! Every power that plays that game has a tragic end.

Just wait and see. The US global power will fall by itself. Moreover, globalization is arriving to its peak, and in some way is in its golden age. But, it is reaching its limits, and the world is not going well. Globalization (that must not be confused with the far more ancient process of internationalization of the relations) started around five centuries ago, but it will inplode too. And, when all that order and system will desapear, we had better to be ready for post-globalization era, be strengthening and taking care of our nations and of our regional relations.

Europe should have some institutions like a regional security council, and some agreement for FTA, cultural and academic cooperation, justice and police cooperation, technological and scientific research cooperation, etc..., and eventually a diplomatic high representative for common matters, but we don't need more. We must be reasonable and pragmatic.

OK, my opinion is not conventional, and does not correspond to many official speach. I'm sure that many with imperial visions and who believe in globalization, in the power of the USA, and in the necessity to immitate them for being mighty and wealthy will oppose to me and say that I'm backward, that I don't understand how the world is going, etc. But, I know that the future will give reason to the people who think like me, it's written into the historical cycles and the geopolitics, and there are already some stigmates of it for those who can see it and care of it.
I pray for something to happen to not let our leaders going into that direction.

And, personally, if an "imperial" European army replaces the national armies, I will directly resign from my rank of reserve officer. I can't fight for a European empire, and take risks with my life for that.
And, believe me, I would not be the only one.

[teutateswolf-n]

Great, and I hope that every country will do the same, and that there will never have such army and empire.


AFAIK, we Poles and Greeks refused to participate in your noble club...

[oregongrunt]

It might work if its role is to defend European territory or if Europe becoames a neutral entity - it wont work if its sent abroad because no-one wants the
body bags coming home.

Very true, each country would try to send non-combat troops and stick someone else with the dirty work.

[teutateswolf-n]

My reply to SHARP:

That works only in a small scale, and with national frame, like for the French Foreign Legion that is a small elite multinational force (a regular status for the old concept of mercenaries) within the French army and at the service of France.
I know, you will give me the example of other "legions", the Roman army. But, that was a very different situation. Firstly, we have to give the real duration of the success of the Roman imperial army. The Roman army existed for more than a thousand or 1200 years, but it existed as a regular standing army for 700 years since approximatelly the Punic Wars period (the recruitment of volunteers even became normal for every citizens only from the Marius reforms of 107 BC...making that period even shorter than 700 years), it was an imperial army (mixing various people) for around 500 years, and it was efficient for around 150-200 years (the rest of the time is just a system that try to survive and maintain itself as long as it could and already slowly agonizing). The Roman army started as an imperial standing army at the end of the 1st century BC, but it declined clearly from the mid of the 2nd century AD, like all the Roman empire (the peak of success and power being under Trajan and Hadrian during the early 2nd century AD, but already showing its limits at that time, only after one century of empire). Then, the example of the Roman imperial army has a success is already covering a short period. And probably that with the nowadays acceleration of the process it would eventually decline even faster.
Secondly, it was another time, in another world. The rest of Europe, that was not the same European map that nowadays (except for Greece already existing, and some forms of proto-states in Western Europe with Gallic and Belgian spaces corresponding approximately to the later France and Low Countries-BENELUX), had no choice and was annexed by force and strategic tricks of one central power (Rome) to form an empire (that failed later) by excessive and crazy ambitions.
Thirdly, I don't believe that by serving Europe I serve my country. By geopolitical definition each country is different from another, and the entire Europe considered as one State is also diferrent to each of the countries. Lokk to a map, you cannot say that France is Europe, Italy is Europe, Sweden is Europe, or Romania is Europe. As well that you cannot say that France, Italy, Sweden, or Romania are the same. Each country, and Europe are not the same space and countain, even if Europe is naively said the sum of all these national spaces. It's not because we are in the same region of Earth that we are the same and that we have the same interests. Of course, we can have sometimes some provisional common interests. But, European countries also have sometimes provisional common interests with non-European countries. It's not an argument to say that we are one, and that our interests is common, and that we should be a mega-state with a unique army. If you do that statement for Europe, then you can apply it to the entire world, and why not to do a "world empire" with a "world army". It's not realistic, not reasonable, not pragmatic, and not sustainable. Finally, I think that there is a kind of contradiction when you say that to serve directly Europe is like to serve my country, because if such a European mega-state exists, my country as a sovereign nation would no more exists, and the "country" would be Europe. By serving Europe you only serve Europe. A European state and the national states cannot exist simultaneously. Moreover, they don't have the same geopolitical definition.

SHARP:
By serving in Europe you also directly serve your country.
Join an european army can be interesting for a soldier, in a different way than serve in the own army of his country, considering that the missions , hardware and status will be different. Serve in a multi national environment can be pretty exciting and one of the greatest personal experience you can live/hope for.[/QUOTE]

[teutateswolf-n]

For the language, that would not be easy in everyday life, but there are international and NATO proceedure for radio, and staffs from various countries are usual to be combined. Then, it's not impossible to counter that problem.
But, it's true that there is no real common language, like the Roman imperial army was using Latin for official language because it was the language of the invader, or like the French Foreign Legion is using French because it serve France.
Maybe such a European imperial army would use Latin...hehe p-)

For the head of the army, there is already a EU Staff that could be adapted to command and control that army.

For the equipment, the decision of EU would be centralized too. EU institutions would decide to use that Swedish IFV or that German MBT, or they would support common R&D. It's not impossible too to deal with that problem.

However, who would pay for these troops, their infrastructures, equipment, operations, etc?! EU would ask for more money?!...

Anyway, I don't think that it's impossible to build such an army. But, it's not the problem. As I said in my previous messages, it's simply the idea that is wrong. And, I oppose to it at 100%.




Wont happen, just too much problems.

1. Which language? English? Heard an average French or Italian speaking English? During combat, there will be a huge amount of "WHAT THE FVCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?" on the radio.

2. Which ranks?
3. Who is the head of the army?
4. Equipment?

That would be the biggest problem, because every country wants its weapon industry to do the job and every country think it has got the best MBT, rife, ship etc.

[teutateswolf-n]

In that case, that would just be one more international intervention force at least, or a real European military alliance (separate from NATO) at big maximum.

I don't see the need to have one more international intervention force. It should be more relevant to take care and to improve the intervention force already on the way.


Look, you're all talking balls. Merkel isn't talking about an "EU army", but an army made up of different national contingents which would serve a common defence policy articulated by the EU Council of Ministers and Commission. When we haven't even got a common defence and security policy, I should think an EU army is out of the question.

[teutateswolf-n]

1- To defend ourself?! I think that we are able to do it by national capacities and by some alliances. The nations have that potential. No need to have a unique defense force for that.
2- What would be the threats that would justify a unique or "confederate" European force?! Russia?! Honestly, even Germany or France alone would be able to deal with Russia. It's no more the old Cold War time when Europe was completely destroyed by two successive total wars and when Russia and the USA seized the empty space to become superpowers. Moreover, there is no Russian threat for the moment. China or some Asian major power?! There are too far from us, there is no need to fight each others, and the Asian powers must not be overestimated (they are rising but the are weak giants). Then, what else?! Some Middle- or Near-East armies?! There is no risk for the moment of conventional wars between European and Middle-Eastern powers, and even if it was the case European powers would have enough ressources to fight them on a battlefield. If a European major power can fight another major power, it can also fight a Middle-Eastern power. Then what?! Some terrorist groups or network?! You don't fight it with an army, and if sometimes you use the army you don't need a large force to do it. Or maybe that you consider to fight the USA?! I don't see the need to fight the USA, even if we have an ambigous relationship with them that includes rivalry too. Moreover, it's true that the USA have a giant GDP, but they also have their big weaknesses, and their global domination is not absolute and will not survive...like any other "imperial" ambition. No one threat justify, even just a few, to have a "federal" or "confederal" European army. And, when we have some common challenges, then we can do a normal international cooperation, with the form of a coalition or an alliance, or with some international institutions.
3- The national identity is a good reasons to not create a European mega-state or even confederation (because when you enter into a logic of confederation you enter into a dangerous and ambigous process that can go more far...you creat a frame for more and more unification). But, it's not only a matter of identity. First of all, as I said before, each country as its own geopolitical definition, and then its own interests. There are no European interets,...at least no interests that correspond to and justify a political unification.
4- I'm also not opposed to some regional cooperations and institutions, but I'm opposed to any State or State-like process, even a confederation. Already now, I think that there are many wrong things in EU.


Wether one wants to have an European Army depends on the vision one has for the future of Europe. I am not one of the guys who try to prevent a common European commonwealth of sorts or who want only a European common market for the future. The challenges the world of tommorrow will pose demand more than that: Europe should finally aim to develope its ability to defend itself, without outside, or more specifically, American support.

Still, I do not want the European Union to becom a Federated State, what is more, I believe that this aim would be not realistic: too many people are still attached to their national states and that will continue to be the case the foreseeable future.

Therefore, my vision of Europe's future is that of a loose Confederacy where the ultimate souvereignity still rests with the single states it is comprised of. For such a Confedereation of European States (instead of a European Federeated State) a common conventional Army would be unecessary.

There may be one exeception to this, though. If Europe ever wants to be independent, Europeans ever again want to be able to defend themselves again, Europe will need a nuclear arsenal of its own. It must not be large, a few hundred warheads would suffice. And for such a strategic nuclear force whose function would be largely to be a force de dissuasion a common European organisation would make sense, since this structure would signify that all of Europe is under its protective umbrella.

[teutateswolf-n]

Maybe you are right, and it would be more logical.
But, apparently, in that article she said "a common army for Europe". For me it means a unique European army. There are at least three possibilities.
- That article was not a correct transcription of her words
- she has crazy imperial ideas about Europe
- She misuses -intentionally or not- the word "army" to speak about "alliance" or even just military cooperation. That would not be the first time that such confusions are made in the vocabulary. But, such confusions are dangereous.



Look, you're all talking balls. Merkel isn't talking about an "EU army", but an army made up of different national contingents which would serve a common defence policy articulated by the EU Council of Ministers and Commission. When we haven't even got a common defence and security policy, I should think an EU army is out of the question.

[Thor]

Well, WW2 is a bad example. Fortunatelly Wehrmach and SS weren't European Army. There were some decent nation which didn't cooperate with nazis.... Without US help democracies would be defeated by nazis or bolsheviks.
Waffen-SS was in fact the first truly European Army and that's why several people have brought it up in this thread. Nothing to do with the political system it was built up within.

Now, if we're thinking organization wise I believe it was and still is a good concept: An efficient central organization that with the blessing of the different governments independently recruits volunteers, with or without previous military service, and organizes them into different homeland/regional/language units.

I imagine something like the EU Battle Groups but entirely under EU flag. E.g. a Nordic Regiment made up out of Nordic volunteers.

This would also separate the EU political process from the national process. A nation has no saying over citizens who have chosen to volunteer to this European Army.


Firstly, ideologically, there is the problem of identity. My nation is my country, my people (in my case, Belgium), and not Europe.
Then you're probably not part of the target group for recruitment and hence it's not your problem. But then again I'm sure many belgians would join a Belgian/Benelux EU Regiment.


Europe is a region of the world, and not a country. I'm part of that region. But, I'm European, just like I'm from Earth, or I'm from the Human species.
And also a Space Cadet?

If you expect anyone to read your long outbursts please learn to separate the text into different sections.

[oldsoak]

Waffen SS the first European army ? surely the French Foreign legion has that honour ?

[perdurabo]

Waffen SS the first European army ? surely the French Foreign legion has that honour ?
Romans where first!

[Switek]

Waffen SS the first European army ? surely the French Foreign legion has that honour ?

Crusaders, for sure were first European Army ;)

[perdurabo]

Great, and I hope that every country will do the same, and that there will never have such army and empire.
he was talking about WW2 Quisling/Vichy goverments and Waffen-SS, if you check first post you will see that EU Army is our president idea p-)

[Kitsune]

Firstly, ideologically, there is the problem of identity. My nation is my country, my people (in my case, Belgium), and not Europe.

It is a bit odd to hear that of a Belgian of all people. Your country itself is not really a nation in the ethnical sense, but unites a population of two larger ethnic groups. A state like Belgium, or even better, Switzerland, is the best example that it is possible to have people from various ethnicities living together in a constructive, peaceful and prosperous way and that the system in which they do so can be stable (Switzerland is downright notorious for its stability). Especially people with your background should be either bit more openminded to this or root for an independent Wallonia. I personally believe that Switzerland should be regarded as a primary example for a future European Entity, hence my using of the term "Confederation".







Europe is not the USA. It's a mistake to compare. The states of the USA are states in an ancient meaning, and are not nations. They are more like provinces. There are many ethnic origins in the USA, but it's not the same than to unify the people of Europe.
That is not really so. Of course it is true that "Europe is not the USA". But originally the States of America saw themselves not a provinces but as quite independent entities which also had quite different culture and character (to this day the differences between Pennsylvania, Virgina, Louisiana and Texas are considerable - in earlier times they were even more ****ounced). When the Union was founded some of the States joined under the impression that the ultimate souvereignity would continue to rest with them, but since they forgot to add an entry in the Constitution that explicitly said so, a later discussion about that very issue of souvereignity turned quite ugly. Only after the Secession War was won by the Union was the status of the states as mere provinces completely accepted.

[lightfire]

I will create Grand army of Europe!!!!

hmm...

I've heard that somewhere..

http://www.bundesregierung.de/Content/EN/Artikel/2005/11/__Bilder/chancellor-angela-merkel-925806,property=poster.jpg......http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/7170/osamapalpatinein7.png

[tsuri]

Waffen SS the first European army ? surely the French Foreign legion has that honour ?


Depends on how far you go back? The Great Army of Napoleon, the various European alliances against Arabs/Mongols/Turks etc.
Waffen SS was not a truly European Army because it was basically a foreign legion for Germany. It can be used if you like Goodwin but it´s not the best example there is ;)



, if you check first post you will see that EU Army is our president idea
The Idea first came up in 1950. Your President, after countless others also proposed it. The Difference is that he belongs to the faction that does not want an army to protect our market and ideals but he wants to convert the EU into an intergovernmental appendix of Nato with a little free trade to defend against Russia.

There is plenty of Redundancy in Europe. We all are inseperably connected, defending one state is defending all of them. It is basically very very logical to have a common army. Multilingual countries manage their militaries with various languages, we can do that too.

The problem here is sovereignity. The Union as a supranational government already holds many soft policies but transferring a real hard policy, namely foreign and defense will meet lots of resistance.

The structure the EU has today simply do not allow such a military force right now, especially not to project force abroad on a large scale.

At the end of the day the US will lose their status as a hegemonial power and by the looks of it, much sooner than later. The EU has no choice but to step up as the next superpower or fall.

What would such a force do?
At the beginning we are talking about humanitarian missions, rescue of european citizens in danger, intervention and peace making.

Much, much later when the concept works, we can think about a unified military which would require much much more transparency at EU level and several steps of integration that half the Union is not yet willing to take.

[teutateswolf-n]

(1)Belgium is a real nation. You just repeat the official nowadays speach to justify the creation of Flanders Region and Wallon Region.
In another thread I already gave many historical explanations about the real Belgian identity.

(2) Thanks, but I know also some things about American history because it was part of my program at university, with one of the best Belgian professors of American history (if not the best), Mister Balace, and I also continued to study it by myself as one of my historical interests. Of course, at the beginning the 13 colonies didn't want to help too much each other, and there were rivalries, but these colonies were rooted in the same country: Great-Britain (even if there were some territories that were at first seized to other powers, for example the United-Provinces, but immediatly integrated into the British realm and peopled with additional British settlers). We should also say that during the Middle-Age, the French "countries" or provinces that were theoretically vassal of the king of France were not always in friendly situations. But, still France is a Nation (except maybe a few regions). It's similar for the early USA.



It is a bit odd to hear that of a Belgian of all people. Your country itself is not really a nation in the ethnical sense, but unites a population of two larger ethnic groups. A state like Belgium, or even better, Switzerland, is the best example that it is possible to have people from various ethnicities living together in a constructive, peaceful and prosperous way and that the system in which they do so can be stable (Switzerland is downright notorious for its stability). Especially people with your background should be either bit more openminded to this or root for an independent Wallonia. I personally believe that Switzerland should be regarded as a primary example for a future European Entity, hence my using of the term "Confederation".







That is not really so. Of course it is true that "Europe is not the USA". But originally the States of America saw themselves not a provinces but as quite independent entities which also had quite different culture and character (to this day the differences between Pennsylvania, Virgina, Louisiana and Texas are considerable - in earlier times they were even more ****ounced). When the Union was founded some of the States joined under the impression that the ultimate souvereignity would continue to rest with them, but since they forgot to add an entry in the Constitution that explicitly said so, a later discussion about that very issue of souvereignity turned quite ugly. Only after the Secession War was won by the Union was the status of the states as mere provinces completely accepted.

[Thor]

Romans where first!
Yes, but with the romans and others to follow all troops were thrown into the same organization and not distinguished or recognized on the basis of their nationality (as I recall it).

With a future European Army I think it's a necessity to make that distinction. We are not, and will never function as USA.


I might also add that I'm not a big fan of the EU. I would never vote yes to anything that takes away some sovereignty from my country. I can however accept it and the need for a strong Europe to balance other geopolitical entities.

[Atlantic Friend]

Playing the devil's advocate here, because I all too easily understand your reluctance when it comes to disminish your country's sovereignty. But doesn't what you said there



I might also add that I'm not a big fan of the EU. I would never vote yes to anything that takes away some sovereignty from my country. I can however accept it and the need for a strong Europe to balance other geopolitical entities.

mean that you know some things have to be done, but prefer to let others take care of them ?

[Kitsune]

(1)Belgium is a real nation. You just repeat the official nowadays speach to justify the creation of Flanders Region and Wallon Region.
In another thread I already gave many historical explanations about the real Belgian identity.

Well, you can prove what you want. For example there are Serbians who can prove that Kosovo is part of Serbia - problem is only that 90% of the inhabitants of that region heartily disagree with this. Fact is that there are two larger different ethnical groups which speak different languages in Belgium and that the idea of separation is quite alive these days (at least among many Flemish). With that in mind, I found your insistence on a national Belgian identity which would be opposed to any greater European framework rather odd since your country is based upon a similiar framework on a minor scale.
But if that is your opinion, by all means, go ahead.

[Mamont]

I will create Grand army of Europe!!!!

hmm...
I've heard that somewhere..
That'll be more interesting:
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/3494/chancellorangelamerkel9qy0.jpg

[Freibier]

You all might aswell start learning some german - enough to obey some basic orders will probably suffice

[Switek]

You all might aswell start learning some german - enough to obey some basic orders will probably suffice

Don't talk to me twice... I've made some check up of my German abilities from my youth when there was plenty films about WW2 and occupation times:

"Hende hoh"
"Achtung Banditen"
"Raus, raus.."
"Ausweis Kontrolle"
...............
and many, many more

but ended always:

"Hitler kaput"...

;)

[Jobu]

Well, you can prove what you want. For example there are Serbians who can prove that Kosovo is part of Serbia - problem is only that 90% of the inhabitants of that region heartily disagree with this. Fact is that there are two larger different ethnical groups which speak different languages in Belgium and that the idea of separation is quite alive these days (at least among many Flemish). With that in mind, I found your insistence on a national Belgian identity which would be opposed to any greater European framework rather odd since your country is based upon a similiar framework on a minor scale.
But if that is your opinion, by all means, go ahead.


If the Flemish went ahead with this separation, what would their new country be called?

[IronFinn]

You all might aswell start learning some german - enough to obey some basic orders will probably suffice

Already working on that. Deutschkenntnisse sind sehr wichtig ;).

[Weasel]

Already working on that. Deutschkenntnisse sind sehr wichtig ;).

Perfekt. woot

[Weasel]

Don't talk to me twice... I've made some check up of my German abilities from my youth when there was plenty films about WW2 and occupation times:

"Hende hoh"
"Achtung Banditen"
"Raus, raus.."
"Ausweis Kontrolle"
...............
and many, many more

but ended always:

"Hitler kaput"...

;)

Not perfect but damn funny. :)

[Kitsune]

If the Flemish went ahead with this separation, what would their new country be called?

Hmmm? The region they live in is called "Flanders". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flanders)
So if they want to keep it simple, that name would do. Why? Have you plans to immigrate there? ;-)

[juliuspret]

I remember reading somewhere that if Belgium disintegrates that Brussels will become the full and complete capital of the EU and will turn into the Washington DC of the EU.

This would certainly make it easier for the creation of a stronger EU as its capital would not be part of another country.

[teutateswolf-n]

Are you expert in Belgian history?!
Are you even Belgian?!
I don't think so.
It's me who have the historical facts in my hands, and you who just repeat fake ideas recently used by political propaganda without to know nothing about the real situation.





Well, you can prove what you want. For example there are Serbians who can prove that Kosovo is part of Serbia - problem is only that 90% of the inhabitants of that region heartily disagree with this. Fact is that there are two larger different ethnical groups which speak different languages in Belgium and that the idea of separation is quite alive these days (at least among many Flemish). With that in mind, I found your insistence on a national Belgian identity which would be opposed to any greater European framework rather odd since your country is based upon a similiar framework on a minor scale.
But if that is your opinion, by all means, go ahead.

[teutateswolf-n]

There are no twwo different ethnic groups in the Belgians.
I don't have time to details here all the stuffs. I'm very busy these days, but I can't stay without even a short reaction. If you want a few more details, I think that there were maybe some datas on that topic in one of my old threads named something like "a question to the Dutch people here...".

1- All the Belgians (I means except some recent immigrations from Eastern Europe, and a few from Marocco, Italy,..) have the same ethnic origins: the early Ancient Belgians (the Belgae and their confederation who were a specific Celtic group very close and cousins of the Germanic tribes) in who merged later and equally withinin the entire Belgean space the Franks, and some minor groups in smaller areas like the Batavians or the Frisians (because the real meaning of Belgium is covering the entire Low Countries and even a few more). It's quite homogeneous.

2- The linguistic difference is the only nowadays difference, and that difference came later in our history, progessively, and for political reasons. It was not based on ethnic difference, and it never was.

3- The concepts of Flanders and Wallonia, at least like it's used and defined nowadays, are fake. Flanders is in reality the County of Flanders that existed I think between 866 and 1384. That county was covering only two of the provinces situated in what nowadays is named Flanders Region. Moreover, a large part of that County was in nowadays France's Nord-pas-de-Calais and Artois. The people living in the area of this ancient county are the real and only Flamishs. Moreover, that real Flanders is not an ethnic group, but a medieval political realm. Wallonia comes from the Germanic word "Wahl" that was meaning "foreigners" for the Germanic tribes at the East of Rhine River, and then it was simply generally speaking about the people living within the Northern provinces of the Roman empire, within the Low Countries or Belgium.

There would have far more necessary explanations and details, but the basic idea is there. If you don't understand that, it's sad for the image of Belgium in foreign countries like yours. But, it's not that terrible, because it's not my main concern, and what really matters is the debate between us in Belgium.

By the way, stop to speak like if Belgium was close to inplode. There are some dangerous groups, and there is warning that we should seriously take care about. But, we are certainly not close to inplode.

And, to come back to real topic of this thread: with my entire consciousness, I fully affirm that I'm completely opposed to your dream of
Federal or Confederal "European Empire". But, I support and welcome the idea of some european cooperations in a different system.



Well, you can prove what you want. For example there are Serbians who can prove that Kosovo is part of Serbia - problem is only that 90% of the inhabitants of that region heartily disagree with this. Fact is that there are two larger different ethnical groups which speak different languages in Belgium and that the idea of separation is quite alive these days (at least among many Flemish). With that in mind, I found your insistence on a national Belgian identity which would be opposed to any greater European framework rather odd since your country is based upon a similiar framework on a minor scale.
But if that is your opinion, by all means, go ahead.

[LazerLordz]

A good step forward would be a EU Defence and Security Agency to conduct joint operations for units that are contributed by their national states.

I think the concept of a common doctrine and a force structure is admirable, but it would take a few decades to implement.

[Kitsune]

Are you expert in Belgian history?!
Are you even Belgian?!
I don't think so.
It's me who have the historical facts in my hands, and you who just repeat fake ideas recently used by political propaganda without to know nothing about the real situation.

Firstly, I don't need to be an Belgian or to be an expert in Belgian history to note that there are people who are as much of Belgian citzenship as you and who see things very differently from you. I spoke repeatedly to Flemish people who definitley do not regard themselves as ethnically identical to Wallons and were staunch supporters of Flemish independence. No history lesson from yourself changes that.

And secondly, that what I know of Belgian history does indeed not support your thesis that Flemish and Wallonians would be ethnically the same people from which just one group deciding to speak French, the other, out of some reason, opting for a version of Dutch as their language. Not that this sounds very convincing to begin with.


As far as my mentioning of Belgian separatism is concerned, I am sorry that I did mention it. But this is something one often hears, that is all. Do I risk to anger Canadians on this site if I mention that similiar rumours are flowing around regarding the francophon speaking parts of Canada? Many multinethnic states have that problem, although this is not necessarily so. For example, I never heard anything about a Swiss separationist movement and no Swiss I talked to expressed interest in secession.

[Jobu]

Hmmm? The region they live in is called "Flanders". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flanders)
So if they want to keep it simple, that name would do. Why? Have you plans to immigrate there? ;-)

Darn doodly absolutely!
http://z.about.com/d/animatedtv/1/0/e/B/flanders.jpg

[Kitsune]

Good one. :grin:

[teutateswolf-n]

You show yourself that your words have no legitimity.
You admit yourself that you are not a Belgian and not a professional historian.

1-You "spoke repeatedly to Flemish people"?! Really? How many of them?! Tens? Hundreds? Thousands? tens of thousand? hundreds of thousand?
Even if it would be true that you had some opportunities to speak with Northern-Belgians, it would certainly be no more than 2 or 3 persons, or something like that,... except if you are living in the middle of a giant "Flamish" community overseas p-) Anyway, In my life I had certainly speak to far far far more Belgians from every parts of the country than you.

2- Maybe you spoke to a couple of Flamish separatists?! And what does it mean?! Me too, I know people who believe that Flanders and Wallonia are reality and that it's two seperate ethnic groups. I never said that people who believe such things don't exist.

3- The contemporary facts that it exists three official languages, Flanders and Wallon regions, and many other things of that kind; and also the fact that there are people who believes that we are divided within two ethnic groups (and all the people who believe it are not necessarily separatists, just a minority of them are separatists), all these things proove nothing. It's not that naive and simply.
Moreover, most of the people just repeat some popular, fashionable, and political speaches that they hear around them. But, most of the people know nothing about history. Most of the people had a few basic classes of history at school and that's all,...and maybe even that a majority of them didn't pay attention to the class of history at that time and they thought that it was boring. It's not a professional education, and with the time they forget many things that they don't need concretely in their life. Moreover, there are some political speach that they can hear, that are not necessarily historically correct, and that parasite and transform their memory. Only the professional of history, those who are specialized, live in historical studies, and have a analysis with criticism of history and of "historical" dogma (created for political reasons), have a more objective, deep, nuanced, and real knowledge of history. By my background and present situation, I'm related to two groups: the army (I volunteered as a regular before to start my university studies, and I'm a reservist now) and academic in political history (I did university studies until included PhD, and my job is related to political history and National Defense). I'm a professional, and within the professional historians' circle we know the real history of Belgium (and we would like that the system change in Belgium to have once again a national education system to refresh the memory of our people about who they really are). By consequences, my statements are based on enough legitimity, and they are the reflect of the reality. I'm not an expert in everything, of course, but I'm for sure an expert in my own fields, and I'm professionally respected.

4- Don't compare to Canada because the situation is very different. In Canada, at the beginning, there were really two different ethnic groups, the French and the British, who settled Canada on their respective sides. And, after some wars, especially the 7 Years War that ended in 1763, the British finally conquered and annexed the French Canada. Then, the Quebec really has different origins, and moreover is under a kind of "foreign" occupation. Belgium was settled by the same and unique people, a confederation of tribes named the Belgae, and it is even these people, my ancestors, who gave their name to the land. Centuries and centuries later, came "cousin" people like the Franks or the Batavians. But these people were ethnically very close and demographically in minority, and merged within the Ancient Belgians (bringing on the same time some new influences). The Franks settled at the beginning in the central area of Belgium (I'm from that area) and then spread in every directions within the country and merged in the population. If you would believe that Belgian ethnicity doesn't exist because some people from the right bank of the Rhine River came and spread in our territority, then you can believe that the Netherlands (that are in fact the same country and people than us), France, Sweden, or any other nation is not real too, because in every country, even among the most homogeneous, there were always some people coming from outside and being integrated and merged if there were a minority. At least, the Germans coming to Belgium at that time were a minority, mixed with us, and moreover were cousins of us (the difference between the Ancient Belgians and the Germans is extremely vague. We are quite similar). There were never Flamish people arriving on one side, and Wallon people arriving on the other side. The fact that it exists nowadays 3 official languages, and regions named Flanders and Wallonia is a reccent political product and not an ethnic result. Moreover, French language was not the choice of the Southern-Belgians. It was the language of the social elites in the entire country (North and South) and they imposed French. More than one century ago, common people in Southern Belgium didn't speak in French. The only real linguistic variation between various regions of Belgium (not only North and South but even in a more local and dialectic level) is that, because in the Ancient Age there were more demographic concentration in the South of Belgium and moreover the Southern axe of Belgium (along the Sambre and Meuse rivers) was the major economical axe of the country: then by administrative and political activities the Belgian language became in the South (in reality, not fully in the South but more at proximity of the center of the country) a little bit more influenced by Latin (or by a vulgar and approximative Latin) that was the standard language for the important activities within the entire Roman Empire. But, even like that, it never was French (that is the "language of the Frankish kingdom" mixing ancient Celtic language with Germanic-especially Frank language- and some Latin...just like Dutch is the mixture of the same languages but with some different compositions and also with a few less influences of vulgar Latin because it was more isolated from the main political and economical axe). And the people in the North and the South of Belgium have same origins, same past.
French became commonly used by ordinary Southern-Belgians only in more reccent history, and by decision of the government, not by people choice. That's a long story...there is too much to say, and I can't give you a complete lecture here, details by details, starting from the beginning and until nowadays.

Now, think what you want, I don't have time to do lectures or to write long e-mails here (just sometimes I can do it). I'm just in this forum for curiosity and relaxing, and for some short comments for fun.


Firstly, I don't need to be an Belgian or to be an expert in Belgian history to note that there are people who are as much of Belgian citzenship as you and who see things very differently from you. I spoke repeatedly to Flemish people who definitley do not regard themselves as ethnically identical to Wallons and were staunch supporters of Flemish independence. No history lesson from yourself changes that.

And secondly, that what I know of Belgian history does indeed not support your thesis that Flemish and Wallonians would be ethnically the same people from which just one group deciding to speak French, the other, out of some reason, opting for a version of Dutch as their language. Not that this sounds very convincing to begin with.


As far as my mentioning of Belgian separatism is concerned, I am sorry that I did mention it. But this is something one often hears, that is all. Do I risk to anger Canadians on this site if I mention that similiar rumours are flowing around regarding the francophon speaking parts of Canada? Many multinethnic states have that problem, although this is not necessarily so. For example, I never heard anything about a Swiss separationist movement and no Swiss I talked to expressed interest in secession.

[teutateswolf-n]

Let's go back to the thread....

Haha... very funny :hug:


That'll be more interesting:
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/3494/chancellorangelamerkel9qy0.jpg

[h22chen]

Fascinating.

I'll take it that no European nation will tolerate one language over another.p-)

I remember that Latin used to be the lingua franca of the elites and literati of Western and Central Europe many many moons ago; but then, it's now too outdated? to be used.... ah...

[Freibier]

german suits just fine p-)

[DaGreatRV]

Maybe until we can get our foreign policies on one line we could make a single defensive military(same uniforms, equipment, etc..), but countries can decide for them selfs if they want their troops to participate in an offensive, or peacekeeping mission.

[perdurabo]

Polish suits just fine p-)
fixed for ya matep-)

[Vandervahn]

fixed for ya matep-)

Sorry, not acceptable. Writing in polish would put unjustified stresses on the consonant keys on my keyboard ;)

[MichaelF]

german suits just fine p-)

Bring back the Deutsche Mark and we'll talk...

[teutateswolf-n]

For your information, and that is an average of all the serious public polls from various origins: in spite of the destructions made by the policies of the reccent decades, there are only 7-8% of separatists in the North of Belgium, and less than 1% of separatists in the South of Belgium, and they are % in stagnation. It means around 4% of separatists and in stagnation for the entire Belgian population.
Moreover, in the North where there are more separatists, 51% of the the "Flamish" would like to end the federal system and re-establish a central and fully united system.


Firstly, I don't need to be an Belgian or to be an expert in Belgian history to note that there are people who are as much of Belgian citzenship as you and who see things very differently from you. I spoke repeatedly to Flemish people who definitley do not regard themselves as ethnically identical to Wallons and were staunch supporters of Flemish independence. No history lesson from yourself changes that.

And secondly, that what I know of Belgian history does indeed not support your thesis that Flemish and Wallonians would be ethnically the same people from which just one group deciding to speak French, the other, out of some reason, opting for a version of Dutch as their language. Not that this sounds very convincing to begin with.


As far as my mentioning of Belgian separatism is concerned, I am sorry that I did mention it. But this is something one often hears, that is all. Do I risk to anger Canadians on this site if I mention that similiar rumours are flowing around regarding the francophon speaking parts of Canada? Many multinethnic states have that problem, although this is not necessarily so. For example, I never heard anything about a Swiss separationist movement and no Swiss I talked to expressed interest in secession.