Europeans: should we up military spending?

Also believe the US military superiority is a referendum on the commanding superiority of Capitalism over Communism and Socialism.

Any comments?

So - now Europe is thinking of arming to defend itself against the USA? Exactly the kind of scenario I feared would come out of this war.

Asherman - exactly where have US troops fought for Europe, since WW II?

Sofia - you say that Europe should come out from the US's shield.

a. You imply, given the premise of this thread, that Europe should stop relying on the US to defend itself against whom, now? Oh, the US. Hmmmmmmmm.

b. You speak as though the US was in Europe as an altruistic exercise in chivalrous protection of the weak. My understanding is, that at least as much as such a motive, and in my view far more so, that the USA used Europe as its forward defence line against the USSR - that, just as the USSR grabbed itself many "vassal" states - at least partly as a defence against what it saw (quite reasonably) as a hostile post-war Europe and America, so the USA developed a network of friendly client states as a buffer against a hostile Soviet Union.

Do not forget that the USSR was the country who had, in the previous fifty years, seen foreign European troops (including, I understand, Americans - but I may be wrong on this) on its soil - post 1917 - siding with the non-Bolshevik forces in one of the most bitter and awful civil wars of the century. Do not underestimate Soviet fear of western Europe and the USA!

Europe doesn't need to defend against us. I was implying if they had their butts hanging out in the future, we would not avail ourselves to guard that flank. The world is changing rapidly. Any entity could attempt a power grab in Europe. It certainly would never be us. But, we would be expected to come to the rescue.

You imply, given the premise of this thread, that Europe should stop relying on the US to defend itself against whom, now? Oh, the US. Hmmmmmmmm.
It is my belief that our watchfulness and military strength is very big, industrial strengthed umbrella, under which democracies have huddled, and since it is always available, Europe hasn't bought an umbrella of their own. During this recent storm, they were trying to poke holes in our fabulous umbrella, while standing under it. I want very much to put the US boot to their butts and let them see how they like it out in the rain.

You speak as though the US was in Europe as an altruistic exercise in chivalrous protection of the weak. My understanding is, that at least as much as such a motive, and in my view far more so, that the USA used Europe as its forward defence line against the USSR - that, just as the USSR grabbed itself many "vassal" states - at least partly as a defence against what it saw (quite reasonably) as a hostile post-war Europe and America, so the USA developed a network of friendly client states as a buffer against a hostile Soviet Union
It is my view that what we did in Europe benefitted them as much as it did us, and they didn't have to pay for it.

From what I read, the world is generally frustrated at the lone Superpower idea, and France, Germany et al look for ways to undercut the US' hegemony. Its not like we've done something bad; they just feel ill at ease with US dominance, in the absence of the counterweight of the USSR. They liked us just fine, when they were worried about the Soviets.
Well, we didn't change. We're the same ones they relied on to keep the Soviets from rolling through their streets... Only the Soviets no longer exist. I don't think this is a good enough reason to now cast a suspicious eye toward us. We're the same benevolent, though admittedly imperfect country we've always been. We don't deserve the derision, IMO.

Of course, this argument is going on all over ad nauseum. Heard points/counterpoints/accusations.... Just wanted you to know I don't foresee a US strike on France anytime soon. :wink:

Oops. I allowed myself to be diverted by my own tangential tirade of personal anger. <oooohhhmm......oooohhhmm.....>

Bunny--- All---
Do you think Europe should have their own military?
I do.

They do.

It's called Great Britain.

Do you really mean this? Before effort is spent disabusing the thread of this notion of perfection I'd like to know if this is a serious assertion.

From what I read, the world is generally frustrated at the lone Superpower idea, and France, Germany et al look for ways to undercut the US' hegemony. Its not like we've done something bad; they just feel ill at ease with US dominance, in the absence of the counterweight of the USSR. They liked us just fine, when they were worried about the Soviets.
Well, we didn't change. We're the same ones they relied on to keep the Soviets from rolling through their streets... Only the Soviets no longer exist. I don't think this is a good enough reason to now cast a suspicious eye toward us. We're the same benevolent, though admittedly imperfect country we've always been. We don't deserve the derision, IMO.
___________________________
Above is the content from which you plucked those few words.
I was referring to the rise in anti-Americanism post-Cold War.
I assert that the sentiment rose after the Cold War, when the US was left the lone Superpower. Ipsofacto, we didn't 'do something' to cause the rise in A-A sentiment; the USSR failed and left us holding the Superpower bag.

You can see in the bolded; I am not under the illusion that the US, or any other country, has administrated with perfection.

I am aware of your very long list of bad behavior of the CIA and other inappropriate or poorly thought out global dabblings, but I was speaking to the particular A-A sentiment due to surviving the Cold War.

I do like the idea of a EU-force.
In terms of this, some states really should spend some more money then done momentarily.

Hmm, I hadn't read the bold part well or I'd have not been concerned about a too lily a view. I stopped reading at that comment.

I agree with you to an extent but think that the world's fears are being validated. The US can wreak havoc even with good intentions. It must not be evil to have a negative effect.

It's a point of contentious debate but many consider that despite the supporting moral excuses for this war the break from collective morality to "individual morality" to be a grave threat to sovereignty and the rule of law. This would, to those who place great import on it, be a wrongdoing.

Making the claim that this current row is about simple concerns about hegemony and that nothing in particular was done wrong is to assume that one position on the moral justification of the war is correct.

I'm not trying to make the case that the assumption is wrong, just that it ignores a substantial slice of opinion. I personally think this war is among the worst things this nation has ever done.

I personally don't place much relevance on past sins. The list is note "mine". I do not reference any past wrongdoing in my supporting argument in regard to the current events.

One notion I'd like to tackle is about us paying for the protection of others.

This has great anecdotal allure but recent facts do not support this. What is called "protecting others (or liberty or whatever)" has shown itself to be a profitable endeavor (not in strictly economic terms, though that case is another easy one to make).

In some cases the protection is unwanted (Iraq was a "threat to a region" in which most neighbors did not consider it a greater threat than the American led war).

It's a comforting notion that the good samaritan is just picked on, a misunderstood but gentle giant. And that those who oppose the giants actions are acting out of unsubstantiated motivation, but that position is a tad too convenient. The opposite extreme (that the giant is evil) is also not objective but this does not preclude a middle ground.

Another false, IMO, notion is that the country has not changed ("same ole benevolent self"). The recent concerns are not characteristic. They are motivated by recent developments in which the US showed less of an inclination to respect any 3rd party restraint.

There is an undeniable shift. America has shown itself as less likely to heed the cautionary advice it gets from the rest of the world.

Oops, posted twice.

Very good point, Debs. The alliance of France and Germany (in particular) with Russia in opposing the belligerent nature of the US is demonstrated clearly by the conference due to be held in St. Petersburg, attended by Kofi Annan (one of my personal heroes, by the way).



Just the sort of thing I was thinking of writing.

I'll go a bit further...the Cold War was about a few things:

1. Ideology: Capitalism v. Socialism

2. Fear: The fear of the Russians, who lost 3 MILLION of their own people in WWII against Germany, and who provided the decisive forces for the destruction of the Third Reich in Berlin, that Germany (assisited by other nations such as the USA) would rise again and invade, again. Don't you think that's why the USSR ended up bankrupt, having overspent on military technology over so many years, in order to keep pace with the USA? That race was run on both sides. The USA had the economic base to fund it, but how much more could have been achieved for the peoples of the world's largest country (by land mass) if such funds had been diverted to education, health and development of productive industries.

3. Spheres of influence: The Marshall Plan was a deliberate ploy by the USA following WWII to prevent the rise of Communist sentiment and political forces, by making reconstruction dependent on adoption of Capitalist values. These states are no less vassal states than those on the end of the USA's long arm control of the other side of the Iron Curtain.

I'll read some more and be back.

KP - I thought 'twas 20 million Russians.....?

I haven't checked my figures, but it probably depends upon how you draw the circle.

The point is, their fear of loss was AT LEAST 1000x more justified than the USA's reaction to 9/11...

I'm getting into dangerous territory here, and I know it will upset some people to hear it, but, no matter how "benevolent" America seems to itself, it is DEEPLY offensive in its foreign and economic policy to certain peoples of the world - Al Quaeda was just the force that demonstrated it, spectacularly.

Of courst that attack was not justified, but the uncontested march of US-style Capitalism, with its "I'm allright, Jack" mentality is something which intelligent, civilised peoples (many of them in Europe) find nearly as offensive as Islamic fundamentalism.

I'm overstating my point, for reaction, but I do find it INCREDIBLY frustrating that a certain (powerful) part of the USA is not able to look at itself in the mirror and say "we do things that others don't like" and then question its moral authority to command others to do things that way.

Indeed.

My understanding about the 20 million Russians was that the figure was drawn pretty tightly around WW II - and did not include the pre and post WW II Stalinist purges and genocides - or the disastrous economic, agricultural and industrial policies.

I think the figure is important because it elucidates so much of the psychology of post W II Soviet Union policies - the loss was unimaginable, and tends to be grossly underplayed in the psyche of the west.

It is more than the entire current population of my country.

You know what, Sofia? I don't ******* well think I know.

On the one hand, I believe they DO have their own military - although Germany's is under strictures dating from WW II.

Here is the honest, weary truth - though I know it is gonna sound absolutely ridiculous, especially given the temper of the times and the neo-Darwinism of so many theories of human sociology and politics. Oh, and reality, as it has proved itself to be, time and time again. I wonder if we would ever be able to change it?

In my time - not necessarily my calendar time, but the political time that affected my growing up, although much of it well pre-dated my birth - we have had so many enemies and friends.

The evil Bolsheviks, the terrible anti-British insurgency movements, the awful Imperialist Hun, Mahatma Gandhi and the Nehru and Gandhi dynasties , Soekarno (pre-WW II), Nazi Germany and the forces of fascism, Chiang Kai-Shek, Sun Yat Sen, China and Mao Tsedung, the terrible forces of Islam, the Turks, Suharto, for example - and so many friends - the heroic people of the Soviet Union, China and Mao Tsedung, Soekarno, Suharto, the democratic Germans, Mahatma Gandhi and the Nehru and Gandhi dynasties, the heroic Arabs and their fight against the Germans and Turks, and so on and on and on and on and on and on.....

I notice, whenever an enemy stops being an enemy, that another one crops up, and always we are justified in defending ourselves with ever more terrible weapons and policies against them. In the name of democracy we support and bring to power terible butchers and tyrants. In the name of peace, we go to war.

Some of the struggles we have been enlisted in, I believe, have been genuine battles for survival (eg WW II) - many have, I believe, not been - witness the war currently being - I hope - concluded in Iraq, although it has certainly proven, if proof were needed, that might is right - and brings some rightness in despite of itself.

I have stated elsewhere my opinion of the ridiculousness and essentially primitive nature of patriotism, and the non-noble and instinctual nature (however sonorously dressed up) of defense of our territory.

Having said that, I believe there are better and worse ways of governing and managing nations. I believe democracy, for all its faults, is the best of a bad lot. I believe that ameliorated and assuaged capitalism works somewhat better than its opponents - so far. Of course, my cultural heritage pretty much guarantees that I would believe that.

I do not wish to live in a conquered country - especially a totalitarian or theocratic one.

However, I believe that, if I had the guts, courage and moral fibre I would like to have, that I would rather follow the principles of a Gandhi, or a conquered Tibet, and suffer and die, than continue to support the military-industrial complex-driven, environmentally and humanly disastrous and brutal real-politik of a powerful and survivalist state in the modern post-capitalistic (and probably of all times) world.

I say this, not in a simplistic black/white analysis - I do NOT think that these states have nothing to offer their citizens, or the world. They have a great deal to offer - I have been nurtured and had a very easy life in the bosom of one which has, while not being strong itself, paid its dues to borrow the strength of others.

In the final, selfish, analysis, I am sure I would do whatever it took to survive and to support the survival of my country.

I just see this as a normal function of the beast we have evolved to be, and not as some higher and noble calling.

Do I think Europe - or my own country should have stronger armies?

No. I think these things are destroying us, as they protect us.

But I am too weak to be strong. I am too cowardly to be weak. Let us, by all means arm ourselves to the teeth to confront the enemy du jour.

If I am lucky, I shall, doubtless, live to support arming against some other enemy. There is an endless supply of them.

Forgive this rant. You asked. And I am tired and cynical.

Well, any figure of that magnitude can only be a gross approximation, and the estimations have sharply varied as research continued -

but no, the "20 million" was most definitely the tag put on the estimation of how many died under Stalin, overall (or it was throughout my studies of Eastern Europe Studies).

I'm retracting the bit I said next about how the 20 million would have been the "victims of the terror surrounding the forced collectivisation, the subsequent famines, the terror of the late 30s, and WW2". I don't know about the "and". In my mind, 20 million = victims of Stalinism. Would actually make more sense if it didnt include WW2.

[..] Still an incredible number, though, and a multiple of the number of casualties the US and British troops suffered. In that way, you can get pretty angry at Americans claiming they liberated Europe in WW2. But in another perspective they are right, of course, in the sense that in Western Europe, we were liberated, whereas those who had their German occupyers driven out by Soviet soldiers just saw one totalitarian dictatorship replaced by another.

Interesting, NIMH - I won't argue with you, cos I do not have sources to cite, and I am sur eyou do.

I do not think these things are "either/or" - it took both groups to win the war.

I found the following figures on a search for info:

WWII Death Count Per Country:
Country Total
USSR 29 million (12m Military, 17m Civilian) !!!
Poland 6.27 million
Germany 5.69 million
Yugoslavia 1.66 million
Romania 915,000
Hungary 800,000
France 595,000
Italy 533,000
Great Britain 495,000
United States 413,000
Czechoslovakia 322,000
Holland 249,000
Greece 159,000
Belgium 99,000

So, according to these figures, it's even worse than you thought!

Make my 1000x, above, 10,000x !!!

(Edited to provide link to source) -

http://www.angelfire.com/ct/ww2europe/stats.html