Without sounding too American ...we are in a War already and have been since we went in to Iraq and Afghan, maybe even before that.....but not that many of our European Brothers (tongue in Cheek) are helping out

Nowt wrong with conscription, bring it back (I am not saying your boys Dave) It would do the youth of today some good as there is a lack of respect, lack of discipline, lack of motivation to work, I could probably go on if I thought about it for long enough. My 22 years service was the best thing I did and lets face it 1 or 2 years in the grand scheme of things is not long

Wayne

__________________
The Balkans
https://new.horizonsunlimited.com/poi_entity/8417

There is a far wider "war" in place at present, usually referenced in the media as a currency war.
It is how nations compete with each other without actually throwing hardware around.
Many would say that China started the current currency war which is why we have accusations of "dumping" products into their overseas markets.

Nations across the world are engaged in it at present.

__________________
Dave

Conscription is the making of many but, to others, it can destroy them especially if you don't fit in with what is expected of you. I don't think it would of done me any good as a young man.

What I meant to say was that the EU has brought us closer together and over the past 60 yeas we have not fought another country in the EU. I know there has been the Balkan crisis, but would that of happened if Yugoslavia had been in the EU. No it wouldn't of.

All I'm trying to say is that we need to also consider the security being in EU gives us, that 'perhaps' we can take for granted?

cheers
Dave

Yes, it's easy to forget - particularly after 70 yrs of peace - how destructive of everything Euro rivalry was in the 70 yrs between 1870 and the 1940's. Many tens of millions killed, hundreds of millions wounded or their lives destroyed and world class economies demolished. Anything that prevents that happening again was, and is, in my opinion, worth trying. The American approach - unification at the end of a civil war gun barrel, wasn't really going to work in Europe after such a catastrophic period of conflict.

The only alternative people in the early 1950's could see was to intertwine the economies of two of the main players, France and Germany, to the extent that large scale future armed conflict between them would be impossible. The European Coal and Steel Community that half a dozen countries (not inc the UK) signed up to in 1951 was the first manifestation of that idea but the Schuman Declaration that brought it about also had other aims:


It would mark the birth of a united Europe.

It would make war between member states impossible.

It would encourage world peace.

It would transform Europe in a 'step by step' process (building through sectoral supranational communities) leading to the unification of Europe democratically, unifying two political blocks separated by the Iron Curtain.

It would create the world's first supranational institution.

It would create the world's first international anti-cartel agency.

It would create a common market across the Community.

It would, starting with the coal and steel sector, revitalise the whole European economy by similar community processes.

It would improve the world economy and the developing countries, such as those in Africa

(thanks to Wikipedia for the details)

OK there's nothing in there about much of the stuff we're squabbling over at the moment but it's easy to see how, step by step, we've ended up where we are. There's no denying it's achieved its major aim of preventing further Eurowars (although you could argue other factors would have done that anyway) but whether we (the UK) should just abandon it it all at this stage, possibly bringing the whole thing down around our ears as we go (although I think that's unlikely) is at the core of this.

If you start a process of unification - even for the best of motives, you can't really complain if it heads in that direction. Churchill offered the French unification between themselves and the UK when the Germans were invading in 1940. They declined but we could be living in unified "Frangland" or something at the moment had they taken up his offer.

My various readings of that period point toward the Prussians as lying at the heart of the issues that the united Germany has experienced.
Germany is a young nation in truth.

Some commentary from the continent says that Frau Merkel will not be in post by sometime later this year.

Nowadays, I see very little possibility of a major intra-Europe conflict; there are many reasons to think this, not least the full integration that has taken place of business and industry practices across Europe.
Then, there are the respective populations of the nations who simply would not sign up to kill each other, putting it bluntly.

I think it was said earlier; while it is useful to remember past history, the future may not be exactly the same; WW2 did not follow the pattern of WW1, even though the invading force in the west used the very same Schliffen plan that had been in place for WW1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlieffen_Plan

__________________
Dave

I would have to disagree.

The primary guarantor of European security post WW2 has been, and remains, NATO.

That is one of the reasons that the EU bureaucrats aim to raise a European armed force which, put simply, would provide a capability outside of the current US-led chain of command.
Compared with the EU, NATO runs a "very tight ship" and is professionally competent in what it does; that is not to say that NATO does not have issues but so does every organisation.

It was NATO that entered the Balkans in the 1990s once the blue berets had arrived at their own impasse, as the UN tends to do sooner or later.
Many people do not recognise that NATO is a political alliance with a military arm; it is that simple in geo-political terms.

__________________
Dave