5 ms·

No, it's so unpopular because with the last "great military" we started a war that killed 50 million people, and exterminated 13 million people (civilians) in c

No, it's so unpopular because with the last "great military" we started a war that killed 50 million people, and exterminated 13 million people (civilians) in concentration camps. Definitely nothing to do with welfare.

regularhackerer 9y ago
>started Ah, if only everything else in this world was so simple.
- arekkas 9y ago
  I'm not sure if you dispute who started the war in Europe (I hope you don't) or if you imply that the causes of WWII are not one-sided (which is obvious and true). In case you dispute who started the war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II#Course_of_the_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II#Course_of_the_war
dmichulke 9y ago
> we In line with the sibling comment, note that the word "we" is subject to a 70 year scope creep here.
- coldtea 9y ago
  There's such a thing a state continuity though -- and oftentimes cultural continuity. It's not implausible to imagine a ruling AfD in the next 15-20 years.
  - dmichulke 9y ago
    I agree and I understand what the original comment means. But "we" is first of all the plural of "I", so it means above all "people" and there is no "people continuity", at least not over 70 years. In a sense he says that I (assuming he is German) started a war which is (AFAIK) not the case. Assuming you are US-American, I shouldn't say that you invaded Iraq either, should I?
    - coldtea 9y ago
      >Assuming you are US-American, I shouldn't say that you invaded Iraq either, should I? Well, people voting term after term pro-war politicians might allow one to say that too. Either that, or they should admit it's not a democracy, and leaders can do such important BS such as going to war without people consenting. (Not American though).
      - dozzie 9y ago
        Don't be so quick with this "voting" part. It's not like people voting could choose only a part of politician's program or take different parts from different candidates. The pro-war attitude comes in a package with much more things much more directly affecting the voters than raids for killing foreign people somewhere far away.
        coldtea 9y ago
        >It's not like people voting could choose only a part of politician's program or take different parts from different candidates. No, but "going to war and killing people/invading other countries" should matter more than other parts of their program. >foreign people somewhere far away That's the problem right there. So it's not that they can't: it's that they don't care.
    - esrauch 9y ago
      > Assuming you are US-American, I shouldn't say that you invaded Iraq either, should I? I think most Americans are comfortable with the sentence "we invaded Iraq" if that is what you mean. Also "we won our independence from the UK", even if their ancestors were English for generations after that war happened, in the sense that the individual is a member of the group "Americans", and "Americans" is the group that fought the war.
VeejayRampay 9y ago
As a German-friendly Euro-enthusiast, I hope that we all get to build an awesome European military in the future. That will remove the stigma for German people maybe. Cause to be honest we need German forces, manufacturing and engineering if we want to be able to be a force that counts internationally.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- bobthechef 9y ago
  Sorry to break it to you, but the idea of a European military is pure fantasy. The dream of a federalist Europe was dashed beyond repair in 2008 when the bizarre twilight zone of 1990-2008 ended and geopolitical realities shattered any illusion of the "end of history". Without a federal Europe, you have no chance of a federal military. We can perhaps have coalitions and military alliances like NATO, perhaps a European military forum, but nothing more. Even Germany wouldn't allow for it unless it was ultimately in line with German interests. FWIW, while Germany should be meeting its NATO quota (it isn't), a Germany that is too militarily powerful could be a concern (same goes for Russia). Historically, it has been bad for Europe (and don't give me the "different times" spiel). It's bad enough that Germany is the economic and political hegemon of Europe, engaging in neocolonial activity to its east (territories Piketty calls "foreign-owned countries") and ordering the continent into an ersatz unity i.e. a unity of soft German domination. The Prussian unification of Germany was a mistake, a European unification under German rule is an even worse mistake. It won't happen because the rest of Europe isn't exactly keen on playing the role of de facto vassals. It's high time that the stragglers finally noticed that while an EU based on free trade and sensible cooperation and discussion is useful, it will never approach anything resembling a federation. It is a silly, unproductive sentiment that is at worst a distraction.
  - VeejayRampay 9y ago
    You had me at "sorry to break to you". You're a Euro-sceptic, good on you, but please spare me the condescension, it has no place in public discourse and I personally don't care for it.

regularhackerer 9y ago

>started Ah, if only everything else in this world was so simple.

arekkas 9y ago
I'm not sure if you dispute who started the war in Europe (I hope you don't) or if you imply that the causes of WWII are not one-sided (which is obvious and true). In case you dispute who started the war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II#Course_of_the_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II#Course_of_the_war

dmichulke 9y ago

> we In line with the sibling comment, note that the word "we" is subject to a 70 year scope creep here.

coldtea 9y ago
There's such a thing a state continuity though -- and oftentimes cultural continuity. It's not implausible to imagine a ruling AfD in the next 15-20 years.
- dmichulke 9y ago
  I agree and I understand what the original comment means. But "we" is first of all the plural of "I", so it means above all "people" and there is no "people continuity", at least not over 70 years. In a sense he says that I (assuming he is German) started a war which is (AFAIK) not the case. Assuming you are US-American, I shouldn't say that you invaded Iraq either, should I?
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >Assuming you are US-American, I shouldn't say that you invaded Iraq either, should I? Well, people voting term after term pro-war politicians might allow one to say that too. Either that, or they should admit it's not a democracy, and leaders can do such important BS such as going to war without people consenting. (Not American though).
    - dozzie 9y ago
      Don't be so quick with this "voting" part. It's not like people voting could choose only a part of politician's program or take different parts from different candidates. The pro-war attitude comes in a package with much more things much more directly affecting the voters than raids for killing foreign people somewhere far away.
      - coldtea 9y ago
        >It's not like people voting could choose only a part of politician's program or take different parts from different candidates. No, but "going to war and killing people/invading other countries" should matter more than other parts of their program. >foreign people somewhere far away That's the problem right there. So it's not that they can't: it's that they don't care.
  - esrauch 9y ago
    > Assuming you are US-American, I shouldn't say that you invaded Iraq either, should I? I think most Americans are comfortable with the sentence "we invaded Iraq" if that is what you mean. Also "we won our independence from the UK", even if their ancestors were English for generations after that war happened, in the sense that the individual is a member of the group "Americans", and "Americans" is the group that fought the war.

VeejayRampay 9y ago

As a German-friendly Euro-enthusiast, I hope that we all get to build an awesome European military in the future. That will remove the stigma for German people maybe. Cause to be honest we need German forces, manufacturing and engineering if we want to be able to be a force that counts internationally.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
bobthechef 9y ago
Sorry to break it to you, but the idea of a European military is pure fantasy. The dream of a federalist Europe was dashed beyond repair in 2008 when the bizarre twilight zone of 1990-2008 ended and geopolitical realities shattered any illusion of the "end of history". Without a federal Europe, you have no chance of a federal military. We can perhaps have coalitions and military alliances like NATO, perhaps a European military forum, but nothing more. Even Germany wouldn't allow for it unless it was ultimately in line with German interests. FWIW, while Germany should be meeting its NATO quota (it isn't), a Germany that is too militarily powerful could be a concern (same goes for Russia). Historically, it has been bad for Europe (and don't give me the "different times" spiel). It's bad enough that Germany is the economic and political hegemon of Europe, engaging in neocolonial activity to its east (territories Piketty calls "foreign-owned countries") and ordering the continent into an ersatz unity i.e. a unity of soft German domination. The Prussian unification of Germany was a mistake, a European unification under German rule is an even worse mistake. It won't happen because the rest of Europe isn't exactly keen on playing the role of de facto vassals. It's high time that the stragglers finally noticed that while an EU based on free trade and sensible cooperation and discussion is useful, it will never approach anything resembling a federation. It is a silly, unproductive sentiment that is at worst a distraction.
- VeejayRampay 9y ago
  You had me at "sorry to break to you". You're a Euro-sceptic, good on you, but please spare me the condescension, it has no place in public discourse and I personally don't care for it.