War's vanishing world in Europe

[SUBMAN1]

An interesting article that relates to an earlier discussion last week.

I agree with the statement - America is from Mars and Europe is from Venus. We don't even live on the same planet anymore.

-S


http://img.iht.com/images/2008/02/08/9idlede9550.jpg
Russian soldiers in a World War II reenactment in Moscow. Western Europe has become politically and socially demilitarized to a degree once unimaginable. (James Hill for The New York Times)

"Where Have All the Soldiers Gone":
War's vanishing world in Europe

http://img.iht.com/images/dot_h.gif
By Geoffrey Wheatcroft (http://www.iht.com/cgi-bin/search.cgi?query=By%20Geoffrey%20Wheatcroft&sort=publicationdate&submit=Search)
Published: February 8, 2008



Where Have All the Soldiers Gone The Transformation of Modern Europe By James J. Sheehan 284 pages. $26. Houghton Mifflin Company.

At the time of the World Cup the summer before last, there was a nice cartoon in the papers by Oliphant, with two panels. One showed "Soccer as seen by Americans," a group of dainty chaps prancing lightly across the grass with purses dangling from their limp wrists, and the other, "American football as seen by Europeans," a heap of brutally moronic humanoids using severed limbs to batter each others' brains out.


Yes, that sums up this reciprocal perception rather well - and it might have hinted at a contrast going beyond sports. The delicate midfield artists of Barcelona and Arsenal are vegetarian Venusians, shall we say? While the ferocious Giants and Patriots linebackers could be called Martian carnivores. The very games look like a metaphor for the gulf, growing between the two continents since World War II, that was the subject of Robert Kagan's "Of Paradise and Power" in which he denounced sybaritic, pacifistic Europe on behalf of "Americans from Mars." As James J. Sheehan neatly observes in "Where Have All the Soldiers Gone?" Kagan's philippic was published on Feb. 5, 2003, just 10 days before Europe saw the largest political demonstration in its history. More than half a million marched in Berlin to protest the imminent Iraq war, with other huge rallies in Rome, Barcelona and London.


This outpouring of popular feeling against war no doubt confirmed Kagan in his view that those "Europeans from Venus" are now incapable of the use of military force that still comes naturally to Americans, and that it was "time to stop pretending that Europeans and Americans share a common view of the world, or even that they occupy the same world." However that may be, it's a surely astonishing fact that no European war has been fought for more than 60 years, at least outside the ruins of Yugoslavia. Western Europe has become politically and socially demilitarized to a degree once unimaginable; after so many centuries of bloody conflict, Europeans don't want to study war anymore. In his scintillating tour d'horizon - and de force - Sheehan suggests that such obsolescence of war is specifically "the product of Europe's distinctive history in the 20th century," and he argues that it has created a new kind of European state along with "a dramatically new international system within Europe."


There had been an earlier age of peace. The half-century following Waterloo was notably pacific after the violence from which it had emerged, and 1871 to 1914 saw the longest period until now without any war at all between larger European powers. There was besides a vigorous peace movement. Sheehan describes the vogue for such books as Bertha von Suttner's "Lay Down Your Arms," Ivan Bloch's "Future of War," which inspired the 1899 Hague peace conference, and Norman Angell's "Great Illusion." So it was that "at the beginning of the 20th century, as at the beginning of the 21st, a relatively peaceful Europe lived in a dangerously violent world." And yet even then there were powerful contrary forces plainly visible. In that age of ever more strident nationalism, chauvinists saw the army - and war - as the crucible forging national unity.


Great powers displayed their greatness with mass conscript armies, uniforms were seen everywhere and when a Bulgarian general said in 1910 that "we have become the most militaristic state in the world" it wasn't a lament but a boast. An unmistakable mood was bored with the very achievements of consensual government and material improvement, while "the revolt of the masses" itself had military implications, as some saw: well before 1914 Churchill said with chilling prescience that democracy was more vindictive than oligarchy, and "the wars of peoples will be more terrible than the wars of kings."

In the end the Party of Peace did win, but only after the catastrophe between 1914 and 1945, with bloodshed surpassing anything ever seen and an utterly unparalleled murder of innocents; a regression that remains an inexplicable moral mystery. In those years one might say that the best lacked all conviction and the worst were full of passionate intensity: even after the carnage of the trenches, an important minority - Russian Communists as well as Italian Fascists - still believed in "the regenerating value of violence," and this was brilliantly exploited by Hitler.


When the next war came it was waged just as he demanded, "with the greatest brutality and without mercy." Although Sheehan's title alludes to Europe since 1945, almost two-thirds of his narrative deals with the years up to then - but in a way those earlier years answer the question he poses. By the second half of the 20th century, having given a most vivid demonstration of Walter Benjamin's saying that civilization and barbarism are far from incompatible, Europe was exhausted and ashamed. For all the exigencies of the Cold War, there was an overwhelming desire never again to see real war, between France and Germany or among their neighbors.

The "trente glorieuses" after VE-Day saw three decades of astonishing economic growth, which coincided with another most remarkable change: "With or without a fight, Europeans abandoned their empires." This proved pure benefit for Europe, if not for the former colonies, and its further significance was that, as Sheehan says in a typically perceptive phrase, the brute force with which empire had been won and held now seemed anachronistic, "part of a vanished world in which the ability to wage war had been centrally important to what it meant to be a state." From the 1970s the economy stalled while Europe faced numerous social problems. And yet as the Cold War ran down the clock, it became gradually clearer that liberal democracy and a market economy mitigated by welfare had won a complete political victory over "actually existing socialism." At the same time Europe was fully "civilianized": conscription was abandoned, armies themselves assimilated the values of civilian society and, as the great English military historian Michael Howard has put it, "death was no longer seen as being part of the social contract."


But life is full of surprises. Sheehan's book is sprinkled with confident but foolish predictions, like H. N. Brailsford averring in the early summer of 1914 that "there will be no more wars among the six great powers," or The Economist in September of that year dilating on "the economic and financial impossibility of carrying out hostilities many more months on the present scale."


Just more than 70 years later, as cocksure as ever and as wrong, that magazine asserted in 1985 "that nothing much will have changed by the year 2025." Shortly after those words were published, the Berlin Wall fell, the Soviet empire imploded and savage violence consumed the Balkans, whence so many of Europe's woes had long stemmed.


Here Sheehan is most sagacious. He sees that the game was up for the Soviet regime the moment Gorbachev disavowed "force and the threat of force," and he gets the breakup of Yugoslavia right. In late 1991, at the insistence of the German government, the European Union recognized the sovereignty of Slovenia and Croatia, and then Bosnia, crucially and disastrously before the nationality questions in those territories had been resolved. This encouraged a competitive round of territorial acquisition and ethnic expulsion and "intensified the predatory war being fought by Serbs and Croatians against Bosnia." It was of course ludicrous as well as hubristic for Jacques Poos, foreign minister of Luxembourg, to say at this juncture that "the hour of Europe has dawned," but trans-Atlantic denunciations of European weakness were also misplaced. When the tub-thumpers of Capitol Hill and the op-ed pages were asked 15 years ago what kind of military intervention in the Balkans they had in mind, it turned out to mean American air cover while the West Europeans provided the PBI, as the British Army used to say, the poor bloody infantry, a division of labor that had little appeal in Europe.


What sense does "Mars and Venus" have in the light of the past century, and the price paid by different countries? In 1914-18, 1.3 million Frenchmen were killed defending their country, which is to say more than twice as many as all the Americans who have died in every foreign war from 1776 until today. There has been much anguish about American casualties in Iraq, where last year was the worst since 2003, with all of 901 deaths.

Reading that, the European may reflect silently on the dates Aug. 22, 1914, when 27,000 French soldiers were killed in a day, or July 1, 1916, when 20,000 British troops died.


It isn't necessary to agree with Evelyn Waugh writing to his friend Graham Greene - "Of course the Americans are cowards. They are almost all the descendants of wretches who deserted their legitimate monarchs for fear of military service" - to see clearly that the United States isn't a warlike country at all. In many ways it has always been more deeply peaceable in its instincts than ever Europe was

And is the civilianization of Europe such a bad thing? Although there has been much grumbling about the Bundeswehr's inadequate contribution in Afghanistan, some of us cannot see it as an occasion for pure regret if the Germans have changed character so drastically. In World War II, the Wehrmacht was unquestionably the best army, man for man and unit for unit, not least against the less ferocious "citizens in uniform" of the British and American Armies. Is that really a cause for British or American shame? When German rearmament began in the 1950s, at American urging, Gustav Heinemann resigned as Adenauer's interior minister, with the words, "God took arms out of our hands twice; we must not take hold of them a third time." Was he so wrong?


In a bravura final chapter Sheehan explains "Why Europe Will Not Become a Super-power." As he recognizes, the European Union is already a superstate economically, but its failure to develop a common foreign and defense policy will continue to disappoint some enthusiasts.


One can talk about European soft power against American hard power, but the point is made better by Sheehan in the peroration to this excellent book. The birth of the Bolshevik regime - and then of Fascist and National Socialist regimes - was a direct consequence of the "intense violence" then poisoning Europe. The astonishingly peaceful collapse of Communism rather more than 70 years later reflected in turn "the decline of violence that, by the 1980s, had transformed international and domestic politics throughout Europe": a change for the better if ever there was one. To put it another way, soccer is not only England's and Europe's gift to all mankind. It really is a better game.


Geoffrey Wheatcroft's books include "The Controversy of Zion," "The Strange Death of Tory England" and "Yo, Blair!" He is writing a book on Churchill's reputation before and since his death.


http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/06/arts/IDLEDE9.php?page=1

[baggygreen]

wonderful article there... nicely written methinks

as for the message it carries, well, thats great, provided that everyone else in the world plays along. just remember though that worst case scenario is that the european nations are caught pants around ankles and heads in sand.

I think a major inter-european conflict in unlikely for the next 100, maybe even 150 years, but i do think there'll be another one. Too many differences and too much history imo

[Hakahura]

"America is from Mars and Europe is from Venus"

So that must mean that Great Britain is Planet Earth, stuck between the two of them.

Where does that leave our Antipodean cousins? Far side of Pluto?

Lucky them I say.

[August]

Where does that leave our Antipodean cousins?

Somewhere near Uranus... :smug:

[Hakahura]

:rotfl:

[Torplexed]

America is from Mars, Europe is from Venus.

In other words, nothing has changed since the 1980s...;)

http://neptoon.homestead.com/HorseyCartoon.jpg

[geetrue]

Gizz use to slap my wrist if I pasted a whole article, but I like it ... I just don't always have time to follow a link, reluctant is the word.

I'm from Texas, but I think my last wife was from Mars ... she had a little birth mark on her inner thigh ... How about ya'll. :yep:

[3Jane]

LOL, nothing has changed sine the 1700s more like

[sonar732]

Good article...I'm just waiting for Sky to give his typical page an a half rendition. ;):smug::know:

[mrbeast]

Good article:up:

[bradclark1]

worst case scenario is that the european nations are caught pants around ankles and heads in sand.
Thats how every war gets started. Peace through awareness and superior firepower is the only way to stop war.

[JSLTIGER]

Where does that leave our Antipodean cousins?
Somewhere near Uranus... :smug:

Didn't see that one coming...:roll:

[orwell]

Who would have ever thought someone could put american football in a positive light, good job.

[3Jane]

worst case scenario is that the european nations are caught pants around ankles and heads in sand. Thats how every war gets started. Peace through awareness and superior firepower is the only way to stop war.

That is of course how the two world wars were prevented.

[August]

worst case scenario is that the european nations are caught pants around ankles and heads in sand. Thats how every war gets started. Peace through awareness and superior firepower is the only way to stop war.
That is of course how the two world wars were prevented.

Actually in both world wars awareness and superior firepower were both severely lacking.

[bradclark1]

worst case scenario is that the european nations are caught pants around ankles and heads in sand. Thats how every war gets started. Peace through awareness and superior firepower is the only way to stop war.

That is of course how the two world wars were prevented.
Who had the superior firepower in both wars at the beginning? Germany and ????? Most nations closed their minds to the tell tale signs because it was easier to hope than take preventative action. You have a big barrel sticking in the belligerents face they wouldn't risk it. Nations attack only when they think they can win.

[FIREWALL]

Where does that leave our Antipodean cousins?
Somewhere near Uranus... :smug:

Didn't see that one coming...:roll:



:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[SUBMAN1]

...Nations attack only when they think they can win.Very true words my friend.

-S

[FIREWALL]

http://img.iht.com/images/2008/02/08/9idlede9550.jpg

The guy third from the left looks familiar. :p

[AntEater]

The "effeminate Europe" thing is BS.
First, I feel personally insulted by it.
Second, there are other ways of being manly than constantly talking about killing or preparing to kill or focusing your entire policy on killing people.

The notion that americans are more war like might stem from the fact that nobody (except for some japanese baloons) ever terror-bombed US cities and no one except americans themselves ever fought a land war on american soil, and even that was a long time ago. Most americans know war from TV. Those on this forum might be different, though.
Keep in mind most European countries had the equivalent of two or three 911s every day for six years, and many of those who witnessed that are still around. And at least every german, british, french or italian knows someone who was there when it happened. We all grew up with WW2 stories and most of them didnt deal with glory and medals but with nearly burning to death in air raid shelters, getting strafed by fighter-bombers or nearly getting buried alive by a T-34.
Simply put, for Americans war means going there and winning or at least coming back, while for Europeans war means it comes to you and you've got to survive.
Ok, for most americans war actually didn't mean going there but watching a minority of americans go there and most of them came back.
This different view on war goes back far longer than WW2 or WW1. War has always been in Europe. How many wars were fought in the US? Two? Three if you count 1812..
For most Europeans in the past 600 years, wars were something that everyone experienced at least once in their lifetime. European monarchs made war every few years over reasons mostly totally incomprehensible to today's standards.
Some people in Heidelberg were sacked and looted twice by the Imperials, once by the swedes and three times by the french in their lifetimes.
While the battles themselves were not as bloody as today, wars brought plunderings, mass rapes, disease, stolen or failed harvests and political turmoil.
That sounds far away today, but the grandfathers of the soldiers of WW1 still remembered Napoleon's times and our own great-grandfathers still remembered WW1.

I should devote an entire post to the german military today some time, but given the Afghanistan mess, there has been a renewed interest in military affairs in Germany recently.

Finally, you cannot judge a nation or even a continent by what their media writes or what their politicians say.
Of all europeans I know, I'd judge only two or three to be effeminate peacenicks while of all americans I know (in real life) I've sofar failed to find any war-loving "sons of mars" (or primitive bragging warmongers) even among the active servicemen I knew.



BTW, WTF happened to my Avatar????
Is that because i'm an effeminate european?????

[joegrundman]

worst case scenario is that the european nations are caught pants around ankles and heads in sand. Thats how every war gets started. Peace through awareness and superior firepower is the only way to stop war.

That is of course how the two world wars were prevented.
Who had the superior firepower in both wars at the beginning? Germany and ????? Most nations closed their minds to the tell tale signs because it was easier to hope than take preventative action. You have a big barrel sticking in the belligerents face they wouldn't risk it. Nations attack only when they think they can win.

I do not understand your point and to my poor brain it seems you contradict yourself by saying on the one hand nations only go to war if they think they can win, and on the other hand the possession of superior firepower is the only assurance of peace. Surely if you think you have superior firepower, how can you not also think you can win a fight?

There are hundreds of books detailing the origin of WW1, and many of them will cite the arms race between the great powers as being one of the primary causes. This was coupled with a belief in the power of the offensive and a failure to grasp that at that time the strategic balance had shifted strongly in favour of the defensive. Along with lots of other reasons too..

An arms race being excatly the situation whereby each power tries to attain superiority of firepower without decisive results. Clearly in this case the fact that no one power had superiorty did not lead to peace.

However, on the otherhand, the reason Iraq invaded Kuwait was because it did believe it had superiority of firepower. It also believed that noone else would think it worth fighting about becasue the strength of his army would deter others.

The US on the otherhand felt it had ample superiority of firepower to go ahead and fight the Gulf War with reasonable expectations of winning at low cost to themselves in terms of blood.

However look at the second Gulf War. The reason the US attacked Iraq with such blithe disregard for the consequences is precisely because of confidence in the vast superiority of its firepower.

And I put it to you that the reason neither the US nor the USSR attacked each other was because neither power believed it had the superiorty of firepower necessary to win at acceptable loss to themselves.

Thus in conclusion i say that the relationship of superiority of firepower to the incidence of war is not as simple as you stated

[kiwi_2005]

Good article...I'm just waiting for Sky to give his typical page an a half rendition. ;):smug::know:

yep me too, waiting for the 5 page essay..

[TarJak]

Thus in conclusion i say that the relationship of superiority of firepower to the incidence of war is not as simple as you stated Nice post Joe! Well thought out and articulated. As usual as humans we attempt to simplify the complex. War's and their causes are extremely complex and simply stating that this one factor or the other is the root cause is naive in the extreme.

[bradclark1]

I do not understand your point and to my poor brain it seems you contradict yourself by saying on the one hand nations only go to war if they think they can win, and on the other hand the possession of superior firepower is the only assurance of peace. Surely if you think you have superior firepower, how can you not also think you can win a fight?
Let me put it like this. If France had superior firepower Germany would not have attacked. If Germany was better informed and more aware about the Soviet military Germany would not have attacked in WW2.
If I have a knife and you have a 357 magnum I won't attack you. I wouldn't even want to make you mad at me. If that is the case there is no fight. You have superior firepower therefore I won't attack. Turn that around. I have a 357 magnum and all you have is a knife, you are toast my friend. Understand?

There are hundreds of books detailing the origin of WW1, and many of them will cite the arms race between the great powers as being one of the primary causes. This was coupled with a belief in the power of the offensive and a failure to grasp that at that time the strategic balance had shifted strongly in favour of the defensive. Along with lots of other reasons too..
Hate to tell you but you don't know what you are talking about.
The arms race was naval only. Germany wanted to be "the" naval superpower. My take on the reason for the war was ill feelings over the war of 1870 and the lands that France took plus the huge amount of steel and coal mines on that land. Those natural resources had to be brought in by ship because Germany had very small quantities within there borders.
Austria thought they were badder then what they actually were and thought they would teach the Serbs a lesson. Throw in all the treaties that were out there and you have a mess.
From 1870 to 1945 was one big war with breaks in between. It was a lot about anger and payback to put it as simply as possible.

An arms race being excatly the situation whereby each power tries to attain superiority of firepower without decisive results. Clearly in this case the fact that no one power had superiority did not lead to peace.

You are putting the cart before the horse. The only race was naval power. The Kaiser thought GB wouldn't even get involved so this "arms race" wasn't even a factor. I haven't read a book yet that call "arms race" a factor. You talk like it was decided in advance who would be involved. That is a way wrong assumption. If the war had gone according to plan GB and Russia wouldn't have even been in it. The low lands would have just rolled over and let Germany use them as an invasion route to take France from the flank. So before reality set in Germany and Austria thought they had the superiority to win.

However, on the otherhand, the reason Iraq invaded Kuwait was because it did believe it had superiority of firepower. It also believed that noone else would think it worth fighting about becasue the strength of his army would deter others.

The US on the otherhand felt it had ample superiority of firepower to go ahead and fight the Gulf War with reasonable expectations of winning at low cost to themselves in terms of blood.

Right about the first part wrong about the second. Iraq took a gamble that the west would not intervene. He lost the gamble. Also it was a coalition led by the U.S. not just the U.S.

However look at the second Gulf War. The reason the US attacked Iraq with such blithe disregard for the consequences is precisely because of confidence in the vast superiority of its firepower.
No. What the U.S. did was think that Iraqis would be so grateful for making them free. They won the war then the Arab reality kicked in.
They didn't have a blithe disregard they totally misunderstood the Arab mind. This is a whole other topic.

And I put it to you that the reason neither the US nor the USSR attacked each other was because neither power believed it had the superiorty of firepower necessary to win at acceptable loss to themselves.
I'd say that was common sense. They each had a 357 magnum pointing at each others head.

Thus in conclusion i say that the relationship of superiority of firepower to the incidence of war is not as simple as you stated
Without writing a volume it is as simply stated as possible. If you want to argue history read up on it a little. Not trying to be smart ass when I say that.

[bradclark1]

Thus in conclusion i say that the relationship of superiority of firepower to the incidence of war is not as simple as you stated Nice post Joe! Well thought out and articulated. As usual as humans we attempt to simplify the complex. War's and their causes are extremely complex and simply stating that this one factor or the other is the root cause is naive in the extreme.
It also helps to know a little of the history of that time frame. Arms race was maybe eight percent of nothing much. The Kaiser assumed that Great Britain would not get involved so the "arms race" wasn't even a factor.

[CCIP]

America: Priding itself on war-readiness, having fought no wars on home soil for over 140 years and having lost a low single-digit percentage of troops and a miniscule fraction of civilians out of the total WWI and II casualties and as compared to the Europeans.

Seriously, I would love to see what the macho conservative American's attitude to war would be tens of millions of dead sons and daughters later :hmm:

[joegrundman]

I do not understand your point and to my poor brain it seems you contradict yourself by saying on the one hand nations only go to war if they think they can win, and on the other hand the possession of superior firepower is the only assurance of peace. Surely if you think you have superior firepower, how can you not also think you can win a fight?
Let me put it like this. If France had superior firepower Germany would not have attacked. If Germany was better informed and more aware about the Soviet military Germany would not have attacked in WW2.
If I have a knife and you have a 357 magnum I won't attack you. I wouldn't even want to make you mad at me. If that is the case there is no fight. You have superior firepower therefore I won't attack. Turn that around. I have a 357 magnum and all you have is a knife, you are toast my friend. Understand?


Agreed, but what if the person intending to do the attacking IS the one with the gun and his intended victim only has a knife? You seem to imply that such a scenario is implausible. But cases where the very heavily armed attack the far less-well armed are many.

A few additional examples:
Hitler's Germany and the Soviet Union attack Poland in 1939
The US attacks and annexes Native American territory
Britain and France absorb almost all of Africa into their respective Empires
Russia expands all the way to the pacific absorbing any number of central asian nations
China invades Tibet.


However look at the second Gulf War. The reason the US attacked Iraq with such blithe disregard for the consequences is precisely because of confidence in the vast superiority of its firepower.
No. What the U.S. did was think that Iraqis would be so grateful for making them free. They won the war then the Arab reality kicked in.
They didn't have a blithe disregard they totally misunderstood the Arab mind. This is a whole other topic.

I think your response avoids the main point - which is that the fact of US superiorty of firepower did not avert war

And I put it to you that the reason neither the US nor the USSR attacked each other was because neither power believed it had the superiorty of firepower necessary to win at acceptable loss to themselves.
I'd say that was common sense. They each had a 357 magnum pointing at each others head.

So neither had superiority of firepower and the result was an uneasy peace.

Clearly I don't know as much of history as you do, but I am of the opinion that cases abound where the stronger attack the weaker. Wars may start because one party perceives their chance of winning as high and the rewards worth the risk. Some wars become nasty and long when the other party turns out to be tougher than the attacker supposed.

Much of the quest for nations to have an adequate defense is because they have long perceived weakness to be an invitation to attack, and not a guarantee that it won't happen.

Once a nation's quest for security develops to such a stage that other nations begin to fear its capabilites they will also try to strengthen themselves, by alliance or by rearmamanent on the grounds that if they appear to be weak they themeselves are liable to be attacked.

Am I missing your point here or what? Please explain more clearly why it is that peace is guaranteed if one side is far stronger than the other. What stops the stronger from attacking?

[August]

America: Priding itself on war-readiness, having fought no wars on home soil for over 140 years and having lost a low single-digit percentage of troops and a miniscule fraction of civilians out of the total WWI and II casualties and as compared to the Europeans.

Seriously, I would love to see what the macho conservative American's attitude to war would be tens of millions of dead sons and daughters later :hmm:

Probably the same attitude as anyone else who has lost a child :roll: but have you ever thought that our attitudes on war might be at least part of why we HAVEN'T had to fight a war on our soil in 140 years (not counting Pearl Harbor, Wake and the Aleutian islands of course)?

[joegrundman]

America: Priding itself on war-readiness, having fought no wars on home soil for over 140 years and having lost a low single-digit percentage of troops and a miniscule fraction of civilians out of the total WWI and II casualties and as compared to the Europeans.

Seriously, I would love to see what the macho conservative American's attitude to war would be tens of millions of dead sons and daughters later :hmm:

Probably the same attitude as anyone else who has lost a child :roll: but have you ever thought that our attitudes on war might be at least part of why we HAVEN'T had to fight a war on our soil in 140 years (not counting Pearl Harbor, Wake and the Aleutian islands of course)?

:roll: And do you not think that might have something to do with your geographical situation?

[bradclark1]

Agreed, but what if the person intending to do the attacking IS the one with the gun and his intended victim only has a knife? You seem to imply that such a scenario is implausible. But cases where the very heavily armed attack the far less-well armed are many.

My whole position is if a peacefully nation has superior firepower an aggressor most likely will not attack so it stands to reason that an aggressor with superior firepower will attack the weaker nation. "Nations attack only when they think they can win." I said that on my first post. That covers 90% on the nature of warring nations. I really don't understand the point you are trying to make.
I think your response avoids the main point - which is that the fact of US superiority of firepower did not avert war
It's not a point. The U.S. invaded Iraq to remove a regime because this administration thought that Iraq had WMD and supported terrorism. That was supposedly the reason anyway. I think history proved that Saddam was a gambler and bet big. He lost big.
Much of the quest for nations to have an adequate defense is because they have long perceived weakness to be an invitation to attack, and not a guarantee that it won't happen.
Once a nation's quest for security develops to such a stage that other nations begin to fear its capabilities they will also try to strengthen themselves, by alliance or by rearmamanent on the grounds that if they appear to be weak they themeselves are liable to be attacked.
Am I missing your point here or what? Please explain more clearly why it is that peace is guaranteed if one side is far stronger than the other. What stops the stronger from attacking?
You are right on the first two. We have a disconnect somewhere.
"Nations attack only when they think they can win." When they think they are stronger.
Germany had more than quadruple the large caliber artillery as France. What France had was mainly 75mm.
Germany had triple the machine guns.
Germany had a bigger standing army than France. France was mainly reserves.
If France was better armed and had a larger standing army than Germany in all likelyhood they would not have been attacked. You aren't going to attack another nation if you stand a good chance of being defeated.
There are no guarantee's but the odds are it's unlikely that a leopard will attack a tiger.
What stops the stronger from attacking?
Nothing stops the stronger from attacking if it's an aggressor and thinks it would win. If however a nation is peaceful and has a strong military it is unlikely that a weaker nation will attack.

[bradclark1]

America: Priding itself on war-readiness, having fought no wars on home soil for over 140 years and having lost a low single-digit percentage of troops and a miniscule fraction of civilians out of the total WWI and II casualties and as compared to the Europeans.

Seriously, I would love to see what the macho conservative American's attitude to war would be tens of millions of dead sons and daughters later :hmm:
On the western front in WW2, America had more military casualties than any other nation. We paid a higher price than any European nation.
Show me any European nation that lost tens of millions.

[SUBMAN1]

On the western front in WW2, America had more military casualties than any other nation. We paid a higher price than any European nation.
Show me any European nation that lost tens of millions.This is true. Sad that people don't give a crap about it.

-S

[August]

And do you not think that might have something to do with your geographical situation?
Show me where i said it didn't. Reading comprehension FTW.

[XXi]

America: Priding itself on war-readiness, having fought no wars on home soil for over 140 years and having lost a low single-digit percentage of troops and a miniscule fraction of civilians out of the total WWI and II casualties and as compared to the Europeans.

Seriously, I would love to see what the macho conservative American's attitude to war would be tens of millions of dead sons and daughters later :hmm: On the western front in WW2, America had more military casualties than any other nation. We paid a higher price than any European nation.
Show me any European nation that lost tens of millions.
?
Whole Western Front was secondary in losses and amount of soldiers involved to the Eastern Front. Plus, you`re forgetting the scale of the conflict which makes your statement sound... well, strange to say the least. Besides, you`re forgetting civilian loses. Just one example: true, Poland lost just about 160,000 men in the military. I undersand, that over 5 million civilians, including Jews doesn`t count, right?
The Red Army had much more casualties throughout the war than the American army. USSR lost approx. 25-27 millions and it wasn`t the only country that suffered really heavy loses.

I guess that`s the point - America has not expierienced an exhausting war fought on the American soil and it`s good at least one nation was spared such expierience.
In Europe, it was all other - except few countries that managed, on various purposes, to remain neutral for both wars, every nation suffered heavy casualties and expierienced a total war.
Remember 911? It was a tragedy and a shock, to be sure. There was a lot of talking about a tremendous loss of life and a deep wound to the America. All true, but on the other hand I couldn`t stop thinking about my city, Warsaw. During the Warsaw uprising, for two months, similiar amount of people were killed every single day. During whole war, the city was destroyed to a degree similiar to Hiroshima, with most of the buildings demolished and about half of the population killed, sent to concentration camp, massacred. The results - in both society and the architecture of the city are very visible even today.

Please, spare me the text about the higher price as there were more cities that met similiar fate. There were armies that have lost just as many people as the American Army or more, if not in WW2 then in WW1.
You can say that there`s a conncetion between amount of the French losses in WW1 and their behaviour in WW2, no to wonder actually.

Now, just to sketch an idea how result of the war may affect the people`s feelings about war:

imagine that there was a war on the American soil now. No matter, with whom, no matter the result actually. Ok, let`s imagine that America wins and that the nuclear weapon has not been used and all finished relatively well.
Except the fact that both Coasts have been crushed. Except the fact that New York has been destroyed with most of its habitants. Except the fact the LA region is no more - it has been bombed, then invaded with most civilians executed or killed instantly. Except the fact that most major American cities and military bases are just ruins now. Except the fact that country`s industry and high-tech areas are deserted. Except the fact that people are starving and the country`s administration is shattered. Finally, except the fact that more than 50 mln Americans got killed and most of them were civilians and from military, 50% of conscripted men are never to return or return as handicapated.

Now think how such expierience could change the people`s minds towards war.

It`s good that there`s at least one nation not willing to give up and fight when necessary. I`m absolutely serious about this one. Just please keep in mind what could affect the other`s people view.

[mrbeast]

US fatalities in WWII 418,500 (0.32% of total population)

British fatalities in WWII 450,400 (0.94%)

Franch fatalities in WWII 562,000 (1.35%)

Polish fatalities in WWII 5,600,000 (16.07!)

Soviet Union fatalities in WWII 23,100,000 (13.71)

[SUBMAN1]

US fatalities in WWII 418,500 (0.32% of total population)

British fatalities in WWII 450,400 (0.94%)

Franch fatalities in WWII 562,000 (1.35%)

Polish fatalities in WWII 5,600,000 (16.07!)

Soviet Union fatalities in WWII 23,100,000 (13.71) This graph does not agree with your above military results. The US has more than France and the British:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/95/WorldWarII-DeathsByCountry-Barchart.png/800px-WorldWarII-DeathsByCountry-Barchart.png

[August]

Just please keep in mind what could affect the other`s people view.

Nobody is debating that, though it must be said that precious few living Europeans have experienced war, whereas we have war vets as young as 18. Perhaps it is because of that fact that Europeans may have forgotten the historical penalty for not having the ability to defend yourself.

[bradclark1]

Whole Western Front was secondary in losses and amount of soldiers involved to the Eastern Front. Plus, you`re forgetting the scale of the conflict which makes your statement sound... well, strange to say the least. Besides, you`re forgetting civilian loses. Just one example: true, Poland lost just about 160,000 men in the military. I undersand, that over 5 million civilians, including Jews doesn`t count, right?
The Red Army had much more casualties throughout the war than the American army. USSR lost approx. 25-27 millions and it wasn`t the only country that suffered really heavy loses.
Not strange. I specified Western Front. You also forgot China who lost slightly more than Russia. CCIP was talking specifically about Europe and it's losses (thats what I gathered anyway). No European country lost tens of millions of people so no, Polish civilian losses weren't tens of millions. I'm not downplaying civilian losses, I'm saying it wasn't tens of millions. The word tens to me means more than twenty million. The American armed forces had a bigger loss then most of the European military forces in WW2. Considering we weren't even threatened by the Axis powers our military losses count for a hell of a lot.
You are correct the U.S. has not had a foreign invader since 1812. The U.S. did not have to get involved in any European war yet we did. And it's doubtful that Germany would have lost either war without U.S. involvement. Am I suppose to feel guilty because we didn't loose millions? I'm not. We volunteered in each war.
I was answering specific questions. If you don't like my answers I'm sorry. What I answered is facts to those questions. Tell me where I'm wrong.
Now think how such expierience could change the people`s minds towards war.
What has that got to do with having a strong military as a deterrent to aggression?
It`s good that there`s at least one nation not willing to give up and fight when necessary. I`m absolutely serious about this one. Just please keep in mind what could affect the other`s people view.
I appreciate that but peoples views doesn't change the reality of a stronger military.
I will say this however because you really don't hear anything about it. Male populations. I can't speak about Poland because I haven't seen any data on it.
Even prior to WW1 the German male population has been on the rise while France's was on the decline.
WW1 devastated France's male population and put a good dent in the GB's but Germany was able to recover better than GB. By WW2 France"s male population was still on the decline so could they have fielded a bigger military? I don't believe so. That is one of the reasons that today France has such a huge Muslim population because they were needed to fill out the working manpower and militarily put a lot on it's Foreign Legion. German losses from WW1 and WW2 account for Germany's large Turkish population.
Great Britain had mobilized virtually every eligible adult male and was stretched to the breaking point which put a dent in Monty's ability to perform to expectations.
So. Could WW2 have been avoided? I don't believe so. But it is ammunition for fielding as big a military as possible so it doesn't happen again.

[AntEater]

Actually, the Turks did not fill population losses.
The italians, greeks, yugoslavians, spaniards and portuguese did.
The turks only started arriving in large numbers AFTER reconstruction was complete in the late 60s, basically due to retention of the guestworker laws, even though no one was needed anymore, mostly filling low wage jobs, while the original guestworkers from european countries worked in the industry.
But it is really strange that 7 years after 911, it is still treated as a national trauma:
In my vicinity, there's a medium sized town called Darmstadt. It had some chemical industries and Princess Alexandra of Russia was born there, but apart from that, wholly unremarkable.
That town was terror bombed in September 1944. I say terror bombed because the Merck chemical plant was totally missed and still uses its prewar factory halls while the ancient town centre was turned to rubble. 11,000 people burned to death.
Basically everyone living in town center was killed.
Thats four 911s in a single night and 10% of the total population of 1939.
All in all, Darmstadt lost 40% of its population in the war.
Yet 7 years after, in 1951, it had almost regained its old population number and while the city is certainly not as beautiful as before, it was habitable again.
So if there's some people showing real "manliness", it was those who still had to dig out scorched remains after 10 years when building a new house. There was no forensic examination, no memorials, no photo walls.
Just a mass grave and some small plaque in the city.
The people of Darmstadt carried on. But maybe its not a national thing and everybody today is just a little more sensible than back in WW2.
Everyone of my grandparents went through hell and back in WW2, yet still everyone managed to lead a successful life and raise a family.

Re the fact that it is all long ago, I suppose the kids born today will be the first europeans who will grow up without hearing any first hand stories of those days.

[mrbeast]

I have to disargee there Subman

http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/6379/copyof800pxworldwariidesa1.jpg

I think it shows the UK slightly ahead there, possibly, but either way Britain and the US lost similar numbers during the war.

My figures also included civilian deaths BTW

(incidently I have not edited that image in any way other than to crop it zoom it and apply a red border around the significant part)

[bradclark1]

Acknowledged on the Turks. I just know from being stationed in Germany, Mainz and larger cities around Budingen had a large Turkish population. Not nearly so in Baumholder. I assumed it was because of WW2. My bad.

But it is really strange that 7 years after 911, it is still treated as a national trauma:
I think it's because Iraq has a direct correlation with 9/11 so it's still very much on peoples minds. Americans are emotional about such things. It's part of our makeup. I know that Munich had a impact for a good while in Germany.
A small number is a tragedy, a large number is a statistic. (A quote stolen from Stalin more or less).

[SUBMAN1]

I have to disargee there Subman



I think it shows the UK slightly ahead there, possibly, but either way Britain and the US lost similar numbers during the war.

My figures also included civilian deaths BTW

(incidently I have not edited that image in any way other than to crop it zoom it and apply a red border around the significant part)Oh I know you haven't edited it. That dark part on the UK one is civi deaths - supposed to be green but its pretty small in number aboe the red bar. That is what you have the large blue bar to the bottom of that. The US is barely ahead, but not by anything significant. Its not a number one should be proud of either. It just puts it into perspective.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

But it is really strange that 7 years after 911, it is still treated as a national trauma...
It is and always will be. One could understand it if it were part of war, but this is an attack during peace and will never be truely forgiven or forgotten. Same goes with Pearl Harbor - never truely forgiven or forgotten.

-S

[bradclark1]

I have to disargee there Subman



I think it shows the UK slightly ahead there, possibly, but either way Britain and the US lost similar numbers during the war.

My figures also included civilian deaths BTW

(incidently I have not edited that image in any way other than to crop it zoom it and apply a red border around the significant part)Oh I know you haven't edited it. That dark part on the UK one is civi deaths - supposed to be green but its pretty small in number aboe the red bar. That is what you have the large blue bar to the bottom of that. The US is barely ahead, but not by anything significant. Its not a number one should be proud of either. It just puts it into perspective.

-S

Great Britain lost 264,000 soldiers. The United States lost 292,000 soldiers.

[XXi]

@Augustus

Actually, there are more veterans at similiar age in Poland, thanks to Iraq. However, this are just my two cents.
You`re right about the ability to self - defence: lack of it and fear of war was one of the reasons Hitler could rise in power so quickly and effectively, just to name one striking example. I`m not arguing with this point as I agree that modern-day Europe seems to have way too little, too uneffective military power. It doesn`t have to be big in numbers, but it has to be effective. It isn`t :nope:
There`s one general problem: in the WWI era, most opponents of the European countries were other European countries. I`d like to discuss the matter separately, just not in one post. The modern era is different story, again, to be discussed.

@bradclark1

First, Russia is considered to be European country, so I must disagree and I must say that`s why I didn`t want to write about China, which is not European country. Even, if there are some controversies about this. Second, as I wrote: the Western Front wasn`t the only theatre of war. Third, why tens of millions? Do you want to claim that one fallen American is worth like ten Europeans? Besides, the numbers you`re claiming have little to do without the proper scale adn that, no4: it`s hard to imagine that countries which had significantly less people could loose just as many people as Americans. American Army was leading force in the West, no wonder it suffered greatest loses.
Still, and that`s the point number five: there were countries who had suffered heavier loses and there were battles with more people killed that there were in whole US military during the war.
So I`m not quite sure why do you state that the America paid higher price than any European nation. That`s the point.

As for strong military - what I wanted to point out is the fact that with some historical trauma, nations might seek other solutions that strong military power in order to defend themselves. It doesn`t have to mean the other means are always right - it just means that sometimes, people have enough of war so much that they don`t want to have anything with it anymore.

Which is sometimes very short-sightened behaviour.

@Subman
in Poland, there is similiar trauma connected to September 1st and German agression. There was no ofical declaration of war before it really started. Early in the morning, Luftwaffe attacked a non-military target, city of Wielun, killing hundreds of people. Just minutes later, 'Schlezwig-Holstein' opened fire on Westerplatte and in the same time first Luftwaffe bomber squadrons were flying against first civilian and military targets. There was no warning...
Such things are more traumatic that a war that starts with declaration, I must say.

[mrbeast]

I have to disargee there Subman



I think it shows the UK slightly ahead there, possibly, but either way Britain and the US lost similar numbers during the war.

My figures also included civilian deaths BTW

(incidently I have not edited that image in any way other than to crop it zoom it and apply a red border around the significant part)Oh I know you haven't edited it. That dark part on the UK one is civi deaths - supposed to be green but its pretty small in number aboe the red bar. That is what you have the large blue bar to the bottom of that. The US is barely ahead, but not by anything significant. Its not a number one should be proud of either. It just puts it into perspective.

-S

Yes the diagram is not very clear there. I found the pie chart interesting only 17% of the total killed during the war were on the Axis side.......victory has a high price.

[XXi]

The matter of power and why is Europe so militarily weak...

I think that the main reason why Europeans have not been willing to have strong military and to use the military for quite long time is, generally speaking, the long term effect of a post war trauma.
There are other reasons, like belief that the America is to fight ( IMO, its the Europe that should be able to defend itself though ) and lack of understainding that the real threat can be out there. But first things first.

The first deep impact on the Europe`s military effectivness was the World War One. Until the war, the European politics thought of war in similiar way than Americans: a good way of sorting things out if all other means fail. There were some signs that this is going to change, but hardly anyone notived it. The signs like effect of nationalism and ideas of total war against enemy`s nation were shadowed by the romantic wiev of war towards societies: a neccessity, but an adventure as well. World War One was perhaps the only war that started with total enthusiasm on both sides.
However, the war prooved to be brutal, very bloody and pointless. What made thigs worse, its result was indecisive: there was no ultimate victory, just an armistice as both sides were exhausted.
The shock due to the losses and pathetic outcome was one of the reasons why more and more people were asking questions, if war were good idea. Besides, there was a bitter effect of a fact that endless sacrifices resulted in nothing. Here, remember the Germans giving up everything in order to win or at least - sign a reasonable peace.

The result was an outbreak of pacifism and much decrease in a will to fight if necessary. Here, one additional and important remark: until then, the only possible real threat for an European country was OTHER European country, a situation that has little to do with the modern day. It was not a clear situation of America, where the enemies are always out there, not here.

WWII just made the pacifism deeper here and there as again, huge sacrifices resulted in moderate effects. That`s perhaps one of the huge differencies between American and European point of view towards war: boht world wars meant for European a bloodshed, heavy losses and no really good results. Why to suffer, why to sacrifice if there`s no good result to this?
Think of it, as America has not seen significant defeat in history and no victory at really high price.

As for the modern day: I think that one of the reasons why Europeans are so militarily weak is the fact that there`s no clearly visible oponent. I mean, European nations united so there`s a change of perspective - until recently, all oponents were in Europe. For many people, it`s hard to believe that once Germany or other European countries are within the same team, there are some real dangers and that they can be located in some distant parts of the world.
The second thing is, many people think that if matters go really bad, there`s always USA.

Personally, I think that EU has to mount a strong, common military force ready to be used. One of the problems of EU is the fact it reacts so slowly and use bureaucrats where quick decisions are needed. Generally speaking, I think that the very idea of EU is a good example of good idea that has been ultimately badly organized.

But that`s another story.

[bradclark1]

First, Russia is considered to be European country, so I must disagree and I must say that`s why I didn`t want to write about China, which is not European country. Even, if there are some controversies about this. Second, as I wrote: the Western Front wasn`t the only theatre of war.
Okay then Western Europe. That takes out all controversies. The conversation was about the Western Front in Western Europe. Therefore Russia was not part of it. I do understand what you are saying but the conversation is about the West.
So now it's mainly about semantics. If you wish to speak of the war overall then it does include China as well as Japan, Australia, New Zealand and where ever else I missed. My comments to this point concerned one geographical region whether you agreed with it or not.
Third, why tens of millions? Do you want to claim that one fallen American is worth like ten Europeans? Besides, the numbers you`re claiming have little to do without the proper scale adn that,
As I've said twice before CCIP used the term tens of millions. I was responding to him in regards to Western Europe on the Western Front. I can't be any plainer than that.
Still, and that`s the point number five: there were countries who had suffered heavier loses and there were battles with more people killed that there were in whole US military during the war.
So I`m not quite sure why do you state that the America paid higher price than any European nation. That`s the point.
Fact: The U.S. military lost more soldiers than any other nation on the allied side in the West European Western Front. That is fact. The Eastern Front was not included because it was in the east and not the west.
As for strong military - what I wanted to point out is the fact that with some historical trauma, nations might seek other solutions that strong military power in order to defend themselves. It doesn`t have to mean the other means are always right - it just means that sometimes, people have enough of war so much that they don`t want to have anything with it anymore.
I'm not disputing that people have had enough of war. I'm saying the best deterrent for war is a strong military. Because you have a strong military doesn't mean you have to be at war.
Here are total MILITARY losses:

Ellis & Clodfelter Military Losses Facts on File (1993)
* Poland, 1939
o Poles: 66,300
o Germans: 13,110
o [Soviets]: 900 ("Russians")
o [TOTAL: ca. 80,000]
* Denmark/Norway, 1940
o Ellis
+ Germans: 3,692
+ Norwegians: 2,000
+ Danes: -
+ [TOTAL: ca. 5,700]
o NWHA [http://www.nwha.org/news_1Q2004/news_page9.html]
+ Norwegians: 850
+ British: 4,000
+ French and Poles: 530
+ Germans: 1,300
+ [TOTAL: 6,680]
* France 1940
o French: 120,000
o Germans: 43,110
o British: 11,010
o Belgians: 7,500
o Dutch: 2,890
o Italians: 1,250
o [TOTAL: ca. 185,000]
* Balkans, 1941
o Yugoslavs: ?
o Italians: 38,830
o Greeks: 19,000
o Germans: 3,674 (K+W) [A total of 34,040 Germans were killed in the Balkans to 31 Dec. 1944]
o [TOTAL: ca. 160,000]
* Greece, 1940-41 (according to Gilbert, A History of the 20th Century)
o Italians: 13,755
o Greeks: 15,700
o Germans: 2,232
o British: 3,712
o [TOTAL: ca. 35,400]
* Eastern Front, 1941-45
o Ellis
+ [Soviets]: 11,000,000 ("Russians")
+ Germans: 2,415,690 (K+M+POWs, incl. SS troops, to Dec. 1944. Another est. is 1,001,680K + 1,287,140M = 2,288,820 in Field Army only, 22-June 1941-10 March 1945.)
+ Romanians: 381,000 (as Axis). 170,000 (as Allies)
+ Hungarians: 136,000
+ Poles: >40,000
+ Bulgarians: 32,000
+ [TOTAL: ca. 14,000,000]
o Clodfelter
+ [Soviets]: 7.5M to 12.0M ("Russians")
+ Germans: 1,001,000 kia
+ Romanians: 300,000 d.
+ Hungarians: 200,000 d.
+ [TOTAL: ca. 11,251,000 ± 2,250,000]
* North African Desert, 1941-43
o Ellis
+ Italians: 20,720
+ British: c. 7,000 in W. Desert + 6,230 in Tunisia
+ Germans: 12,810
+ Americans: 3,620
+ Australians: 3,150
+ French: 12,920 (all casualty types)
+ New Zealanders: 6,340 (incl. k. in Italy)
+ S. Africans: 2,100
+ Indians: 1,720
+ [TOTAL: 57,350, excl. French & New Z.]
o Clodfelter
+ British Commonwealth: 35,476 KIA
+ Germans: 18,594
+ Italians: 13,748
+ [TOTAL: 67,818]
* Italy, 1943-45
o British: 89,440 (K+W)
o Germans: 59,940 (KIA only, incl. SS troops, to Dec. 1944. Another est. is 46,800K + 208,240M = 255,040 in Field Army only, June 1941-10 April 1945.)
o Americans: 29,560
o French: 8,660
o Canadians: 5,400
o Indians: 4,720
o Poles: 2,460
o S. Africans: 710
o Brazilians: 510
o [TOTAL: ca. 125,000]
* China
o Chinese: 3,211,420 (all casualty types)
o Japanese: 388,600
o [TOTAL: ca. 1,200,000]
* Pacific, 1941-45
o Japanese: 685,230 Army & Marines + 414,880 Navy [=1,100,110]
o Americans: 55,060 Army & Marines + 36,950 Navy [=92,010]
o [TOTAL: ca. 1,192,120]
* NW Europe, 1944-45
o Ellis
+ Germans: 128,030 (KIA only, incl. SS troops, to Dec. 1944. Another est. is 80,820K + 490,260M = 571,080 in Field Army only, to April 1945.)
+ Americans: 109,820
+ British: 30,280
+ French: 12,590
+ Canadians: 10,740
+ Poles: 1,160
+ [TOTAL: 292,620]
o Clodfelter
+ Allies: 186,900 KIA, incl. 135,576 USA
+ Germans: 263,000 combat d. + 56,000 died as POWs [incl. died of wounds]
+ [TOTAL: 505,900]
* SE Asia
o Japanese: 210,830
o Indians: 6,860
o British: 5,670 (incl. POWs)
o Americans: 3,650
o Australians: 1,820
o Africans: 860
o [TOTAL: ca. 225,000]

[bradclark1]

In your last comments I'll agree with you but for one exception:
WWII just made the pacifism deeper here and there as again, huge sacrifices resulted in moderate effects.
I'd have to say that huge sacrifices saved the Jews and Slavs from annihilation and the European continent from enslavement. I wouldn't call any of that moderate effects.

[Fish]

The "effeminate Europe" thing is BS.
First, I feel personally insulted by it.
Second, there are other ways of being manly than constantly talking about killing or preparing to kill or focusing your entire policy on killing people.

The notion that americans are more war like might stem from the fact that nobody (except for some japanese baloons) ever terror-bombed US cities and no one except americans themselves ever fought a land war on american soil, and even that was a long time ago. Most americans know war from TV. Those on this forum might be different, though.
Keep in mind most European countries had the equivalent of two or three 911s every day for six years, and many of those who witnessed that are still around. And at least every german, british, french or italian knows someone who was there when it happened. We all grew up with WW2 stories and most of them didnt deal with glory and medals but with nearly burning to death in air raid shelters, getting strafed by fighter-bombers or nearly getting buried alive by a T-34.
Simply put, for Americans war means going there and winning or at least coming back, while for Europeans war means it comes to you and you've got to survive.
Ok, for most americans war actually didn't mean going there but watching a minority of americans go there and most of them came back.
This different view on war goes back far longer than WW2 or WW1. War has always been in Europe. How many wars were fought in the US? Two? Three if you count 1812..
For most Europeans in the past 600 years, wars were something that everyone experienced at least once in their lifetime. European monarchs made war every few years over reasons mostly totally incomprehensible to today's standards.
Some people in Heidelberg were sacked and looted twice by the Imperials, once by the swedes and three times by the french in their lifetimes.
While the battles themselves were not as bloody as today, wars brought plunderings, mass rapes, disease, stolen or failed harvests and political turmoil.
That sounds far away today, but the grandfathers of the soldiers of WW1 still remembered Napoleon's times and our own great-grandfathers still remembered WW1.

I should devote an entire post to the german military today some time, but given the Afghanistan mess, there has been a renewed interest in military affairs in Germany recently.

Finally, you cannot judge a nation or even a continent by what their media writes or what their politicians say.
Of all europeans I know, I'd judge only two or three to be effeminate peacenicks while of all americans I know (in real life) I've sofar failed to find any war-loving "sons of mars" (or primitive bragging warmongers) even among the active servicemen I knew.



BTW, WTF happened to my Avatar????
Is that because i'm an effeminate european?????

Good post. :up:

[Fish]

[ why we HAVEN'T had to fight a war on our soil in 140 years (not counting Pearl Harbor, Wake and the Aleutian islands of course)?

Like the UK, water, lots of water.