Macron calls for true European army

[Ülev]

Macron calls for 'real European army' to defend against Russia and US

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46108633
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/emmanuel-macron-european-army-france-russia-us-military-defence-eu-a8619721.html
https://www.thelocal.fr/20181106/macron-calls-for-real-european-army-to-defend-against-russia-and-us

[Ülev]

https://youtu.be/O39mivdYGAk

[Ayetooey]

Good idea if it were used to defend the southern border, but it won't be, just "Russia" lmao.

[Ülev]

Good idea if it were used to defend the southern border, but it won't be, just "Russia" lmao.

Russia and US :cool:
third global world power on the horizon

[Aspirin]

He needs to bring his personal army of tolerance, and Russia will be defeated.

http://images.niooz.fr/safe_image.php?clean=1&width=600&i=/cache/mediaid/2/5/8/7/8/3/25878300.jpg

[Graham]

How popular would that be? Loss of sovereignty or used on the borders of the EU to slow down migrations outwith.

[Ülev]

He needs to bring his personal army of tolerance, and Russia will be defeated.

[IMG

is Russia or US monolithic? :rolleyes:

[Ülev]

Russia and US has oil and gas resources, EU has to expand itself on south (and east) Mediterranean territory
this is why Syria and Libya were ... - choose whatever word you want

Union for the Mediterranean --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_for_the_Mediterranean
is our future and chance


https://youtu.be/f5s4ywsCFAI

[The Lawspeaker]

How about no ? I am all for joint-European purchasing programs and for programs which harmonizes our collective defense, but that's it !

[Ülev]

Bravo to Macron!

French President Macron derails Putin-Trump summit in Paris

See more at http://www.pravdareport.com/news/world/europe/06-11-2018/141937-putin_trump_paris-0/

[The Lawspeaker]

Bravo to Macron!

French President Macron derails Putin-Trump summit in Paris

See more at http://www.pravdareport.com/news/world/europe/06-11-2018/141937-putin_trump_paris-0/
This time I agree with Macron: Putin and Trump's planners were being very tactless and disrespectful here.

[Graham]

Macron has a thing for the military. Read a report he was to bring in mandatory national service for youth and increased military spending.

With Cold War II coming back soon, suppose he is ahead of the curve.

[Dragoon]

"Real European" army without: UK (world power and banking sector), Russia (also a world power, largest European population and land), Ukraine (largest European country exclud Russia), Belarus, several Balkan states.
What this Macron moron means is Germanic-French lead Muslim, pro sodomy, pro immigration, pro abortion, antiChristian, pretending to be Europe.

[MinervaItalica]

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

[Jana]

Idiot.

[Ülev]

Russia and US has oil and gas resources, EU has to expand itself on south (and east) Mediterranean territory
this is why Syria and Libya were ... - choose whatever word you want

Union for the Mediterranean --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_for_the_Mediterranean
is our future and chance


https://youtu.be/f5s4ywsCFAI

It seems I support Masonic movement :rolleyes:
or that's just imaginations of envy rivals ?


https://youtu.be/BYwiePBQG-c

[Ülev]

"Real European" army without: UK (world power and banking sector), Russia (also a world power, largest European population and land), Ukraine (largest European country exclud Russia), Belarus, several Balkan states.
What this Macron moron means is Germanic-French lead Muslim, pro sodomy, pro immigration, pro abortion, antiChristian, pretending to be Europe.

Jacques Chirac: la Pologne a perdu l'occasion de rester silencieuse - la guerre en Irak
https://pl.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jacques_Chirac
:cool:

[Ülev]

everything explained

https://youtu.be/BJK-Dyl3JI0

[Teutone]

What will this army be used for? Invasions for resources and NATO intrests.

Easier to start a war knowing it wont be fought by only your own population.

[Ülev]

watch two of videos I posted, these processes took place before - Huns, Vandals, Slavic migrations, 'discovery of America' etc., nothing new here, but the secret is how to plan that one group of people became winner and second will feel better than now and will never realise more

[Ülev]

https://youtu.be/qzjozIwbTzQ

Luz / Une armée européenne est-elle enfin possible ? - 28 minutes - ARTE --> https://youtu.be/NZsvVXjTMC0

[Ülev]

from RT


https://youtu.be/UEnKazJJhVU

[Ruggery]

Can I ask what this alleged European army that wants to create Macron will do? Defend the sovereignty of Europe against Russia, China, the United States and let us now add to the United Kingdom that is no longer a member of the European Union?

[The Lawspeaker]

How about we dump NATO and buy our own weapons ? What Trump is actually saying is: we should buy shoddy American weapons at high interest rates. No, fuck that ! We should buy our own weapons because we can make our own.

[The Lawspeaker]

If we look at most European Armies, you'd find out that much of the armament is actually European-made. Take for instance the Dutch Army (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_of_the_Royal_Netherlands_Army), Navy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Royal_Netherlands_Navy_ships) and Air Force (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Netherlands_Air_Force#Current_inventory). And many of the current orders for American equipment can be rescinded and replaced with European orders.

[Wanderer]

How about we dump NATO and buy our own weapons ? What Trump is actually saying is: we should buy shoddy American weapons at high interest rates. No, fuck that ! We should buy our own weapons because we can make our own.
I've never heard American weaponry described as subpar. In fact, I believe America makes the very best weapons in the world. I can understand if you want to manufacture your own weaponry. That being said, I agree with Trump's agenda on this matter.

[The Lawspeaker]

I've never heard American weaponry described as subpar. In fact, I believe America makes the very best weapons in the world. I can understand if you want to manufacture your own weaponry. That being said, I agree with Trump's agenda on this matter.

The F-35 comes to mind. And, yes, I believe we should leave NATO. This means that America should lose access to the European part of the Atlantic, can't pass through the Strait of Gibraltar, the Suez Canal should be closed off to them as well, they can't use European aerospace, they can't enter the Arctic Sea. Plus: they lose their bases in Greenland.

I wouldn't mind being in NATO but not with the U.S that we have seen for the last 35 years.

[Ülev]

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/34b-development-contract-signed-for-meads-0639/

[gıulıoımpa]

Macron calls for 'real European army' to defend against Russia and US

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46108633
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/emmanuel-macron-european-army-france-russia-us-military-defence-eu-a8619721.html
https://www.thelocal.fr/20181106/macron-calls-for-real-european-army-to-defend-against-russia-and-us


he wants to put France as a leader of the armed force of europe.

and knowing france's interests its' better to keep out if it. they are no different than the USA. yes to collaboration no to banks and oil dictatorship

[Wanderer]

The F-35 comes to mind. And, yes, I believe we should leave NATO. This means that America should lose access to the European part of the Atlantic, can't pass through the Strait of Gibraltar, the Suez Canal should be closed off to them as well, they can't use European aerospace, they can't enter the Arctic Sea. Plus: they lose their bases in Greenland.

I wouldn't mind being in NATO but not with the U.S that we have seen for the last 35 years.
NATO without the US would be quite absurd, since the US is practically the essence of NATO. America has the right to use Europe for our defense and military purposes, considering that we liberated it. Europeans are just going to have to live with it. None of this would have happened if Europeans weren't killing each other so often. You're lucky to be living in an era of relative peace and prosperity that has come with being an American protectorate.

[Hexachordia]

If we look at most European Armies, you'd find out that much of the armament is actually European-made. Take for instance the Dutch Army (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_of_the_Royal_Netherlands_Army), Navy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Royal_Netherlands_Navy_ships) and Air Force (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Netherlands_Air_Force#Current_inventory). And many of the current orders for American equipment can be rescinded and replaced with European orders.

No, american tech is the only solid reason Russia and China have not yet invade Europe militarily. Only if Japan and Europe allied, that could be better. But I do not trust europeans to defend their own countries, even Japan is more vigilant than you old worlder europeans. Soviet spies infiltrated Europe totally and purchased a lot of modern techs from and via Europe back in the 1970s. Europe highly will stab Japan and USA in the back and adulterate with communists if left alone. I can not tolerate another round of marxist revolution. I would rather let humanity become extinct.

[Ülev]

^^
https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?266734-Russian-spy-found-in-Austria

[The Lawspeaker]

No, american tech is the only solid reason Russia and China have not yet invade Europe militarily. Only if Japan and Europe allied, that could be better. But I do not trust europeans to defend their own countries, even Japan is more vigilant than you old worlder europeans. Soviet spies infiltrated Europe totally and purchased a lot of modern techs from and via Europe back in the 1970s. Europe highly will stab Japan and USA in the back and adulterate with communists if left alone. I can not tolerate another round of marxist revolution. I would rather let humanity become extinct.

The Russians are only causing trouble because the Americans are causing trouble. Funny how there was little trouble with the Russians before WWI.

[The Lawspeaker]

NATO without the US would be quite absurd, since the US is practically the essence of NATO. America has the right to use Europe for our defense and military purposes, considering that we liberated it. Europeans are just going to have to live with it. None of this would have happened if Europeans weren't killing each other so often. You're lucky to be living in an era of relative peace and prosperity that has come with being an American protectorate.

The Americans didn't liberate Europe: the Soviets and British did . Not a single European country was liberated by the Americans. Not one. The Americans mainly used the British and Canadians to do the fighting for them and then marched in themselves. And NATO ? We should scrap it and return to the WEU (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_Union) (as for the economical aspect: the EFTA) As for Europeans killing each other ? You should read Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, Killing Hope and NATO's Secret Armies and look up the role played by American banks and companies.

What American soldiers did in Europe is nicely covered in What Soldiers Do. As for the nefarious role NATO played in Western Europe watch BBC Timeline's Operation Gladio (1992):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUvrPvV-KQo

[Hexachordia]

The Russians are only causing trouble because the Americans are causing trouble. Funny how there was little trouble with the Russians before WWI.

russia also destroyed the Germanic kingdom by killing Archduke Ferdinand. They just hate german people, make sure they will deal with you. I am all for shredding russia and chicom if possible, but I will always respect western european ideas and yours eve if not in agreement.

[The Lawspeaker]

russia also destroyed the Germanic kingdom by killing Archduke Ferdinand. They just hate german people, make sure they will deal with you. I am all for shredding russia and chicom if possible, but I will always respect western european ideas and yours eve if not in agreement.

No.. that had nothing to do with the Russians. That was an insane Serb.

[Profileid]

The Americans didn't liberate Europe: the Soviets and British did . Not a single European country was liberated by the Americans. Not one. The Americans mainly used the British and Canadians to do the fighting for them and then marched in themselves. And NATO ? We should scrap it and return to the WEU (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_Union) (as for the economical aspect: the EFTA) As for Europeans killing each other ? You should read Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, Killing Hope and NATO's Secret Armies and look up the role played by American banks and companies.

What American soldiers did in Europe is nicely covered in What Soldiers Do. As for the nefarious role NATO played in Western Europe watch BBC Timeline's Operation Gladio (1992):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUvrPvV-KQo

The Soviet rape horde "liberated" Berlin huh?
Go fuck yourself

[The Lawspeaker]

The Soviet rape horde "liberated" Berlin huh?
Go fuck yourself

They raped only a few more than the yanks did. And they actually punished their soldiers for it - unlike the Americans. The Soviets shot of tens of thousands for that crime alone - how many did the Americans shoot ?

Indeed: in Miriam Gebhardt's Als die Soldaten kamen. Die Vergewaltigung deutscher Frauen am Ende des Zweiten Weltkriegs, the estimated number of victims by American troops in Germany alone, is at 190.000. The total number may be as high as 285.000 by Western Allied troops. Only 130 Allied soldiers were ever tried and convicted. Not even a quarter of them received due punishment.

In France, the number seems to be over 30.000 rapes alone (we're not even talking about other crimes), in Britain they went wild as well (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1516599/Wartime-GIs-went-on-rampage-of-rape-and-murder.html).
The total number of executions by the U.S Army in WWII, lies at 96. The number of crimes around 200.000.

[The Lawspeaker]

Indeed: such stuff still takes place today. Ten years ago, an American soldier (https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/-amerikaanse-militair-verdacht-van-verkrachting-in-arnhem-~b3096990/) raped a local Dutch girl and the American prosecution service intimidated the victim and protected the soldier from harm by moving him to the United States. He was never prosecuted.

[Thorns]

The Americans didn't liberate Europe: the Soviets and British did . Not a single European country was liberated by the Americans. Not one. The Americans mainly used the British and Canadians to do the fighting for them and then marched in themselves.
Wow.

[The Lawspeaker]

Wow.

Name one country that was liberated by the Americans. Just one. I can help you because there is only one: Luxembourg.

As for the Netherlands ? Mostly Britain, Poland and Canada. Mostly Canada. Norway ? Britain. Denmark ? Britain. Belgium ? Mostly the British and Canadians. The whole of Eastern Europe ? The Red Army.


https://images0.persgroep.net/rcs/e9yItMEEywIV1C6KlVWHWWTh_uA/diocontent/102028841/_fitwidth/694/?appId=21791a8992982cd8da851550a453bd7f&quality=0.9

https://erfgoed.breda.nl/upload/resize_cache/iblock/fdf/733_50000_1619711fa078991f0a23d032687646b21/810.jpg

https://www.sevendays.nl/sites/default/files/Schermafbeelding%202016-05-04%20om%2015.43.05.png

https://www.lc.nl/images/b3j37r-B82840370Z.1_20140921094020_000GJSGEIOC.1.jpg/ALTERNATES/WIDE_768/B82840370Z.1_20140921094020_000+GJSGEIOC.1.jpg

https://www.arcadehotel.nl/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/canadians.jpg

Doesn't look particularly American to me...

[Thorns]

Name one country that was liberated by the Americans. Just one. I can help you because there is only one: Luxembourg.

As for the Netherlands ? Mostly Britain, Poland and Canada. Mostly Canada. Norway ? Britain. Denmark ? Britain. Belgium ? Mostly the British and Canadians. The whole of Eastern Europe ? The Red Army.

Doesn't look particularly American to me...

Your argument is so bizarre that I don't even know where to begin.

[The Lawspeaker]

Your argument is so bizarre that I don't even know where to begin.

America's role in WWII is really overstated: America made a killing out of it and they fought well in the Pacific. Here in Europe ? That was a different story. And judging from the figures America had three specialties: rape, looting and purposely bombing cities in neutral or friendly countries (Cherbourg (France- indeed much of Normandy got blown up), Rotterdam in 1943 (Netherlands), Hengelo (Netherlands), Enschede (Netherlands), Nijmegen (Netherlands), Eindhoven (Netherlands), Venlo (Netherlands), Schaffhausen (Switzerland), Zurich (Switzerland)).

Indeed: the Americans bombed the shit out of France (https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-did-america-bomb-france-world-war-ii-24120), the Netherlands (https://www.niod.nl/nl/vraag-en-antwoord/duitse-en-geallieerde-bombardementen-op-nederland) (and to a lesser extent, the British) and Switzerland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombings_of_Switzerland_in_World_War_II#Bombings).


Van de luchtaanvallen in deze tabel waren er vijf ‘vergissingbombardementen’, waarbij de geallieerde vliegers zich boven een Duitse stad waanden (Geleen in oktober 1942, Enschede in oktober 1943, Enschede, Nijmegen en Arnhem in februari 1944). Vijfmaal was er sprake van een ‘onbedoeld resultaat’, waarbij men wel het opgegeven doel trachtte te raken, maar dit vrijwel volledig miste (Amsterdam in juli 1943, Maastricht in augustus 1944, Hengelo in oktober 1944, Rotterdam in november 1944, Den Haag in maart 1945). In de overige gevallen raakten de geallieerde vliegtuigen wel het beoogde doel, maar veroorzaakten zij tevens aanzienlijke ‘bijkomende schade’. (Het is echter niet altijd eenvoudig om een helder onderscheid waar te nemen tussen een ‘onbedoeld resultaat’ en een ‘geraakt doelwit met bijkomende schade’.)





USAAF 31 maart 1943 Rotterdam, Tussendijken Circa 400 doden


Gewild doelwit (havengebied), maar door sterke, afwijkende wind veel ‘bijkomende schade’



USAAF 17 juli 1943 Amsterdam-Noord 185 (158) doden
Onbedoeld resultaat (het eigenlijke doelwit, de Fokkerfabrieken, werd niet geraakt)
USAAF 10 oktober 1943 Enschede, stad 151 doden
Vergissingbombardement (men zocht naar een Duitse stad als ‘gelegenheidsdoel’)
USAAF 22 februari 1944 Nijmegen, stadsdeel Maximaal 800 doden
Vergissingbombardement (de eigenlijke doelwitten waren de Duitse steden Kleef en Goch)
USAAF 22 februari 1944 Arnhem, woonwijk 60 doden
Vergissingbombardement (de eigenlijke doelwitten waren de Duitse steden Kleef en Goch)
USAAF 22 februari 1944 Enschede, industriewijk 40 doden
Vergissingbombardement (het eigenlijke doelwit was de Duitse stad Münster)
USAAF 31 mei 1944 Roosendaal, buurt station 73 doden
Gewild doelwit (spooremplacement), maar het gros van de bommen viel naast het doel
USAAF 18 augustus 1944 Maastricht, stadswijk 91 doden
Onbedoeld resultaat (het eigenlijke doelwit, de brug over de Maas, kreeg schampen maar bleef intact)
USAAF 17 september 1944 Wolfheze, gesticht/dorp 87 doden


Gewild doelwit (Duitse geschutstellingen), maar veel ‘bijkomende schade’



USAAF 13 oktober 1944 Venlo Minstens 40 doden


Gewild doelwit (de verkeers- en spoorbruggen, die echter weinig schade hadden opgelopen), maar veel ‘bijkomende schade



’USAAF 22 maart 1945 Enschede, stad 65 doden


Waarschijnlijk gewild doelwit (tactische doelen), maar veel ‘bijkomende schade’



USAAF 22 maart 1945 Nijverdal, centrum 72 doden
Waarschijnlijk gewild doelwit (tactische doelen), maar veel ‘bijkomende schade’
USAAF 24 maart 1945 Goor, centrum 82 doden
Waarschijnlijk gewild doelwit (tactische doelen), maar veel ‘bijkomende schade’
USAAF 24 maart 1945 Haaksbergen, centrum 75 (50) doden
Waarschijnlijk gewild doelwit (tactische doelen), maar veel ‘bijkomende schade’

[Hexachordia]

No.. that had nothing to do with the Russians. That was an insane Serb.

Not sure, a dirty slave changed history by a sudden coup of frenziness does not sound convincing to me anymore. Just make sure you dominate them in every deal not they you when trying to balance between the commie powers. Can Europe achieve that? I do not know, but good luck with that.

[Damião de Góis]

he wants to put France as a leader of the armed force of europe.

and knowing france's interests its' better to keep out if it. they are no different than the USA. yes to collaboration no to banks and oil dictatorship

It already is, even including the UK. At least going by this:

https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing-europe.asp

[The Lawspeaker]

As for Nijmegen - a couple of years ago it turned out that this was a deliberately bombing (http://nudoorpakken.nl/het-vergissingsbombardement-op-nijmegen-dat-geen-vergissing-was/). Same goes for Enschede and Arnhem.

[The Lawspeaker]

Not sure, a dirty slave changed history by a sudden coup of frenziness does not sound convincing to me anymore. Just make sure you dominate them in every deal not they you when trying to balance between the commie powers. Can Europe achieve that? I do not know, but good luck with that.

The Black Hand got the official support from the Serbian government.

[gıulıoımpa]

It already is, even including the UK. At least going by this:

https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing-europe.asp By the numbers i know.

In a leadership sense i meant.

The big powers are realizing the USA is not the same as before , they are enpowering France just in case, like a european alter ego of the US.

They want more armies and money to do their dirty job. This is not a path towards peace but war (remember lybia?)

Inviato dal mio SM-G389F utilizzando Tapatalk

[Ülev]

Libya, Syria - US and Russians there - two fellows playing in one team

to do not let EU (Union for the Mediterranean (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_for_the_Mediterranean)) arise as a third global power, those two and North African countries with their natural resources (oil and gas) are needful for Europe

[The Lawspeaker]

Libya, Syria - US and Russians there - two fellows playing in one team

to do not let EU (Union for the Mediterranean (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_for_the_Mediterranean)) arise as a third global power, those two and North African countries with their natural resources (oil and gas) are needful for Europe

The only way in which I could approve of such a Union is if these areas were cleared of Muslims and colonized by Europeans.

[Westbrook]

He said they should all spend more on their military. When did he say to buy American weapons?
How about we dump NATO and buy our own weapons ? What Trump is actually saying is: we should buy shoddy American weapons at high interest rates. No, fuck that ! We should buy our own weapons because we can make our own.

[The Lawspeaker]

He said they should all spend more on their military. When did he say to buy American weapons?

That's what he implies. He would never say that if we would only spend the money on European weapons. Don't forget the enormous pressure put on European governments by the U.S to buy the F35.

[The Lawspeaker]

One thing for sure: we don't need a European army but we can look after our own defense. We don't need the Americans for that one as they have been sacrificing European lives, equipment and money in wars that do not concern us. As for us: let us continue to do what we do and only spend more money on updating our equipment, harmonizing procedures and weapons purchases. As for the Russians ? If we get serious and invest in our mutual defense, the Russians could never hope to defeat us. Together have the manpower, the technical know-how, the economy and the weapons to keep both troublemakers out. Europe for the Europeans !

Our sole problem lies in the lack of real organization but we're already working on that one and have been working on that for a long, long time (ever since the 1950s through the WEU) so, again, the Americans are just an added layer that likes to sell us their third rate equipment at first rate prices.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka7B9O7poT0


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKO5zvaiTR4

We have entire integrated command structures and divisions, let's continue down this path.

[Dragoon]

There are too many conflicting views in European politics, the population, the EU, etc.
Democracy is division.

[The Lawspeaker]

There are too many conflicting views in European politics, the population, the EU, etc.
Democracy is division.
Sure... this is why one European Army under the EU is a bridge too far but joint programs and joint units work and have been working for a long, long time. A European Army is just changing a winning team (and you should never do that !). We don't need the Americans for anything when we can just pool our resources (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Policy#Forces): then we're actually not just on par with them - but in some areas (manpower) bigger.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Name one country that was liberated by the Americans. Just one. I can help you because there is only one: Luxembourg.

As for the Netherlands ? Mostly Britain, Poland and Canada. Mostly Canada. Norway ? Britain. Denmark ? Britain. Belgium ? Mostly the British and Canadians. The whole of Eastern Europe ? The Red Army.


https://images0.persgroep.net/rcs/e9yItMEEywIV1C6KlVWHWWTh_uA/diocontent/102028841/_fitwidth/694/?appId=21791a8992982cd8da851550a453bd7f&quality=0.9

https://erfgoed.breda.nl/upload/resize_cache/iblock/fdf/733_50000_1619711fa078991f0a23d032687646b21/810.jpg

https://www.sevendays.nl/sites/default/files/Schermafbeelding%202016-05-04%20om%2015.43.05.png

https://www.lc.nl/images/b3j37r-B82840370Z.1_20140921094020_000GJSGEIOC.1.jpg/ALTERNATES/WIDE_768/B82840370Z.1_20140921094020_000+GJSGEIOC.1.jpg

https://www.arcadehotel.nl/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/canadians.jpg

Doesn't look particularly American to me...

Oh, photos. I have photos of American troops marching through Paris with crowds cheering their liberation also but I'll won't post them. I want you to say, 'No, you don't!' and then I'll post them cuz I find that amusing.

Americans made almost half the invasion force on D-Day. They made up the bulk of troops who invaded Italy. Just as important the US supplied the Soviets with war material that they were in need. No US war material = Soviet fail.

As for war crimes to pretend the Soviets were not a raping horde runs contrast to the Germans fleeing if they were able to do so to where the Americans and British/Canadians were to be found. German soldiers preferred to surrender to Americans than to Soviets. The list of Soviet war crimes are numerous. We didn't place German POWs in gulags for years, for example.

Actions > words

[Ülev]

Oh, photos. I have photos of American troops marching through Paris with crowds cheering their liberation also but I'll won't post them. I want you to say, 'No, you don't!' and then I'll post them cuz I find that amusing.

Americans made almost half the invasion force on D-Day. They made up the bulk of troops who invaded Italy. Just as important the US supplied the Soviets with war material that they were in need. No US war material = Soviet fail.

As for war crimes to pretend the Soviets were not a raping horde runs contrast to the Germans fleeing if they were able to do so to where the Americans and British/Canadians were to be found. German soldiers preferred to surrender to Americans than to Soviets. The list of Soviet war crimes are numerous. We didn't place German soldiers in gulags for years, for example.

Actions > words

this is it


Libya, Syria - US and Russians there - two fellows playing in one team

to do not let EU (Union for the Mediterranean (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_for_the_Mediterranean)) arise as a third global power, those two and North African countries with their natural resources (oil and gas) are needful for Europe

[The Lawspeaker]

Oh, photos. I have photos also but I'll won't post them. I want you to say, 'No, you don't!' and then I'll post them.

Americans made almost half the invasion force on D-Day. They made up the bulk of troops who invaded Italy. Just as important the US supplied the Soviets with war material that they were in need. No US war material = Soviet fail.

As for war crimes to pretend the Soviets were not a raping horde runs contrast to the Germans fleeing if they were able to do so to where the Americans and British/Canadians were to be found. German soldiers preferred to surrender to Americans than to Soviets. The list of Soviet war crimes are numerous. We didn't place German soldiers in gulags for years, for example.

Actions > words

Almost half. Yeah.. the bulk were British and Canadian. And unlike the Americans, those actually reached their objectives (only to be held back by the bumbling Americans - which was not the first time: Salerno and Kasserine anyone ?). Indeed: the Americans were great at supplying huge amounts of material to the Soviets in 1942 and early 1943 (after that Soviet industry had kicked in). And the Germans surrendered to the Americans because they had heard that the Americans would treat them well. The Rheinwiesenlager proved them wrong. What the Americans had going for them - was propaganda and controlling the narrative but we're no longer in the 1980s and research can be done: the Americans were as bad as the Soviets (if not worse), but the Soviets at least punished their soldiers for it.

As for U.S war crimes: I have put up a nice list of their crimes in the Netherlands alone. They also fragged many French and even Swiss (neutral) cities for the hell of it. And there are people in Europe who believe that this was done deliberately by the Americans in order to do as much damage as possible, destroy the infrastructure and make Europe dependent on America.

[The Lawspeaker]

this is it

We don't need either the Russians or the Americans. We will look after our mutual defense. Europe should keep both out.

American influence ? How about this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuPvvTAGDaI

[Dragoon]

Oh, photos. I have photos of American troops marching through Paris with crowds cheering their liberation also but I'll won't post them. I want you to say, 'No, you don't!' and then I'll post them cuz I find that amusing.

Americans made almost half the invasion force on D-Day. They made up the bulk of troops who invaded Italy. Just as important the US supplied the Soviets with war material that they were in need. No US war material = Soviet fail.

As for war crimes to pretend the Soviets were not a raping horde runs contrast to the Germans fleeing if they were able to do so to where the Americans and British/Canadians were to be found. German soldiers preferred to surrender to Americans than to Soviets. The list of Soviet war crimes are numerous. We didn't place German POWs in gulags for years, for example.

Actions > words

Its obvious US helped win the war. Overall probably 2nd biggest contributor.
But still anytime Americans say they gave war material to Soviets, I will say they also did the same with Germany from the 1930s to 1941.
Despite their massive crimes, Soviets did the most. Regardless if its liberation or "liberation".



We don't need either the Russians or the Americans. We will look after our mutual defense. Europe should keep both out.



But some people consider East Slavs as Europeans. Or is that not acceptable for Germanic Liberal EU?

[The Lawspeaker]

Its obvious US helped win the war. Overall probably 2nd biggest contributor.
But still anytime Americans say they gave war material to Soviets, I will say they also did the same with Germany up to 1941.
Despite their massive crimes, Soviets did the most. Regardless if its liberation or "liberation".

You were aware of the fact that the Luftwaffe used American additives (http://web.mit.edu/thistle/www/v13/3/oil.html) in their fuel ?


The history of the last century is the history of oil. Due in part to catastrophes like the oil spill from the Exxon Valdez on March 24th 1989 and the recent increase in reporting on Global Warming, by now most people are at least passively aware of the environmental dangers involved with the world’s dependency on oil. According to Project Underground, the California based industry watchdog, petroleum exploration currently threatens old growth frontier forests in 22 countries, coral reefs in 38 countries, and mangroves in 46 countries. Keep in mind that this is just what is being destroyed while these corporate giants look for future sites to exploit. Given the incredible danger this industry represents to humanity, one might ask what kind of people would continue to push the world into ever greater use of petroleum products while simultaneously thwarting efforts to develop alternatives such as renewable energy sources. Well would it be any surprise that they would be the same type of people that would actively collaborate with the Nazis and the Japanese fascists during the second world war, or the types of people who today would employ military death squads against peaceful protesters? This space is far to short to give even a superficial introduction to the history of back room deals with dictators, violence, murder, and genocide which is synonymous with the history of oil, but just to illustrate my point I will briefly discuss some of the lower points in the history of Standard Oil and its progeny.


The Standard Oil Trust was dissolved under court order in 1911 creating many smaller regional companies, including Standard Oil of New Jersey (Exxon), Standard Oil of New York (Mobil), Standard Oil of California (Chevron), Standard Oil of Ohio (Sohio), Standard Oil of Indiana (Amoco), Continental Oil (Conoco), and Atlantic Oil (ARCO). By 1941 Standard Oil of New Jersey was the largest oil company in the world, controlling 84 percent of the U.S. petroleum market. Its bank was Chase and its owners were the Rockefellers. J.D. Rockefeller had always argued that two things were essential to the oil industry’s survival: checking “ruinous competition” and “cooperation.” Given the success of his monopoly at making enormous profits for its investors while at the same time destroying any form of competition and keeping prices artificially high, it seems quite clear whose survival he was really talking about.


After the Rockefellers, the next largest stockholder in Standard Oil was I.G. Farben, the giant German chemical company. This investment was part of a pattern of reciprocal investments between the U.S. and Germany during the Nazi years. During the Great Depression, Germany was viewed as a hot area in which to invest.


A brief aside is required here to explain what type of company I.G. Farben actually was. At the time, it was the world’s largest chemical company and through the talents of its scientists and engineers, it secured the vital self-sufficiency that was to enable Germany to maneuver in the world of power politics. From its laboratories and factories flowed the strategic raw materials that Germany’s own territory could not supply, the synthetics of oil, gasoline, rubber, nitrates, and fibers. In addition, I.G. produced vaccines and drugs such as Salvarsan, aspirin, Atabrine, and Novocain, along with sulfa drugs, as well as poison gases and rocket fuels. The depth of I.G. Farben’s connection to Nazi policy was finally realized at Auschwitz, the extermination center where four million people were destroyed in accordance with Hitler’s “Final Solution of the Jewish Question”. Drawn by the seemingly limitless supply of death camp labor, Farben built I.G. Auschwitz, a huge industrial complex designed to produce synthetic rubber and oil. This installation used as much electricity as the entire city of Berlin, and more than 25,000 camp inmates died during its construction. I.G. Farben eventually built its own concentration camp, known as Monowitz, which was closer to the site of the complex than Auschwitz was, in order to eliminate the need to march prisoners several miles to and from the plant every day.
This was the company enthusiastically embraced by Standard Oil as well as other major American corporations like Du Pont and General Motors. I do not, however, state that Standard Oil collaborated with the Nazis simply because I.G. Farben was its second largest shareholder. In fact, without the explicit help of Standard Oil, the Nazi air force would never have gotten off the ground in the first place. The planes that made up the Luftwaffe needed tetraethyl lead gasoline in order to fly. At the time, only Standard Oil, Du Pont, and General Motors had the ability to produce this vital substance. In 1938, Walter C. Teagle, then president of Standard Oil, helped Hermann Schmitz of I.G. Farben to acquire 500 tons of tetraethyl lead from Ethyl, a British Standard subsidiary. A year later, Schmitz returned to London and obtained an additional 15 million dollars worth of tetraethyl lead which was to be turned into aviation gasoline back in Germany.

After the war began in Europe, the English became angry about U.S. shipments of strategic materials to Nazi Germany. Standard Oil immediately changed the registration of their entire fleet to Panamanian to avoid British search or seizure. These ships continued to carry oil to Tenerife in the Canary Islands, where they refueled and siphoned oil to German tankers for shipment to Hamburg.

This deception was exposed on March 31, 1941 when the U.S. State Department issued a detailed report on refueling stations in Mexico and Central and South America that were suspected of furnishing oil to Italian and German merchant vessels. The report listed Standard Oil of New Jersey and Standard Oil of California among those fueling enemy ships, but there is no record of any action being taken as a result of this discovery. Similar deals between Standard Oil and the Japanese government for the purchase of tetraethyl lead have also been uncovered, but no direct action was ever taken against Standard Oil for its dealings with America’s enemies. A brief side note, however, is that on April 17, l945 the Chase National Bank was placed on trial in federal court on charges of having violated the Trading With the Enemy Act by converting German marks into U.S. dollars. Because many countries refused to accept German currency during the war, the Nazis used foreign banks like Chase National to change the currency into money that would be accepted, and thus allowed them to purchase much need materials to prolong the war. The closer one looks, the more ties one finds between American business and Nazi Germany, many of which remained strong well into and beyond the war.



The US made a right killing (https://www.globalresearch.ca/profits-ber-alles-american-corporations-and-hitler/4607) out of that war:


American Aid to the Soviets…and to the Nazis
After the war, it would become customary in the West to claim that the unexpected Soviet success against Nazi Germany had been made possible because of massive American assistance, provided under the terms of a Lend-Lease agreement between Washington and Moscow, and that without this aid the Soviet Union would not have survived the Nazi attack. This claim is doubtful.


First, American material assistance did not become meaningful before 1942, that is, long after the Soviets had single-handedly put an end to the progress made by the Wehrmacht and had launched their first counteroffensive. Second, American aid never represented more than four to five per cent of total Soviet wartime production, although it must be admitted that even such a slim margin may possibly prove crucial in a crisis situation. Third, the Soviets themselves cranked out all of the light and heavy high-quality weapons — such as the T-34 tank, probably the best tank of World War II — that made their success against the Wehrmacht possible. 34 Finally, the much-publicized Lend-Lease aid to the USSR was to a large extent neutralized — and arguably dwarfed — by the unofficial, discreet, but very important assistance provided by American corporate sources to the German enemies of the Soviets. In 1940 and 1941 American oil trusts increased the lucrative oil exports to Germany; large amounts delivered to Nazi Germany via neutral states.


The American share of Germany’s imports of vitally important oil for engine lubrication (Motorenöl) increased rapidly, from 44 per cent in July 1941 to 94 per cent in September 1941. Without US-supplied fuel, the German attack on the Soviet Union would not have been possible, according to the German historian Tobias Jersak, an authority in the field of American “fuel for the Führer.” 35 Hitler was still ruminating the catastrophic news of the Soviet counter-offensive and the failure of the Blitzkrieg in the East, when he learned that the Japanese had launched a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941. The US were now at war with Japan, but Washington made no move to declare war on Germany.


Hitler had no obligation to rush to the aid of his Japanese friends, but on 11 December 1941, he declared war on the US, probably expecting — vainly as it turned out — that Japan would reciprocate by declaring war on the Soviet Union. Hitler’s needless declaration of war, accompanied by a similarly frivolous Italian declaration of war, made the US an active participant in the war in Europe. How did this affect the German assets of the big American corporations? 36


Business as Usual
The German subsidiaries of American corporations were not ruthlessly confiscated by the Nazis and removed entirely from the control of stateside corporate headquarters until the defeat of Germany in 1945, as parent companies would claim after the war. Regarding the assets of Ford and GM, for example, the German expert Hans Helms states, “not even once during their terror regime did the Nazis undertake the slightest attempt to change the ownership status of Ford [i.e. the Ford-Werke] or Opel.” 37 Even after Pearl Harbor, Ford retained its 52 per cent of the shares of Ford-Werke in Cologne, and GM remained Opel’s sole proprietor. (Billstein et al., 74, and 141)


Moreover, the American owners and managers maintained a sometimes considerable measure of control over their branch plants in Germany after the German declaration of war on the US. There is evidence that the corporate headquarters in the US and the branch plants in Germany stayed in contact with each other, either indirectly, via subsidiaries in neutral Switzerland, or directly by means of modern worldwide systems of communications. The latter was supplied by ITT in collaboration with Transradio, a joint venture of ITT itself, RCA (another American corporation), and the German firms Siemens and Telefunken. 38
In its recent report on its activities in Nazi Germany, Ford claims that its corporate headquarters in Dearborn had no direct contact with the German subsidiary after Pearl Harbor. As for the possibility of communications via branch plants in neutral countries, the report states that “there is no indication of communication with each other through these subsidiaries.” (Research Findings, 88)


However, the lack of such “indication” may simply mean that any evidence of contacts may have been lost or destroyed before the authors of the report were allowed access to the relevant archives; after all, this archival access was only granted more than 50 years after the facts. Moreover, the report itself acknowledges somewhat contradictorily that an executive of the Ford-Werke did travel to Lisbon in 1943 for a visit to the Portuguese Ford subsidiary, and it is extremely unlikely that Dearborn would have been unaware of this. As for IBM, Edwin Black writes that during the war its general manager for Europe, Dutchman Jurriaan W. Schotte, was stationed in the corporate headquarters in New York, where he “continued to regularly maintain communication with IBM subsidiaries in Nazi territory, such as his native Holland and Belgium.” IBM could also “monitor events and exercise authority in Europe through neutral country subsidiaries,” and especially through its Swiss branch in Geneva, whose director, a Swiss national, “freely travelled to and from Germany, occupied territories, and neutral countries.”


Finally, like many other large US corporations, IBM could also rely on American diplomats stationed in occupied and neutral countries to forward messages via diplomatic pouches. (Black, 339, 376, and 392–5) The Nazis not only allowed the American owners to retain possession and a certain amount of administrative control over their German assets and subsidiaries, but their own intervention in the management of Opel and the Ford-Werke, for example, remained minimal.
After the German declaration of war against the US, the American staff members admittedly disappeared from the scene, but the existing German managers — confidants of the bosses in the US — generally retained their positions of authority and continued to run the businesses, thereby keeping in mind the interests of the corporate headquarters and the shareholders in America.


For Opel, GM’s headquarters in the US retained virtually total control over the managers in Rüsselsheim; so writes American historian Bradford Snell, who devoted attention to this theme in the 1970s, but whose findings were contested by GM. A recent study by German researcher Anita Kugler confirms Snell’s account while providing a more detailed and more nuanced picture. After the German declaration of war on the US, she writes the Nazis initially did not bother the management of Opel at all. Only on 25 November 1942 did Berlin appoint an “enemy assets’ custodian,” but the significance of this move turned out to be merely symbolic. The Nazis simply wanted to create a German image for an enterprise that was owned 100 per cent by GM throughout the war. (Billstein et al., 61)


In the Ford-Werke, Robert Schmidt, allegedly an ardent Nazi, served as general manager during the war, and his performance greatly satisfied both the authorities in Berlin and the Ford managers in America. Messages of approval and even congratulations — signed by Edsel Ford — were regularly forthcoming from Ford’s corporate headquarters in Dearborn. The Nazis too were delighted with Schmidt’s work; in due course they awarded him the title, “leader in the field of the military economy.” Even when, months after Pearl Harbor, a custodian was appointed to oversee the Ford plant in Cologne, Schmidt retained his prerogatives and his freedom of action. 39 IBM’s wartime experience with Axis custodians in Germany, France, Belgium, and other countries was likewise far from traumatic.
According to Black, “they zealously protected the assets, extended productivity, and increased profits”; moreover, “existing IBM managers were kept in place as day-to-day managers and, in some cases, even appointed deputy enemy custodians.” (Black, 376, 400–2, 405, and 415) The Nazis were far less interested in the nationality of the owners or the identity of the managers than in production, because after the failure of their Blitzkrieg strategy in the Soviet Union they experienced an ever-growing need for mass-produced airplanes and trucks.


Ever since Henry Ford had pioneered the use of the assembly line and other “Fordist” techniques, American firms had been the leaders in the field of industrial mass production, and the American branch plants in Germany, including GM’s Opel subsidiary, were no exception to this general rule. Nazi planners like Göring and Speer understood that radical changes in Opel’s management might hinder production in Brandenburg and Rüsselsheim. To maintain Opel’s output at high levels, the managers in charge were allowed to carry on because they were familiar with the particularly efficient American methods of production. Anita Kugler concludes that Opel, “made its entire production and research available to the Nazis and thus — objectively speaking — contributed to enhance their long-term capability to wage war.” (Billstein et al., 81) 40


Experts believe that GM’s and Ford’s best wartime technological innovations primarily benefitted their branch plants in Nazi Germany. As examples they cite all-wheel-drive Opel trucks, which proved eminently useful to the Germans in the mud of the Eastern Front and in the desert of North Africa, as well as the engines for the brand new ME-262, the first jet fighter, were also assembled by Opel in Rüsselsheim. 41 As for the Ford-Werke, in 1939 this firm also developed a state-of-the-art truck — the Maultier (“mule”) — that had wheels on the front and a track on the back end. The Ford-Werke also created a “cloak company,” Arendt GmbH, to produce war equipment other than vehicles, specifically machining parts for airplanes. But Ford claims that this was done without Dearborn’s knowledge or approval.
Towards the end of the war this factory was involved in the top-secret development of turbines for the infamous V-2 rockets that wreaked devastation on London and Antwerp. (Research Findings, 41–2) ITT continued to supply Germany with advanced communication systems after Pearl Harbor, to the detriment of the Americans themselves, whose diplomatic code was broken by the Nazis with the help of such equipment. 42 Until the very end of the war, ITT’s production facilities in Germany as well as in neutral countries such as Sweden, Switzerland, and Spain provided the German armed forces with state-of-the-art martial toys. Charles Higham offers specifics:


After Pearl Harbor the German army, navy, and air force contracted with ITT for the manufacture of switchboards, telephones, alarm gongs, buoys, air raid warning devices, radar equipment, and thirty thousand fuses per month for artillery shells … This was to increase to fifty thousand per month by 1944. In addition, ITT supplied ingredients for the rocket bombs that fell on London, selenium cells for dry rectifiers, high-frequency radio equipment, and fortification and field communication sets. Without this supply of crucial materials it would have been impossible for the German air force to kill American and British troops, for the German army to fight the Allies, for England to have been bombed, or for Allied ships to have been attacked at sea. 43
No surprise then that the German subsidiaries of American enterprises were regarded as “pioneers of technological development” by the planners in Germany’s Reich Economics Ministry and other Nazi authorities involved in the war effort. 44


Edwin Black also claims that IBM’s advanced punch card technology, precursor to the computer, enabled the Nazis to automate persecution. IBM allegedly put the fantastical numbers in the Holocaust, because it supplied the Hitler regime with the Hollerith calculating machines and other tools that were used to “generate lists of Jews and other victims, who were then targeted for deportation” and to “register inmates [of concentration camps] and track slave labor.” (Black, xx) However, critics of Black’s study maintain that the Nazis could and would have achieved their deadly efficiency without the benefit of IBM’s technology. In any event, the case of IBM provides yet another example of how US corporations supplied state-of-the-art technology to the Nazis and obviously did not care too much for what evil purposes this technology would be used.

[Kamal900]

But some people consider East Slavs as Europeans. Or is that not acceptable for Germanic Liberal EU?

They are Whites, lol. Anyone who says that they're not is obviously ignorant.

[Ujku]

This french fag will need Albos in the front line if he wants to win any battle..

[Westbrook]

Seems like you're the only one who thinks so
That's what he implies. He would never say that if we would only spend the money on European weapons. Don't forget the enormous pressure put on European governments by the U.S to buy the F35.

[Dragoon]

You were aware of the fact that the Luftwaffe used American additives (http://web.mit.edu/thistle/www/v13/3/oil.html) in their fuel ?

Outside Germany both US and UK were involved:

Ford, Dupont, Sloan/GM, Watson/IBM, Dillons, Harrimans/Bush, Rockefeller
Bank of England, Llyod Bank, J, Schroder, Lazard, Imperial Chemical Industries

Mostly US and UK groups, part of their establishment wanted to build Germany up against both France and USSR.
The Anglo policy for hundreds years was to keep a "balanced" or "divided" (take your pick) Europe. But also many Anglos wanted Adolf to head East and take out Communism.



They are Whites, lol. Anyone who says that they're not is obviously ignorant.

Of course, but the area of considering them "Western" or compatible with EU values (abortion, globohomo, mass immigration, liberalism) is another question.

Its more of a question in geopolitics. What does US want? What do European groupings want? What does Putinsky want?
And then many other views among the population.

[Ruggery]

They raped only a few more than the yanks did. And they actually punished their soldiers for it - unlike the Americans. The Soviets shot of tens of thousands for that crime alone - how many did the Americans shoot ?

Indeed: in Miriam Gebhardt's Als die Soldaten kamen. Die Vergewaltigung deutscher Frauen am Ende des Zweiten Weltkriegs, the estimated number of victims by American troops in Germany alone, is at 190.000. The total number may be as high as 285.000 by Western Allied troops. Only 130 Allied soldiers were ever tried and convicted. Not even a quarter of them received due punishment.

In France, the number seems to be over 30.000 rapes alone (we're not even talking about other crimes), in Britain they went wild as well (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1516599/Wartime-GIs-went-on-rampage-of-rape-and-murder.html).
The total number of executions by the U.S Army in WWII, lies at 96. The number of crimes around 200.000.

Hey, hey, hey, I can understand that the Americans have committed violations, in fact, I believe that all the countries that participated in the Second World War committed violations among them Germans, Russians, British, French, Japanese, etc. But where did you receive them? The Russians punished the rapes when they were promoted and it did not matter to them if they raped their enemies because for them it is a reward, at least the Americans were taught not to rape (although in the end they ended up ignoring that rule) and rape. in the army, the Nazis were forbidden and if they discovered one of their soldiers raping a person, this was shot as punishment.
Hey, hey, hey, I can understand that the Americans have committed violations, in fact, I believe that all the countries that participated in the Second World War committed violations among them Germans, Russians, British, French, Japanese, etc. But where did you hear that the Russians punished the rapes? In fact, it is the opposite: they were promoted and did not care that they raped their enemies because for them it is a reward, at least the Americans were taught not to rape (although in the end they ended up ignoring that rule) and rape. in the army, the Nazis were forbidden and if they discovered that one of their soldiers was raping a person, they would be shot as punishment.

In addition, it was the Nazis who launched the greatest bombing in the Netherlands.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Almost half. Yeah.. the bulk were British and Canadian. And unlike the Americans, those actually reached their objectives (only to be held back by the bumbling Americans - which was not the first time: Salerno and Kasserine anyone ?). Indeed: the Americans were great at supplying huge amounts of material to the Soviets in 1942 and early 1943 (after that Soviet industry had kicked in). And the Germans surrendered to the Americans because they had heard that the Americans would treat them well.

Show examples of American troops 'bumbling.' The American troops took the brunt of the action on D-Day. I suppose some people would define that as 'bumbling' but said people aren't military historians.

In addition to providing war material to the Soviets - who I remind all had no issue siding with the Nazis and chopping up Poland along side them when it benefited the Soviets - the US handled the majority of the conflict with Japan.

I may be incorrect about American troops making up the bulk on the Italian campaign.


The Rheinwiesenlager proved them wrong. What the Americans had going for them - was propaganda and controlling the narrative but we're no longer in the 1980s and research can be done: the Americans were as bad as the Soviets (if not worse), but the Soviets at least punished their soldiers for it.


We're in 2018 and nations who were 'liberated' by the Soviets don't recall their liberation with such fondness. Next you'll say it was propaganda that East Germans risked their lives to escape to Western Germany but not the other way around.

Tell me the horrors of the Rheinwiesenlager. Why are you so short on details? Poor conditions of prison camps doesn't trump spending years in a Siberian Gulag.

German prison camps weren't exactly idealistic especially, btw, if you were a Soviet POW. I just felt like throwing in that detail cuz the Germans did treat the Americans/Brits/Canadians far better than the Soviet POWs. Although 'better' is relative but point being that certainly cause a thirst for revenge among former Soviet POWs and those who learned of the treatment.


As for U.S war crimes: I have put up a nice list of their crimes in the Netherlands alone. They also fragged many French and even Swiss (neutral) cities for the hell of it. And there are people in Europe who believe that this was done deliberately by the Americans in order to do as much damage as possible, destroy the infrastructure and make Europe dependent on America.

Oh noes... you mean soldiers who are made of young men under heavy anxiety commit crimes? Who would have thought? The question is which soldiers were less restrained and more importantly which military looked the other way and which allowed criminal behavior to take place. The difference between the Americans (and British/Canadians) is they keep records while the Soviets looked the other way. We know they looked the other way because of civilians - yes, German civilians - discussing their plight.

The reality is German soldiers and citizens preferred the Americans and British/Canadians over the Soviets. What you call propaganda that fooled them doesn't compute because people talk or in other words it becomes known through the grapevine what is bullshit and what is not. It also didn't help that many of those Germans were aware of atrocities committed by their soldiers in Eastern Europe and knew the fate that would befall them.

This is what happens with weak minded people: NATO is bad and because it's an arm of the US everything about the US of the past has to be bad as well. Some people have difficulty looking at events independently. It's the equivalent of people who if they like someone they can't see a flaw in that person or downplay the flaws. If they dislike someone they're not able to see any virtues in that person. It's all or nothing. People do this often with ethnic groups and nations.

[The Lawspeaker]

Seems like you're the only one who thinks so

Far from it, actually. Here a politician who wanted to step away from the F35 program ended up dead.

[The Lawspeaker]

Hey, hey, hey, I can understand that the Americans have committed violations, in fact, I believe that all the countries that participated in the Second World War committed violations among them Germans, Russians, British, French, Japanese, etc. But where did you receive them? The Russians punished the rapes when they were promoted and it did not matter to them if they raped their enemies because for them it is a reward, at least the Americans were taught not to rape (although in the end they ended up ignoring that rule) and rape. in the army, the Nazis were forbidden and if they discovered one of their soldiers raping a person, this was shot as punishment.
Hey, hey, hey, I can understand that the Americans have committed violations, in fact, I believe that all the countries that participated in the Second World War committed violations among them Germans, Russians, British, French, Japanese, etc. But where did you hear that the Russians punished the rapes? In fact, it is the opposite: they were promoted and did not care that they raped their enemies because for them it is a reward, at least the Americans were taught not to rape (although in the end they ended up ignoring that rule) and rape. in the army, the Nazis were forbidden and if they discovered that one of their soldiers was raping a person, they would be shot as punishment.

In addition, it was the Nazis who launched the greatest bombing in the Netherlands.

Nijmegen was more deadly than Rotterdam, actually. In reality (apart from the Jews), the Allies killed far more people here than the Germans did. Same goes f.i for France and Belgium.

[The Lawspeaker]

Show examples of American troops 'bumbling.' The American troops took the brunt of the action on D-Day. I suppose some people would define that as 'bumbling' but said people aren't military historians.

In addition to providing war material to the Soviets - who I remind all had no issue siding with the Nazis and chopping up Poland along side them when it benefited the Soviets - the US handled the majority of the conflict with Japan.

I may be incorrect about American troops making up the bulk on the Italian campaign.



We're in 2018 and nations who were 'liberated' by the Soviets don't recall their liberation with such fondness. Next you'll say it was propaganda that East Germans risked their lives to escape to Western Germany but not the other way around.

Tell me the horrors of the Rheinwiesenlager. Why are you so short on details? Poor conditions of prison camps doesn't trump spending years in a Siberian Gulags. German prison camps weren't exactly idealistic especially, btw, if you were a Soviet POW.



Oh noes... you mean soldiers who are made of young men under heavy anxiety commit crimes? Who would have thought? The question is which soldiers were less restrained and more importantly which military looked the other way and which allowed criminal behavior to take place. The difference between the Americans (and British/Canadians) is they keep records while the Soviets looked the other way. We know they looked the other way because of civilians - yes, German civilians - discussing their plight.

The reality is German soldiers and citizens preferred the Americans and British/Canadians over the Soviets. What you call propaganda that fooled them doesn't compute because people talk or in other words it becomes known through the grapevine what is bullshit and what is not. It also probably didn't help many of those Germans were aware of atrocities committed by their soldiers in Eastern Europe and knew the fate that would befall them.

This is what happens with weak minded people: NATO is bad and because it's an arm of the US everything about the US of the past has to be bad as well. Some people have difficulty to look at things independently. It's the equivalent of people who if they like someone they can't see a flaw in that person or downplay the flaws. If they dislike someone they're able to see any virtues in that person. It's all or nothing. People do this often with ethnic groups and nations.

So the Americans made all those T34s that were streaming into Berlin ? Bullshit. The Americans bumbling ? I gave you a couple of examples: Omaha Beach was one massive clusterfuck. The British and the Canadians reached their objectives on Day 1. You reached them after 3 long weeks. Kassering was another massive fuck up: with the Americans, in their arrogance, attacking a veteran Germany army with a bunch of rookies and then ended getting their asses kicked so badly, they couldn't sit for weeks. Salerno ? They didn't even make it off the beach. As for the Italian front - Montecassino (Polish breakthrough) and Rome, it was going nowhere until 1945.


Well.. we have no countries here looking back at the American liberation with such fondness because no countries were actually liberated by the Americans. Not one - as the Americans followed a "straight into Germany" approach where they got stuck - first at Nijmegen (after the Brits had bailed them out at Son where the bridge had been blown up in their faces) at the expense of their own troops btw , and then at the Hurtgen Forest (which was an unmitigated disaster of epic proportions) and then in the Ardennes. We can safely conclude that when German and American forces fought each other on 1-to-1 basis, the Americans always lost.

The Rheinwiesenlager were virtual concentration camps were between between 20.000 and 100.000 (some go even higher) were starved to desth or left to exposure. Not that different from Siberia. As for the Germans prefering the Americans: they were sadly disappointed when the Americans actually came as Als die Soldaten kamen (Gebhardt) beautifully points out (much like the French before them as can be seen in What Soldiers Do (Roberts): they raped and looted and they were no different from the Red Army. They just had the better propaganda and in East Germany too, people believed the official narrative until 1989. As for the Americans keeping records ? The same with the Soviets: most are sealed.

As for NATO being bad because America is bad ? NATO is a bad idea because America treats his "allies" like shit, sacrifices our troops needlessly, disrespects us on a daily basis and then expects us to be grateful for it. And let's not even go into the The Hague Invasion Act.

[Ruggery]

Nijmegen was more deadly than Rotterdam, actually. In reality (apart from the Jews), the Allies killed far more people here than the Germans did. Same goes f.i for France and Belgium.

You mean the Market Garden operation? Probably some civilians died from the bombings accidentally, but that happened everywhere, I doubt very much that the Americans and the British have killed civilians with the intention of doing so.

[Westbrook]

So other than the F35, what else is he "implying" they should be buying from America?


It's hard to even understand this angle you're defending. Trump says he wants Europe and NATO countries to spend more on their militaries to be less dependent on the US, and you + Macron say Europe should...spend more on their militaries to be less...dependent on the US....out of spite?
Far from it, actually. Here a politician who wanted to step away from the F35 program ended up dead.

[Ruggery]

So the Americans made all those T34s that were streaming into Berlin ? Bullshit. The Americans bumbling ? I gave you a couple of examples: Omaha Beach was one massive clusterfuck. The British and the Canadians reached their objectives on Day 1. You reached them after 3 long weeks. Kassering was another massive fuck up: with the Americans, in their arrogance, attacking a veteran Germany army with a bunch of rookies and then ended getting their asses kicked so badly, they couldn't sit for weeks. Salerno ? They didn't even make it off the beach. As for the Italian front - Montecassino (Polish breakthrough) and Rome, it was going nowhere until 1945.


Well.. we have no countries here looking back at the American liberation with such fondness because no countries were actually liberated by the Americans. Not one - as the Americans followed a "straight into Germany" approach where they got stuck - first at Nijmegen (after the Brits had bailed them out at Son where the bridge had been blown up in their faces) at the expense of their own troops btw , and then at the Hurtgen Forest (which was an unmitigated disaster of epic proportions) and then in the Ardennes. We can safely conclude that when German and American forces fought each other on 1-to-1 basis, the Americans always lost.

The Rheinwiesenlager were virtual concentration camps were between between 20.000 and 100.000 (some go even higher) were starved to desth or left to exposure. Not that different from Siberia. As for the Germans prefering the Americans: they were sadly disappointed when the Americans actually came as Als die Soldaten kamen (Gebhardt) beautifully points out (much like the French before them as can be seen in What Soldiers Do (Roberts): they raped and looted and they were no different from the Red Army. They just had the better propaganda and in East Germany too, people believed the official narrative until 1989. As for the Americans keeping records ? The same with the Soviets: most are sealed.

As for NATO being bad because America is bad ? NATO is a bad idea because America treats his "allies" like shit, sacrifices our troops needlessly, disrespects us on a daily basis and then expects us to be grateful for it. And let's not even go into the The Hague Invasion Act.

It could be said that the Americans, together with the British, expelled the Germans from Belgium at the Battle of the Ardennes.

[The Lawspeaker]

Hey, hey, hey, I can understand that the Americans have committed violations, in fact, I believe that all the countries that participated in the Second World War committed violations among them Germans, Russians, British, French, Japanese, etc. But where did you receive them? The Russians punished the rapes when they were promoted and it did not matter to them if they raped their enemies because for them it is a reward, at least the Americans were taught not to rape (although in the end they ended up ignoring that rule) and rape. in the army, the Nazis were forbidden and if they discovered one of their soldiers raping a person, this was shot as punishment.
Hey, hey, hey, I can understand that the Americans have committed violations, in fact, I believe that all the countries that participated in the Second World War committed violations among them Germans, Russians, British, French, Japanese, etc. But where did you hear that the Russians punished the rapes? In fact, it is the opposite: they were promoted and did not care that they raped their enemies because for them it is a reward, at least the Americans were taught not to rape (although in the end they ended up ignoring that rule) and rape. in the army, the Nazis were forbidden and if they discovered that one of their soldiers was raping a person, they would be shot as punishment.

In addition, it was the Nazis who launched the greatest bombing in the Netherlands.

While Ehrenburg may have promoted the rapes, the orders given to the Red Army were clear. A Stavka Directive #11072, dating 20 April 1945, prescribed dealing severely with those found in flagrant breach of the acts of war. And they were severe punishments for it: from penal labour (Siberia) to the firing squad.

[The Lawspeaker]

It could be said that the Americans, together with the British, expelled the Germans from Belgium at the Battle of the Ardennes.

Hardly. That was only possible when the weather had cleared up at the end of December - by then British troops had also started severe counter attacks.

[The Lawspeaker]

So other than the F35, what else is he "implying" they should be buying from America?


It's hard to even understand this angle you're defending. Trump says he wants Europe and NATO countries to spend more on their militaries to be less dependent on the US, and you + Macron say Europe should...spend more on their militaries to be less...dependent on the US....out of spite?

No. Trump wants us to spend more money on defence and buy American equipment. He just doesn't say it outright. He just uses the "to be less dependent on America" as a sales pitch. Besides: the Americans have been the only one to have ever called in article 5.

[The Lawspeaker]

You mean the Market Garden operation? Probably some civilians died from the bombings accidentally, but that happened everywhere, I doubt very much that the Americans and the British have killed civilians with the intention of doing so.

Actually, no ! The combinations of air raids on Dutch cities, civilian casualties during the fighting and the Famine of 1944 (due to a railway strike for which the order had come from London).

[Ruggery]

Hardly. That was only possible when the weather had cleared up at the end of December - by then British troops had also started severe counter attacks.

It should also be mentioned that the main protagonist of that battle was the artillery.

[The Lawspeaker]

It should also be mentioned that the main protagonist of that battle was the artillery.

Only in the first stages- when the weather cleared it was back to air attacks.

[Ruggery]

Actually, no ! The combinations of air raids on Dutch cities, civilian casualties during the fighting and the Famine of 1944 (due to a railway strike for which the order had come from London).

The intention of the bombing was to attack the majority positions of the Nazi army. This also happened in Dresden, but unfortunately the bombs do not always fall where they should fall. And the famine was also to block the Nazis, but the most affected are the innocent civilians.

[The Lawspeaker]

The intention of the bombing was to attack the majority positions of the Nazi army. This also happened in Dresden, but unfortunately the bombs do not always fall where they should fall. And the famine was also to block the Nazis, but the most affected are the innocent civilians.

Actually no: in Nijmegen and other cities in Gelderland they were dropped on the city without actual German positions being anywhere near it. We're talking February 1944 here. Same goes for the bombs dropped on neutral Switzerland. They did it because they could - if they could survive a tour without having to fly into Germany's air defense system, they could go home after 25 tours.

Indeed the city was deliberately targeted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Nijmegen#Legacy):


The Allied bombing of Nijmegen claimed almost as many civilian casualties as the German bombing of Rotterdam (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotterdam_Blitz) at the start of the war (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Netherlands), but nationally it isn't given nearly as much attention.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Nijmegen#cite_note-AT-2) The population of Nijmegen was told not to express their emotions, because the bombardment had been carried out by a befriended nation. Furthermore, it was officially maintained that it was an 'erroneous bombardment' (vergissingsbombardement), and the fact that the railway station area was indeed actually the intended target of opportunity, was covered up.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Nijmegen#cite_note-faux-3) Many survivors have always found the word 'error' rather painful, and Roosendaal opined that term does not do justice to what has happened.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Nijmegen#cite_note-faux-3)

Indeed (https://www.omroepgelderland.nl/nieuws/2125576/Vergissingsbombardement-op-Arnhem-van-22-februari-1944-voor-altijd-in-de-schaduw-van-Nijmegen) - more cities were targeted:


ARNHEM - Het blijft voor altijd een zwarte dag in de Gelderse geschiedenis: 22 februari 1944. De dag van het verwoestende Amerikaanse bombardement op Nijmegen dat aan ruim 800 mensen het leven kostte. Minder bekend is dat diezelfde dag ook Arnhem, Deventer en Enschede het doelwit werden van de Amerikanen die na het afblazen van hun missie naar het Duitse Gotha - het weer was te slecht - op zoek gingen naar gelegenheidsdoelen. De gevolgen waren rampzalig: in Arnhem vielen 57 doden en in Enschede 40 doden en 41 zwaargewonden. In de hoek Deventer-Terwolde viel slechts één dodelijk slachtoffer toen een boerderij werd getroffen.


Nijmegen, waar de Amerikanen besloten het stationsgebied te bombarderen, werd het zwaarst getroffen. Het stadscentrum kreeg er zwaar van langs. Onder meer als gevolg van de relatieve onervarenheid van de bemanningen, stelde de Nijmeegse historicus Joost Rosendaal later in een boek over het bombardement: geen vergissing maar een 'faux pas', zoals hij een Amerikaanse commandant citeerde: een keuze die nooit gemaakt had mogen worden. Voor Arnhem geldt dat de Amerikaanse bemanningen dachten dat ze een Duitse stad in het vizier hadden.

In other words: no accident - but murder.

[Ruggery]

Actually no: in Nijmegen and other cities in Gelderland they were dropped on the city without actual German positions being anywhere near it. We're talking February 1944 here. Same goes for the bombs dropped on neutral Switzerland. They did it because they could - if they could survive a tour without having to fly into Germany's air defense system, they could go home after 25 tours.

I did not know that, I understand that most of the allied bombings in Germany and in almost all of Europe were aimed at attacking only important military targets, even before the war began, the Nazis had those clear objectives, only military positions and not civil .

[Slavic Italian]

So he is setting Europe up to be occupied by another American-Russian alliance for another 75 years? Smart move.

[The Lawspeaker]

I did not know that, I understand that most of the allied bombings in Germany and in almost all of Europe were aimed at attacking only important military targets, even before the war began, the Nazis had those clear objectives, only military positions and not civil .
Actually, the 14 May 1940 air raid on Rotterdam was a mistake as a surrender of city was still being negotiated. The Luftwaffe fired off red flares in order to stop their crews from attacking the city but they didn't see the flares and bombed the city anyway.

In other words: Rotterdam was an error. The first London air raid (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/1413593/The-Luftwaffe-blunder-that-started-five-years-of-destruction.html) was also an error as a pilot dropped off his bombs, mistakenly believing that he had reached his intended target (hitting a civilian area instead).


German aircraft heading for a military target flew off course and mistakenly dropped their bombs on central London.

The raid was interpreted by Winston Churchill as deliberate and the following night 40 British bombers were sent on their first attack to the German capital Berlin.

The raid incensed Adolf Hitler, who said that for every bomb dropped by Britain, Germany would retaliate with 100 times more. At the end of September a 57-day onslaught - the Blitz - began on London, with a concerted effort to attack civilians rather than just military sites.




In the case of the Allied attacks on Germany and the later German attacks on Britain (after the first mistake), it was deliberate tit for tat among which the Coventry Air Raid, Operation Gomorrah or the Dresden Holocaust were, perhaps, the most disgusting of the lot. But the fact that, particularly the Americans, bombed third countries (including neutral Switzerland) with such abandon, should show you that there was a deeper mentality at work here.

[Ruggery]

Actually, the 14 May 1940 air raid on Rotterdam was a mistake as a surrender of city was still being negotiated. The Luftwaffe fired off red flares in order to stop their crews from attacking the city but they didn't see the flares and bombed the city anyway.

In other words: Rotterdam was an error. The first London air raid (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/1413593/The-Luftwaffe-blunder-that-started-five-years-of-destruction.html) was also an error as a pilot dropped off his bombs, mistakenly believing that he had reached his intended target (hitting a civilian area instead).

That too was very likely to happen.There were many wars that were also initiated by a simple mistake or confusion.

[The Lawspeaker]

That too was very likely to happen.There were many wars that were also initiated by a simple mistake or confusion.

I would say that this didn't apply to later air raids. The bombings of French, Dutch and Swiss cities can't be a mistake. They were deliberate.




Saint-Nazaire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint-Nazaire) (Loire Atlantique (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loire_Atlantique)): 100%
Tilly-la-Campagne (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilly-la-Campagne) (Calvados (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvados_(department))): 96%
Vire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vire) (Calvados): 95%
Villers-Bocage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villers-Bocage,_Calvados) (Calvados): 88%
Le Havre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Havre) (Seine-Maritime (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seine-Maritime)): 82%
Saint-Lô (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint-L%C3%B4) (Manche (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manche)): 77%
Falaise (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falaise,_Calvados) (Calvados): 76%
Lisieux (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisieux) (Calvados): 75%




Boulogne-Billancourt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulogne-Billancourt) near Paris (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris) 2–3 March 1942, more than 600 people killed,
Saint-Nazaire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint-Nazaire) 9, 14, 17 and 18 November 1942, 228 dead,
Rennes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rennes) 8 March 1943, 299 dead,
Boulogne-Billancourt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulogne-Billancourt) again 4 April 1943, 403 dead,
Le Portel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Portel) 8 September 1943, 510 dead,
Paris western suburbs 9 and 15 September 1943, 395 dead,
Nantes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nantes) 16 and 23 September 1943, 1,247 dead,
Toulon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toulon) 24 November 1943, 450 dead)
Lille (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lille) 9–10 April 1944, 450 dead,
Rouen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rouen) 18–19 April 1944, 900 dead,
Noisy-le-Sec (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noisy-le-Sec) 18–19 April 1944, 464 dead,
Juvisy-sur-Orge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juvisy-sur-Orge) 18–19 April 1944, 392 dead,
Paris-La Chapelle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris) 20–21 April 1944, 670 dead,
Sartrouville (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sartrouville) 27–28 May 1944, 400 dead,
Orléans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orl%C3%A9ans) 19 and 23 May 1944, 300 dead,
Saint-Etienne (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint-Etienne) 26 May 1944, more than 1,000 dead,
Lyon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyon) 26 May 1944, 717 dead,
Marseille (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marseille) 27 May 1944, 1,752 dead,
Avignon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avignon) 27 May 1944, 525 dead,
Lisieux (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisieux) 6–7 June 1944, 700 dead,
Vire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vire) 6–7 June 1944, 400 dead,
Caen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caen) 6–7 June 1944, more than 1,000 dead,
Le Havre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Havre) 5–11 September 1944, more than 5,000 dead,
Royan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royan) 5 January 1945, 1,700 dead, etc.

On the date of May 27, 1944 alone, 3,012 French civilians were killed by Anglo-American bombings on Marseille (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marseille), Avignon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avignon), Nîmes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%AEmes), Amiens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiens), Sartrouville (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sartrouville), Maisons-Laffitte (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maisons-Laffitte) and Eauplet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rouen).[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_France_during_World_War_II#cite_note-3)[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_France_during_World_War_II#cite_note-4)



None of these cities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_France_during_World_War_II) lie very close to Germany. Neither do most Swiss towns that got fragged. As for the Netherlands: only Enschede, Venlo and Nijmegen are within 30 kms of the German border. In other words: they were no mistakes, but murder.

[Ruggery]

I would say that this didn't apply to later air raids. The bombings of French, Dutch and Swiss cities can't be a mistake. They were deliberate.



None of these cities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_France_during_World_War_II) lie very close to Germany. Neither do most Swiss towns that got fragged. As for the Netherlands: only Enschede, Venlo and Nijmegen are within 30 kms of the German border. In other words: they were no mistakes, but murder.

Neither were the bombarders in Japan and Russia.

[The Lawspeaker]

Others maintain that it was ghastly, but Hitler started it so needed to be answered in a language he understood. Unfortunately, records show that the first intentional “area bombing” of civilians in the Second World War took place at Monchengladbach on 11 May 1940 at Churchill’s orders (the day after he dramatically became prime minister), and four months before the Luftwaffe began its Blitz of British cities.

As for the first deliberate bombing of a city (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/11410633/Dresden-was-a-civilian-town-with-no-military-significance.-Why-did-we-burn-its-people.html) on the Western front: that would have been the Allies (RAF). That was even before Rotterdam.

[The Lawspeaker]

Neither were the bombarders in Japan and Russia.

They just shot at anything they saw and they rewrote the history books later. You know: the Allies did more damage to this country than the Germans ever could in their wildest imagination: they bombed entire cities, they blew up dikes (all over Zealand), they shot up trains and other transports alike (civilian or military), halted food transports. And after the war we had to rebuild and gee.. guess where we could lend the money ? Why.. from the same people that fragged the whole country, that is ! The same people who then also supported Indonesian independence (we thus became dependent on imported American resources) and then quickly stripped the Dutch off their assets and handed them to American corporations.

One would almost think there is a deliberate plan behind it all. Funny enough how they pulled the same stunt with the French and how they called loans on the British when the British, stupidly, elected the "wrong government" (Labour).

[Slavic Italian]

As for the first deliberate bombing of a city (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/11410633/Dresden-was-a-civilian-town-with-no-military-significance.-Why-did-we-burn-its-people.html) on the Western front: that would have been the Allies (RAF). That was even before Rotterdam.

You clearly hate Americans.

[Slavic Italian]

They just shot at anything they saw and they rewrote the history books later. You know: the Allies did more damage to this country than the Germans ever could in their wildest imagination: they bombed entire cities, they blew up dikes (all over Zealand), they shot up trains and other transports alike (civilian or military), halted food transports. And after the war we had to rebuild and gee.. guess where we could lend the money ? Why.. from the same people that fragged the whole country, that is ! The same people who then also supported Indonesian independence (we thus became dependent on imported American resources) and then quickly stripped the Dutch off their assets and handed them to American corporations.

One would almost think there is a deliberate plan behind it all. Funny enough how they pulled the same stunt with the French and how they called loans on the British when the British, stupidly, elected the "wrong government" (Labour).

What are you guys going to do about the Polish? The beg for an American base. Their loyalties are not to Macron's motives.

[The Lawspeaker]

You clearly hate Americans.

Give me a good reason to like the U.S. What have you given us but destruction, war profiteering, financial enslavement, the The Hague Invasion Act, daily disrespect, the needlessly sacrificing of our soldiers in a war we had nothing to do with, the destabilization of both Eastern Europe, the Middle East and North Africa ?

[The Lawspeaker]

What are you guys going to do about the Polish? The beg for an American base. Their loyalties are not to Macron's motives.

Give them 10 years and they will be right on cue with us. That's how it long it takes for them to get to know you. That, indeed, you're no different from the Third Reich or the USSR: the same imperialists in a different uniform.

[Ruggery]

They just shot at anything they saw and they rewrote the history books later. You know: the Allies did more damage to this country than the Germans ever could in their wildest imagination: they bombed entire cities, they blew up dikes (all over Zealand), they shot up trains and other transports alike (civilian or military), halted food transports. And after the war we had to rebuild and gee.. guess where we could lend the money ? Why.. from the same people that fragged the whole country, that is ! The same people who then also supported Indonesian independence (we thus became dependent on imported American resources) and then quickly stripped the Dutch off their assets and handed them to American corporations.

One would almost think there is a deliberate plan behind it all. Funny enough how they pulled the same stunt with the French and how they called loans on the British when the British, stupidly, elected the "wrong government" (Labour).
I know that the allies were not angels, they were also the allies that caused a lot of damage, since they were responsible for launching the only nuclear bombs in history towards Hiroshima and Nagasaki full of civilians.
But do you think Netherlands would have been better off with Nazi domination?

[The Lawspeaker]

I know that the allies were not angels, they were also the allies that caused a lot of damage, since they were responsible for launching the only nuclear bombs in history towards Hiroshima and Nagasaki full of civilians.
But do you think Netherlands would have been better off with Nazi domination?

There would have no Nazi domination without the Americans supplying war materials. Indeed: there, probably, would have been no Hitler either (http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_Hitler.pdf).

[Loki]

At some point in the future (and it's becoming close) we may need to protect ourseves from the US here in Europe. So yes Macron's idea is very realistic.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Its obvious US helped win the war. Overall probably 2nd biggest contributor.
But still anytime Americans say they gave war material to Soviets, I will say they also did the same with Germany from the 1930s to 1941.

Yeah, when the US wasn't at war with Germany. Oh, noes... the US traded with a nation it wasn't in conflict with.... the horror of international trade...


Despite their massive crimes, Soviets did the most. Regardless if its liberation or "liberation".


War is terrible. It's best not to have a war and if you decide to go to war you better win cuz no one treats the loser well.

[The Lawspeaker]

At some point in the future (and it's becoming close) we may need to protect ourseves from the US here in Europe. So yes Macron's idea is very realistic.

I think the US has given us no real alternative. It's a bitter pill to swallow: I don't want a EU Army or a EU - but I am all for a European alliance.

[Slavic Italian]

Give them 10 years and they will be right on cue with us. That's how it long it takes for them to get to know you. That, indeed, you're no different from the Third Reich or the USSR: the same imperialists in a different uniform.

You think it will be that easy to convince the Poles who want to be a major player? I have my opinions on your other statements. I have nothing to say.

[Ruggery]

There would have no Nazi domination without the Americans supplying war materials. Indeed: there, probably, would have been no Hitler either (http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_Hitler.pdf).

The Nazis invaded Netherlands to occupy France.

[Slavic Italian]

At some point in the future (and it's becoming close) we may need to protect ourseves from the US here in Europe. So yes Macron's idea is very realistic.

Protect yourselves from the U.S. doing what?

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

At some point in the future (and it's becoming close) we may need to protect ourseves from the US here in Europe. So yes Macron's idea is very realistic.

In contrast to Putin and Russia. As we all know there is no better friend to Europe than Putin. When will you stop looking for a father figure in political strong men? It's not okay to be in awe of other men. We typically stop doing that when we become adults. This cult of personality nonsense needs to end.

[The Lawspeaker]

Yeah, when the US wasn't at war with Germany. Oh, noes... the US trade with a nation it wasn't in conflict with.... the horror of international trade...
.

This continued during (http://web.mit.edu/thistle/www/v13/3/oil.html) the war (https://www.globalresearch.ca/profits-ber-alles-american-corporations-and-hitler/4607).

[The Lawspeaker]

The Nazis invaded Netherlands to occupy France.

And how did these Luftwaffe planes get off the ground without tetraethyl lead ? Which was delivered by only three companies: Standard Oil, Du Pont, and General Motors. Where did they get the finances (they were broke in 1932) or the materials ?

[Ruggery]

And how did these Luftwaffe planes get off the ground without tetraethyl lead ? Which was delivered by only three companies: Standard Oil, Du Pont, and General Motors. Where did they get the finances (they were broke in 1932) or the materials ?

I do not know that

[The Lawspeaker]

You think it will be that easy to convince the Poles who want to be a major player? I have my opinions on your other statements. I have nothing to say.

Understanding how you were up to no good convinced the French by the 1960s. (De Gaulle). Funny how this new movement coming in from Berkeley just tried to depose him just a couple of years later...


I do not know that

Now you do.

[Slavic Italian]

And how did these Luftwaffe planes get off the ground without tetraethyl lead ? Which was delivered by only three companies: Standard Oil, Du Pont, and General Motors. Where did they get the finances (they were broke in 1932) or the materials ?

So you think the U.S. was the logistical arm behind the Wehrmacht?

[Loki]

Protect yourselves from the U.S. doing what?

Who knows... aggression, trade embargoes, etc etc... could be anything. Better safe than sorry.

[The Lawspeaker]

So you think the U.S. was the logistical arm behind the Wehrmacht?

To make it very short: yes. Absolutely. The arsenal of fascism (http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_Hitler.pdf).... err communism (http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_the_bolshevik_revolution-5.pdf).. err "democracy".

[Slavic Italian]

Understanding how you were up to no good convinced the French by the 1960s. (De Gaulle). Funny how this new movement coming in from Berkeley just tried to depose him just a couple of years later...



Now you do.

He is something that might shock you. I already knew most of the things you have been sharing.

[The Lawspeaker]

Who knows... aggression, trade embargoes, etc etc... could be anything. Better safe than sorry.

Regime change after we find some oil here and there. It wouldn't be the first time they needed to "liberate" a country...

[The Lawspeaker]

He is something that might shock you. I already knew most of the things you have been sharing.

This should show us how devoid of morality many "patriotic" Americans are then.

[Loki]

In contrast to Putin and Russia. As we all know there is no better friend to Europe than Putin. When will you stop looking for a father figure in political strong men? It's not okay to be in awe of other men. We typically stop doing that when we become adults. This cult of personality nonsense needs to end.

Putin won't be leading Russia forever. In 10 years from now, there will be a different leader in Moscow.

[Slavic Italian]

This should show us how devoid of morality many "patriotic" Americans are then.

Two things. I am not patriotic. There is nothing I can do about it.

[Slavic Italian]

This should show us how devoid of morality many "patriotic" Americans are then.

99% of Americans are unaware as well. I am wired differently.

[The Lawspeaker]

Putin won't be leading Russia forever. In 10 years from now, there will be a different leader in Moscow.

In other words: Europe might do well to keep both out..

[Dragoon]

Understanding how you were up to no good convinced the French by the 1960s. (De Gaulle). Funny how this new movement coming in from Berkeley just tried to depose him just a couple of years later...



https://www.france24.com/en/20101109-charles-de-gaulle-legacy-france-usa-international-not-subservient
https://theculturetrip.com/europe/france/articles/how-charles-de-gaulle-survived-over-thirty-assassination-attempts/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_of_1968

Sometimes you wonder does California ever produce any good political things? Very unfortunate this New Left movement spread to Europe.

[The Lawspeaker]

https://www.france24.com/en/20101109-charles-de-gaulle-legacy-france-usa-international-not-subservient
https://theculturetrip.com/europe/france/articles/how-charles-de-gaulle-survived-over-thirty-assassination-attempts/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_of_1968

Funny how that goes, no ? So after he had told the Americans to suck a fat one.

[The Lawspeaker]

If Trump continues pushing Europeans, it would bring an end to NATO – Wimmer (https://www.rt.com/news/432883-trump-nato-wimmer-interview/)

Published time: 12 Jul, 2018 16:10 Edited time: 13 Jul, 2018 12:30
Get short URL (https://on.rt.com/9a0j)

https://img.rt.com/files/2018.07/article/5b477beafc7e939e7d8b4599.jpg
© Reinhard Krause © Reuters

Donald Trump’s policy of pressuring European countries on issues like defense spending, Russia cooperation or trade will ultimately end NATO, Willy Wimmer, Germany’s former State Secretary for Defense, told RT.

Commenting on the outcome of this week’s NATO summit in Brussels, during which the US president criticized European members of the alliance of spending too little on defense and berated Germany for buying natural gas from Russia, Wimmer said Trump was going too far.


https://img.rt.com/files/2018.07/thumbnail/5b473e1cdda4c829608b4629.jpg

If ‘everyone’ has good relations with Russia, Nord Stream may be ‘less of a problem’ – Trump to NATO
(https://www.rt.com/news/432857-trump-nord-stream-threat/)
“If any Western European government would follow these ideas of Washington, they would be kicked out of office by their own population,” he predicted. “There is no feeling among Western Europeans that there is a military, economic or political threat by the Russian Federation, which would justify the behavior of President Trump in Brussels.”
“The only response to the US approach would be an end of NATO,” he warned, adding that such an outcome is not what European governments want.

Wimmer said the alliance has been losing popularity among Europeans, especially in the past few years when US military adventures triggered a chain of events that was really hurtful for Europe.

“If NATO continues its policies, it would lose all the support it had in the past,” he said. “Western European population is no longer willing to support Anglo-Saxon wars in our neighborhood. When we look at the migration crisis in Western Europe, it is directly linked to NATO wars in Afghanistan and Mali.

“NATO became outdated the moment we adopted the Charter of Paris (https://www.osce.org/mc/39516?download=true) in November 1990. No longer war in Europe. And NATO brought war back to Europe,” Wimmer added.



As for here:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is1rMGR32xQ

Read the comments: my idea that the Americans just want us to buy American weapons, is a commonly held one.

[Caveat Emptor]

Putin won't be leading Russia forever. In 10 years from now, there will be a different leader in Moscow.

Why do I have a feeling that he's going to live for another 400 years? As per Stephen Colbert late night joke.

In all seriousness I'd not be surprised at all with another 25 years of Putin. (Not saying it's good or bad).

[Caveat Emptor]

As for here:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is1rMGR32xQ

Read the comments: my idea that the Americans just want us to buy American weapons, is a commonly held one.

All you guys have to do to maintain peace in Europe is spend that damn 2-4% of your GDP on defense - now that's a luxury in the time of peace so the Europeans don't appreciate it, just how luxurious that is and how unique this is as a historical experience.

We can no longer carry this burden on our own (the post-1989 Pax Americana) and all the US asks of NATO is to commit that 2% of GDP. I mean it shouldn't be a big deal.

Also, if you do choose to buy our weapons then sure that's also good for our industry :D

With all members committing this 2-4% of GDP, NATO can still maintain a collective hegemony over the world easily for the next couple of decades, 50 years at least, thereby ensuring world peace. There are no better solutions but to be prepared to deter any conflict from arising.

[The Lawspeaker]

All you guys have to do to maintain peace in Europe is spend that damn 2-4% of your GDP on defense - now that's a luxury in the time of peace so the Europeans don't appreciate it, just how luxurious that is and how unique this is as a historical experience.

We can no longer carry this burden on our own (the post-1989 Pax Americana) and all the US asks of NATO is to commit that 2% of GDP. I mean it shouldn't be a big deal.

Also, if you do choose to buy our weapons then sure that's also good for our industry :D

1. We should spend that money when it's needed.

2. Orders should only go to our own industry unless the yanks actually make something of value.

3. We should leave NATO.

4. You'll take in the migrants and refugees since you bombed their countries. We are not going to carry the burden of cleaning up after you.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

So the Americans made all those T34s that were streaming into Berlin ? Bullshit. The Americans bumbling ? I gave you a couple of examples: Omaha Beach was one massive clusterfuck. The British and the Canadians reached their objectives on Day 1. You reached them after 3 long weeks.

First of all, you don't know what Main Line Resistance means and so hence your ignorant statements. You always know when someone doesn't know what they're talking about when they ask rhetorical questions.

The US took the brunt of the fighting.

Juno Beach wasn't a significant obstacle (parts of one infantry division).

Gold Beach was held by only 2 German divisions in contrast to Omaha that was held by a battalion and division.

Sword Beach by 8 companies and a tank division.

Do we understand the above? As not being able to meet their objective in weeks you should humor me and say what exactly the objective was. Details are what hangs a man.


Kassering was another massive fuck up: with the Americans, in their arrogance, attacking a veteran Germany army with a bunch of rookies and then ended getting their asses kicked so badly, they couldn't sit for weeks. Salerno ? They didn't even make it off the beach. As for the Italian front - Montecassino (Polish breakthrough) and Rome, it was going nowhere until 1945.

There was no battle called Kassering. There was a battle called Battle of Kasserine Pass and that was at the very start of the war when there weren't any US officers with experience. Of all the examples you used you picked the first major operation by an army that had just entered the conflict.

Salerno was an Allied victory against a defensive position without much loss of life.

It's like you 'win' by showing US troops winning. Is that how Euros think? Winning is losing? I know you surrendered to the Nazis without much of a fight but do you see being conquered as winning? It's difficult to tell with you.

You're ignorant of military warfare and so I'll help you out. This wasn't the failure of the troops but the failure of General Frendendall. Eisenhower replaced him and the tide turned.


Well.. we have no countries here looking back at the American liberation with such fondness because no countries were actually liberated by the Americans. Not one - as the Americans followed a "straight into Germany" approach where they got stuck - first at Nijmegen (after the Brits had bailed them out at Son where the bridge had been blown up in their faces) at the expense of their own troops btw , and then at the Hurtgen Forest (which was an unmitigated disaster of epic proportions) and then in the Ardennes. We can safely conclude that when German and American forces fought each other on 1-to-1 basis, the Americans always lost.

Why would you look back with fondness for being liberated? It's shameful to have to be liberated by others. No one likes a loser. And yes you were liberated. If you have a foreign troop drinking at your bar and doing as he liked and then one day leaves cuz he has to go defend his homeland you've been liberated cuz that soldier left because of the actions of an army elsewhere and part of the goal was to get him out of your country. The Dutch themselves were clearly not going to be able to do it.

Why are you mentioning areas where battles took place in which the Americans won? It's not a rhetorical question. I want to know why you think losing means a powerful point has been made.


The Rheinwiesenlager were virtual concentration camps were between between 20.000 and 100.000 (some go even higher) were starved to desth or left to exposure. Not that different from Siberia. As for the Germans prefering the Americans: they were sadly disappointed when the Americans actually came as Als die Soldaten kamen (Gebhardt) beautifully points out (much like the French before them as can be seen in What Soldiers Do (Roberts): they raped and looted and they were no different from the Red Army. They just had the better propaganda and in East Germany too, people believed the official narrative until 1989. As for the Americans keeping records ? The same with the Soviets: most are sealed.

Once again, action over words. I've addressed your response already in my previous post. You're simply repeating yourself. I, however, we'll throw you a bone: J. Robert Lilly beautifully wrote in his book Taken by Force: Rape and American GIs in Europe in World War II US troops committed roughly 14,000 rapes across the lands it liberated. This is a far less than Soviet troops have been estimated in doing.

The author has credentials and his work was reviewed by objective parties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taken_by_Force_(book)

I don't know who the fuck your author is. What are his credentials? Who reviewed his work?



As for NATO being bad because America is bad ? NATO is a bad idea because America treats his "allies" like shit, sacrifices our troops needlessly, disrespects us on a daily basis and then expects us to be grateful for it. And let's not even go into the The Hague Invasion Act.

Of course you'll get treated like shit. No one respects the weak. You rely on the US military and so naturally you'll get looked down upon. So you're not mad at the US military in reality. You're mad at your own countrymen and fellow Eurofags.

[Slavic Italian]

1. We should spend that money when it's needed.

2. Orders should only go to our own industry unless the yanks actually make something of value.

3. We should leave NATO.

4. You'll take in the migrants and refugees since you bombed their countries. We are not going to carry the burden of cleaning up after you.

Can you guys even build a navy? Also, we know how this is going to go. Germany is going to do most of the work. Macron realizes he needs a very strong Germany to make this work and I am not under the impression the Germans are all in with this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bXVkdixPTM&list=FLuBsnW0ZyBc-mLnVONOSV0g&t=0s&index=169

[Ülev]

US - maritime power, the ruler of every strategic isthmus , with aircraft carriers, new Silk Road can change all

[Slavic Italian]

US - maritime power, the ruler of every strategic isthmus , with aircraft carriers, new Silk Road can change all

So you think the answer is building a transportation system via highways all the way to Asia?

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Putin won't be leading Russia forever. In 10 years from now, there will be a different leader in Moscow.

He'll just be replaced by another 'strong man.' In the US 8 years and you're out. It keeps such people from staying in power if they do rise to the position. If Trump wins the next election he'll be gone when it's done. He won't be lurking in the shadows as Putin had done (well, he wasn't even in the shadows... he was up front that he was running the show) when he had a puppet in office.

Loki, if you want a 'strong man' to look up to then just drool over my awesomeness. I can leg kick like a mother fucker. I'm going to post my legs. They not only look powerful but are powerful. Worship my legs and by proxy me. That's if you want, of course. I don't care, either way.

[Slavic Italian]

He'll just replaced by another 'strong man.' In the US 8 years and you're out. It keeps from such people from staying in power if they do rise to power. If Trump wins the next election he'll be gone when it's done. He won't be lurking in the shadows as Putin had done (well, he wasn't even in the shadows... he was up front that he was running the show) when he had a puppet in office.

Loki, if you want a 'strong man' to look up to then just drool to my awesomeness. I can leg kick like a mother fucker. I'm going to post my legs. They not only look powerful but are powerful. Worship my legs and by proxy me. That's if you want, of course. I don't care, either way.

LOL!

[Teutone]

LOL!

Hes a bastard but funny af sometimes :D

[Slavic Italian]

Hes a bastard but funny af sometimes :D

How he jokes on here is how I joke in reality. It really makes some people wonder, at times.

[Dragoon]

So you think the answer is building a transportation system via highways all the way to Asia?

Dont know enough about the project, but it spans across Eurasia. Its quite massive.
Not sure if roads are involved but trains are. East Asia has fast trains.
If hyperloop type projects get done it would make more sense. Also they are working on concorde type planes just quieter and stuff.



n September 2017, Hyperloop One selected 10 routes from 35 of the strongest proposals: Toronto–Montreal, Cheyenne–Denver–Pueblo, Miami–Orlando, Dallas–Laredo–Houston, Chicago–Columbus–Pittsburgh, Mexico City–Guadalajara, Edinburgh–London, Glasgow–Liverpool, Bengaluru–Chennai, and Mumbai–Pune.[48][49]

Others have put forward European routes, including a Paris to Amsterdam route proposed by Delft Hyperloop.[50][51] A Warsaw University of Technology team is evaluating potential routes from Cracow to Gdańsk across Poland proposed by Hyper Poland.[52]

TransPod is exploring the possibility of Hyperloop routes which would connect Toronto and Montreal,[53][54] Toronto to Windsor,[55] and Calgary to Edmonton.[56] Toronto and Montreal, the largest cities in Canada, are currently connected by Ontario Highway 401, the busiest highway in North America.[57]

Hyperloop Transportation Technologies (HTT) reportedly signed an agreement with the government of Slovakia in March 2016 to perform impact studies, with potential links between Bratislava, Vienna, and Budapest, but there have been no developments on that since.[58] In January 2017, HTT signed an agreement to explore the route Bratislava—Brno—Prague in Central Europe.[59]



Other locations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperloop#Proposed_routes

[Slavic Italian]

I also noticed people decided to overlook the Battle of the Bulge. That was entirely an American battle against the best Germany had to offer.

[Ülev]

United States – No commitment

The United States' officials have expressed concerns about whether the AIIB would have high standards of governance, and whether it would have environmental and social safeguards.[78] The United States is reported to have used diplomatic pressure to try and prevent key allies, such as Australia, from joining the bank,[79] and expressed disappointment when others, such as Britain, joined.[66][78] The US' opposition to the AIIB, as well as its attempt to dissuade allies from joining was seen as a manifestation of a multifaceted containment strategy. The failure of that approach in this case was widely acknowledged as a strategic blunder.[80]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_Infrastructure_Investment_Bank

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_and_Road_Initiative
it already happens

[Slavic Italian]

Back to the Euro army. The EU needs the Finns and Ukrainians as well to have any kind of power projection. Germany is going to be the heart of the army but you need Ukraine and France needs to build a larger army.

[Georgia]

Europe should stop being dependent on the USA and fund its own army,what’s so radical about it?

[Ruggery]

Europe should stop being dependent on the USA and fund its own army,what’s so radical about it?
But now it will be at the service of France and Brussels.

[Slavic Italian]

But now it will be at the service of France and Brussels.

Macron seems like he wants to control Europe. Just switching masters.

[Slavic Italian]

Speaking of Euro armies. I have a lot of respect for these guys.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsGOxuApZrE&t=209s

[Wanderer]

If Trump continues pushing Europeans, it would bring an end to NATO – Wimmer (https://www.rt.com/news/432883-trump-nato-wimmer-interview/)

Published time: 12 Jul, 2018 16:10 Edited time: 13 Jul, 2018 12:30
Get short URL (https://on.rt.com/9a0j)


© Reinhard Krause © Reuters

Donald Trump’s policy of pressuring European countries on issues like defense spending, Russia cooperation or trade will ultimately end NATO, Willy Wimmer, Germany’s former State Secretary for Defense, told RT.



That says it all right there. Stop listening to Russian propaganda.

[Slavic Italian]

That says it all right there. Stop listening to Russian propaganda.

I think Macron made some strong statements this past week. We'll see how it plays out.

[pulstar]

That says it all right there. Stop listening to Russian propaganda.

Stop listening to Russian propaganda listen to our propaganda.

[Dick]

Do Europeans actually take Macron seriously? just lol

[Teutone]

Do Europeans actually take Macron seriously? just lol

France is powerful, nuclear power and the 2nd strongest economy.

Basically hes the new leader of the EU.

[Slavic Italian]

France is powerful, nuclear power and the 2nd strongest economy.

Basically hes the new leader of the EU.

This. He is going to get his way.

[Teutone]

This. He is going to get his way.

But Italy is also a important member and its role will grow with UK leaving the EU.

And Salvini is in clear opposition to Merkel and Macron.

Same with not as powerful nations individually but still powerful as united group like Visegrad.

[Slavic Italian]

But Italy is also a important member and its role will grow with UK leaving the EU.

And Salvini is in clear opposition to Merkel and Macron.

Same with not as powerful nations individually but still powerful as united group like Visegrad.

France could wipe the floor with the nations you mentioned within a month. Macron has the financial backing. Look who groomed him. He is going to get his way. The Germans will kneel to the French. :)

[Teutone]

France could wipe the floor with the nations you mentioned within a month. Macron has the financial backing. Look who groomed him. He is going to get his way. The Germans will kneel to the French. :)

Germany and France have the same exact plans of globalism and Europe sadly.

A alpha male like kohl would never let 2015 happend and show Macron whos boss.

[Slavic Italian]

Germany and France have the same exact plans of globalism and Europe sadly.

A alpha male like kohl would never let 2015 happend and show Macron whos boss.

The French will lead the new Reich.

[Teutone]

The French will lead the new Reich.

Le Reich getting smaller, UK wasnt the last member leaving.

Look close to Austria, Italy and Hungary.

[Slavic Italian]

Le Reich getting smaller, UK wasnt the last member leaving.

Look close to Austria, Italy and Hungary.

The French SAS will exterminate those who do not support Le Reich.

[Ruggery]

France is powerful, nuclear power and the 2nd strongest economy.

Basically hes the new leader of the EU.

And who was the leader before? United Kingdom, Germany or Belgium.

[Slavic Italian]

And who was the leader before? United Kingdom, Germany or Belgium.

Mostly a UK/German partnership. Oh, with the Americans whispering in their ears.

[Teutone]

wrong thread

[Ruggery]

Mostly a UK/German partnership. Oh, with the Americans whispering in their ears.

Nor would I be surprised if the United States were indirectly the leader of the EU.

[Ruggery]

wrong thread

And Farmers and Rednecks.

[Teutone]

And who was the leader before? United Kingdom, Germany or Belgium.

Germany and in reality Rothschild, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, Volkswagen, Siemens etc

[Slavic Italian]

Nor would I be surprised if the United States were indirectly the leader of the EU.

The U.S. has a lot of rich investors who invest in the corporations that have most of the influence in the EU. The world is ran by corporations.

[Slavic Italian]

Here is what people are overlooking. A joint European army means a major equipment overhaul. That is a lot of money going into the pockets of the defense industries and corporations who do business with them. A lot of people with job security. One compliments the other. More young men/women being employed as soldiers. Lower unemployment. Eventually expansion and conquered territories. Population control. War which equals even more money. More weapons manufacturing and research. Dead soldiers being replaced. Even less unemployment. More population control. More importantly the rich getting richer.

[Ruggery]

Germany and in reality Rothschild, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, Volkswagen, Siemens etc

And do not forget the United States and probably Israel.

[Ruggery]

The U.S. has a lot of rich investors who invest in the corporations that have most of the influence in the EU. The world is ran by corporations.

Is True, USA dominates the world economically.

[Teutone]

Here is what people are overlooking. A joint European army means a major equipment overhaul. That is a lot of money going into the pockets of the defense industries and corporations who do business with them. A lot of people with job security. One compliments the other. More young men/women being employed as soldiers. Lower unemployment. Eventually expansion and conquered territories. Population control. War which equals even more money. More weapons manufacturing and research. Dead soldiers being replaced. Even less unemployment. More population control. More importantly the rich getting richer.

My country has no problem with unemployment and I dont want to pay taxes for a bunch of non German soldiers.

[Slavic Italian]

And do not forget the United States and probably Israel.

Those corporations have locations in the USA.

[Ruggery]

Those corporations have locations in the USA.

If so.

[wvwvw]

Macron calls for 'real European army' to defend against Russia and US

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46108633
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/emmanuel-macron-european-army-france-russia-us-military-defence-eu-a8619721.html
https://www.thelocal.fr/20181106/macron-calls-for-real-european-army-to-defend-against-russia-and-us

If that was the objective they would spend more on Nato, instead of wanting to create their own army.

[wvwvw]

Does anyone in his right mind really thinks the US will allow, a German-controlled, German-dominated EU to have its own army?

Weren't two world wars enough? Greedy Germany has proved time and again it has learned nothing from its mistakes.

I am 100% behind USA and Tramp on this, and agree with Churchill that Germany should be bombed every 50 years.

Especially in the case of Greece, which spends disproportionally high money on defense, as opposed to Germany that spends very little, a European army in a German dominated army would be highly disadvantaged.

[catgeorge]

No I won't fight for a E.U controlled by banks that enjoy belittling and suppress other Europeans. If I see an Eu army in Greece and specifically around the Greek mountains I will consider them as invaders and will sniper each and every one of them in the face..

[Mortimer]

Macron calls for 'real European army' to defend against Russia and US

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46108633
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/emmanuel-macron-european-army-france-russia-us-military-defence-eu-a8619721.html
https://www.thelocal.fr/20181106/macron-calls-for-real-european-army-to-defend-against-russia-and-us

Hey man are you French? You dont have the French flag in your profile but before I thought you are French?

I dont have a strong opinion. I see contra and pro in it. The EU would be lesser dominated by foreign powers, but smaller countries in the EU would feel dominated by bigger countries like France/Germany. So its basically the same for them or similar. I dont know what all Europeans think. I just sit back and watch what will happen.

[The Lawspeaker]

Can you guys even build a navy? Also, we know how this is going to go. Germany is going to do most of the work. Macron realizes he needs a very strong Germany to make this work and I am not under the impression the Germans are all in with this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bXVkdixPTM&list=FLuBsnW0ZyBc-mLnVONOSV0g&t=0s&index=169

We have a navy, dumbshit. We had one before you even existed !

[The Lawspeaker]

First of all, you don't know what Main Line Resistance means and so hence your ignorant statements. You always know when someone doesn't know what they're talking about when they ask rhetorical questions.

The US took the brunt of the fighting.

Juno Beach wasn't a significant obstacle (parts of one infantry division).

Gold Beach was held by only 2 German divisions in contrast to Omaha that was held by a battalion and division.

Sword Beach by 8 companies and a tank division.

Do we understand the above? As not being able to meet their objective in weeks you should humor me and say what exactly the objective was. Details are what hangs a man.



There was no battle called Kassering. There was a battle called Battle of Kasserine Pass and that was at the very start of the war when there weren't any US officers with experience. Of all the examples you used you picked the first major operation by an army that had just entered the conflict.

Salerno was an Allied victory against a defensive position without much loss of life.

It's like you 'win' by showing US troops winning. Is that how Euros think? Winning is losing? I know you surrendered to the Nazis without much of a fight but do you see being conquered as winning? It's difficult to tell with you.

You're ignorant of military warfare and so I'll help you out. This wasn't the failure of the troops but the failure of General Frendendall. Eisenhower replaced him and the tide turned.



Why would you look back with fondness for being liberated? It's shameful to have to be liberated by others. No one likes a loser. And yes you were liberated. If you have a foreign troop drinking at your bar and doing as he liked and then one day leaves cuz he has to go defend his homeland you've been liberated cuz that soldier left because of the actions of an army elsewhere and part of the goal was to get him out of your country. The Dutch themselves were clearly not going to be able to do it.

Why are you mentioning areas where battles took place in which the Americans won? It's not a rhetorical question. I want to know why you think losing means a powerful point has been made.



Once again, action over words. I've addressed your response already in my previous post. You're simply repeating yourself. I, however, we'll throw you a bone: J. Robert Lilly beautifully wrote in his book Taken by Force: Rape and American GIs in Europe in World War II US troops committed roughly 14,000 rapes across the lands it liberated. This is a far less than Soviet troops have been estimated in doing.

The author has credentials and his work was reviewed by objective parties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taken_by_Force_(book)

I don't know who the fuck your author is. What are his credentials? Who reviewed his work?




Of course you'll get treated like shit. No one respects the weak. You rely on the US military and so naturally you'll get looked down upon. So you're not mad at the US military in reality. You're mad at your own countrymen and fellow Eurofags.

The U.S is so strong that it couldn't even deal with a bunch of rice farmers in Vietnam or goat herders in Iraq or Afghanistan. Nobody respects the weak: consequently America is not to be respected.

The fact remains that the Americans never won a single 1 on 1 battle against the Germans. Not one. Cherbourg was due to fall on the 7th or the 8th as was the plan. The Americans didn't get there until the 30th. The British got off the beach and spent weeks trying to get the lumbering Americans to do their work. Kasserine and Anzio were two more beautiful examples of American weakness.

As it being liberated by others being shameful: America pretty much funded the Nazi's and I do hope you get occupied one day. Just so you know what it is like to have done to you what you have done to others.

As for the credentials of my writer: she is European and that's enough for me as Americans no longer have any credentials after fucking us over for 50 years.

[The Lawspeaker]

Europe should stop being dependent on the USA and fund its own army,what’s so radical about it?

We should just get out of the alliance. Maybe even work with Russia and China. In fact: the encirclement move that the U.S likes to pull with Russia, we could easily pull with the U.S by working with Canada and the countries of Latin America. As for the Europeans not being strong enough: we have much more manpower than the U.S does, we have a very strong industry and an highly educated workforce. In fact: Europeans have been designing good weapons for centuries - here is the latest one that could be a new service rifle (being considered by the Bundeswehr):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xM_6wbhwm8

In fact: America has been hampering European military development for a long, long time by centering everything around American requirements. The 7.62 and 5.56 NATO rounds (which are hugely inferior) being two beautiful examples - Europeans have their own rounds: .300, .280, 7.62 Soviet etc. All of which were superior. We can see the same process in the F-35 project where they took both American and European ideas for their own commercial use but then made the plane a crate by installing software that only the Americans and Israeli's (https://www.wired.com/2016/05/israel-can-customize-americas-f-35-least-now/) are allowed to handle. So, in other words: we should cancel our orders and use the remaining F35s that we've already bought to pirate them together with the Russians. I think a general European purchase of the F35 would be around 20 billion USD in total value (since those European partners would buy a couple of hundred in total and the latest price of one being 85 million USD). Let's save ourselves the money and spend it on a joint project with the Russians and a lot of Rafale's and Gripens.

[Thorns]

The U.S is so strong that it couldn't even deal with a bunch of rice farmers in Vietnam or goat herders in Iraq or Afghanistan. Nobody respects the weak: consequently America is not to be respected.

The fact remains that the Americans never won a single 1 on 1 battle against the Germans. Not one. Cherbourg was due to fall on the 7th or the 8th as was the plan. The Americans didn't get there until the 30th. The British got off the beach and spent weeks trying to get the lumbering Americans to do their work. Kasserine and Anzio were two more beautiful examples of American weakness.

As it being liberated by others being shameful: America pretty much funded the Nazi's and I do hope you get occupied one day. Just so you know what it is like to have done to you what you have done to others.

As for the credentials of my writer: she is European and that's enough for me as Americans no longer have any credentials after fucking us over for 50 years.

The problem with using post WW2 examples is that the US hasn't exercised the total will to victory in these conflicts, and you insult them for it. Yet the last time they did use that will for total victory (WW2) you do the same complaining, not only about the methods but also about the level of competence. You seem to forget the casualty ratios for all countries fighting against the Germans (on the ground) were lopsided, especially for the Russians.

Beyond that, perhaps you would have preferred being under Nazi or even Soviet occupation for the past 50+ years. Maybe you would have preferred to live in Poland, or Hungary behind the Iron Curtain? Or Poland or Ukraine or Russia under German occupation?

[Slavic Italian]

We have a navy, dumbshit. We had one before you even existed !

Horse's ass your navy is the fraction the size of the American navy. That's my point. Have an aircraft carrier? France does. But who else? I see you are Dutch. From a small weak nation that will ride the coattails of the French and Germans.

[Slavic Italian]

The U.S is so strong that it couldn't even deal with a bunch of rice farmers in Vietnam or goat herders in Iraq or Afghanistan. Nobody respects the weak: consequently America is not to be respected.

The fact remains that the Americans never won a single 1 on 1 battle against the Germans. Not one. Cherbourg was due to fall on the 7th or the 8th as was the plan. The Americans didn't get there until the 30th. The British got off the beach and spent weeks trying to get the lumbering Americans to do their work. Kasserine and Anzio were two more beautiful examples of American weakness.

As it being liberated by others being shameful: America pretty much funded the Nazi's and I do hope you get occupied one day. Just so you know what it is like to have done to you what you have done to others.

As for the credentials of my writer: she is European and that's enough for me as Americans no longer have any credentials after fucking us over for 50 years.

He became even more of a retard as this thread progressed. You would never talk like this to me or any other American in person because you would get your ass beat.

[Slavic Italian]

The U.S is so strong that it couldn't even deal with a bunch of rice farmers in Vietnam or goat herders in Iraq or Afghanistan. Nobody respects the weak: consequently America is not to be respected.

The fact remains that the Americans never won a single 1 on 1 battle against the Germans. Not one. Cherbourg was due to fall on the 7th or the 8th as was the plan. The Americans didn't get there until the 30th. The British got off the beach and spent weeks trying to get the lumbering Americans to do their work. Kasserine and Anzio were two more beautiful examples of American weakness.

As it being liberated by others being shameful: America pretty much funded the Nazi's and I do hope you get occupied one day. Just so you know what it is like to have done to you what you have done to others.

As for the credentials of my writer: she is European and that's enough for me as Americans no longer have any credentials after fucking us over for 50 years.

I was in a brigade sized Task Force(1-41) during the 1st Gulf war that destroyed 8 Iraqi divisions. All of them at least 80% strength and two of them elite Republican Guard. You have went full retard.

[Slavic Italian]

The problem with using post WW2 examples is that the US hasn't exercised the total will to victory in these conflicts, and you insult them for it. Yet the last time they did use that will for total victory (WW2) you do the same complaining, not only about the methods but also about the level of competence. You seem to forget the casualty ratios for all countries fighting against the Germans (on the ground) were lopsided, especially for the Russians.

Beyond that, perhaps you would have preferred being under Nazi or even Soviet occupation for the past 50+ years. Maybe you would have preferred to live in Poland, or Hungary behind the Iron Curtain? Or Poland or Ukraine or Russia under German occupation?

He singled out what are not "total wars." We quickly won the wars what we are losing is the colonization aspect of the campaign. The Middle Eastern peoples are generally very uneducated. Even retarded to the extent you can not work with them.

[Slavic Italian]

The U.S is so strong that it couldn't even deal with a bunch of rice farmers in Vietnam or goat herders in Iraq or Afghanistan. Nobody respects the weak: consequently America is not to be respected.

The fact remains that the Americans never won a single 1 on 1 battle against the Germans. Not one. Cherbourg was due to fall on the 7th or the 8th as was the plan. The Americans didn't get there until the 30th. The British got off the beach and spent weeks trying to get the lumbering Americans to do their work. Kasserine and Anzio were two more beautiful examples of American weakness.



What about the Ardennes? Bastogne? We won our share against the much more experienced Germans. The Germans were always fighting someone through the ages. We did fairly well considering they were much more experienced than us.

[Thorns]

We should just get out of the alliance. Maybe even work with Russia and China. In fact: the encirclement move that the U.S likes to pull with Russia, we could easily pull with the U.S by working with Canada and the countries of Latin America. As for the Europeans not being strong enough: we have much more manpower than the U.S does, we have a very strong industry and an highly educated workforce. In fact: Europeans have been designing good weapons for centuries - here is the latest one that could be a new service rifle (being considered by the Bundeswehr):
For all your anti-communist rhetoric, I don't know what to make of your willingness to work with China militarily.

Also, do you think that Russia wants a strong, unified Europe independent of their control? I don't think they like you very much, to be honest. I suppose your plan is please them as much as possible in order to change that, and extracting yourself from NATO is a step in that direction. I'm sure they'd love that.

You're talking about "easily" working with Canada and Latin America (and Russia and China) to change the geo-political situation of the world, in an "encirclement move" against the US. Those are big plans. Are you sure you've thought it all through thoroughly?

[The Lawspeaker]

Horse's ass your navy is the fraction the size of the American navy. That's my point. Have an aircraft carrier? France does. But who else? I see you are Dutch. From a small weak nation that will ride the coattails of the French and Germans.
We don't need to ride the coat tails as they're allies. Our forces are integrated: our Navy with the Germans and the Belgians, the Marines with the Germans and the British, much of our armed forces now work with the Germans. The Germans themselves do a lot with the French. Commands tend to rotate all the time.


He became even more of a retard as this thread progressed. You would never talk like this to me or any other American in person because you would get your ass beat.
How is your wall going ? Ooh no wait: Trump didn't deliver.

[The Lawspeaker]

For all your anti-communist rhetoric, I don't know what to make of your willingness to work with China militarily.

Also, do you think that Russia wants a strong, unified Europe independent of their control? I don't think they like you very much, to be honest. I suppose your plan is please them as much as possible in order to change that, and extracting yourself from NATO is a step in that direction. I'm sure they'd love that.

You're talking about "easily" working with Canada and Latin America (and Russia and China) to change the geo-political situation of the world. Those are big plans.

Actually: it has been Russia's dream to have a stable Western border and they consider the Americans a threat. Now.. if we were to be neutral or even ally ourselves with the Russians, they would have everything they wanted: including basis on the Atlantic Coast and the Europeans controlling the GIUK gap and Western approaches. As well as the Med. Your Sixth Fleet wouldn't even be able leave the Med and an American presence in the Middle East would be unsustainable.

[The Lawspeaker]

What about the Ardennes? Bastogne? We won our share against the much more experienced Germans. The Germans were always fighting someone through the ages. We did fairly well considering they were much more experienced than us.

You forget airpower. That's not one-on-one fighting. During the days when that option wasn't available, you got your arse handed to you.

[The Lawspeaker]

I was in a brigade sized Task Force(1-41) during the 1st Gulf war that destroyed 8 Iraqi divisions. All of them at least 80% strength and two of them elite Republican Guard. You have went full retard.

And you still lost the war. Again: a couple of goat herders kicked your ass. If you had won the war, there would have been a democratic Iraq and no ISIS.

[Slavic Italian]

And you still lost the war. Again: a couple of goat herders kicked your ass. If you had won the war, there would have been a democratic Iraq and no ISIS.

We are still there. Also, it not that simple when you are deal with so many different religious elements. Someone is going to be pissed off and cause instability. By the way, you Euros are there as well.

[Ülev]

the US https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States

[Slavic Italian]

the US https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States

What is your point? What does this have to do with an European army?

[Slavic Italian]

You forget airpower. That's not one-on-one fighting. During the days when that option wasn't available, you got your arse handed to you.

The U.S. relies far more on artillery than airpower. You might want to research our methods of warfare more.

[Ülev]

What is your point? What does this have to do with an European army?

I got something wrong, didn't read carefully whole discussion

[Ülev]

Make French wine great again: Trump escalates anti-Macron tweet tirade


https://www.rt.com/usa/443856-trump-france-wine-macron/

[The Lawspeaker]

Trump is so pro-white that he wines and dines the tyrants of China and North Korea but insults his own allies and only visits a war cemetary with mainly white deaths after facing backlash in the media for shirking. Some pro-white president he is.

[Teutone]

Trump is so pro-white that he wines and dines the tyrants of China and North Korea but insults his own allies and only visits a war cemetary with mainly white deaths after facing backlash in the media for shirking. Some pro-white president he is.

That you feel offended by a nationalist insulting the biggest subhuman ever Macron, is saying everything.


EVERYONE insulting Macron and Merkel is doing good and I applaud.

[The Lawspeaker]

That you feel offended by a nationalist insulting the biggest subhuman ever Macron, is saying everything.


EVERYONE insulting Macron and Merkel is doing good and I applaud.
If you were a patriot in any conceivable way, you'd take offense to people insulting your leaders and thinking that this was internal politics. Screw Merkel or Macron - but they are ours. Trump is anti-European and in his track record - more pro-Israel and pro-China than pro-white.

[The Lawspeaker]

Make French wine great again: Trump escalates anti-Macron tweet tirade (https://www.rt.com/usa/443856-trump-france-wine-macron/)Published time: 13 Nov, 2018 15:02 Edited time: 13 Nov, 2018 15:04
Get short URL

(https://on.rt.com/9ihc)


https://img.rt.com/files/2018.11/article/5beae6c7dda4c8513f8b459d.JPG
President Trump sips Diet Coke from a wine glass © Reuters / Carlos Barria








Fresh from criticizing French President Emmanuel Macron’s call for an EU army, President Trump attacked his European counterpart’s approval ratings, disdain for nationalism...and wine policy.


Tackling another one of his favorite subjects – trade, Trump claimed that while France makes “excellent wine,” it also charges high tariffs for US winemakers brave or foolish enough to try breaking into the French market. “Not fair,” he complained, “must change!”

On Trade, France makes excellent wine, but so does the U.S. The problem is that France makes it very hard for the U.S. to sell its wines into France, and charges big Tariffs, whereas the U.S. makes it easy for French wines, and charges very small Tariffs. Not fair, must change!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 13, 2018 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1062331024426913792?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
Trump then segued into an attack on Macron’s popularity at home. While Trump’s own approval rating has swung between 37 and 51 percent in his almost two years in office, Macron’s has plummeted since he was elected in May 2017, and now sits (https://fr.kantar.com/opinion-publique/politique/2018/barometre-politique-novembre-2018/) around 26 percent.


France’s lagging economic performance and ten percent unemployment rate have surely contributed to Macron’s abysmal polling. So too have a cabinet reshuffle in October and series of scandals this summer – like his construction of a new swimming pool at the presidential retreat of Bregançon while publicly lambasting welfare programs, and his former bodyguard’s caught-on-camera beating (https://www.rt.com/news/433715-macron-aide-proteters-assault/) of May Day protesters.


Trump, however, blamed some of Macron’s unpopularity on his distaste for nationalism. At an Armistice Day commemoration in Paris at the weekend, Macron delivered a passionate speech tearing down Trump’s ‘America First’ brand of nationalism and comparing it to the ideologies that dragged Europe into conflict in the 20th Century.
“Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism,” Macron pontificated on Sunday. “By saying our interests first, who cares about the others, we erase what a nation holds dearest, what gives it life, what makes it great and what is essential: its moral values."



Trump, who recently described himself at a campaign-style rally as a proud nationalist, was not impressed.

The problem is that Emmanuel suffers from a very low Approval Rating in France, 26%, and an unemployment rate of almost 10%. He was just trying to get onto another subject. By the way, there is no country more Nationalist than France, very proud people-and rightfully so!........
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 13, 2018 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1062333534214520832?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)

......MAKE FRANCE GREAT AGAIN!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 13, 2018 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1062333882610171907?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
“By the way, there is no country more Nationalist than France, very proud people-and rightfully so!,” he tweeted on Tuesday, signing off with “MAKE FRANCE GREAT AGAIN!”



https://img.rt.com/files/2018.11/thumbnail/5beac459fc7e93600a8b45bd.jpg
'They were starting to learn German in Paris before US came along' – Trump taunts Macron

(https://www.rt.com/usa/443834-trump-macron-learn-german/)

If Macron’s approval ratings continue their downward spiral, France might well have a nationalist leader next time the French go to the polls. While Macron beat Marine Le Pen with 66 percent of the vote in 2017, Le Pen’s Rassemblement National party pulled ahead of Macron’s Republique En Marche in a recent opinion poll (https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-eu-parliament-france/french-far-right-overtakes-macron-in-eu-parliament-election-poll-idUKKCN1N9043?il=0) ahead of upcoming European Parliament elections.


Macron’s office refused to make any comment in response to Trump’s tweet salvo, but by all indications, the once-remarkable ‘bromance’ between the two leaders is over. Until recently, Trump had lavished Macron with praise and described their relationship as “perfect.” Macron had been tactful in his disagreements with Trump, but always talked up the pair’s clear communication and common ground.


Lavish state visits, hugs, and air kisses have given way to tense press conferences, quick handshakes and drab statements of mutual interest and cooperation.
Amid all the sour grapes, one member of Trump’s family might be pleased with the president’s decision to focus on ‘unfair’ wine tarifs: his winery-running son Eric.
Purchased by Donald Trump in 2011 and run by Eric ever since, Trump Winery in Virginia manufactures 36,000 cases of wine per year. If his father were to smack tariffs on French wine, Eric Trump might find it a little easier to shift his product.

Trump 2020: You are paying too little for French wine. https://t.co/K61ACrOequ
— Scott Lincicome (@scottlincicome) November 13, 2018


(https://twitter.com/scottlincicome/status/1062333604037120000?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)Trump mocks France’s World War II record as relations with Macron deteriorate into confrontation (https://www.businessinsider.nl/trump-mocks-france-wwii-record-in-continued-threat-of-nato-pullout-2018-11/?international=true&r=US)


President Donald Trump mocked France’s war record in a Tuesday-morning tweet that again waved the idea of the US pulling out of, or modifying its relationship to, the NATO military alliance.
French President Emmanuel Macron has long pushed for a European army separate from NATO, and he recently said the army was needed to protect against the US in some capacities.
Trump immediately took offense to the suggestion, calling it “very insulting.”
France fought valiantly in World War I but got steamrolled in World War II. Since then, France’s army has emerged as world-class and among the best in Europe.


President Donald Trump mocked France’s war record in a Tuesday-morning tweet that again waved the idea of the US pulling out of, or modifying its relationship to, NATO.


French President Emmanuel Macron has long pushed for a European army separate from NATO, the global military alliance that includes the US and Canada and has sought to secure the continent against Russian aggression that has grown since the end of World War II.
Spurred by the US’s withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which eliminated a category of nuclear weapons and almost denuclearized the continent, Macron renewed his calls to break away from depending on US military might.


“We have to protect ourselves with respect to China, Russia, and even the United States of America,” Macron said on November 6. Macron later clarified his comments about protecting Europe from the US, saying they focused mainly on cybercrime and building domestic defense industries that didn’t need to buy or invest in US arms.

But Trump took offense to Macron’s suggestion, calling it “very insulting.”

(http://uk.businessinsider.com/r-trump-calls-french-president-macrons-idea-for-a-european-army-very-insulting-2018-11)

“Emmanuel Macron suggests building its own army to protect Europe against the U.S., China and Russia,” Trump tweeted (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1062311785787744256) on Tuesday. “But it was Germany in World Wars One & Two – How did that work out for France? They were starting to learn German in Paris before the U.S. came along. Pay for NATO or not!”
The French war record https://cdn.businessinsider.nl/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/b46eb8a99dedc3956063ba9272f3ab8ca31c1780-800x552.jpg
Foto: The Battle of Verdun in World War I.sourceGeneral Photographic Agency/Getty Images


Read more: Trump torches allies, threatens NATO pullout after tense World War I memorial trip to Paris (http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-slams-allies-threatens-nato-pullout-after-wwi-paris-trip-2018-11)
While France has long borne shame for its quick defeat to and partial collaboration with the Nazis during World War II, the French fought an extremely dedicated fight in World War I.
World War I saw France lose nearly 1.4 million troops and an additional 300,000 civilians (http://www.centre-robert-schuman.org/userfiles/files/REPERES%20%E2%80%93%20module%201-1-1%20-%20explanatory%20notes%20%E2%80%93%20World%20War%2 0I%20casualties%20%E2%80%93%20EN.pdf).


In World War II, France lost just over 200,000 troops and another 350,000 civilians (https://www.nationalww2museum.org/students-teachers/student-resources/research-starters/research-starters-worldwide-deaths-world-war) after being taken by surprise by Hitler’s Nazi war machine. France declared war on Germany in 1939, while the US joined the fight two years later after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
France has long faced ridicule for its World War II performance, despite a complicated and extremely taxing war effort that consumed nearly the entire continent before the D-Day landings.


Once Allied forces landed back on the continent, French troops rejoined the war effort and fought shoulder-to-shoulder to end Nazi occupation across Europe.
Plus, it was with French help that the US defeated the British during the American Revolutionary War.
Today, France’s military stands among Europe’s best (https://www.businessinsider.com/france-has-one-of-the-strongest-militaries-in-the-world-and-can-use-it-to-bring-the-fight-to-isis-2015-11). Only France has a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and the country has contributed greatly to anti-terrorism and anti-extremist fighting across the Middle East and Africa.


Germany keeps a relatively small military and has resisted heavy spending or foreign operations.
On Monday, Trump also seemed to float the possibility of pulling out of NATO (http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-slams-allies-threatens-nato-pullout-after-wwi-paris-trip-2018-11), urging European countries to spend more on defense as long as they maintained trade surpluses with the US.
Trump and Macron descend into outright confrontation https://cdn.businessinsider.nl/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/e98ade5f4892379495840403f48c4d489ef4bd06-800x543.jpg
Foto: Trump and Macron met on Saturday.sourceChristophe Petit Tesson/Pool via AP


Read more: France’s army appears to troll Trump for missing a World War I memorial because of rain (https://www.businessinsider.com/frances-army-appears-to-troll-trump-for-rain-checking-wwi-memorial-2018-11)
Trump and Macron, initially engaged in what the media widely labeled a “bromance,” have sharply descended into open confrontation and hostility in the past few weeks.
Trump responded to Macron’s calls for a European army as an insult before arriving in Paris over the weekend to memorialize the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I.


The pair shared a white-knuckled handshake (https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-macron-handshake-photos-show-bromance-withering-2018-11) on Trump’s arrival – seemingly in a sign of things to come.
Macron openly rebuked Trump’s political philosophy (https://www.businessinsider.com/r-with-trump-sitting-nearby-macron-calls-nationalism-a-betrayal-2018-11) in a speech on Sunday, in which he called nationalism – something Trump has embraced – a betrayal of patriotism and moral values.


But the specifics of Macron’s plan for a European army remain unclear, as European nations have very different foreign-policy agendas and interests.



(https://twitter.com/scottlincicome/status/1062333604037120000?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)

[Teutone]

If you were a patriot in any conceivable way, you'd take offense to people insulting your leaders and thinking that this was internal politics. Screw Merkel or Macron - but they are ours. Trump is anti-European and in his track record - more pro-Israel and pro-China than pro-white.

Describe Merkel as mine or recognize this bastard nation as a legitimate German country? Not a cuckservative sorry.

The day I see Merkel getting killed or she dies of a painful disease will be celebrated by most true Germans.

Macron and Merkel = the leaders for Soros, UN, Islam, Cultural Marxism and globalism.

[The Lawspeaker]

Just one day ! Trump is neither a nationalist (he only visited his, mainly white, war death when the press, rightly, kicked his arse for not going) or pro-white. That man is our enemy - as much as the Macron or Merkel regime is. His loyalties lie elsewhere - not even with the United States.

[The Lawspeaker]

Describe Merkel as mine or recognize this bastard nation as a legitimate German country? Not a cuckservative sorry.

The day I see Merkel getting killed or she dies of a painful disease will be celebrated by most true Germans.

Macron and Merkel = the leaders for Soros, UN, Islam, Cultural Marxism and globalism.

They are bastards but at least they're our bastards. Hanging them should be up to us.

[Teutone]

Just one day ! Trump is neither a nationalist (he only visited his, mainly white, war death when the press, rightly, kicked his arse for not going) or pro-white. That man is our enemy - as much as the Macron or Merkel regime is. His loyalties lie elsewhere - not even with the United States.

Muslim Bann
Remove natural born citizenship
Get out of the UN compact of migration
Fight for the own economy
Stricter immigration laws
Openly stating to be a nationalist
Supporting nationalist movents all over the world
Fighting Soros
In 2 years!

I wait for you to list the nationalist actions of Merkel and Macron, I really cant wait.

[The Lawspeaker]

Muslim Bann
Remove natural born citizenship
Get out of the UN compact of migration
Fight for the own economy
Stricter immigration laws
Openly stating to be a nationalist
Supporting nationalist movents all over the world
Fighting Soros
In 2 years!

I wait for you to list the nationalist actions of Merkel and Macron, I really cant wait.

That sounds more like Putin than Trump because the wall never came, natural born citizenship is still there, fighting for his own economy ? Not really: they are losing jobs (https://ourfuture.org/20181025/china-grabs-3-4-million-american-jobs) (indeed: there are record profits (https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2018/11/13/business/13reuters-usa-trade-nucor-insight.html) but that's it... and industries are moving jobs that were in the U.S to China (https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-26/mercedes-may-move-some-us-production-china)). And yes: he certainly did fight for his ... err sorry.. his son's wine business by attacking French tariffs. he states to be a nationalist but he doesn't visit the graves of his countrymen until the headlines compel him too (and he is a draft dodger btw !), he has not supported any movements and his battle with Soros is just purely Twitter stuff.

That's right.. his wine business (https://www.rt.com/usa/443856-trump-france-wine-macron/):


Amid all the sour grapes, one member of Trump’s family might be pleased with the president’s decision to focus on ‘unfair’ wine tarifs: his winery-running son Eric.

Purchased by Donald Trump in 2011 and run by Eric ever since, Trump Winery in Virginia manufactures 36,000 cases of wine per year. If his father were to smack tariffs on French wine, Eric Trump might find it a little easier to shift his product.

[Teutone]

That sounds more like Putin than Trump because the wall never came, natural born citizenship is still there, fighting for his own economy ? Not really: they are losing jobs. And yes: he certainly did fight for his ... err sorry.. his son's wine business by attacking French tariffs. he states to be a nationalist but he doesn't visit the graves of his countrymen until the headlines compel him too (and he is a draft dodger btw !), he has not supported any movements and his battle with Soros is just purely Twitter stuff.

Putin? This bastard facing the heaviest islamisation in Europe and doesnt do anything.

Natural born citizenship is stoped by his executive order, simple fact.

Havent mentioned a wall? He neverless increased budget and menpower of border patrol.

He created jobs and saved the steel and coal industry.

How do you care if he visits the graves of this silly ww1 victory day? Again, a leader visiting a parade celebrating the defeat of your own nation equalls pissing on the graves of German martyrs of ww1 and celebrate versaille treaty is 10times worse.


He supported and gets supported by Salvini, Orbab, Bolsonaro and Abe.
Still wait for your merkel and macron list.

[Loki]

Just one day ! Trump is neither a nationalist (he only visited his, mainly white, war death when the press, rightly, kicked his arse for not going) or pro-white. That man is our enemy - as much as the Macron or Merkel regime is. His loyalties lie elsewhere - not even with the United States.

Why do you say that?

I hope Trump leads the United States out of NATO.

[The Lawspeaker]

Why do you say that?

I hope Trump leads the United States out of NATO.
I hope he does, actually. So we no longer need to buy American weapons. Btw. That order for the F35 ? All European countries combined that would amount to about 20 billion USD worth of orders for Lockheed.

[Loki]

Putin? This bastard facing the heaviest islamisation in Europe and doesnt do anything.


What should he do with the Muslims living in Russia, would you say?

[Teutone]

I hope he does, actually. So we no longer need to buy American weapons. Btw. That order for the F35 ? All European countries combined that would amount to about 20 billion USD worth of orders for Lockheed.

I hope NATO gets destroyed and same time hope we buy some of their weapons as they buy ours.

[Loki]

I hope he does, actually. So we no longer need to buy American weapons. Btw. That order for the F35 ? All European countries combined that would amount to about 20 billion USD worth of orders for Lockheed.

The F35 is like a black hole where all the money disappear into. And it's full of faults, still... possibly the greatest production failure in US history.

[The Lawspeaker]

Putin? This bastard facing the heaviest islamisation in Europe and doesnt do anything.

Natural born citizenship is stoped by his executive order, simple fact.

Havent mentioned a wall? He neverless increased budget and menpower of border patrol.

He created jobs and saved the steel and coal industry.

How do you care if he visits the graves of this silly ww1 victory day? Again, a leader visiting a parade celebrating the defeat of your own nation equalls pissing on the graves of German martyrs of ww1 and celebrate versaille treaty is 10times worse.


He supported and gets supported by Salvini, Orbab, Bolsonaro and Abe.
Still wait for your merkel and macron list.

Funny. If you had bothered to watch the visit to Compiegne, you would have seen that there was nothing that even resembled a celebration. So you clearly didn't watch.

Natural born citizenship is in the constitution. Did he stop the convoy yet ? He didn't save any industries - they are still losing jobs to China. By now: 3.4 Million American Jobs

(https://ourfuture.org/20181025/china-grabs-3-4-million-american-jobs)

[Slavic Italian]

Trump is so pro-white that he wines and dines the tyrants of China and North Korea but insults his own allies and only visits a war cemetary with mainly white deaths after facing backlash in the media for shirking. Some pro-white president he is.

We just imposed trade tariffs on the Chinese. He is not that pro Chinese.

[The Lawspeaker]

The F35 is like a black hole where all the money disappear into. And it's full of faults, still... possibly the greatest production failure in US history.

Which they put intense pressure on European governments to buy. Don't forget that Pim Fortuyn's biggest "mistake" was that he was against participation in the F35 project. And he suddenly ends up dead and the murderer walks after less than 10 years and is smuggled out of the country.

[The Lawspeaker]

We just imposed trade tariffs on the Chinese. He is not that pro Chinese.

Isn't helping you much. I hope they will put some very stiff tariffs on you too. In fact: I think we should work on North Stream 2 and get that up and running and stop all America-enforced trade bans with Russia.

[The Lawspeaker]

I hope NATO gets destroyed and same time hope we buy some of their weapons as they buy ours.

We should build our own. Are you a patriot or not ?

[Teutone]

What should he do with the Muslims living in Russia, would you say?

Not let them move to moscow etc and maybe counter their incredible birthrate by outlaw abortion too boost ethnic Russian birthrate. If he stops abortion and stops the support for mosques outside of native muslim land, he gets my support.

[Teutone]

Funny. If you had bothered to watch the visit to Compiegne, you would have seen that there was nothing that even resembled a celebration. So you clearly didn't watch.

Natural born citizenship is in the constitution. Did he stop the convoy yet ? He didn't save any industries - they are still losing jobs to China. By now: 3.4 Million American Jobs

(https://ourfuture.org/20181025/china-grabs-3-4-million-american-jobs)

The caravan has no hit us soil yet, how can he stop it?

And the executive order is implemented, more he couldnt do for now.

Yea they might still loose jobs, hes just in office for 2 years yet and boosted his economy and dropped the unemployment rate.

Still waiting for your macron and merkel list

[The Lawspeaker]

It might, perhaps, be a good idea for Western Europe to swallow away our disgust and revive the Warsaw Pact - this including Western Europe. Or join the SCO outright.

[The Lawspeaker]

The caravan has no hit us soil yet, how can he stop it?

And the executive order is implemented, more he couldnt do for now.

Yea they might still loose jobs, hes just in office for 2 years yet and boosted his economy and dropped the unemployment rate.

Still waiting for your macron and merkel list

Macron and Merkel has done about as much as Trump has: nothing. Absolutely nothing.

And you can't use an executive order to change the constitution. That could give a president dictatorial powers, wouldn't you say ?

[Teutone]

We should build our own. Are you a patriot or not ?

I am a realist, my nation has no natural resources we demand on exports and partners in trade.

We export more to the US than we import, frankly I have no problem with trade. It gotta be a fair trade and its all good. Since when are patriots against trade? Never seen a nation living without trade.

[The Lawspeaker]

I am a realist, my nation has no natural resources we demand on exports and partners in trade.

We export more to the US than we import, frankly I have no problem with trade. It gotta be a fair trade and its all good. Since when are patriots against trade? Never seen a nation living without trade.

In the case of the Netherlands, trade with the U.S isn't all that important. We import more from than we export as those imports are then sold to Germany. Our most important trading partners are Germany and the Benelux. And increasingly China. I see no reason to continue our alliance with the Americans when their politics actually hamper our trade (with Iran (https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-iran-oil/china-defies-u-s-pressure-as-eu-parts-ways-with-iranian-oil-idUKKCN1L51GA), China (http://www.atimes.com/article/trumps-us-deal-with-the-eu-puts-pressure-on-china-in-trade-war/) and Russia). In other words; Trump is anti-free trade and is purely trying to destroy Europe's economy and make them more subservient to the U.S and I think we should actively undermine them (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/25/eu-russia-and-china-join-forces-to-dodge-iran-sanctions.html).

[tipirneni]

I hope he does, actually. So we no longer need to buy American weapons. Btw. That order for the F35 ? All European countries combined that would amount to about 20 billion USD worth of orders for Lockheed.
All native Europeans will vanish or become minority showing pussies compete against robocallgirls by 2045
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d4/a4/4c/d4a44c02d095bd4757b38bba8e3bd867.gif

[Teutone]

Macron and Merkel has done about as much as Trump has: nothing. Absolutely nothing.

And you can't use an executive order to change the constitution. That could give a president dictatorial powers, wouldn't you say ?

I counted what he did, you just gotta read.

And the 14th amandment can be interpretend in multiple ways, this executive order will be challenged, starting to be a case for the supreme court and then we will see. He did everything possible to start revoking it.

[Teutone]

I am a realist, my nation has no natural resources we demand on exports and partners in trade.

We export more to the US than we import, frankly I have no problem with trade. It gotta be a fair trade and its all good. Since when are patriots against trade? Never seen a nation living without trade.


In the case of the Netherlands, trade with the U.S isn't all that important. We import more from than we export as those imports are then sold to Germany. Our most important trading partners are Germany and the Benelux. And increasingly China.

Well thats your nation, I only think about my nation and we got a fair trade relationship with the USA, I like that.

[Smeagol]

Natural born citizenship is in the constitution.

But it was never intended to give citizenship rights to the children of illegals, only to freed slaves and their descendants. It will probably go to the Supreme Court and they'll rule in Trump's favor.

[Teutone]

All native Europeans will vanish or become minority showing pussies compete against robocallgirls by 2045
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d4/a4/4c/d4a44c02d095bd4757b38bba8e3bd867.gif

If we keep identify with bastards like Macron and Merkel, yes.

[The Lawspeaker]

All native Europeans will vanish or become minority showing pussies compete against robocallgirls by 2045
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d4/a4/4c/d4a44c02d095bd4757b38bba8e3bd867.gif

Bullshit. Actually: I think we should send all those migrants to America. Via Canada or Mexico.

[Teutone]

It might, perhaps, be a good idea for Western Europe to swallow away our disgust and revive the Warsaw Pact - this including Western Europe. Or join the SCO outright.

I rather stay in friendly relationship with USA and Russia while remain neutral with no military alliance whatsoever. Like Switzerland and Austria.

[The Lawspeaker]

But it was never intended to give citizenship rights to the children of illegals, only to freed slaves and their descendants. It will probably go to the Supreme Court and they'll rule in Trump's favor.

Maybe this Supreme Court but Trump will probably lose in 2020 and then it will all be overturned again. Trump's only good fortune, at this moment, is that the Democrats are playing the anti-white game.

[Smeagol]

Macron and Merkel has done about as much as Trump has: nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Securing a conservative majority on the Supreme Court for decades to come is a pretty major accomplishment.

[The Lawspeaker]

Securing a conservative majority on the Supreme Court for decades to come is a pretty major accomplishment.

For now. Mind you: I think the Democrats have, so far, been Trump's best friends. I wonder whether they will still be so stupid in 2020 or whether the Republicans will still be so friendly if he destroys the Atlantic Alliance.

[Teutone]

Maybe this Supreme Court but Trump will probably lose in 2020 and then it will all be overturned again. Trump's only good fortune, at this moment, is that the Democrats are playing the anti-white game.

Good that a supreme court justice is there for a lifetime and the last 2 new selected were conservative. It has a conservative mayority now and the oldest judges are all liberals anyway. Again Trump DELIVERED.

[Smeagol]

Maybe this Supreme Court but Trump will probably lose in 2020 and then it will all be overturned again. Trump's only good fortune, at this moment, is that the Democrats are playing the anti-white game.

I doubt Trump will lose, the Democrats have no one who can challenge him and the Supreme Court will retain it's conservative majority no matter who wins.

[The Lawspeaker]

Good that a supreme court justice is there for a lifetime and the last 2 new selected were conservative. It has a conservative mayority now and the oldest judges are all liberals anyway. Again Trump DELIVERED.

Actually.. they can be impeached (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Chase).

[Teutone]

What is he destroying? Our leaders dont deliever what they signed for, 2% of the GDP as military budget, everyone agreed on that. Trump just reminds our thiev leaders to follow what they agreed on.

[The Lawspeaker]

I doubt Trump will lose, the Democrats have no one who can challenge him and the Supreme Court rill retain it's conservative majority no matter who wins.

Not necessarily. You forget what an end to NATO would mean for current orders for American arms manufacturers. Something like the F35 (which doesn't function for non-allied countries) would be useless so the order would be dropped. Lockheed would be absolutely livid with Trump.

[The Lawspeaker]

What is he destroying? Our leaders dont deliever what they signed for, 2% of the GDP as military budget, everyone agreed on that. Trump just reminds our thiev leaders to follow what they agreed on.

Actually. That percentage means nothing: Greece is paying 2% but most of it goes to pensions. Montenegro pays 2% but that money isn't even enough to buy a single fighter jet.
The Netherlands and Germany pay less.. and both have been in sustained warfare for over a decade. America pays a ton of money and they're army is unfit to take the field in any convenientional war against a peer country. They would lose.. and they would lose hard. Most of that money has been wasted on carriers with problems, fighter jets like the F18 and F35 that are unfit for any combat or programs like the Zumwalt class or the LCS Project. They lack actual artillery and enough armoured equipment for their men. Their tanks are falling apart, actually. Only a minority of their planes are battle ready. Their soldiers are unfit to take the field (https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/10/10/americas-obesity-is-threatening-national-security-according-to-this-study/). But, yes, they pay a lot of money.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68HNHaw96lo

[Teutone]

Actually.. they can be impeached (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Chase).

Nice recent case.

Everything CAN happen, is this now trumps fault too?

You are just anti trump not accepting any legitimate points speaking for him.

[Teutone]

Actually. That percentage means nothing: Greece is paying 2% but most of it goes to pensions. Montenegro pays 2% but that money isn't even enough to buy a single fighter jet.
The Netherlands and Germany pay less.. and both have been in sustained warfare for over a decade.

German Army is a mess and shit, I hope they raise it to 5% of the GDP and we get a decent army again.

[The Lawspeaker]

Actually. That percentage means nothing: Greece is paying 2% but most of it goes to pensions. Montenegro pays 2% but that money isn't even enough to buy a single fighter jet.
The Netherlands and Germany pay less.. and both have been in sustained warfare for over a decade. America pays a ton of money and they're army is unfit to take the field in any convenientional war against a peer country. They would lose.. and they would lose hard. Most of that money has been wasted on carriers with problems, fighter jets like the F18 and F35 that are unfit for any combat or programs like the Zumwalt class or the LCS Project. They lack actual artillery and enough armoured equipment for their men. Their tanks are falling apart, actually. Only a minority of their planes are battle ready. Their soldiers are unfit to take the field (https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/10/10/americas-obesity-is-threatening-national-security-according-to-this-study/). But, yes, they pay a lot of money.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68HNHaw96lo


German Army is a mess and shit, I hope they raise it to 5% of the GDP and we get a decent army again.


In other words: the U.S is wasting money while the German Army has been depleted after 10 years of combat. America pissed its money away and they now expect us to piss ours away.


Nice recent case.

Everything CAN happen, is this now trumps fault too?

You are just anti trump not accepting any legitimate points speaking for him.
Ooh I am certainly anti-Trump: he is nothing of what he says he is. He is only in it to line his own pockets.

[Ülev]

some key words like "refugees, caravans" that must be in use to consolidate people around the same political leaders and let them juggle us

I remind you - the US - multi-ethnic country, Russia - too

who plays nowadays? - US and Russia (other thing is that to only one goal, that's one team)

if Europe has to play any independent role - has to cooperate with North African and Middle East countries

(just saying)

[Slavic Italian]

Lawspeaker you just want Europe to become like the U.S. You want badly to live in a superpower. Move to the USA. That solves everything. Besides, this country takes care of foreigners before it does its own.

[The Lawspeaker]

some key words like "refugees, caravans" that must be in use to consolidate people around the same political leaders and let them juggle us

I remind you - the US - multi-ethnic country, Russia - too

who plays nowadays? - US and Russia (other thing is that to only one goal, that's one team)

if Europe has to play any independent role - has to cooperate with North African and Middle East countries

(just saying)

I'd say we either stay neutral or work with Russia, Iran and China.

Lawspeaker you just want Europe to become like the U.S. You want badly to live in a superpower. Move to the USA. That solves everything. Besides, this country takes care of foreigners before it does its own.

I want to live in an independent country. And that also means: independent from you lot. And if we have to form a European alliance to make sure that that happens, then so be it.

[catgeorge]

some key words like "refugees, caravans" that must be in use to consolidate people around the same political leaders and let them juggle us

I remind you - the US - multi-ethnic country, Russia - too

who plays nowadays? - US and Russia (other thing is that to only one goal, that's one team)

if Europe has to play any independent role - has to cooperate with North African and Middle East countries

(just saying)

Europe will play an independant role but in its current format I want no part in it. I would be more inclined to go all aggressive on banking syndicates and usurers than have an army to protect them

[KMack]

I've never heard American weaponry described as subpar. In fact, I believe America makes the very best weapons in the world. I can understand if you want to manufacture your own weaponry. That being said, I agree with Trump's agenda on this matter.

Nothing issued to me when I was in the Army was shoddy or subpar. Be that weapons, BDUs, communications/radio, all good.

[The Lawspeaker]

Europe will play an independant role but in its current format I want no part in it. I would be more inclined to go all aggressive on banking syndicates and usurers than have an army to protect them

Who says that Merkel and Macron would be the ones to lead Europe ? I'd say: first help the Americans pack and then hang both Merkel and Macron.

[Slavic Italian]

Personally I think the most powerful conventional force in the world is China.

[The Lawspeaker]

Nothing issued to me when I was in the Army was shoddy or subpar. Be that weapons, BDUs, communications/radio, all good.

Things seems to have changed dramatically since your time then.

[Teutone]

USA and Germany both manufracture the most complex high tech weapon systems on planet earth while have no contradicting foreign policy concerns, and intrest in exchange those weapon systems in fair trade. Would be retarded for Germany to give up trade to a reliable and strong power like the USA.

[The Lawspeaker]

Personally I think the most powerful conventional force in the world is China.

China is far away. Thankfully that would be your problem.

[catgeorge]

Who says that Merkel and Macron would be the ones to lead Europe ? I'd say: first help the Americans pack and then hang both Merkel and Macron.

Most gladly. Nothing would make me happier than seeing US bases out of Greek soil. Just the thought of it alone repulses me.

[Slavic Italian]

USA and Germany both manufracture the most complex high tech weapon systems on planet earth while have no contradicting foreign policy concerns, and intrest in exchange those weapon systems in fair trade. Would be retarded for Germany to give up trade to a reliable and strong power like the USA.

You guys over engineer equipment. Good natural soldiers like the Russians, though.

[The Lawspeaker]

Most gladly. Nothing would make me happier than seeing US bases out of Greek soil. Just the thought of it alone repulses me.

Same here. I want to see the last of them here !

[Slavic Italian]

China is far away. Thankfully that would be your problem.

They bloodied our nose during the Korean war and not just with human waves. They are awesome at ambushes and infiltration.

[Smeagol]

For now. Mind you: I think the Democrats have, so far, been Trump's best friends. I wonder whether they will still be so stupid in 2020 or whether the Republicans will still be so friendly if he destroys the Atlantic Alliance.

Even if Trump loses, which I think is unlikely, Democrats can't just impeach Supreme Court Justices because they don't like him. Only one has been impeached in the history of this country and that was over 200 years ago. It simply doesn't happen.

[The Lawspeaker]

They bloodied our nose during the Korean war and not just with human waves. They are awesome at ambushes and infiltration.

Ooh yes. They killed quite a few Europeans too. 300+ Dutch in total who were only dragged there because America forced them and who were placed under American command (https://english.defensie.nl/topics/historical-missions/mission-overview/1950/the-korean-war/dutch-contribution).


The UN was in dire need of reinforcements in the form of infantry battalions. Bowing to immense pressure from the US, the cabinet agreed to provide an infantry unit made up of volunteers: the Netherlands Detachment United Nations (NDVN). Two rifle companies, a support company and a headquarters and headquarters company were formed from these volunteers. Between a 100 and 300 Katusas (Korean Army Troops United States Army), also known as ROKS (Republic of Korea Soldiers), were assigned to the unit.

They were attacked to the 8th U.S Army (http://www.zum.de/whkmla/region/lowcountries/ndvn.html) and thus served under U.S command.

[The Lawspeaker]

Even if Trump loses, which I think is unlikely, Democrats can't just impeach Supreme Court Justices because they don't like him. Only one has been impeached in the history of this country and that was over 200 years ago. It simply doesn't happen.

I have seen them ever more crazy over the years so they just might.

[Slavic Italian]

Ooh yes. They killed quite a few Europeans too. 300+ Dutch in total who were only dragged there because America forced them and who were placed under American command (https://english.defensie.nl/topics/historical-missions/mission-overview/1950/the-korean-war/dutch-contribution).

Human waves is a myth. They just closed quickly to get out of the range of our artillery. That is our strength. The Chinese use 3 man squads in triangle formation. 1:24 sec mark is a good example.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rruH-BNVFZY&index=125&list=FLuBsnW0ZyBc-mLnVONOSV0g&t=0s