Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Culise]

That seems rather self-defeating, considering Athens lost, but whatever floats your boat.

Athens lost the war, but Spartan civilization crumbled under victory

Yes, but do we really want to rely on the possibility of successive bigger fish with undue affection for Athenian society coming along and squishing all of the European nations while forming a hegemonic state centuries in the future?  I mean, without Romans and later (especially from a modern perspective) Victorian-era philhellenes, we end up with a series of indecisive wars with the Macedons being the ultimate victors, and...hmm, this metaphor could actually go places.  Probably not good or reasonable places, but places.  If Europe comprises the Greek polis, then we'll end up going through a wars with a tripartite power base between Thebes, Athens, and Sparta, until ultimately a neighboring, questionably-accepted-as-Greek European external military powerhouse comes in and cleans up shop militarily before attempting to forge a world empire that instead collapses in a single generation.  Subsequently, from across the Mediterranean Atlantic, a republican power emerges that draws its own (admittedly-partially-fabricated) ancestry from Greece Europe, conquers the lot, and forges its own trans-Mediterranean Atlantic empire. 

Well, I wonder if the three great external powers of Rome, Persia, and Macedon are respectively the US, China, and Russia, or if some other permutation is better; China doesn't really work as Persia since its influence in Europe is new and fresh rather than old hat at this point, so it might be better as the Romans, the US as Macedon, and Russia as Persia.  I'm pretty sure we can work the Seleucids in here as well if we just stretch the timeline a bit. 
^{And this is probably why history is not a free-association sport, nor sledgehammers used to work square pegs into round holes for metaphors.}

[Helgoland]

As long as Germany doesn't forget that France needs to be convinced of the worth of this, this can work well. If they keep ignoring France they will embark on another collision course with France, UK, Russia and the USA all over again. USA, UK & France are supportive of Germany regrowing her military muscle, indeed encouraging her to stop cutting her defence budget and try meet the 2% mark, but understandably they will be unnerved by German military unilateralism. Russia will oppose this always again for obvious reasons, but with a supportive France they wouldn't try anything.

Ah, but this is the opposite of unilateralism! Maybe, maaaybe this will generate sufficient positive experiences for France to commit to true military multilateralism, and we'll get a unified Continental army that way.

We'll integrate the British forces once you guys come crawling back in a decade or two.

[Loud Whispers]

Ah, but this is the opposite of unilateralism! Maybe, maaaybe this will generate sufficient positive experiences for France to commit to true military multilateralism, and we'll get a unified Continental army that way.

Romania’s entire military won’t join the Bundeswehr, nor will the Czech armed forces become a mere German subdivision. But in the next several months each country will integrate one brigade into the German armed forces: Romania’s 81st Mechanized Brigade will join the Bundeswehr’s Rapid Response Forces Division, while the Czech 4th Rapid Deployment Brigade, which has served in Afghanistan and Kosovo and is considered the Czech Army’s spearhead force, will become part of the Germans’ 10th Armored Division. In doing so, they’ll follow in the footsteps of two Dutch brigades, one of which has already joined the Bundeswehr’s Rapid Response Forces Division and another that has been integrated into the Bundeswehr’s 1st Armored Division. According to Carlo Masala, a professor of international politics at the University of the Bundeswehr in Munich, “The German government is showing that it’s willing to proceed with European military integration” — even if others on the continent aren’t yet.

This is very much not the opposite of multilateralism, this is German military unilateralism - Germany gets to assume command of the armed forces of its weaker neighbours, making them pay for it, increasing the power of Germany at no cost to Germany. Thus NATO has not been made any stronger to the benefit of all its members, Germany alone has been made stronger and Germany has not had to increase its defence budget at all. This is the difference between joint military exercises and training, versus absorbing a weaker nation's military units into yours. The informal precedence it is setting is that in the event of a unified European army, France will be surrendering her forces to Germany - which is not going to help Germany's case, no matter how much it tries to convince it of its fake multilateralism.

We'll integrate the British forces once you guys come crawling back in a decade or two.

Such behaviour would turn allied suspicions into hostility, and is generally inadvisable. The United Kingdom's euroscepticism was severely stoked by the ambitious diplomatic misstep of proposing any control of British forces without regard to British opposition. Any such attempt would be the prelude to the third world war, which is rather unnecessary. Why seek a collision course with the allies, why turn friends who support your remilitiarization into enemies who oppose it? Least of all when their military-industrial capabilities are far superior, the Germans should know best of all the risk of starting wars when a war started at will cannot be ended at will. Form the army through the EU with France alongside, and Brussels will possess the economy and the military foundation to establish an armed forces that could one day become world-hegemonic, and with it will come an immense responsibility and caution, given Europe's formidable internal and external security threats. Picking fights with friends is a quick way to lead to unnecessary overextension, attempting to rush integration without French cooperation with severe impatience will breed considerable backlash. Reading Germany's history is interesting, especially from the crucial moment it went from being an odd patchwork of 50 princedoms disregarded by the GPs to the most powerful nation in Europe. Such a rise was miraculous, and completely undone in the future years of weltpolitik - as it turns out, attempting to overcome the most powerful land army, the 3rd most powerful land army, the most powerful navy and the most powerful economic force at the same time is a poor life choice, especially when some of those powers wished for friendly relations ;]

[Descan]

Except both nations need to agree to deploy the integrated units.

Which, granted, you could argue that Germany could soft-power strong-arm them into agreeing. But in that case, what's different than now? Germany could just as easily strong-arm the nation into deploying its army whereever it wanted them to, so integrating them doesn't change much there.

[smjjames]

Wouldn't some people start grumbling about German Imperialism if they started doing that theoretically with other nations armies?

Not sure why an EU thing is in the non-EU thread, but whatever.

[Loud Whispers]

Except both nations need to agree to deploy the integrated units.

If both were integrated into a continental military, which would be pleasing to German federalists and acceptable to the French, then command would be in the hands of a single European HQ which would decide upon deployments. Neither wholly German nor French, this HQ would not arouse indignance or anger, at least in theory, to the deployment of troops from either. It would also by consequence, herald the European Union not as nations, but as a continental state - an interesting development no doubt, whatever your opinion on such a thing.

Which, granted, you could argue that Germany could soft-power strong-arm them into agreeing. But in that case, what's different than now? Germany could just as easily strong-arm the nation into deploying its army whereever it wanted them to, so integrating them doesn't change much there.

So far, the low-profile and ad hoc approach of the Framework Nations Concept has worked to its advantage; few people in Europe have objected to the integration of Dutch or Romanian units into German divisions, partly because they may not have noticed. Whether there will be political repercussions should more nations sign up to the initiative is less clear.

The most obvious difference is in public reaction, this would be the sneakiness referenced earlier
Germany could strong-arm them and the resistance would be fierce - not just in the countries being bullied, but within Germany itself (German public is opposed to using German force against weaker nations). This method will in the long-term cause all of these smaller states to become militarily dependent upon Germany for their defence, once that is secured they will be politically dependent upon Germany. This will in turn cause friction wherever Germany's needs and agendas diverge from its dependencies. By contrast Germany constructing this force through the EU would entail the same concentration of military power, with a lesser risk of world powers or public opinion looking on in caution at German power consolidation - because Germany herself will be sacrificing much of her own sovereignty in order to push a continental military. For now, under such a framework, Germany will be the core of this structure while the smaller nations form its periphery, unable to act without the consent of Germany and unable to act against the will of Germany. This is the most significant difference between similar arrangements already existing now between France, the UK and their allies - neither of the former two are forming permanent military units subsuming the brigades of their allies into their military. For example, Britain leads the JEF under the Framework Nations Concept, the same one Germany is using. Under the JEF the UK trains with the Scandinavian and Baltic brigades, exchanging technical and operational resources and expertise, creating a framework from which a joint operational force could be deployed at a short moments notice. This is different in that there is no permanent military force - the UK is not transferring Scandinavian and Baltic armed forces into the British armed forces, in the manner that Germany is enlargening its armed forces.
Countries that form the cluster nations to the German core will over time become militarily dependent upon Germany, with their arms being supplied by Germany and their forces serving as specialized branches of the German army, their ability to act alone atrophying to nothing. Therein lies the issue, Germany can propose to send their soldiers to fight wherever Berlin wishes and they will have little recourse to reject Berlin, but the Germans will not allow their dependent partners to in turn propose sending German troops wherever these cluster nations wish. If Germany intends to form permanent military units with other countries, it should be as a European army, which would bypass this most critical problem.

[smjjames]

I know this is entirely theoretical, but wouldn't all of that bring up Imperialism? And yeah, I know, hypocritical American speaking here since you could easily replace Germany with America in all of that.

[Sheb]

These kind of joint units are becoming more commons all over Europe. The Benelux share a single naval command, and jointly manage the airspace. The European Air Transport Command control 75% of all military lift capability in Europe. I'm all for a European army, but since it's not politically possible currently (although with Macron in the Élysée and the UK in the middle of the Atlantic...) this is a smart way to make our defense euros go further.

P.S. I find it funny that you don't touch about how your hypothetical complain about smaller militaries turning into specialized part of the Bundeswehr in the future is already pretty much NATO standard procedure, with smaller countries encouraged to focus on specialized capabilities that can support the US army, but are useless on their own. (Yay, we Belgian are great at minesweeping, so if we're attacked by mine-people we will be fine!)

[Sergarr]

What is this EU stuff doing in a non-EU thread? You already have your own, go there, Union imperialists!

[Sheb]

Blame Ze Germans!

[Helgoland]

Yeah, I kinda put that in the wrong thread.

LW: You overlook that with smaller nations taking over specialized roles, the German army will no longer maintain these capacities - thus making Germany unable to wage war without the consent of its neighbors. That's the beauty of the whole thing - conflict becomes impossible when your forces are inseparable.

[Antioch]

What is this EU stuff doing in a non-EU thread? You already have your own, go there, Union imperialists!

Yeah! I wanted to discuss Amnesty international's report on the people purged in Turkey.

[martinuzz]

The purge is on a scale unseen since communism Putin

[Sheb]

LW: You overlook that with smaller nations taking over specialized roles, the German army will no longer maintain these capacities - thus making Germany unable to wage war without the consent of its neighbors. That's the beauty of the whole thing - conflict becomes impossible when your forces are inseparable.

Doesn't have to be true. Germany is big enough to have a full set of capabilities, the way the US does.

[Sergarr]

What is this EU stuff doing in a non-EU thread? You already have your own, go there, Union imperialists!

Yeah! I wanted to discuss Amnesty international's report on the people purged in Turkey.

Not surprising, given what he already did to the military. Turkey is sliding full-on towards the Middle Eastern shithole, and that means that all competency must be purged.