The list of contributions by each country that you quoted are the money they pay to the EU. They are a small fraction of the national budget. How many times do I have to say this? Look at the page I linked and it will show you that the UK spends 20 billion dollars a year more on defence than Germany (and this despite the UK’s smaller population), which puts into perspective the 9 billion that Germany gives to the EU.
Maia, you have to to put all that numbers of the several contributions together. Do some mathematics, please. There is no big difference between the military contributions of the UK and Germany. But all this looking at the statistics and data does make sense only then, if you combine them together, because the money that is spent (regardless where and wherefore) does have to come from somewhere, and Germany’s contribution is 40 times higher than the contribution of the UK (for example).
It makes no sense to talk with you, if you do not accept the simplest mathematics and logic.
But, then, the UK used it huge military, when it hopped quickly and loudly behind US wars in Iraq, to get business advantages that other European countries did not or could not as easily. And this huge military spending has generally been used, since the fall of the wall where it had an arguably potential role, to support monied interests in the UK and not the UK citizens.
I think it is problematic to see the military spending as some the UK does and so the UK deserves such and such benefits or is unfairly treated by X, but rather as monies taken via taxation from everyone with direct returns for the elites more, and indirect longer term returns primarily for the elites.
Germany’s contribution to the EU budget is indeed 40 times higher than the UK’s. But all those figures are dwarfed by other expenditure. Germany gives 9 billion to the EU, and spends around 40 billion on defence. The UK on the other hand spends over 60 billion on defence. So you do the maths. Or, if you prefer, flounce off in a huff rather than admit to being wrong.
In terms of the EU, which is what we were talking about, the UK and France provide its only effective military forces. Whatever else those forces may have been used for, in terms of the EU, that’s all it has. Since no one likes the idea of Germany with a big army, it has been able to spend that money on other things.
I wasn’t thinking about non-Eu countries. Britain got favors for its military spending and those favors entailed money flowing into UK corporations. My point was that the UK is not simply a victim, spending more than other EU countries on the military - and thus, I assume the argument would go aiding in the EU defense - but using it’s military spending to create incomes that is beyond that other EU countries get from their military spending.
To a lesser degree France also. So when you argue from military spending - which is higher in France and the UK than in Germany (but not by a huge margin per capita) - this does not mean that therefore the UK is putting more into the EU. It uses its military like a business - one with ‘investor’ citizens via taxes - and this benefits just Britain on occasion, and big occasions like the Gulf Wars where the US handed out favors and spoils afterwards.
Per capita, according to the page I linked, or per GDP, the UK spends about twice as much as Germany. But yes, you’re right, having an army can have fringe benefits. But without it, for defence the EU would be reliant on France alone.
No, that’s the whole point. The UK had drastically reduced its spending. Chamberlain’s “peace in our time” deal was a ruse to buy time so we could re-arm. It bought us about 18 months, in which we frantically built up the RAF to defeat Hitler’s invasion.
A people is always at its best not during periods of war or peace, but of re-armament. Thats when they pull their shit together.
So nothing creates stronger bonds than preparing to go to war. Nothing is more beautiful than watching a million people in a nationalistic fervor scurry about to gather their weapons. Tell me there is a better scene in any movie. You cant. Not the victory, not the defeat, the preparation for war… that’s the moment the people shine the most.
The big speech and then all he soldiers go “arugha!” and smack the edge of their shields with their weapons. That’s what I’m talkin’ bout.
That is not true. In addition: The UK and France did not want Germany to spend much on its military. Then - the more the world had become globalistic - the UK and France noticed that they - bit by bit - had to spend more on their military than Germany on its. And what was their conclusion? “Germany must spend more money on its military!” That is odd. What has Germany been doing since then? Germany spend more money on its military again. So what you are critizising is nothing more than “peanuts”, a bagatelle. You have to value it in the longer term.
I don’t think anyone in Europe would be happy with Germany having a big military, and as soon as it gets too big for confort, I’m sure they would put a stop to it somehow. Perhaps, instead, Germany can give the money it would otherwise spend on its military to help fund other countries’ economies? So instead of giving a mere 9 billion to the EU, it could give, say, 90 billion? Those other countries could then spend the money how they wish, including on defence.
I did not mean Chamberlain but Churchill, the warmonger.
You? Okay, you needed alomost all nations of the world, especially the nations USA and USSR, to defeat Hitler’s invasion, because Hitler stopped the invasion of the Uk in order to invade the USSR and the USA. The whole world against Germany!
Utter nonsense. All other countries profit from Germany, because Germany pays the most by far - 40 times more than the UK, for example, as I already said several times.
And again:
When the UK and France noticed that they - bit by bit - had to spend more on their military than Germany on its, they demanded immediately: “Germany must spend more money on its military!” That is odd. What has Germany been doing since then? Germany has been spending more money on its military again since then. So what you are critizising is nothing more than “peanuts”, a bagatelle. You have to value it in the longer term.
What nonsense. It gave Germany access to all the weapons in Czechoslovakia, which were then used in Poland and France. In other words, Germany got an arsenal of weapons for free, while the British had to fabricate their own. Chamberlain was completely manipulated. That’s why he is a symbol of stupidity and incompetence.
That is when they have that high goal that pulls them into momentous harmony, not killing each other, but each willing to bend in order to work together and accomplish.
That it what is at the heart of all actual “progress” - the Perception of Hope and Threat, PHT.
The Pharaohs of old learned that they had to have a pyramid to build in order to maintain order, a heart felt cause (aka “blood”). Moses used the same thing, PHT, merely in the direction of more easily obtained entropy to decimate the order. But entropy does not make a healthy bedfellow. Thus they eventually fell into their own demise for merely the same reason on a higher level.
These people needed to study perpetual motion laws more carefully. The ouroboros dies … only because it isn’t really designed right, but close.
Czechoslovakian weapons (like arrows and bents) were not needed. The German military industry was strong enough, much stronger than that of the UK. 6 years agaist the whole world - that is merely possible with a huge military industry, a good military (army, organization, … etc.), economical and administrative system. By the way: The current Germany has still a huge military industry and also still a good economical and administrativ system, but the difference to earlier times is that Germany exports its weapons, especially to the USA and to Israel.
