Will there be war in Europe before 2050?

You’re on it my man.
The French man starts drinking wine halfway the afternoon. The Spaniard will have a beer at lunch. The Russian will have a sip of wodka before breakfast. The German will start drinking beer after his Rostbraten dinner. But the east front army of Hitler was one of wine-and-poetry intellectuals, tragic, nameless figures that ‘went with the tides of fate’. I get this from the book “Myself strangely estranged” by a German foot soldier… I remember the image of frozen legs of corpses, chopped off an put in the pot to boil, to release the valuable Russian boot from the foot. Drink was the only solace.

That is a very powerful idea. Of course eastern Europe has not really been able to make its mark on the EU - and it wasn’t clear to many what precisely these nations represent. But Hungary is the birthplace of many, many outstanding geniuses, and it harbors in its heart undoubtably all this bitter history that makes for wisdom and that we lack. Teach us, old imperial heart, the virtues of pre-Prussian Europe.

Have you watched that film on Bismarck? It is a fantastic depiction of the man. Bismarck was the father of German militarism, and the nazis did not need to falsify any historical aspect of the story to make this into one of the most convincing protagonist of political cinema I’ve seen.

What becomes apparent to me now is how the old Austrian-Hungarian empire held the noble German counterpart to France, and that Europe would have much more benefit from listening to Hungary and Austria, than from listening to Germany. Austria beautiful, calm, clear and independent. It is inextricably tied in with Italy, which is the center piece of any self-respecting European politics, and the arm of Europe’s greatest intercontinental “sway” - the Church. The American media are in great fear of the pope. That is always interesting to notice. The point is that Europe led by Germany is too “grey”. BMW can not be our highest accomplishment.

It does not work without power. Therefore, Bismarck was right. If Europe will approach Russia, then it will also not work without power. Each country with major power could be called militaristic, thus not only Germany but also Spain, Portugal, Italy, France, Belgium, Holland, England, the British Empire, the Russian Empire, the USA, the Soviet Union, and Russia. USA and Russia are still militaristic - very evil.

If Europe will approach Russia, then it will have to expect a confrontation as well. It will not be easy. And if the Europeans will make too many mistakes in that case, then they will get probably worse times than they have today.

Arminus, there need not be antithetical approaches for Europe, of one resulting in either of the above scenarios. By power, You probably mean economic and military power. I have not checked the parity of the EU and the USA, in terms of the military, but it seems to me that France alone has enough nukes to establish some kind of detente, not including England. Conventionally it’s unequal, but the risk of going nuclear is too great.

that is where the economic balance becomes the essential part of the relationship, and economic considerations, are based on aggressive behavior. Unless political considerations come into play into these economic trade wars in a way to consider the implications both in terms of displacing them into the military realm, all the gains made by the collapse of the Cold War, may again resurface. And the EU theatre is supported by NATO, dragging into the equation other powers. Germany, militarily is not considered a major player at this time, since it has no nuclear assets. It’s approach to Russia, is tempered by this, and can not really afford to use trade as a weapon, only by reliance to The NATO security umbrella. Russia realizes this, and this is why political solutions are not sought in regional considerations, with Germany, as of yet. the Crimean action was a very surprising act, and a mistake on part of both Russia and the west, since it has loosened the international landscape, toward a more uncertain trust in treaties, and economic practices. At the same time, this singular act has not rose to the level, where a tit for tat action-reaction cannot set the stage for other rounds of negotiation and behind the door agreements.

The worst solution would be an economically isolated Europe. Europe has not much natural resources but more and more decadent people. The best European factor of production has always been intelligence. But it has been vanishing sinde the dysgenic politics began. Another worst solution would - currently (!) - be a militarily isolated Europe, because the German government doesn’t want nuclear weapons and the French government wants to have more nuclear weapons and not to share them with foreign governments, and that is too dangerous.

Russia (Siberia) has natural resources and nothing else; so it could be a partner of Europe, but an economical partnership without any military partnership can easily be destroyed. So the decision is difficult - but necessary. The NATO and the partnership between Europe and Russia are currently impossible. So the consequences are clear. The decision lacks.

Let’s have an interim result for the question: „Will there be war in Europe before 2050?“

We have 67% for „yes“, 33% for „no“, and 0% for „I don’t know“.

Please vote!

Yes, the old military Europe still exists. France and England together form a guarantee. Given that England has already capitulated to Islam and privatized its nuclear industry into American companies, France is the political center of Europe and western civilization.

It was a desperate last minute response to something which would otherwise have been irreparable damage. Crimea was under effective control of the Russians, as it has always been, and was only formally Ukrainian. Then the neo-nazi Nato coup d’Etat took hold, and Russia was forced to assert its influence. Nato was testing Russia.

The Romans already said of the Germans: they are good fighters, but cowardly in defeat. We see this now, in their response to the current events - they are taking all the most cowardly paths. That goes for both Crimea (where they facilitate in spreading lies about the plane that was brought down by Ukrainian forces) and for the shootings in Paris, where they actively take the side of the muslims, because they are afraid of interior unrest.

No, it does not!

Nonsense!

France is the political “center of Europe”? That’s nonsense too! And “western civlisation”? Also nonsense! France did not exist during the time of the Frankish Empire encompassing those countries which are later known as France, Germany, North Italy, and again later Austria, Switzerland, Holland, Belgium.

Look at this maps (and see where the center of Europe is and the Frankish Empire was!):

He means qualitatively, not quantitatively. It may be true, it may not, but that’s not his argument.

What he said is quantitatively and qualitatively false.

First it have been the Germanic tribes, especially the Frankish, one of the Germanic tribes; then it was the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation; in the beginning of the global colonisation it was Spain with Portugal, then the Great Powers as the “Concert of Europe” - England, Germany (Austria and Prussia), France, Russia -, then another “Concert of Europe” with England, Germany, Austria-Hungary, France, Italy, Russia (1871-1917/'18), and today USA - unfortunately. Yes, unfortunately! The USA are too far away from Europe, they don’t know much aboout Europe, they are economically an enemy (thus: not a partner!) and militarily not a partner but the boss.

And please don’t forget the church!

The erliest empire of the Germanic tribe which we call the Franks had its territory in the region which is today: Northwest Germany and Holland. That was founded in the 3rd century.

ARminius, That may be true, but Germany did not dominate the region, prior to AD 910,when the Magyars were finally defeated by the Germans in that year by King Otto, in the Hungarian German wars. After that, the Austrians took the helm for centuries until close to pre modern times. The Austrian and Spanish Hapsburgs dominated the continent.

Austrians are Germans. Have you forgotten that?

We are talking aboout history and not about political correctness of the early 21st century.

And the Habsburgs are a German royal dynasty.

Shall I show you a map again?

And the Austrian-Hungarian Empire you and somebody else mentioned is not the best example, if we want Europe to became safe, because that empire became more and more fragiile, and this fact was the trigger for the First World War.

Shall I tell you the historical facts?

There can not be any European development without Germany. Try to learn from history! Most humans can not learn from history - unfortunately.

Either the Europeans wiil do it furthermore by the German leadership, especially in an economical sense, or they try to find a new “concert”, for example: Germany, France, and Russia (but that is not easy).

Europe without Germany is dead!

No, You do not have to. the fact is, what the Austrians were, does not apply to the modern Europe. They were Germans once, the similar way, the Hungarians were once Magyars and prior to that hords from Siberia. Who was what that long ago, does not relate to the present facts, except insofar as they effected the geopolitical dynamics of Europe.

Facts speak for themselves, and historicity does not able to teach on that basis,at times. Why? because not that people can not learn, but that supposed learning is done by only a backward look, not while amidst struggles and claims which usually at the time they are going on, are conflated and confusing. At times friend are taken as foes and vica versa. Hungary was allied with Germany all through both world wars, and suffered enormous casualties alongside the Germans, while Austria remained neutral. this is one real example where the lines are not drawn in well organized fashion, along predictable variances. I think You are right about the outbreak of WW1 , however, what is forgotten by most,mis, that the national revolutions of the eighteen hundreds produced a climate which led to a major upheaval in the beginning of the twentieth century. . it is the climate, more than some vague alignments which bring about potential stressors to resolve themselves. alignments are usually the products of sudden impulsive acts, to benifit the partners of such alliance. Another interesting example is, the sudden departure of Ribbentrop to Moscow to form the German Russian allience, on the eve of the attack on Poland, whose outcome and supposed betrayal is very well documented.

How could Europe ever be without Germany? That is of course beyond any for of possibility, and it is not what I propose. But the Germans are a complex people, especially if we count the Austrians. One side is highly intellectual, ‘posh’, imperial and a top-down vision of society. But the other is a tribal, work-ethic people that organizes by skill. I;m saying a Germany led by Prussian ethics is not beneficial to the rest of us. They are extremely selfish and aggressive. Merkel is a manager, she is admirable at her job but she is no ‘statesman’, has no oversight, is myopic to the detriment of southern Europe, which I contend is the most cultured part of the continent. The Austrians will agree. As a Dutchman it is embarrassing to me that the only man who has the sense to speak frankly about Islam, also calls Italy and Greece “garlic-countries” - there is a contempt from the north to the south that is not warranted, and isn’t even actually felt. It’s all pretense. Whenever a northener visits Italy, he is impressed and most pleased. On top of this Italy produces far more impressive valuable cultural goods, from pasta and sausage to Armani and Lamborghini that the Dutch can pride themselves on. “Gouda” as they call all of it in the alps. Anyway, I respect your angle to this debate, and it is perhaps true that we need to look at the deeper history of the peoples here. I am not sure how much of that is going to play into the politics of the coming time - this is a confrontation of two ideologies; the anarchic ‘anyone who has read the koran can be the voice of life and death’ ethics of Islam, and the radical state, imposed on the old Europe by Sun King, then the Guillotine, and finally, to complete the trinity, the conquering child Napoleon. The state of France looks inward. No one in France wants a small state. The state is good. Perhaps this is because it was first embodied by a symbolic sun-king, a Pharaoh. Within the republicanist secular state paradigm, France and America stand on different extremes.

On the most basic level let us not forget that the Roma Empire came through the Holy Roman Empire, and this derivation directly attributed toward the Enlightenment in Italy. however, it is through Germany, that the neo Classic revival began as the form of Romanticism. Culturally, this revival would have been impossible without Germany. That this revival lead to seek the roots of it’s transformative powers, the myth, unleashing upon the world this awesome and tragic power, presents the persona of German cultural enigma, whose mask, almost destroyed the world. this unmasking was such a sudden phenomena, that it took the world by wild surprise, the perceptive double power of the Dasein,
A critic said of Slojterdijk (not an American one), that his works are the other bookmark, the other end of which belongs to Heidegger. I mention this, in lieu of trying find the proper role for a postmodern role for Germany, in terms of it’s intellectual course,rather than trying to find patterns within the historicity of an Heideggrian intentionality. things are obviously different in Germany today, although, some things do remain the same.

It does apply to the modern Europe - of course! Ask the Austrians themselves! The Austrians were and are Germans. It’s only the current political correctness - thus: dicatatorship and propaganda - that wants you to beleive in lies.

No, and you can’t comprae the Hungarians with Austrians in that way. Have you herad of the “Deutscher Bund” (“German Federation”)? It existed from 1815 to 1866 (German War between Prussia and Austria - itIs called German War!). Bot Austria and Prussia were members and had no problems with each other. That is not long ago. And shall I show you the map and the fotos of 1938? Austria came back to the Reich 1918, because the Austrians wanted it. You have to accept the historical facts as well as I have to.

Excuse me, but you have no idea. Austria was allied with Germany during the First World War and was part of Germany during the Second World war. Austria was not “neutral”!

No, Poland had provoked that - that is also very well documented. And Russia wanted a revenche for the war with Poland in the early 1920’s, when Poland misused the chaos of the soviet “revolution”. So Stalin was very much interested in a occupation of Poland - that is also very well documented.

B.t.w.: Smaller nations are often more aggressive than the others. You should know that, Obe.

You do not know anything about the Prussian ethics.

That is a lie.

But the global rulers and Bankers like Merkel very much!
[/quote]

No. They will not agree. I know it.

Everywhere in Germany they say “Gouda” to that Dutch cheese. The whole Old Europe - the Occident (Abendland) - is a culture of cheese. Some are known in the whole world, some not, and the latter are not worse than the others.

Currently, there are horrible and very much hysteric situations in the whole Occident. Sometime I think I can smell that war is coming.

Arminius, You are right but only about Austria. In the first world war, they went along for the ride, but in the second they were Anschluss-ed, and Poland was attacked soon after. I really have no disagreement here, except that what determined the course of
European politics in the first half of the 20th century were political ideological testing, and alliances were formed on basis of territorial expansion, using
ideology as a prop. Deutch land Über Alles became a
rallying cry to further territorial expansion, but it was an ideological struggle. At the present time, that process has been replaced by the unification of the
EU, and dominance by Germany would have achieved
by the pen, that war could not achieve. However, here, the economic superiority, rather then the military,has become the means by which , this can
be accomplished, and it is with this in mind, that the
approach toward Russia has to be seen. Economically,Germany is no match for Russia, and
this is the key, to the new Russio-German
relationship. They say, in A Capitalistic system, one
would even sell his grandmother to get a fair trade, and ideology takes a back seat to commerce. The Russians are not yet quite convinced, although their
handling of the Islamic struggle, they can not but

Share the Continent’s and even the U.S. stance, since they too have their Chechnya Muslim problem. So
there is a constant shift of alliances, depending on
the focus of the struggle, whether it be military, economic, or ideological.

Correction: in the next to the last paragraph, the wordage should read ‘Russia is no match for Germany’