S
Seamus_L
Guest
We need a modern day Charles Martel, John of Austria, and a John III Sobieski.
- Status
P
philipl
Guest
Good, we need to end NATO. Let them pay for their own defence.
C
ctb95
Guest
Technically, WWI wasn’t their fault.
S
starshiptrooper
Guest
The Germans are trying to build an EU Army and there was discussion earlier about penalties for countries that refuse to accept “refugees”. Together those are a pair of disturbing developments for nationalists in Europe.
Based on your comments, your username fits you like a glove.
Based on your comments, your username fits you like a glove.We sure could use the Winged Hussars again.
T
twf
Guest
Wow. Way to accuse millions of pro-EU Europeans of being murderous Nazis… there’s such an alarming lack of Christian charity on the world news forum sometimes.
V
Vouthon
Guest
Hmm.
Charles Martel, the Frankish ruler, was practically the absolute overlord of the whole of Europe north of the Alps from the Pyrenees to Hungary. His grandson Charlemagne was the founder of the Carolingian and Holy Roman Empires. There is a reason why in Turkic languages the name Frangistan (“land of the Franks”) is used casually in referring to much of Europe: the term term “Europe” is first used for a cultural sphere in the Carolingian Renaissance of the 9th century.
Don Juan of Austria was an illegitimate son of Holy Roman Emperor Charles V and the supreme commander of the Holy League, a military alliance of all the major Catholic maritime states in the Mediterranean.
John III Sobieski was the ruler of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, at that time the largest and one of the most populous and diverse states of Europe, with land spanning several contemporary Central and East European countries: Poland, Ukraine, Moldova (Transnistria), Belarus, Russia, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia etc.
In other words, the three men you refer to as examples were the military overlords of multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-lingual supranational empires or alliances that covered vast swathes of continental Europe.
Odd examples to use to critique the concept of a European army.
T
tower_of_babel
Guest
so all Baltio-Slavic peoples? + MoldovaHmm.
Charles Martel, the Frankish ruler, was practically the absolute overlord of the whole of Europe north of the Alps from the Pyrenees to Hungary. His grandson Charlemagne was the founder of the Carolingian and Holy Roman Empires. There is a reason why in Turkic languages the name Frangistan (“land of the Franks”) is used casually in referring to much of Europe: the term term “Europe” is first used for a cultural sphere in the Carolingian Renaissance of the 9th century.
Don Juan of Austria was an illegitimate son of Holy Roman Emperor Charles V and the supreme commander of the Holy League, a military alliance of all the major Catholic maritime states in the Mediterranean.
John III Sobieski was the ruler of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, at that time the largest and one of the most populous and diverse states of Europe, with land spanning several contemporary Central and East European countries:** Poland, Ukraine, Moldova (Transnistria), Belarus, Russia, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia etc**.
In other words, the three men you refer to as examples were the military overlords of multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-lingual supranational empires or alliances that covered vast swathes of continental Europe.
Odd examples to use to critique the concept of a European army.
and I think the poster was referring to leaders who protected Europe from Islam
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Not hugely overstated, but a little. Don Juan of Austria commanded a naval force of mostly Italian, but some Spanish vessels. It was not a “vast continental force”.Hmm.
Charles Martel, the Frankish ruler, was practically the absolute overlord of the whole of Europe north of the Alps from the Pyrenees to Hungary. His grandson Charlemagne was the founder of the Carolingian and Holy Roman Empires. There is a reason why in Turkic languages the name Frangistan (“land of the Franks”) is used casually in referring to much of Europe: the term term “Europe” is first used for a cultural sphere in the Carolingian Renaissance of the 9th century.
Don Juan of Austria was an illegitimate son of Holy Roman Emperor Charles V and the supreme commander of the Holy League, a military alliance of all the major Catholic maritime states in the Mediterranean.
John III Sobieski was the ruler of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, at that time the largest and one of the most populous and diverse states of Europe, with land spanning several contemporary Central and East European countries: Poland, Ukraine, Moldova (Transnistria), Belarus, Russia, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia etc.
In other words, the three men you refer to as examples were the military overlords of multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-lingual supranational empires or alliances that covered vast swathes of continental Europe.
Odd examples to use to critique the concept of a European army.
Sobieski was definitely allied with German troops, largely Austrian, but his own force was composed almost entirely of Poles.
T
Theo520
Guest
NATO isn’t a separate army, just an alliance among friends who get together on the weekend to train together.
I would expect an EU army to be another alliance that uses the exact same troops, but without Americans in the command structure. Maybe it would lead to a reorg of NATO with a more unified structure among some members. It might mean they are more active in foreign ventures that are usually led 99% by the USA.
Can’t see how this is a bad thing.
I would expect an EU army to be another alliance that uses the exact same troops, but without Americans in the command structure. Maybe it would lead to a reorg of NATO with a more unified structure among some members. It might mean they are more active in foreign ventures that are usually led 99% by the USA.
Can’t see how this is a bad thing.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
The proposed EU army will be whatever its member states really want it to be.
NATO will remain as it is, with the active members being the U.S., Britain, and Canada. Possibly Poland will be as well if the U.S. will arm Poland meaningfully.
J
josh987654321
Guest
We will see.
You can’t bring in mass Islamic Immigration into a Christian Europe and expect them to integrate, it will dramatically change the Country.
Multiculturalism only works on the micro scale, on the macro scale, you lose your identity and the Country descends into Chaos.
I hope this has helped
God Bless
Thank you for reading
Josh
E
Estevao
Guest
You seem shocked to see a comparison between the last supranational government of the European continent that was headed by Germany (the New Order) and the current one, also headed by Germany. I wonder why you find such a comparison shocking?
Is it simply making any comparison between a current government and the Nazis? Do you think that somehow the EU is not just as murderous as the Nazis were? What do you believe abortion is and what is the official EU position on abortion? In case you are ignorant, I will inform you: the EU believes that murdering an innocent unborn child is a “fundamental right”:
lifenews.com/2015/03/10/european-parliament-adopts-report-calling-abortion-a-fundamental-right/
T
twf
Guest
Of course abortion is horrendous mass murder of the innocent… but even so, its absurd to compare Nazi Germany’s vision for Europe with the modern EU… most people who support abortion are deceived. They are often otherwise good and compassionate people. This doesn’t mitigate the evil of abortion, but it does mitigate culpability. Let me ask you this… would you have coffee with a soup kitchen volunteer who supports abortion or would you start telling them they’re basically just an SS Officer in a new uniform?
I don’t know what this general fear of supranational organizations is all about. Isn’t that exactly what, say, the United States, Germany, or the UK already were to begin with? A union of nations / states with their own distinct identities consolidating resources for the common good. Germany as a nation state is a relatively young idea…maybe we should go back to the hundreds of tiny principalities that dotted Europe a couple centuries ago.
A
ATraveller
Guest
Europe is Christian? Maybe 100 years ago and even then…
E
Estevao
Guest
I don’t agree with your characterization with people who support abortion. You can either be ignorant of abortion or you can support it and thus be a bad person. Once you see what an abortion actually is, once it is described to you (the crushing of a child’s skull, chopping it up into bits and vacuuming it out of its mother into a sink) you either abhor that or you are a bad person. That is no different than Mengele’s “medical” experiments.
As to your question, I would simply describe an abortion to them and ask if they are ok with that. If they are, I might not call them a Nazi, but I assuredly would not associate with a person who continues to believe that abortion is a good thing, or that it is OK because it serves a nobler purpose much like I would not associate with a neo-Nazi who thinks that it is a good thing to exterminate the Jews to save the Aryan race as Hitler believed or at least it is fine because it serves a nobler purpose.
One could argue that Hitler was a compassionate man who believed he was doing good. He truly believed that he was saving his people from a dangerous parasite and working toward the common good as dictated by Darwinian evolution by pruning out people who were “useless” and “unworthy of life”. I guess he was simply deceived on your logic. But of course there is such a thing as false charity, and there are things that we can’t not know…
The same principle was applied with the New Order, at least in western Europe. There were rump states that still had a good deal of their own laws in effect, and the Nazis simply tried to game the economic co-operation (instead of outright subjugation like in eastern Europe) to their own benefit just like Germany now does with the EU.
Of course, there is growing resentment of this, as we can see in the success of Nigel Farage and Brexit. People are starting to see the benefits of subsidiarity and they are “taking their countries back” as Trump said in Scotland after Brexit won.
A
Athanasiy
Guest
The militaristic force must serve for good. The European Union is something unique in the history of Europe, in the past centuries there have been attempts to unite against the mighty Islamic invasion, and remembering the tragedies of the European peoples of the past and the century before last, I want to believe in the peacekeeping mission of EU military force experienced in military affairs and with noble military qualities.
J
josh987654321
Guest
True, nevertheless, I believe there would still be many Christian influences that immigrants would not share.
For example, I think it’s safe to say the majority would agree that child marriages are wrong, that sex with someone under the age of 18 or so is pedophilia, yet in Islam, Muhammad married Aisha at age 6 and consummated the marriage at age 9, so according to them it’s not wrong and never has been, now if they bring that it on mass, they will have problems. Monogamy is also something that is generally accepted, but Islam practices polygamy, so that will create problems if brought in on mass among a host of other things, such as the death penalty for apostasy, Sharia courts etc.
Not to mention, if they do form an EU army, I can say for sure they will lose if they go up against someone in a major conflict, since these Countries who have taken in mass Islamic Immigration will have lost their identity, and a Country who has lost it’s identity is not a strong fighting force, divided and easily conquered.
I hope this has helped
God Bless You
Thank you for reading
Josh
J
josh987654321
Guest
The question id ask, is if there is an EU army, who exactly controls this army?
I hope this has helped
God Bless You
Thank you for reading
Josh
A
Athanasiy
Guest
So much conspiracy all around. I think it will be much worse if the paid populists come to power and divide Europe into hostile sectors, better strong army in a strong united Europe than to go on war against each other.
I am alarmed by some anti-EU nationalists political messiahs and pseudo-Don Quixotes in Eastern Europe, someone sincerely believes in economically independent theocratic states, with nationalized wealth…and so on… I think that when the European Union is split, thanks to these beautiful dreamers not the best and worst times will come, especially for Eastern Europe. There will be impoverishment and then everything will go awry, It will probably be a spiritual awakening but not through national prosperity but through suffering and deprivation. I do not argue, poverty is blissful, but you need to fight it. So I think that the European Union is a great chance to get out of poverty.
I do not see Germans as enemies. If in the last century this locomotive force was involved in destructive tendencies, then in the case of the European Union, I do not see any tragedy so far.
J
josh987654321
Guest
It’s not conspiracy, it’s a legitimate question.
People like Nigel Farage are not dividing Europe, people like Angela Merkel with Mass Islamic Immigration are dividing Europe. EU or not, any nation that has taken in Mass Islamic Immigration will be divided.
When you talk about a ‘strong united Europe’ what sort of ‘United Europe’ do you envisage? what sort of moral values do they hold? Who controls this army? What say do you get in the whole thing? (Do you get to vote for the head of the EU?) If one member state does something silly, will they be able to drag the rest into a major conflict that they do not want to be a part of?
I hope this has helped
God Bless You
Thank you for reading
Josh
- Status