"Almost one-third of Brits, Germans and French want..." Topic

… EU army instead of NATO forces.

"A new poll shows almost one in three citizens of the UK, Germany and France want the EU to have its own armed forces which would replace its reliance on NATO troops.

The poll was conducted by ICM Research exclusively for Sputnik news agency. It surveyed some 4,000 people in Germany, France and the UK.

An average of 28 percent of respondents said they would like the EU to create its own army to protect its own interests. The number was highest of all in France, 37 percent, and one percent lower in Germany. But only 19 percent of those asked in the UK said they wanted an EU force.

Most respondents however are still happy with the fact that NATO troops are stationed in their countries – the number is 47 percent for Germany and 48 percent for the UK…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Also means that 72% don't want an EU force or have no opinion………..
"Sputnik is an international multimedia news service launched on 10 November 2014 by Rossiya Segodnya, an agency wholly owned and operated by the Russian government, which was created by a Decree of the President of Russia on 9 December 2013"……………

"The poll was conducted by ICM Research exclusively for Putin's thinly-disguised propaganda arm."

Fixed that for you. No need to thank me.

Russia's first foreign policy goal: split up NATO.

Indeed.

Perhaps the wording of the question mirrored the Crimean 'referendum' question:

"Excuse me comrade, but would you rather be oppressed by the fascist boot of NATO imperialists or defended by your own democratic and freedom-loving forces of the EU…?"

Fine by me as long as we (the U.S.), don't have to come back and kick ass on the continent for a third time.

(late)

(twice)

ScoutJock

Yeah don't worry I doubt a new war would last the two or three years it usually takes the US to decide to "kick ass on the continent".

Fatman

And before our transatlantic cousins get bent out of shape I am aware how much we owe the US. It's just comments like the above get a bit, actually a lot, boring after the first 70 years.

Two or three years isn't because we're deciding yea or nay, we're just making certain we bring sufficient assets to do the job properly. Unlike certain European nations whose current defense budgets are a joke, but whose populations are beginning to think they can go it alone with said underfunded militaries.

Fortunately for Europe, lots of Americans like German beer, chicks with English accents and French food, so go ahead and away NATO's military credibility and go your own way. Give us a call (again) when it all goes to hell.

Then we can bore you a third time!

Fine by me as long as we (the U.S.), don't have to come back and kick ass on the continent for a third time.

Then we can bore you a third time!

Third? Was there one between 1944 and now that I missed? I really should pay more attention to European wars since 1815, I suppose….

Dal.

And before our transatlantic cousins get bent out of shape I am aware how much we owe the US. It's just comments like the above get a bit, actually a lot, boring after the first 70 years.

That's ok, we've been putting up with it from the French for 235. And they have long since disowned the government responsible.

Third? Was there one between 1944 and now that I missed?

I believe the original reference was to both the 1917-18 and 1941-45 events, so another one would, indeed, be the third.

1914 – 1918
And
1939 – 1945
For most of Europe and bits of the rest of the world

Ross and David, ScoutJock's implying that without US involvement then "Europe" would have been defeated. It's on the same theme as "We saved your ass in two world wars!".

Anyone who thinks the US saved the Allies from defeat by Germany really needs to broaden their reading to non-US authors. When it comes to 1914-18 then that implication is questionable, at best, and insulting to all the people who died in the war before the US stepped in.

That's not to belittle the effort the Doughboys made, either. They deserve my respect, as do all the other troops that also fought Australia's enemies in WWI. Their efforts shortened the war by as much as 18 months, saving thousands of lives. But they no more saved Europe's arse than Australian involvement in Iraq saved America's.

Dal.

Auwww Dal – didn't you know it was only because of our commitment …. Nah you are right – it is good to remember the sacrifice of all both in combat and at home regardless of how patronising they or their country men may be.

Correct me if I'm wrong… didn't realise US had decided to join us in WW2… something about Japan attacking US then Germany declaring war on US… plus UK paid back every cent owed for the stuff we got from the US… then post war US started to renege on agreements… like, with nuclear weapons… so UK had to develop their own as US refused to share the technology we had helped with…

I bet if you poll Americans, the number is way higher than 1/3.

Regardless of poll origins, isn't EU force = Nato force sans US? It's still the same group of countries.

… EU army instead of NATO forces.

Well we all know that one of the Principles Of War is Mass. So it's a good idea to have Allies … like with NATO. In theory the fact of all these Armies in NATO should deter anyone going after NATO or any of its members in an all out war. Admittedly, many NATO members' military assets have significantly been reduced for a number of reasons. Mostly … But again strength in numbers, yes ?

Correct me if I'm wrong… didn't realise US had decided to join us in WW2… something about Japan attacking US then Germany declaring war on US

Yep that's how it happened … and there would have been no way with this series of events happening that the US could not get involved …

I bet if you poll Americans,

Most would not know what NATO is …

Let the EU create their own military force and bring our stuff home. No one over there is spending any real money on defense so Russia just needs to wait a little.

However people want to change history, Pres. Roosevelt wanted to enter WWII on the side of the Allies and was putting the US on a war footing.

Political assistance like Lend Lease and the economic embargo of Japan including denial of oil drove them to declare war on the USA. -or do any of you think Japan just decided to attack Pearl Harbor for no reason?

The USA became the factory of the world during WWII, clothing, feeding and arming every allied nation. What ships and men would the Allies have used during the Normandy landings?

Why does the USA enter European wars late? Because we expected the Europeans to fix their own problems. Evidently, that is a wasted hope.

1989, when we won the Cold War.

Why is this a surprise? There's wide spread distrust of NATO and other "global" organizations.

Go into any bar in the Southern US and ask about the UN and you'll hear the exact same sentiments, for much of the same reasons. Why would it different anywhere else?

As far as Europe vs US jingoism, nationalism is stupid. Why not take pride in something YOU did like your back yard or your family, not some accident of birth.

cwlinsj …

And of course, divisive threads such as this one is EXACTLY the sort of response that Putin's propaganda arm seeks to achieve…

1989, when we won the Cold War.

You had a lot of help, but the bulk of the effort and particularly $$ was the US'. Righto, he was right saying "third".

And of course, divisive threads such as this one is EXACTLY the sort of response that Putin's propaganda arm seeks to achieve…

These threads were appearing well before Putin, mate. The old History Channel fora were perhaps the best for US/anti-US social interaction.

Memory stick on the way shortly- I've redone a few flags.

Dal.

Can we please stop this ridiculous debate?