Brussels keeps plans for EU army secret until after referendum

[Kalis]

Then Britain will have sanctions placed upon them, simple as that.

Sanctions from who? The UK would never agree to it, so the EU can not place sanctions on it as it would not be in their power to do so. The US is not going to place sanctions on Britain acting independently. Russia and China? Why would they want Britain in an EU army? Botswana? Outer Mongolia? Who?

[Deleted]

Sanctions from who? The UK would never agree to it, so the EU can not place sanctions on it as it would not be in their power to do so. The US is not going to place sanctions on Britain acting independently. Russia and China? Why would they want Britain in an EU army? Botswana? Outer Mongolia? Who?

The EU could if they wanted.

[Kalis]

Battle of Britain started in july 1940, Land-Lease started in September 1940, Operation Sea Lion was postponed in October 1940 to spring 1941. Unless of course the US are lying. https://history.state.gov/milestones...945/lend-lease

Lend Lease was proposed in December 1940, according to your own source, so how do you think it started in September 1940? Churchill was a time traveller?

[Deleted]

The EU could if they wanted.

Good luck with that. I know if the UK left the EU the french would have the biggest voting block, but since de Gaulle died the don't even dislike us that much.

- - - Updated - - -

Lend Lease was proposed in December 1940, according to your own source, so how do you think it started in September 1940? Churchill was a time traveller?

I did seem him in an episode of Dr Who once.

[Mayhem]

Lend Lease was proposed in December 1940, according to your own source, so how do you think it started in September 1940? Churchill was a time traveller?

The support to the UK started in september 1940. This then resulted in the land-lease program. So the support started well befor operation sealion and short of 2 months after the start of the battle of britain. You did it all on your own though, right?

[Kalis]

The support to the UK started in september 1940. This then resulted in the land-lease program. So the support started well befor operation sealion and short of 2 months after the start of the battle of britain. You did it all on your own though, right?

They sold us stuff before Lend Lease, nobody has ever disputed that Britain bought stuff.

You are going to need to explain in detail how a plan proposed in December 1940, that did not come into force until March 1941, was in place in September 1940.

[Kuntantee]

Battle of Britain started in july 1940, Land-Lease started in September 1940, Operation Sea Lion was postponed in October 1940 to spring 1941. Unless of course the US are lying. https://history.state.gov/milestones...945/lend-lease

- - - Updated - - -



Well if that´s what you´re saying you probably shouldn´t use the word attack. What´s your idea of the US controlling the EU?

I said attacked, which is a historical fact. USA controlling EU in the sense that not allowing them to become a threat to them. There isn't one way of control, it's an objective.

[Deleted]

http://www.globalfirepower.com/count...Submit=COMPARE

GL trying to defeat us with your measly 91 fighters.

[Mayhem]

They sold us stuff before Lend Lease, nobody has ever disputed that Britain bought stuff.

You are going to need to explain in detail how a plan proposed in December 1940, that did not come into force until March 1941, was in place in September 1940.

Wait, so there was support from the US even prior to the lend-lease program now, would you look at that.

I´ll explain it to you right after you explained how project sea lion happend in 1940.

[Deleted]

http://www.globalfirepower.com/count...Submit=COMPARE

GL trying to defeat us with your measly 91 fighters.

Doesn't matter on the capabilities. given the French expert tactics of..advancing in the other direction... we just need to fart to defeat you

[Deleted]

So lets assume US/others would've done nothing do you really think you would've managed Germany on your own?

The reason that Europe is not talking German right now is because Hitler created a 2 sided front by attacking Russia (going against his advisers.)
And because US/others stepped in. The bulk of Germany's forces were fighting on the Russian front(again they divided in 2 groups as well,one to Stalingrad and one to the oil fields if I remember correctly. This was also against advisement.)

When Germany needed to defend the defense line they created, the tanks were divided (a few divisions would go the the defense line) the rest got stationed around cities. While Rommel one of the better commanders wanted most of them to be at the beach. The ones around cities would serve as a reserve but got permission to move in quite late on the first day. Also Hitler, even though he was not really much of a military strategist interfered a lot with his generals.

This is what I learned mostly from history lessons and documentaries since its quite an interesting subject.
But yeah, Britain would've fallen eventually if they hadn't gotten any outside help. Would've helped a lot if Hitler didn't try to play military strategist/general.

Don't get me wrong I wouldn't have liked it but the vast military power Germany had in the war is admirable.

[Kalis]

Wait, so there was support from the US even prior to the lend-lease program now, would you look at that.

I´ll explain it to you right after you explained how project sea lion happend in 1940.

How did 50 destroyers, which are ships, help win the Battle of Britain, which was an air battle?

Do you think Britain catapulted boats at the Luftwaffe?

Operation Sea Lion was proposed for 1940, when they realised it was not possible they eventually cancelled it.

[Deleted]

So lets assume US/others would've done nothing do you really think you would've managed Germany on your own?

The reason that Europe is not talking German right now is because Hitler created a 2 sided front by attacking Russia (going against his advisers.)
And because US/others stepped in. The bulk of Germany's forces were fighting on the Russian front(again they divided in 2 groups as well,one to Stalingrad and one to the oil fields if I remember correctly. This was also against advisement.)

When Germany needed to defend the defense line they created, the tanks were divided (a few divisions would go the the defense line) the rest got stationed around cities. While Rommel one of the better commanders wanted most of them to be at the beach. The ones around cities would serve as a reserve but got permission to move in quite late on the first day. Also Hitler, even though he was not really much of a military strategist interfered a lot with his generals.

This is what I learned mostly from history lessons and documentaries since its quite an interesting subject.
But yeah, Britain would've fallen eventually if they hadn't gotten any outside help.

Hitler never wanted a war with the UK. he wanted access to our empire and trading routes. Even without the US help, the UK would have held even if it mean sacrificing the rest of Europe. The western front was holding up without US help and the Russians were advancing. Remember at this point, we still had the Empire and a vast amount of resources. Hitler wanted access to the resources so taking Britain would have been a bad move as the Empire would not have worked with him.

If it went that way, UK,Germany would have likely made an uneasy truce. But thats assuming Hitler could even stop the advance of the Russians. Even with full numbers the russians had far superior man power and just as equal tech. Short of Germany developing a nuke and dropping it on moscow, Germany was always going to lose once they pissed the Russians off

- - - Updated - - -

Do you think Britain catapulted boats at the Luftwaffe?

I would love to see that lol

[Mayhem]

How did 50 destroyers, which are ships, help win the Battle of Britain, which was an air battle?

Do you think Britain catapulted boats at the Luftwaffe?

You´re aware that the war on sea was already going on months prior to the battle of britain?

Operation Sea Lion was proposed for 1940, when they realised it was not possible they eventually cancelled it.

Defending a proposed operation is really something to gloat over.

Also they didn´t cancelle it because it was impossible, but because there were secret negotiations ongoing that made hitler not give the order to start operation sea lion in august 1940.

[Deleted]

Hitler never wanted a war with the UK. he wanted access to our empire and trading routes. Even without the US help, the UK would have held even if it mean sacrificing the rest of Europe. The western front was holding up without US help and the Russians were advancing. Remember at this point, we still had the Empire and a vast amount of resources. Hitler wanted access to the resources so taking Britain would have been a bad move as the Empire would not have worked with him.

If it went that way, UK,Germany would have likely made an uneasy truce. But thats assuming Hitler could even stop the advance of the Russians. Even with full numbers the russians had far superior man power and just as equal tech. Short of Germany developing a nuke and dropping it on moscow, Germany was always going to lose once they pissed the Russians off

- - - Updated - - -



I would love to see that lol

Yeah sorry should have worded it better, eventually they would've forced into a truce and their supplies would get limited due to German submarines attacking the supply ships.

Wasn't Germany's tech superior to Russia? Russia used interesting methods of repelling attacks by using dogs that would run into tanks and then get blown to bits.
Also Germany lost advantage of splitting up the forces a part went south to the oil fields and the rest to Stalingrad( the tide turned here right?) But yeah, attacking Russia is not very wise.

Germany made quite a few major mistakes. The fact that they after like 20 years could pull of something like they did is quite ridiculous.

I'm not a total expert but I've seen a lot of stuff about the second world war.

[Kalis]

You´re aware that the war on sea was already going on months prior to the battle of britain?

The US ships were not commissioned until the end of October 1940, the Kriegsmarine were already outgunned by the Royal Navy before they arrived and the Operation had died in its tracks.

The US did not save Britain from Germany, the US helped to take the war to continental Europe.

Defending a proposed operation is really something to gloat over.

The Battle of Britain was the prelude to Operation Sea Lion, that was kind of the point of it.


Britain and Empire played their part in trying to halt Nazi Germany during WWII, what did your country do?

Also they didn´t cancelle it because it was impossible, but because there were secret negotiations ongoing that made hitler not give the order to start operation sea lion in august 1940.

It was impossible though, everyone knew it once the Battle of Britain was won.

[ringpriest]

The rest of the continent never united into one super-power at your front.

Damned close:

[Pengekaer]

The positives :

- The UK won't need to get involved in conflicts it really doesn't need to enter (afgan/iraq).
- Pursuit of European interests rather than transatlantic interests.
- No more attempts at indepentent conflicts (Mali - France, Uk - Sierra Leone etc) = more capability as everyone pitches in.
- Joint border force
- more effecient defense spending
- military and defence autonomy (less of a role from the US in Nato)
- allows the US to pivot to Asia as Europe will alone be able to pressure Russia into not being cunts.

So whos got the negatives?

I do:

- Among European nations, there is nothing that remotely resembles a common approach or opinion to use of military. Whereas countries like France England, Poland and Denmark are eager to get involved in anything they can get involved in the ME, other countries like Germany, Sweden, Finland, Belgium etc. are more reluctant to join wars or causes in faraway countries. What stance would a common EU army take? Would some countries be forced or bullied to supply troops to a cause they don't really support? I see that as likely.
- As for the military autonomy, I disagree. A common EU-army would be largely at disposal of the major European nations.
- Europe will never be able to press Russia into not being cunts, not even the US can press Russia like that. That said, I agree that if there's one legitimate common purpose Western Europe should rally to, it's a common line against Russia. Especially now that the US might get a president that want to dissolve NATO (unlikely to happen I guess, but we should be prepared for the worst).
- EU and border defense is a joke. Completely. The very idea of EU is about not having borders (Schengen) and now that they are just about to hand out free Visa to Turkey... no, only nation states have any vigilance. When some countries tried to enforce border-defense back in 2015, what did the EU-officials have to say about that? And now they want to Turkey to lessen the pressure on our borders, the R-tards. EU and border defense in the same sentence is flatout a grammatical error.
- There is virtually no agreement in the EU what to spend on the military. France and the UK say 2 %, Germany doesn't even want an army (from what I can tell) and then there's the many 1.0 % nations. Will nations be forced to pay 2 % in a EU-army even if they think 1 % is enough?

On a more personal note, I wouldn't trust an EU army with the Germans being the main influential factor. Even though Germany appears quite docile and harmless for now (from a military perspective), even uninterested in military for the time being, I also consider it a rather autocratic country that imposes censorship. And I doubt not for a second that Germany will get more aggressive as the EU and the Euro and all their other projects get threatened. I agree with old Margerat Thatcher on that one, a reunited Germany was a dangerous idea. Germany wants power, even if it costs. But they have relied on economy and diplomacy for some time, but I doubt that will continue. Especially if countries become more Eurosceptic, because that would threaten the conduit through which Germany projects its power across the continent - they will not take kindly to that.
At any rate, no, I would never trust the German's to have command over the military of my nation or any other nation. I think they would enjoy it a little too much

[ringpriest]

Lend Lease was proposed in December 1940, according to your own source, so how do you think it started in September 1940? Churchill was a time traveller?

Obviously:


(No, really - the Doctor secretly worked with Churchill during WWII.)

[Mayhem]

The US ships were not commissioned until the end of October 1940, the Kriegsmarine were already outgunned by the Royal Navy before they arrived and the Operation had died in its tracks.

The US did not save Britain from Germany, the US helped to take the war to continental Europe.

The kriegsmarine were outgunned by the royal navy in 1940? Are you high? The main losses for the kriegsmarine were between 1943 and 1945.

The Battle of Britain was the prelude to Operation Sea Lion, that was kind of the point of it.

Yeah, so? That doesn´t suddenly make the UK defending operation sea lion.

Britain and Empire played their part in trying to halt Nazi Germany during WWII, what did your country do?

Sitting on an island after being overrun on mainland europe. True heroes at that time. We couldn´t do much and did not enough.

It was impossible though, everyone knew it once the Battle of Britain was won.

It was postponed prior to the end of the battle of britain.