Historically Europe usually fights itself.
It’s been an aberration that it’s been peaceful between the European countries. Oddly timed to align with our own close alliance. Coincidence?
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Hard Power and Soft Power
- Thread starter taxi1
- Start date
It’s been an aberration that it’s been peaceful between the European countries. Oddly timed to align with our own close alliance. Coincidence?
Typically Europe creates coalitions to fight a threat that upsets the status quo. Think along the lines of the UK, Austrian Empire, Prussia, Spain, Naples, Sicily, Sardinia, the Dutch, and even the Ottoman’s getting together to beat Napoleon’s France. Or the Crimean War where the UK buddied up with France, Sardinia & Piedmont, and the Ottoman’s to fight Russia. Both world wars were fought with something more like coalitions than treaty or similar alliances.
I didn't see any helos after about half way through, so I clicked off. 😁
You only need to listen to the first 30 or 40 seconds of each to get the idea!
What I find interesting are all the quotes about Chamberlain and appeasement for WW2 but no examples of the interlocking alliances and the slide, on autopilot, into WW1.
This is an amazing presentation.
So many people tend to view jurisdictional geography as if it were similar to physical geography, static or tectonic in movement.
And most Americans have difficulty even understanding our own county and North America's historical boundary ebb and flow, especially if we look at pre-1775.
So to attempt to understand the feelings of those in Europe, the middle east, Asia, or anywhere that is not our personal area of expertise when it comes to these often historically arbitrary boundaries is to do those peoples a disservice.
For example, I personally had little to no knowledge of the Balkans, and "former Yugoslavia" until I deployed there as part of Operation Joint Endeavor. Talking with those who lived there, and their perspective of our attempts to stabilize the region (Dayton Accords) was a real eye opener.
So for me, I find it difficult to offer an opinion of what is the appropriate action in regards to UA and RU, not having a full understanding of the "geographical" history, for lack of a better phrase.
This is a fascinating Wikipedia entry. It's, uh, quite long: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Poland
European history is built different.
I can't get past the first 30 seconds of this abomination, let alone spending 35 minutes listening to this clown drone on about things he's wrong about. That this guy has almost 1.5M subs is a testament to the atrocious level of discourse in this country.
When we think of modern Europe it all goes back to the rise of nationalism that grew during the Napoleonic era. This is where we see nations like Germany and Italy eventually evolving from a series of regional states that shared broad linguistic and cultural ideas and places like Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria and Serbia rise against places like the Ottoman Empire or Russia consolidating with the same cultural ideas as other nations. It is critical to recognize that nationalism barely had time to take hold when the Industrial Revolution allowed nations to grow their armed forces at a pace never before seen.
Yup, for some reason people get pissed off when foreigners install themselves by force.
Interesting, that.