Germany’s Foreign Minister Calls for a Common European Army

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by Marulus

Oh, yes, it is an extremely bad idea, because those who would command such an army are the worst kind of totalitarians, having in mind a vision of world totally opposed to anything which would include the preservation of the European nations and their cultures. Army led by euro(c)rats would maybe be the worst thing ever to happen in Europe.

Agreed. It's a danger of an unimaginable scale. Just imagine the sizable supranational armed forces that blindly obey the orders of their euro-masters..
I'm afraid that if this comes to pass, the Europe will begin to look more and more alike to ex-Yugoslavia in a way, with common armed forces and national armies rendered to a mere territorial defense forces.
Territorial Defense Forces (Yugoslavia) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Immediately after the war in the ex-Yu began, the territorial defense forces were disbanded/disarmed, in order to ensure that a common army(which was a massive force at that time) defeats the opposition in a blitzkrieg manner.

Historia magistra vitae est

[Marulus]

Originally Posted by M.R.

You have some sources for that?

"In the time of Justianian (6th century, comment by Marulus), the Slavs appear for the first time unfder their own name, "Sclavenes", in Procopius (Byzantine historian from the 6th century)."

[source]

An detailed account of the earliest mentions of Slavs in the Byzantine chronicles, along with different theories of the origin of the name Slav, can be found here. (It is in German, I was unable to find anything in English)

"The Slavs increasingly populated the Balkans and formed their own districts, known as "Sclavinia", as far as the Peloponnesus."

[source]

Originally Posted by M.R.

Yeah, I heard that, but you rather believe that is of Greek-Byzantine origin right?

No, I don't. It is only that the form sklav, with a k inside, is the Greek adaptation of the original Slavic name, because Greek does not tolerate the consonant group sl in the beginning of the word.

Originally Posted by M.R.

I don't believe it, actualy the word 'Slavic' is a very recent invention and it derives from the actual Slovenic race (central European Slavs if you want). But ok, maybe the term was used to describe Czechs as well (they were part of Sloveni union too and part of 'Slovenic race') or 'other Slavs' if you want. Again, I might be wrong here again, but I have yet to see this term describing other Slavs before 18th century. The term Sclauinia derives from times of early Carantania, which was also described as such ("Sclaunia") by historians.

It was sometimes used to name Poles as well, Russians very rarely.

[M.R.]

Originally Posted by Marulus

"In the time of Justianian (6th century, comment by Marulus), the Slavs appear for the first time unfder their own name, "Sclavenes", in Procopius (Byzantine historian from the 6th century)."

[source]

Interesting, however are you sure he meant all 'Slavs' with that?

It's not that I don't believe you or anything, I just want to make myself sure, this subject interests me.

"The Slavs increasingly populated the Balkans and formed their own districts, known as "Sclavinia", as far as the Peloponnesus."

[source]

This is article from 2004... I'd like to see source naming other territories than Slovenia with this name. Again, I leave the possibility I may be wrong, just I have to make myself sure.

[Marulus]

Originally Posted by M.R.

Well it was a way to end warfare.

It was totally unaccpetbale way, nevertheless. Some anti-Christian bigots use this as an argument against Christianity in general (a stupid and lame argument, as all of their "arguments" are), but still this fact (ie. that anti-Christians abuse the narrative of this event) does not make the very thing any less reprehensible. Never was Christianity meant to spread in this manner.

Originally Posted by M.R.

who wouldn't forget that?

How about God? Because that is what I was alluding to.

Originally Posted by M.R.

Since most population was peasant and didn't know/care much about history, for other people of course those people were seen as 'pagan heretics' so they didn't care either.

Memories of past events survive in popular culture, even when they are not remembered explicitly as such. They may be reflected in some traits of collective psyche, those traits then could conidition future events.

But again, I was not referring to what peasants might or might have not remembered, but to a sort of metaphysical/theological aspect of the whole matter, which is also very important, especially for an empire that expressly calls itself "holy". The whole history of that empire was replete with bloody conflicts, some of them over mundane matters, but great many over "holy" things (although the forntier is at times quite blurred).

However, I acknowledge that decentralised system of governance, with the preservation of local peculiarities, was a good side of that empire. But the last incarnation of the idea of the Holy Roman Empire, I mean the Habsburg Monarchy/Austria-Hungary, was definitely very unholy.

Originally Posted by M.R.

actualy I don't know any sane nationalist here who would claim Carantania is not Slovenian, others are simply confused and follow what they learned in school/don't bother to read about their history.

Those whom I met were not denying the Slovenian character of Carantania, I was saying that they did not show any attitude of special appreciation toward the Holy Roman Empire. They also tended to believe that Carantania was oppressed by the Germanic Holy Roman Empire.

[M.R.]

Originally Posted by Monolith

Agreed. It's a danger of an unimaginable scale. Just imagine the sizable supranational armed forces that blindly obey the orders of their euro-masters..
I'm afraid that if this comes to pass, the Europe will begin to look more and more alike to ex-Yugoslavia in a way, with common armed forces and national armies rendered to a mere territorial defense forces.
Territorial Defense Forces (Yugoslavia) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Immediately after the war in the ex-Yu began, the territorial defense forces were disbanded/disarmed, in order to ensure that a common army(which was a massive force at that time) defeats the opposition in a blitzkrieg manner.

Historia magistra vitae est

Sure, also the theory that individual nations aren't able to defend themselves, this is BS for me... Slovenian nation is considered "small" and yet it did defend against numerous invasions trough history. I don't think that European army can be more powerful than let's say German army. It's the unity and patriotism that make the army great, not sole numbers or size if you want. Size of a nation (or army in this case) is irrelevant anyway, solely in numbers Europe can't compete with Asians or Americans, even if united in some European army, but what does that mean?

I'm not in favour of anything that is in the lines of pan-Europeanism, I advocate strong Slovenian army, if other European nations help us fine, if not,.. well it's fine too.

[Marulus]

Originally Posted by M.R.

It's not that I don't believe you or anything, I just want to make myself sure, this subject interests me.

Then I recommend you to look into the History of Byzantium by Georgije Ostrogorski (I believe there might be Slovenian translation) or to some other histories of Byzantium. There you will find out about Sclaviniae.

The name was used in different occasions to name Slavic-speaking peoples and territories for centuries (very rarely for Russians though). But the megalomoaniac mythology which was invented on the basis of that, by 19th century Pan-Slavists, is an entirely different matter.

[Marulus]

Originally Posted by M.R.

Sure, also the theory that individual nations aren't able to defend themselves, this is BS for me ... Size of a nation (or army in this case) is irrelevant anyway, solely in numbers Europe can't compete with Asians or Americans, even if united in some European army, but what does that mean?

Yes, even small countries are able to have strong armies. The obvious example is Israel. I don't sympathise Israel or Zionism in any sense, but I am speaking from a purely technical point of view.

Another important thing is to differentiate between real(istic) dangers for a respective nation and totally unrealistic scenarios invented by propaganda with the aim of provoking fear.

[M.R.]

Originally Posted by Marulus

It was totally unaccpetbale way, nevertheless. Some anti-Christian bigots use this as an argument against Christianity in general (a stupid and lame argument, as all of their "arguments" are), but still this fact (ie. that anti-Christians abuse the narrative of this event) does not make the very thing any less reprehensible. Never was Christianity meant to spread in this manner.

This is such a BS anyway "Christians slaughtered my ancestors" - if they did, you wouldn't exist today is my answer to them. It wasn't really about Christianity anyway, more about spreading empire, and since empire was Christian-only, they had to convert them too. It's not really something unique in European/World history (spreading empire/state in such way), not that I'm advocating it, but it's not really that big thing to put a curse on it for next centuries.

How about God? Because that is what I was alluding to.

Well, who knows...

However, I acknowledge that decentralised system of governance, with the preservation of local peculiarities, was a good side of that empire. But the last incarnation of the idea of the Holy Roman Empire, I mean the Habsburg Monarchy/Austria-Hungary, was definitely very unholy.

Here we do agree.

Those whom I met were not denying the Slovenian character of Carantania, I was saying that they did not show any attitude of special appreciation toward the Holy Roman Empire. They also tended to believe that Carantania was oppressed by the Germanic Holy Roman Empire.

Then they don't believe Carantania was Slovenians, only a part of Carantanian history (early Carantania, Samo Union and principality of Carantania), this is also considered as 'fact' by Slovenian official 'history'. The story continues with Slovenia being under 'Germanic rule' for next 1000 years, but it's of course BS spread by German(ic) imperialists and pan-Slavists (who adopted those views, particularly pro-Yugoslav, to portray southern Slavs as some kind of saviours from 1000 year old Germanic opression).

[M.R.]

Originally Posted by Marulus

Yes, even small countries are able to have strong armies. The obvious example is Israel. I don't sympathise Israel or Zionism in any sense, but I am speaking from a purely technical point of view.

It's also hard to say which nation is 'small'. They say Slovenians are a small nation, but I wouldn't really agree here, I mean if we compare European nations with Chinese, almost every nation here can be considered 'small', but does this really matter? Greeks are a small nation and yet they made a civiliazation we all admire and stood against much bigger Persian empire.

Slovenia is my piece of the world, I simply view it as my land, my world, it is actualy very diverse country with quite a lot strong regional identities, probably much more than those bigger lands. It also stood against all enemies usualy highly outnumbered. I think every 'small nation' in Europe has simmilar story to tell, take Croatia for example if you want.

Another important thing is to differentiate between real(istic) dangers for a respective nation and totally unrealistic scenarios invented by propaganda with the aim of provoking fear.

I completly agree here.

[Marulus]

Originally Posted by M.R.

It's also hard to say which nation is 'small'. They say Slovenians are a small nation, but I wouldn't really agree here, I mean if we compare European nations with Chinese, almost every nation here can be considered 'small', but does this really matter? Greeks are a small nation and yet they made a civiliazation we all admire and stood against much bigger Persian empire.

I agree here completely. In fact, I used the word small in the conventional sense as it is used today in media and public discourse. Maybe I should have put it under quotation marks to make my point more clearly. Every European nation is tiny compared to China, obviously.

[Kernunnos]

Originally Posted by Strengthandhonour

I agree with M.R. that the "empire" wasn't necessarily German.
At one point the Holy Roman Empire contained a part of France and a lot of Italian provinces.
Regarding an European army, I don't see it as such a bad idea. I mean, individual European nations can't compete with some of the other growing world powers. However, I distrust what the politicians might do with such an army..

A lot of unhappy italian provinces ... we had to rebel for our rights (Lombard League).

At long last national states proved victorious over the empire model and worked better.

[Kernunnos]

Originally Posted by Monolith

Agreed. It's a danger of an unimaginable scale. Just imagine the sizable supranational armed forces that blindly obey the orders of their euro-masters..
I'm afraid that if this comes to pass, the Europe will begin to look more and more alike to ex-Yugoslavia in a way, with common armed forces and national armies rendered to a mere territorial defense forces.
Territorial Defense Forces (Yugoslavia) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Immediately after the war in the ex-Yu began, the territorial defense forces were disbanded/disarmed, in order to ensure that a common army(which was a massive force at that time) defeats the opposition in a blitzkrieg manner.

Historia magistra vitae est

The new "european" army would serve primarily against european ethnicities and local interests, much more than as a wall against china (not to be discounted as a menace though).

The comparison with ex yougoslavia sounds striking, primarily for the multicultural and forced multiracial ideology.

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by Kernunnos

The new "european" army would serve primarily against european ethnicities and local interests, much more than as a wall against china (not to b