Germany’s Foreign Minister Calls for a Common European Army

[Aptrgangr]

Germany’s Foreign Minister Calls for a Common European Army

May 12, 2008 | From theTrumpet.com

All Europe combining militarily would create a formidable military and political force.


« German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier speaks to the Bundestag, May 9.
(Axel Schmidt/AFP/Getty Images)

Many were shocked on May 9 at the size of a Russian Victory Day parade, the greatest display of Russian military power since the collapse of the Soviet Union. As great as Russia’s military might is, however, the combined military might of Europe has the potential to be greater.

The European Union has a population almost 3½ times the size of Russia’s and a gross domestic product over 1,200 percent greater than Russia’s. The only reason Russia is currently considered a greater military power than Europe is that Europe’s military resources overlap and are divided 27 ways.
The combined military spending of all 27 EU member states in 2007, according to the European Defense Agency (eda), amounted to $308 billion—second only to the $752 billion spent by the United States. The fact that this money is being spent by 27 different nations on 27 different national militaries, however, dilutes the cumulative effect of these expenditures. Logistically, this represents an enormous waste of resources.
This is why German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier called for accelerated efforts to integrate Europe’s armed forces into a common European Army on May 6 at a Social Democratic Party (spd) security conference.

German leaders from both the Social Democratic Party and the Christian Democratic Union want to do the same thing with national militaries as they did with national currencies: create a single European entity. Such a force would be able to tackle modern “security threats” now considered to be beyond the scope of national armies.
As Germany’s Deutsche Welle reported May 8:
“International terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and regional conflicts outside our borders are all dangers that we can only tackle together,” said Peter Struck, the spd parliamentary group leader and a former defense minister.

According to Hennign Riecke, head of the European foreign and security policy at the German Council on Foreign Relations, fighting terrorism requires cooperation since networks can exist with state sponsors, and tackling proliferation with an actor such as Iran requires political weight.

“There cannot be any effective national security policy any longer,” he said. “Whatever you do, it must be done in cooperation.”
In order to accelerate the integration process of Europe’s militaries, Steinmeier is working with his French counterpart, Bernard Kouchner. These two countries have maintained a common German-French brigade since the early 1990s, which could serve as a sort of nucleus for a common European Army. If the Lisbon Treaty is ratified by the end of this year as planned, nations like Germany and France would have more freedom to establish such an army. Current plans call for an EU air transport command, a Ministerial Defense Council, and even an EU military academy.

Integrating the military forces of the European Union’s 27 member nations would give Europe a global military status even greater than Russia’s and could eventually even surpass that of the United States.
For more information on Europe’s rising military might, read “The Return of Imperialism” by Ron Fraser. •

theTrumpet.com

[Yago]

More of the Holy Roman-Germanic Empire (aka I Reich)?

[Marcus Marulus]

It is more probable that the euro(c)rats will upgrade and increase police forces, to prevent eventual internal unrest in future (due to economical situation etc) among the disaffected slaves.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by NatVox

More of the Holy Roman-Germanic Empire (aka I Reich)?

This time the Unholy Empire.

[Yago]

Originally Posted by Marulus

This time the Unholy Empire.

Was it ever holy, or even roman? was it even an empire?

[Tuco]

I don't see a problem with Holy Roman Empire, it was a strong state in Europe, of course it would be impossible to bring back the Roman glory, so it wasn't 'Roman' in that sense, but it was still very important. Slovenian nation was equaly treated as other nations in Holy Roman Empire (it is a ridiculous lie to call it 'German'), had a strong state (Great Duchy of Carantania) etc. It wasn't really an 'empire' as such, but rather a union of different nations, which is actually better than having an empire, since I dislike imperialism. And yes, it was holy, a real Catholic state.

[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..

[Tuco]

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.

This is from Reichenau monastery, made around 1000:



Sclauinia (Slovenia), Germania, Gallia and Roma paying tribute to emperor, all being treated equaly.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by M.R.

And yes, it was holy, a real Catholic state.

It is highly controversial, whether there can be a thing like a "Catholic state" or let alone a "Catholic empire". I am rather inclined to say no than yes. There can be countries with Catholic majorities, which are permeated with the spirit emanating from the Catholic doctrine, countries in which the Catholic Church can assume a variety of functions in the civil life, whereby a fruitful and dialectical relationship between Church and the State can exist. I am all for it. But can a state as such, in its essence be Catholic? I think not. There was hardly ever anything like that throughout history. It is more of an Islamic concept.

Originally Posted by NatVox

Was it ever holy

Some ad hoc theological explanations, devised during the Middle Ages, tended to elevate it to the level of holiness, but it never became an article of faith. Nor it can be. According to those explanations, there were only two holy states in history: the Old Testament Kingdom of Israel and the Holy Roman Empire. Israel would have lost all of its attributes of holiness after having failed the mission to become "a nation of priests", after having abandoned God many times throughout the history of the Old Covenant (ie. by having turned to idols) and finally after having rejected Christ. The Holy Roman Empire would have been the heir to the old Israel, in a spiritual sense.

However, it was never generally accepted. Thence the history of the medieval Holy Roman Empire (which bore also title "of the German nation", but was never quintessentially and only German) was replete with struggles between the Pope and the Emperor. The emperors all too often displayed so-called Caesaropapistic tendencies (wanting to rule the Church and decide in Church matters), whereas Popes at times tried to impose the authority of the Church over the secular power (the theory of two swords or two keys, especially Gregory VII, but also Innocentius III).

Its holiness was never universally accepted. Holy can be the Church (the institution and the building), the Mass, the Eucharist etc. But can any empire be truly "holy"? Hardly. After the defection of the Old Israel (I am speaking here in theological terms, from the standpoint of the Christian doctrine), all believers in Christ and members of his Church are God's people. But no empire is truly God's empire. Different emperors, both in the East and in the West, at different times tried to justify themselves, their secular authority and aspirations (even the territorial ones) in purely theological language. But that is an un-Christian attitude, a misuse of the doctrine.

Finally, there was an event which happened in the early history of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (it was then the Frankish Empire, to be precise, but there exists the clear ideological continuity between the Frankish and the Ottonian Empire), which represented, speaking from an eschatological point of view, a bad omen for the future of the Empire, as regards its "holiness" among other things. That event was the slaughter of the Saxons perpetrated by Charlemagne and their forced conversion, by the sword, to the Christianity. They were forced by the sword to "accept" Christ, which was not the method by which its faith should be spread. This event happened exactly around the time when the Empire (then Frankish) was established (end of 8th, beginning of 9th century). It was a kind of curse.

Originally Posted by NatVox

or even roman?

The Byzantines in the East claimed Romanity as exclusively theirs. But was the "Empire of the West" also heir to Rome? Culturally - yes, undoubtedly, because there was no other cultural tradition. Politically there was an interruption of three centuries. Although some historians, like Henri Pirenne, claim that the political tradition of the Roman Empire survived even in the West, that none of the new, "barbarian" rulers abolished it. Thence coronations of Charles the Great and later of Otto I would mean only revivifying an old and already existing tradition, under the new, more "Christian" (I am myself not sure whether or not the quotation marks should be put here) garb. However, no Roman emperor was ever crowned by the Pope, which was now the case. The Carolingian and later Ottonian Empire needed a de iure justification of its de facto existing power, there was a need to stress the continuity. Even in pre-Roman times it was often the case that rulers invoked their legal or even spiritual continuity with some preceding royal dynasties or political units. In this regard interpretations tend sometimes to be very flexible, let us say. First one has power gained through conquest, through force and then later an a posteriori (pseudo)-legalistic or even (pseudo)-theological explanation is devised to justify the already existing de facto power.

That power and state are sacred is an old and pre-Christian concept. In the Christian worldview it does not have necessarily to be that way. The Christian Middle Ages borrowed it from old pagan times and adjusted the principle somehow. But it was never understood in absolute terms, otherwise it borders on idolatry.

So in terms of cultural inheritance it was Roman (what else?), with some ingredients of the Germanic cultural remnants, as present in some codes of the common law (the Salic law etc) and in some traces of the old paganism integrated into the Catholic religion. Was it Roman in the original sense of word? Of course not. But it created, in the Western Europe, the tradition of stressing continuity with the Roman Empire and testifies to the essential Romanitas of the European Christendom. That continuity was very direct in the East.

Originally Posted by NatVox

was it even an empire?

Empires are usually very centralised or at least have a wish to become such, which was not the case with this empire. Its fragmentation and local autonomies started to assert themselves at an early hour. The later attempts of some emperors to "reunify" or to "recentralise" the Empire had only momentaneous, never a lasting success. But something like that happens often with empires. Inspite of the wish of the ruling classes to maintain unity ad infinitum, disintegrational forces come into prominence and ultimately turn it into a mosaic of small political units.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Strengthandhonour

Regarding an European army, I don't see it as such a bad idea.

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.

Originally Posted by Strengthandhonour

I mean, individual European nations can't compete with some of the other growing world powers.

Still a common European army is a bad idea. A good solution would eventually be some common corps composed by soldiers from different countries, with the task of defending external borders. But national armies should still exist all along nevertheless.

Originally Posted by Strengthandhonour

However, I distrust what the politicians might do with such an army..

They would most probably use it as a police force, to keep the European serf-population in eternal obedience to the System. Another task of such an army would be to serve as auxiliaries of the Yankees in missions of establishing "democracy" somewhere (you name it where...), to make the whole world in accordance with the "values" of the "European" Masonic estblishment.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by M.R.

Sclauinia (Slovenia), Germania, Gallia and Roma paying tribute to emperor, all being treated equaly.

Sclauinia does not mean Slovenia in this conext, it means Slavic territories of the empire in general.

[Tuco]

Originally Posted by Marulus

It is highly controversial, whether there can be a thing like a "Catholic state" or let alone a "Catholic empire". I am rather inclined to say no than yes. There can be countries with Catholic majorities, which are permeated with the spirit emanating from the Catholic doctrine, countries in which the Catholic Church can assume a variety of functions in the civil life, whereby a fruitful and dialectical relationship between Church and the State can exist. I am all for it. But can a state as such, in its essence be Catholic? I think not. There was hardly ever anything like that throughout history. It is more of an Islamic concept.

The point was that it was strongly Catholic. In that way a 'Catholic state', but yes it can be a question for some other thread whether state can be in it's essence Catholic one.

However, it was never generally accepted. Thence the history of the medieval Holy Roman Empire (which bore also title "of the German nation", but was never quintessentially and only German)

It never bore this title until 19th century Germanic imperialism started to name it that way. That's what I read, I might be wrong here, I would like to see some historical sources naming Holy Roman Empire as such.

That event was the slaughter of the Saxons perpetrated by Charlemagne and their forced conversion, by the sword, to the Christianity. They were forced by the sword to "accept" Christ, which was not the method by which its faith should be spread. This event happened exactly around the time when the Empire (then Frankish) was established (end of 8th, beginning of 9th century). It was a kind of curse.

It's not the method and I don't promote it, but it was effective at that time. Those were different times, Europe was in chaos, either Charlemagne took care of Saxon pagans or they would continue to be a threat to empire. I don't think it was a curse, but rather it was forgotten trough time.

Anyway, I think each nation has it's own view on historical empires, for me as a Slovenian, Charlemagne and Carolings are heroes to me, so is the Holy Roman Empire.

[Tuco]

Originally Posted by Strengthandhonour

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..

As for the European army, I'm completly against it, it's too pan-European to me.

Individual European nations can compete with growing world powers, if at some level European cooperation would exist, there is no need for a united European army.

[Tuco]

Originally Posted by Marulus

Sclauinia does not mean Slovenia in this conext, it means Slavic territories of the empire in general.

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.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by M.R.

It never bore this title until 19th century Germanic imperialism started to name it that way. That's what I read, I might be wrong here, I would like to see some historical sources naming Holy Roman Empire as such.

It assumed that title long before 19th century. The 19th century "German imperialists" did not invent the designation.

The denomination Holy Roman Empire of German Nation (Sacrum Imperium Romanum Nationis Germanicae) is in use since the 15th century and should probably verbalize the cultural German predominance in the empire.

[source]

Originally Posted by M.R.

It's not the method and I don't promote it, but it was effective at that time. Those were different times, Europe was in chaos, either Charlemagne took care of Saxon pagans or they would continue to be a threat to empire.

Warfare is one thing, "conversion" by sword another.

Originally Posted by M.R.

I don't think it was a curse, but rather it was forgotten trough time.

Men may forget many things, but there is someone who never forgets anything...

Originally Posted by M.R.

Anyway, I think each nation has it's own view on historical empires, for me as a Slovenian, Charlemagne and Carolings are heroes to me, so is the Holy Roman Empire.

OK, it is your personal view. However, I met some Slovenian nationalists who do not share your opinion. I mean, they do not think that Empire was quintessentially evil or anything of the kind, only they are not very enthusiastic about it, nor do they view it in any sort of heroic colours. But it is probably not a Slovenian peculiarity that there are various views of national history, such a phenomenon being present elsewhere as well.

[Marcus Marulus]

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.

Great many regions inhabited by Slavic speaking peoples were designated as Sclaviniae in the Middle Ages. In fact, the term has linguistically Greek-Byzantine origin and was initially employed to denote different Slavic political units in the formerly Byzantine territory of Illyricum, Moesia and thrace in the early middle ages (5th-10th century). The term Slav is no invention of 19th century. It was existing since 6th century: Slověnin, Sclavus, Slavus, Slavonia, Sclavinia etc. It was sometimes used by Slavs themselves, but more often by non-"Slavs" to designate Slavs. The origin is disputed. Some say it is derived from the verb sluti, slovem or from the noun slovo ("letter", "word"), in which case its meaning would be that of "someone who speaks our language", as opposed to Němec ("German", from něm, "mute", meaning someone who does not speak a Slavic language, thus appears to be "mute" when addressed in Slavic).

[Tuco]

Originally Posted by Marulus

It assumed that title long before 19th century. The 19th century "German imperialists" did not invent the designation.

Ok, so it's 15th century, that's the time when the empire was going into the fase of downfall slowly, and also the time when Germanization started, however it wasn't that agressive back then, it was more cultural and other influences (it's logical considering we were in the same state together). The problem becomes when this "of German nation" is used to describe the whole empire as being something German, which was not. It's simmilar like German imperialists making up medieval last names for Slovenian royal families, even though back then they didn't have last names (earlier middle ages).

Warfare is one thing, "conversion" by sword another.

Well it was a way to end warfare.

Men may forget many things, but there is someone who never forgets anything...

Actualy I don't really understand this, who wouldn't forget that? 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.

However, I met some Slovenian nationalists who do not share your opinion. I mean, they do not think that Empire was quintessentially evil or anything of the kind, only they are not very enthusiastic about it, nor do they view it in any sort of heroic colours. But it is probably not a Slovenian peculiarity that there are various views of national history, such a phenomenon being present elsewhere as well.

Probably, it depends, however you most note that most of that attitude comes from "the oficial version" of Slovenian history (note: "1000 years of Germanic opression" crap), but now Slovenian nationalism is going more and more into direction of Carantania and true Slovenian history not the one forced to us by pan-Slavists/Germanic imperialists, 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.

[Tuco]

Originally Posted by Marulus

Great many regions inhabited by Slavic speaking peoples were designated as Sclaviniae in the Middle Ages. In fact, the term has linguistically Greek-Byzantine origin and was initially employed to denote different Slavic political units in the formerly Byzantine territory of Illyricum, Moesia and thrace in the early middle ages (5th-10th century).

You have some sources for that?

The origin is disputed. Some say it is derived from the verb sluti, slovem or from the noun slovo ("letter", "word"), in which case its meaning would be that of "someone who speaks our language", as opposed to Němec ("German", from něm, "mute", meaning someone who does not speak a Slavic language, thus appears to be "mute" when addressed in Slavic).

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

[Strengthandhonour]

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.



Still a common European army is a bad idea. A good solution would eventually be some common corps composed by soldiers from different countries, with the task of defending external borders. But national armies should still exist all along nevertheless.



They would most probably use it as a police force, to keep the European serf-population in eternal obedience to the System. Another task of such an army would be to serve as auxiliaries of the Yankees in missions of establishing "democracy" somewhere (you name it where...), to make the whole world in accordance with the "values" of the "European" Masonic estblishment.

I understand the distrust for European politicians thats why I said I like the idea but don't like the idea of the current European politicians in charge of it. Think about it, I read a report filed once that said that if Europe was to be invaded by a foreign nation such as the United States, the European nations wouldn't stand a chance and even with the European Union with full cooperation the member nations would barely be able to get 50,000 troops together quickly.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Strengthandhonour

I understand the distrust for European politicians thats why I said I like the idea but don't like the idea of the current European politicians in charge of it. Think about it, I read a report filed once that said that if Europe was to be invaded by a foreign nation such as the United States, the European nations wouldn't stand a chance and even with the European Union with full cooperation the member nations would barely be able to get 50,000 troops together quickly.

You are right in principle, but Europe is already occupied.