Germany 'Needs A Nuclear Arsenal Of Its Own'

Here's the trick ~ Americans, Chinese, Brazilians, Turks and even Canadians and Russians, have demonstrated an ability to operate "continent sized" multi-ethnic nations on a regular and continuing basis.

Europeans, in Europe, have not.

There are numerous books on the topic.

At the moment, under what has amounted to American occupation (combined with a very real threat from Russia), Europeans have managed to pretty much emulate what it means to have a "continent sized" multi-ethnic nation.

Notice how much more peaceful it is ~ and not just for its occupants, but also for the neighbors!

I would suggest that it's probably best to not give up on NATO yet, and I'd wait on that pan-European army too.

I do not think that it is so easy.

in europe it was not possible to establish a "continent sized" multiethinc nation simply because the huge powerful european nations always joined together against the nation that tried to archive that during the long history. In the UK it was even the base of its foreign policy for centuries not to allow any nation to rule the continent and to archive a balance of power. So we saw several complete different coaltions during the centuries.
WWII changed that we saw a different world order and the european powers were no longer as powerful as they were before the war. The UK and france lost their colonies. germany and russia were completely destroyed. The US was the new world power. It was the right time and the first time in history to establish a partnership and the friendship between germany and france was the start and the base for that.

China Russia and even turkey archived that by force and even today there are huge problems within these countries.

the US and canada are no real example for that because these two countries were found on that base and no historic nation in a european way. it is simply the way these countries were build and the "new" people did not build a multiethnical society with the natives they simply killed the indians and found a new nation which had to be multiethnical by definition.

They didn't simply kill the Indians. In fact, there are still millions of 'em around. For example, a recent study reveals that 1/3 of the genetic background of Puerto Rican people is provided by the Taino Indians. Old World diseases, plus the effects of some local Hemorrhagic Fevers killed a larger percentage of the existing populations in North, Central and South America.

Let's go further, though. French Canadians established a Continent size, multi-ethnic country before 1754. Even the Spanish did the same thing.

However, they didn't do it in Europe.

The primary argument for why the very same folks could not do the same thing in their own homeland is that the Alps, et al, stood in the way of transcontinental movement (of troops and goods) while, seemingly in apposition, the surrounding ocean, and the river systems, provided infinite opportunities for every small group to "escape" or "attack" at will given the opportunity.

So, you have the Italians protected, more or less, from the Celts to the North, but at the same time able to conquer everything from Brittain to Persia.

that´s right there are still indians alive but the US or canada as the nations we know today were not found on indian traditions or culture. There was no real influence on these nations from the former natives.

So these nations were build by immigrants on a multiethnic base nothing more and nothing less.

In the end you need a dominating power or nation to build a empire and to add new countries to that empire and the US or canada fit also into that scheme in their unique way. There are several examples in history and several examples where it did not work and russia china or turkey have all regions where it did not work and where it is very likely that they will gain Independence in the upcoming years or decades. In europe it was not possible in the last centuries to establish such a nation because of the reasons i gave. The EU is a unique project in history and not comparable to former events.

In europe it is not a question of geography it is a question of power. No nation either it was france or germany (the uk or russsia always had other interests in the last centuries) was powerful enough to win a war against a coaltion of the others and in the early 20th century the US joined these conflicts.
The roman archived an empire and ruled large parts of europe ( they did not make it east of the rhine although they tried it several times because of the germanic tribes that were not easy to beat) africa or the middle east and the roman culture dominated the whole empire.
I am born in the oldest german city and one of the major roman cities north of the alps (trier)founded by augustus and the roman buildings (or the technology) are still very impressing but it is 2000 years ago and my barbarian forfathers (at least the parts that are german but who knows that for sure) did not only destroyed the buildings. It is really interesting to see the size organization and the beauty of that city during the roman times and the decline in the centuries after the romans had to leave.

Here's the deal ~ 2% of all "white folks" in the USA have the same teeth as Chinese (exactly like the Indians BTW). That's a "Recessive", so we are talking about only 1/4 of the people with substantial American Indian ancestry, which would be 4X the 2% with the teeth. That would be 8%. 8% of 300,000,000 is 24 million people ~ which is a lot of people!

Now, for the 1.? million people who self-identify as Indians with tribal membership, plus another 2 or 3 million who self-identify as Indians outside of reservations and/or tribal membership, we are approaching 30 million Americans. Then there are the 35 million Hispanics in the country and they almost all have an Indian ancestor.

African-Americans most likely are up near 50% in having an Indian ancestor. Finally, we have the Puerto Rican people ~ 1/3 of their genetic background comes from the Taino Indians.

I think that gets us up near 85 million Americans with an American Indian ancestor.

No doubt that had some influence on us. Actually, that's a greater number than those with an English or French or German or Italian or Polish or Irish ancestor.

It is one thing to have a certain heritage or forfathers from a certain nation.

But we talk about nations and their background.
As you said many americans have a german heritage or some german background but you speak english in your country and your system is clearly not very german because the founding fathers of the US had a different background. my father is from america ( he lives here for decades so he is more german now) but i can not even speak or write proper english ( my french is better because i practiced it more often in the last years) and i would never call myself american not even a little bit and this part of my heritage had no big influence on my live.

We saw a lot of immigration in europe during the centuries and some groups really changed a society nad brought a lot of benefits to the different nations.( like french protestants in prussia or the jews)

So where is the huge influence on the maerican constitution the political sytem or other parts of the nation from the people you mentioned and do you think that someone feels chinese or indian because of its teeth or 8% heritage. In the ned it is not a question of heritage it is a question culture and how someone grew up.

beside that a country like the US ( but also every european nation) could not exist at least in the way we know nations today if people would not assimilate.

Didn't say teeth made the man. On the other hand, it was your claim that there were a negligible number of people here with any Indian heritage at all.

It turns out that the old American families were quite creole ~ as immigrants have arrived they have been assimilated into their way of life.

I'd suggest you take another look at Daniel Boone (who opened up Kentucky to white settlers) and his relationship with Indians as a guide to understanding whose customs, standards and beliefs created the nation.

Concerning the Germans, probably half the people in America with German ancestry are descendants of less than 10,000 people sent here in the early 1700s by the English. For a number of reasons, their principality came under the rule of the King of England for a short while, there was a bad winter, a number of them made it to England where they begged their sovereign for help, and he shipped them to the Colonies to avoid problems at home.

They were relocated to two areas ~ one was dominated by the Dutch ~ and intermarriage between the two groups began only about 1900. The other was dominated by Scandinavians ~ whose culture dominated, but their languages lost out to German for about 185 years. Today, they all speak English, but at their election!

Remember, children tend to grow up speaking their mother's language first. Still, my Great Grandparents all spoke German because the area where they lived received the brunt of the German immigration of the 1850s. Those old boys took over everything ~ the courts, the farms, the roads, the cricks ~ but in the end, they learned English too.

I think we have no disagreement we just talk about different things sometimes.

By the way i had to read the fist posts to remember how we reached this point.

back to your first argument that europe never demonstrated an ability to operate "continent sized" multi-ethnic nations on a regular and continuing basis.

That´s right as i said and i gave the reasons for that and i doubt that the EU will ever qualify to this definition but who knows.

The europe or better the EU ( even the name shows the changes) my father entered has changed completely during these decades.

It is unbelievable how far this whole project has gone and i have no idea if there will be an end or if we really will see a united states of europe in the future. i would say there is no way because in the end people feel as germans or french and the nations will stay alive but i guess my parents did not imagine a europe without borders with a single currency and most of the laws and rules made in brussels instead of berlin (or better Bonn because they didn´t expect the reunification either i believe)

On many fields we already reached that point and when we see a harmonization on taxes and the defense issue as it is planed i can not see a real difference anymore how we call this thing is a different topic but in reality we have many fields where germany is nothing more than a state in the US.

The real difference is the way this had been archived and the structure of the EU the way how decisions are made and more important the ignorance or better the lack of knowledge about the EU by many people.
people will have to develop a european feeling if this should ever come to reality and there i have some doubts although several studies show that there is a growing feeling being european in the EU but what would be live without a football (soccer) game germany against the netherlands or england at a world cup.

Better soccer balls than bullets.

Never mind.

We all, of course, "feel American", but are convinced the other guys will never be assimilated.

So what you have to do is "feel European", and at the same time be critical of how the other guys (Czechs, English, Poles, Irish, Spanish, etc.) are FAILING TO ASSIMILATE.

Plus, dig more tunnels through the Alps.

BTW, current unification has been possible under America's semi-occupation because the US, through NATO and other common institutions, simply dealt with Europe as though it were simply a very large island off the coast of New Jersey ~ that is, our guys ignored the fact that you'all are not Americans.

It's truly amazing that it worked to the degree that it did.

As i said i don´t believe that we will see a united states of europe but as everyone i am a child of my time and ( is this a correct english phrase) and who knows how the generations after me will feel or think. So many things and institutions change here.

I believe the reasons for the EU and this development was the WWII and the consequenses for countries like germany or france and the mental changes of the people in these countries. If you look at the societies and their values before the war and after the war there is a complete change especially in germany because every single family had their burden and when i only take the history of my mothers family it is clear that there had to be a break.
The US occupation made it much easier because the neighboring countries of germany that all had to suffer under the german occupation and all were now members of the new EU could feel secure and so they could concentrate on other issues while the US were the insurance against new german aggressions and other aggressions from the east but if someone looks at germany after the war these fears had no real base.

Additional to that the EU was more or less a success ( many things are not a success but in general í believe we had to make this judgment) and it worked so it continued and more and more issues were addressed form steal and mining to agriculture (a good example where the EU does not work) in the end all other economic fields.

You can see that at the fact that the UK had to join the EU in 1973 after they tried everything to establish a different institution with the scandinavian countries (EFTA) that failed. EFTA also showed that a economic union without a political integration at least in some ways is not possible. I guess that´s one of the main reasons why so many british people have more problems with the EU than people on the continent. They never wanted this german french club but looking at the way the EU is financed a german would come to a complete different description of the EU. In discussions they always say that they only joined a economic union or a free market but they fail to remember that they joined another club in the 70s ( if this is a good or bad thing is a very individual thing).

We will see if there will be a european feeling and if there is a assimilation as i said i don´t really believe that but it would be necessary to form a nation if someone wants that to happen. it is much more complicated than in the US and not only because of our history of war and conflicts. But the EU is voluntary thing nobody has to be a member and on many issues countries have a veto right. So evreybody ís responsible for the EU we see today and the EU we will have in the future and nobody will be forced to accept something that they do not want.
The "new" countries clearly have a complete different view on the EU and several of them especially poland have a strong national feeling that they could never express openly before because of the russian occupation.

I believe we will see a EU with different forms of integration as we already see it today. Many countries joined the euro some like the UK or sweden not. Most countries joined the Schengen agreement ( no borders) others not. So in the future some countires will have a common army and defense structure others will prefer not to join that as it always has been during the decades.

that´s right there are still indians alive but the US or canada as the nations we know today were not found on indian traditions or culture.

Actually, the US Constitution has many features in common with the Iroquois Confederacy"

From http://www.fsc.edu/socsci/savant/CONST/CONST.HTM :

The United States Constitution was influenced by the concepts and the principles contained in the Iroquois Indian Confederacy form of governance which was founded in Native American mythology.

Several different areas must be discussed in order to substantiate this premise that the Native Americans that arrived on the North American continent around 12,000 years ago did indeed influence the very basis of the United States governmental system which is written in the form of the United States Constitution. One of the first concepts which must be explored is the tradition of the Iroquois League, since the basis of the thesis is that the League tradition preceded and influenced the thinking of the Founding Fathers. The next topics must include a discussion of opinions and supporting details that the Iroquoian Confederacy method of governance did influence the development of the U.S. Constitution and specifically how key contributors to the writing of the Constitution, including Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, were brought into the Native American sphere of thinking. Finally, a comparison of the League Tradition and several areas of the U.S. Constitution will show clearly that the "Native American Myth" lives on even though the Native American population has been drastically diminished by the very Country which it helped to found...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.