World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
I don't want europes strongest army. I want a strong european army.
Username checks out
Instance name too.
I think that's part of the plan too.
But maybe Germany want their own army strong, because they doubt the military capabilities of the other EU countries.
To be fair that would be quite justified from what we have learned from history.
If an EU army is to be any good, a strong German army in the center of it is very helpful.
In the same way that a strong American Army was the center and commander of NATO forces.
What about France, UK, Italy, Spain, Austria, Hungary, Poland, Netherlands...
A strong German army is a fairly recent concept or the past 200 years with the rise of Prussia and subsequent unification by conquest of Germany. Strong German armies are historically made to Invade and conquer the neighbors of Germany and they failed that more than they suceeded.
What an argument. Every single strong army in the world has been historically made to invade neighbours. Like, what else is the purpose of a strong army in history? Other than maybe to counter the strong army that is just now invading you.
Which is why we should work towards a strong European army rather than strong national armies as the earlier comment said. A strong German army will not be at the center of it.
Also Germanies post WW2 military is riddled with wasting money, inefficiencies, ineptitude, subversion by far right extremists...
Germany has no basis to belief it would do military better than its neighbors. So any historical argument will have to deal with the fact that a strong German army historically was always about invading its neighbors. This also does not hold true for strong armies of countries like the Netherland that historically did not invade neighbors so much, but rather took control over trade routes and colonies. That isn't better, but it is not a historic threat to other European countries. For Germany as a rule of thumb you can say that strong army = invading Poland soon.
With the ever stronger rise of the fascists in Germany and other European countries, often financed by Russia and with the goal to undermine unity inside the EU it is also something to consider. If the EU should fall apart for any reason a strong German army will be a threat to everyone around them, in particular Poland.
It is therefore crucial both as a lesson from history and in looking at the current political developments to build an EU army that is not just some national armies loosely put together.
I think he means that Germany is a very recent country and nation (way more than the US) and was built by one of the nations it now encompasses (Prussia) invading the others under Bismarck. Before that, like Italy, what we call Germany was a mixed bag of principalities, kingdoms and free cities. The problem ,once unified, is that they kept advancing with that mindset, even when the area was no longer German compatible but German similar (Alsace, Lorraine, eastern Belgium, western Poland, Austria...) and got kicked back regularly.
A army's value is its deterrence. Not its capacity to invade the country's neighbours (or else, the US would have a much smaller one and spend less of its debt money into it, its neighbours being Canada and Mexico). Deterrence is what keeps the peace to pursue diplomatic and commercial actions with other countries, invasive action brings such a load of costs that even the most powerful armies have to abandon those conquests sooner or later.
What about them?
In WW2 Germany occupied: Denmark, Norway, France, Poland, Netherlands, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Austria, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, Estonia, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine and other parts of Russia.
Only because Germany was fighting Russia, and USA and UK and other allies attacked from the other side, was Nazi Germany finally defeated.
But clearly the parts that are now in EU, were no match for the Germans.
Germany is now a peaceful democracy, and they only do this because circumstances demand it.
Given the rise of the far right in Germany, I tend to agree. This would bundle EU resources and take control from single States in case the far right takes over.
I'd very much like that the right not take control of the strongest EU army right after we build it.