European Army
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E.g., throughout the XIXth сentury number of death executions in Britain and Ireland was about 4K vs. less than 2K in the Russian Empire (and per capita the difference was even higher). As for earlier years, the difference is way bigger. "Facilities" such as the Tyburn death machine (that alone "processed" tens thousands heads) were not popular here.
I assume it's a myth about France either (except for the period of their Revolution in the end of the XVIII-th century)
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
That’s because Russia didn’t have its revolution till the XXth century - at which point its death rate accelerated considerably......
Of course executions and cutting off heads isn’t the only way to kill people an, even though Russia didn’t have the death penalty, that didn’t stop it killing people. The following, for example, is an example of mass deportation and genocide copied in later years by Stalin......
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/151025
Of course executions and cutting off heads isn’t the only way to kill people an, even though Russia didn’t have the death penalty, that didn’t stop it killing people. The following, for example, is an example of mass deportation and genocide copied in later years by Stalin......
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/151025
Last edited by ORAC; 10th Jun 2018 at 07:22.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC,
You are perfectly right about "Uncle Joe".We are still 100+ years behind France and its revolution. But Harry was mentioning times after absolute monarchy ended in Britain. And at that time the tsar regime in Russia was rather soft and very tolerant to various religions.
As to the main topic, I am not sure the "European Army" will work well. NATO is operational only due to the US. Without "Uncle Sam" it will be a mess.
You are perfectly right about "Uncle Joe".We are still 100+ years behind France and its revolution. But Harry was mentioning times after absolute monarchy ended in Britain. And at that time the tsar regime in Russia was rather soft and very tolerant to various religions.
As to the main topic, I am not sure the "European Army" will work well. NATO is operational only due to the US. Without "Uncle Sam" it will be a mess.
But I guess it's better than the alternative.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
too true.....
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC,
You are perfectly right about "Uncle Joe".We are still 100+ years behind France and its revolution. But Harry was mentioning times after absolute monarchy ended in Britain. And at that time the tsar regime in Russia was rather soft and very tolerant to various religions.
As to the main topic, I am not sure the "European Army" will work well. NATO is operational only due to the US. Without "Uncle Sam" it will be a mess.
You are perfectly right about "Uncle Joe".We are still 100+ years behind France and its revolution. But Harry was mentioning times after absolute monarchy ended in Britain. And at that time the tsar regime in Russia was rather soft and very tolerant to various religions.
As to the main topic, I am not sure the "European Army" will work well. NATO is operational only due to the US. Without "Uncle Sam" it will be a mess.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Coventry
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Van - I was looking at when revolutions happen - some are (relatively) bloodless - such as 1648 in the UK - no-one, other than Charles I, was executed because of their social position. France 1789 - 2000-3000 aristos went, Russia 1917-18 - quite a lot of people, Spain 1940 - several thousand, probably more, China 1948 - perhaps a million or two......................., Indonesia 1965 up to a million killed
Yes, I know ... picky, picky, picky
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Minor point, but King Charles was hardly executed for his social position, but for High Treason; specifically for causing the second civil war with the support of Scotland. His nominal accusers (Strongly encouraged by Cromwell) were the members of the Rump Parliament, a fair proportion of whom were titled people themselves.
Yes, I know ... picky, picky, picky
Yes, I know ... picky, picky, picky
quite oddly (I always thought) the English Legal profession, showing early evidence of their infinite invention, brought the charges on the basis that Charles Stewart, the man, had led a rebellion against Charles Stewart, the King -in -Parliament.......... nearly as good as Kim Il Sung who had someone shot for "leftist-rightest-tendencies".....................
Kim Il Sung who had someone shot for "leftist-rightest-tendencies"
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course the Young Leader had someone shot for putting his statue in the shade - makes J V Stalin look like Mother Theresa
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...e-eu-35vfr8wsf
UK may join eight countries in military unit outside EU
Nine European countries, including the UK, have signed a “letter of intent” to create a joint military intervention force operating independently of the European Union.
The planned force for rapid deployment in times of crisis would include Britain after Brexit and was agreed without any involvement from Federica Mogherini, the EU’s foreign affairs chief. It was also signed by France, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Estonia, Spain and Portugal. The scheme is independent from plans for greater EU defence co-operation and has been pushed by France because of concerns that Brexit could create obstacles to European military operations by excluding Britain.
The decision comes amid growing unease, especially in France and Spain, over the EU’s slowness and frequent inability to take foreign policy decisions, especially military intervention. “The deadlines and decisions in the EU are still much too long compared to the urgency that can arise of a critical situation in a country where Europeans would consider that there is a strong stake for their security,” Florence Parly, the French defence minister, said. Britain and France have often expressed concern that an EU marked by diverging geopolitical interests and very different military traditions will never agree to deploy troops in combat.
President Macron proposed the idea for the “European Intervention Initiative” in a speech last September in direct competition to EU plans for a new defence pact known as Permanent Structured Co-operation (Pesco). Pesco will involve 23 out of the EU’s remaining 27 countries after Brexit and is widely regarded as a poor basis for serious military intervention. Its first priority project is a plan for a European medical evacuation and field hospital unit.
Britain’s role in the new force follows initial opposition from Germany which has been resistant to military intervention and is a strong supporter of EU defence co-operation structures that will not include Britain after March next year. The new defence initiative will help Britain’s case for a new security and defence treaty by the time of Brexit next spring. Italy is also expected to join the coalition after a decision was delayed by the forming of a new populist government.
UK may join eight countries in military unit outside EU
Nine European countries, including the UK, have signed a “letter of intent” to create a joint military intervention force operating independently of the European Union.
The planned force for rapid deployment in times of crisis would include Britain after Brexit and was agreed without any involvement from Federica Mogherini, the EU’s foreign affairs chief. It was also signed by France, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Estonia, Spain and Portugal. The scheme is independent from plans for greater EU defence co-operation and has been pushed by France because of concerns that Brexit could create obstacles to European military operations by excluding Britain.
The decision comes amid growing unease, especially in France and Spain, over the EU’s slowness and frequent inability to take foreign policy decisions, especially military intervention. “The deadlines and decisions in the EU are still much too long compared to the urgency that can arise of a critical situation in a country where Europeans would consider that there is a strong stake for their security,” Florence Parly, the French defence minister, said. Britain and France have often expressed concern that an EU marked by diverging geopolitical interests and very different military traditions will never agree to deploy troops in combat.
President Macron proposed the idea for the “European Intervention Initiative” in a speech last September in direct competition to EU plans for a new defence pact known as Permanent Structured Co-operation (Pesco). Pesco will involve 23 out of the EU’s remaining 27 countries after Brexit and is widely regarded as a poor basis for serious military intervention. Its first priority project is a plan for a European medical evacuation and field hospital unit.
Britain’s role in the new force follows initial opposition from Germany which has been resistant to military intervention and is a strong supporter of EU defence co-operation structures that will not include Britain after March next year. The new defence initiative will help Britain’s case for a new security and defence treaty by the time of Brexit next spring. Italy is also expected to join the coalition after a decision was delayed by the forming of a new populist government.
So would this new European Intervention Force be deployed rapidly down to the South Atlantic to confront an Argentinian military threat to the Falklands? Would Junker and Hofstadt have our backs over the Falklands I wonder? Not at all if I'm honest.
Best Regards,
FB
Best Regards,
FB
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So would this new European Intervention Force be deployed rapidly down to the South Atlantic to confront an Argentinian military threat to the Falklands? Would Junker and Hofstadt have our backs over the Falklands I wonder? Not at all if I'm honest.
Best Regards,
FB
Best Regards,
FB
If Canada decides to take over ST Pierre & Miquelon it can't really be seen as a European interest or issue. If a country wants to hold onto bits and pieces around the globe it's their choice and they can pay for it - bit much to ask us to cough up for French Imperialist hang-overs ,....... no???
Oddly enough the word EUROPEAN in the tile of the post "EUROPEAN ARMY" is a give- away... it's to defend Europe and (possibly) European interests elsewhere
If Canada decides to take over ST Pierre & Miquelon it can't really be seen as a European interest or issue. If a country wants to hold onto bits and pieces around the globe it's their choice and they can pay for it - bit much to ask us to cough up for French Imperialist hang-overs ,....... no???
If Canada decides to take over ST Pierre & Miquelon it can't really be seen as a European interest or issue. If a country wants to hold onto bits and pieces around the globe it's their choice and they can pay for it - bit much to ask us to cough up for French Imperialist hang-overs ,....... no???
Other than a 'make macron great' eurotrash campaign, I am not sure why the UK is sending 3 Chinooks, in addition to those provided by Canada - it seems to me like a Brexit concession during Napolean's visit, to which there was no return.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/u...-france-summit
The French need some heavy lfit capability hence supporting them with Odiham's finest? It is also part of a bigger plan/picture there...
As for bigger picture - Macron visited May, got a pledge for the 3 RAF Chinooks, and then knifed her in the back. Why are UK taxpayers footing the bill for duplicating the Canadian contribution? So we can rely on the French in the future?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: moraira,spain-Norfolk, UK
Age: 82
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strikes me that the future European Army is being created so as to deal with internal troubles, dissidents & leavers from the Union or Euro.
Round up migrants and send them home or somewhere, without a particular country having to take the blame.
Once created our beloved leaders will find a reason to use it, if only to encourage the others.
Round up migrants and send them home or somewhere, without a particular country having to take the blame.
Once created our beloved leaders will find a reason to use it, if only to encourage the others.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Joint military intervention force'
A force to facilitate a crisis like the overthrow of Gaddafi which left Libya as the unprotected African gateway for the refugee crisis which is triggering Europe.
Who Benefits?
A force to facilitate a crisis like the overthrow of Gaddafi which left Libya as the unprotected African gateway for the refugee crisis which is triggering Europe.
Who Benefits?