Here's why European unity isn't such a bad idea

[abaris]

It's the centenary of Verdun. 300.000 lives lost.

President François Hollande and Chancellor Angela Merkel made an impassioned plea for European unity on Sunday as they commemorated the centenary of the Battle of Verdun, which claimed at least 300,000 lives in the First World War.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/...rkel-to-m/

[Minimalist]

"Quel massacre - et sans resultat."

-- Marshal Ney, after Eylau

Some things never change.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

It's the centenary of Verdun. 300.000 lives lost.

President François Hollande and Chancellor Angela Merkel made an impassioned plea for European unity on Sunday as they commemorated the centenary of the Battle of Verdun, which claimed at least 300,000 lives in the First World War.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/...rkel-to-m/

They died for nothing,

[abaris]

They died for nothing,

Ring the bells, start the fireworks. We actually agree on something for once. They died for the last classical imperial war without any side being better or worse.

But that's not the point of this thread. The point is, the union being the result of two devastating wars. Anyone rolling back to petty nationalism is out for a third helping.

[account_inactive]

It's the centenary of Verdun. 300.000 lives lost.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/...rkel-to-m/

They died for nothing,

Indeed.

[account_inactive]

But it's a pathetic attempt to get Britain to stay. He made a clear reference to the referendum. I hope my fellow Brits have the guts to do the right thing and leave.

[Anomalocaris]

They died for nothing,

Ring the bells, start the fireworks. We actually agree on something for once. They died for the last classical imperial war without any side being better or worse.

But that's not the point of this thread. The point is, the union being the result of two devastating wars. Anyone rolling back to petty nationalism is out for a third helping.

Not quite so.  allied victory was the vastly more preferred outcome.  Germany was in the war for much greater and more domineering degree of aggrandizement than the allies, even if she was not technically more responsible for the actual train of events that started the war than Russia or France.   It would have been vastly worse for the allies in the case of a German victory than had been the case for Germany when the allies won.  If Germany had won, there would have been not just German colonialism across the world, which had more or less matched the worst of other European colonialism of that era atrocity for atrocity, but there would also be German colonialism in Eastern Europe and parts of Western Europe.  So the battles in that war was not for nothing in that the world would have been indifferent to the eventual outcome they helped to bring about.

Everyone were villains in WWI, but the Germany were the real bastard on top of being also a villain.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

They died for nothing,

Ring the bells, start the fireworks. We actually agree on something for once. They died for the last classical imperial war without any side being better or worse.

But that's not the point of this thread. The point is, the union being the result of two devastating wars. Anyone rolling back to petty nationalism is out for a third helping.

There's less of a chance of war breaking out if everyone is in the same gang.  The bad thing is that it reduces the number of top spots down to one and regional heads could get envious 
about being denied the top spot.  That could lead to rebellion, which is what's happening now.  The Brits are ticked that they are not in charge, which is understandable given their history as a world empire.  So why should they have to take orders from some unknown dummies in Belgium?  They want their own glory back.

[account_inactive]

Ring the bells, start the fireworks. We actually agree on something for once. They died for the last classical imperial war without any side being better or worse.

But that's not the point of this thread. The point is, the union being the result of two devastating wars. Anyone rolling back to petty nationalism is out for a third helping.

There's less of a chance of war breaking out if everyone is in the same gang.  The bad thing is that it reduces the number of top spots down to one and regional heads could get envious 
about being denied the top spot.  That could lead to rebellion, which is what's happening now.  The Brits are ticked that they are not in charge, which is understandable given their history as a world empire.  So why should they have to take orders from some unknown dummies in Belgium?  They want their own glory back.

Put it this way, how would you as an American feel if you were forced to open your border to Mexico and have Canada dictate your affairs?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

There's less of a chance of war breaking out if everyone is in the same gang.  The bad thing is that it reduces the number of top spots down to one and regional heads could get envious 
about being denied the top spot.  That could lead to rebellion, which is what's happening now.  The Brits are ticked that they are not in charge, which is understandable given their history as a world empire.  So why should they have to take orders from some unknown dummies in Belgium?  They want their own glory back.

Put it this way, how would you as an American feel if you were forced to open your border to Mexico and have Canada dictate your affairs?

The people may be upset but what about the guys in the government?  If they want to stay, they stay.