Comments by "Nattygsbord" (@nattygsbord) on "Could the EU military conquer the UK?" video.

As a Swede I would side with Britain and kill EU traitors and blow up bridges and sharing military sectrets, stealing war materials, and doing everything possible to destroy the EU.
15
@onespiker The Lisbon treaty was breaking Swedish constitutional law. So those who signed it are those who commited high treason - and not me. Those are the ones who handed over the power over this country to a foreign power - without any democratic mandate or any law abiding means. Vichy France was just a puppet state made up by traitors. And same thing is true about the current Europhile Swedish government. Joining the resistance against it is a patriotic duty. Fuck all EU-Quislings.
6
You got a hostile muslim population and yellow vests and a weak economy, and the most unpopular president in French history. Good luck gaining support for another troublesome conflict. I douby many French wanna risk their lives for Macron or the EU.
5
Yes German tanks will roll over the Polish border next month
4
I look forward to join the UK friendship club and quit this EU nonsense :)
3
Not a single German solidier will be able to land his feet on British soil, since the US navy is stronger than all navies in the world combined - the US navy got more aircrafts than most all other navies combined. And only 1 aircraft carrier have more planes than most countrys airforces. And EUs economy will self-destruct. Simply because the ECB is wrongly designed and cannot print money like the Federal reserve - which will result in deflationary crashes. Furthermore is the EU banking system a ticking time bomb with its huge banks and reckless risktaking, non-existant regulation and non-transparancy. And retarded rules like the convergence pact, the ban on capital controls, the 4 freedoms have made the EU economy unflexible, vulnerable to economic crashes, and it harms economic growth. USA doesn't have any of those problems. The banking sector is however problematic, but US banks are much smaller, less risk taking and more regulated so the damages of an economic crash would be less severe to society. EU on the other hand have no upsides at all compared to USA. EU doesn't have any oil, while USA is one of the largest oil producers. EUs economy have an ageing population, while USA is younger and the population in the anglosphere is larger so that the market of the English speaking world will be more important in the future than the EU. USA is also self-substaining with fertilizer for its agriculture and it can get the phosphorus it needs from Florida. While none of the EU countries have anything of that, so that the EU needs to lick the ass of dictators (like Morocco) to get the resources it needs. America also have more Fortune 500 companies than Europe. And those huge companies are key for technological leadership in the world. And EU have nothing like DARPA, NASA, Silicon Valley, or Seattle.
3
Do you think 450 million would fight? If the EU goes to war, then I rather side with UK despite I am not a British.I would refuse to serve in the military, and if the EU wants to force me into consciption then I will start killing EU troops.
3
@szpoti "We are talking here about the potential of both sides. You understand it's as hypothetical as it can get, right?" You said that Scotland are not loyal to the UK. And then I said that it is atleast equally true that much of the people in Europe are not loyal to the EU. 40% of the Germans wants British style referendum. Most Italians wanna leave too. Leave is also strong in Greece and Spain. And even in EU-positive countries are EU skepticism very high, but it takes other forms.... A strong majority of Poles do not wanna leave the EU, but it is also true that there is big portion of the population that thinks that EU have grabbed too much powers for itself, and that it therefore needs to get some of its powers rolled back. It should give some of its powers back to national parliaments. So even if most poles don't hate the EU as much as me, I think they still would not be very happy with the EU if it starts another war. People would be tired of the war already from the start. And I think this feeling would be a bigger problem for EU than for Britain. After all do I think that most Scots would remain loyal to the UK - like they were during their vote about independence for Scotland. And many Europhiles in Britain does not love the EU so much that they would betray their country or forgive every bad thing the EU does. "Also, I'm not fully following your reasoning - you don't want to get conscripted to avoid fighting, but you would join guerrilla to fight?" I don't wanna be forced into fighting for a cause I don't believe in. And if the EU gonna tell me that "either you are with us, or against us". Then I will be forced to pick side, and then I would join EUs enemies.
3
@cfnmedia Tell us mr History expert how the EU have created peace. Because it seems like you are just full of shit and make baseless claims and attribute peace and lovely things to the EU without providing any proofs what so ever for your claims.
3
If you don't get a Brexit there is no point in having any military. There would nothing left to defend. You country would already be occupied by a foreign power.
3
@Keijjeum " the RAF was in a very well apparent faltering state" Nope. German aircraft production was running low while Britain outproduced the Germans. And there was never any real chance that Germany would have been able to deal a final blow to RAF before the winter arrived and put an end to all invasion plans and air battles. The German air force was good at what it was doing. The problem was that this airforce was built around the idea of having an airforce to support the ground troops and sitting closely behind the frontline of the ground troops. This doctrine was brilliant. The German army had much help from their bombers. And since the German airforce was sitting close to the frontline in a nearby airfield it only needed to fly for about 20 minutes to get to the enemy and drop their bombs. The french and British airforces usally had to fly for 1-2 hours before they could get to the frontline. So since German planes was so close to the front could they fly many more bombing missions in a day than the allies could. And they could reach targets more far away. But the problem with the German way of war was that they quickly can pile of heavy losses, and having an airfield close to the front makes it vulnerable to enemy air attacks. And in the battle of Britain it was soon discovered that German planes were not built for fighting this type of war. Their range and bombload was too small. Me109 only had enough fuel to fly over Britain for 10 minutes. The Ju87 Stuka was slow and vulnerable to enemy planes and its bombload was extremely tiny. Herman Göring loved the Me110 before the war, but the plane turned out to be completly useless. It was used to escort German bombers, but soon the Germans realized that the Me110 was too slow and clumbsy to take on British fighters alone so therefore did also the Me110 need German fighters to escort it. Do17 and He111 were medium bombers that the Germans used, but what they really needed was heavy bombers with 4 engines that had a heavier punch. Britain also had the advantage of their weather which gave them time to rest and recover their losses. They had radar which helped them focus their resources. And they were able to use their own pilots again if they were shot down in an air battle - while German pilots who were shot down became prisoners of war. I really don't see how Germany would have been able to destroy the royal navy before the end of 1940. Germany simply did not have enough bombers with range and bombload to sink the homefleet at Scapa flow. And nor do I think it would have been possible to destroy RAF if it had deployed its planes deep into the interior and out of range of Me109 planes, and German bombers flying without escorts would only have suffered heavy losses. And even if both the British navy and airforce had been destoyed, then Germany would anyways not have enough landing ships. So this invasion seems like doomed from the start to me. Hitlers advisor should have told him not waste pilots and planes to try to invade England in 1940. Instead should he save his bombers for the war in Russia. Or atleast try to make another attempt to take England in 1941 with Fw190 planes that atleast had a little better range, and build some landing ships meanwhile and train some marine infantry, and try to get the Italian and Vichy French navy to help make the odds more even at sea.
3
Europe and the EU are NOT the same thing. Many European countries are not part of the EU: Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, Ukraine, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, Kosovo, Albania, Macedonia, Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus, Russia, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia, Liechtenstein, Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, Vatican City, Montenegro. Stop being so ignorant.
2
Don't insult Norway. The country is NOT a part of the EU.
2
@mikakatzensuper0072 I think a short war would be difficult to win against UK (and a war against USA also would be a clear loss for EU). First do you need to defeat the royal navy. And when that is done then you need to win in the skies so that your troop transport ships don't get blown up by aircrafts. And then you need to fight against the coastal artillery. And even hastenly trained conscripts can cause lots of troubles for a beach landing... and you need to deal with bad weather, walking in the water while the enemy is firing upon you from prepared defensive posistions.. and then you got minefields to deal with. I mean just 1 single German machine gunner managed to kill 2000 Americans in a single day at Omaha beach in 1944. So amphibous operations are extremely difficult and the defenders have a huge advantage. And even if the EU would succesfully take over a beach, then it would have the difficult job of trying to break out from the beach and take over more land. The invasion army needs to take over a town with a big port, otherwise will the army starve to death by lack of food or soon run out of ammunition as they are trying to fight back British counter attacks. And if EUs troops just sit on the beach with 2 million men like the Allies did in Normandy and have no port in their hands, then they will run the risk of losing the entire army when the winter comes. Because then will the bad weather make air support much more difficult and supplying the troops on the beach by the sea will get increasingly difficult. D-Day nearly ended in a disaster for the allies for that reason, because the allies were stuck on the beach for 2 months before they managed to roll up German defensive positions and conquer some French ports so that supplies could be moved in. Being a defender is simply much more easy when it comes to amphibious landings. You don't need to worry about supplies, you can have prepared defensive positions, and you have somewhere to retreat. And you don't need superiority both on land, sea, and sky. And you will also have it much easier to bring in reinforcements to beat back an invasion force, than what an invasion force can bring in supporting troops for their landing. And I also assume that the British also have the benifit of better knowing the terrain then their enemy. And that they can figure out what places are likely places for an invasion and prepare defences there - I mean I guess the EU are not complete moron idiots that would land their troops on a unsuitable terrain out in place that is so far away that EUs aircrafts would not have the range to support them.
2
Leaving the EU enables Britain to reindustrialize once EU rules preventing it has been removed. Traveling and trade will still be possible without the EU, just as I as a Swede could travel to EU member countries before my country joined the EU. Waiting 10-20minutes in security checks and showing my passport when going into another country is something one can live with. This downside is small compared to all the upsides with leaving the EU. Britain will be able to decide more things democratically instead of having article 13 and other shit pressed down its throat. Other countries will commit economic suicide with the Euro project, while Britain will keep its pound. You no longer have to accept importing diseases into your island because the EU wants "freedom of movement" of sick pets, romanian horsemeat, beggars, east european criminals with surplus military weapons from the balkans, or nurses with Romanian fake diplomas. You can now choose to have leftwing Lexit or a rightwing Brexit. Either way, do I think both those alternatives are better than staying within the anti-democratic neoliberal EU.
2
Europe would probably just fall apart if it decided to punish a member for leaving. Germany and France could possibly love the idea, and Spain would want to steal Gibraltar, and some East European country would probably suck Germany's dick if they gave that whore goverment a little sum of money. But other countries would refuse to participate in the war. Salvini would refuse to participate and threating with leaving the EU if Italy would be forced to participate in the war. Swedens cucksucking pro-EU government would probably like the war, but the population would strongly oppose it wanna keep their 200 years of peace and neutrality, and not bombing friendly country. Countries like Denmark, Latvia and Luxumburg would have nothing to offer in this military alliance even if they would choose to join the war. The Euroskeptic forces in the Netherlands would surge. Orban could use the situtation of a hard pressed divided EU to push through reforms that the EU otherwise normally would not allow him to get away. The German military is in a bad shape, and this unpopular war would only become even more unpopular as losses rises - and then Euroskeptic AFD would become the largest political party in Germany, since it is already the 2nd largest party in Germany today. And getting unity behind a war in France would be a difficult task. Macron only got support from 18% of the French people, and the majority of the French people distrust the entire political class of the country. Macron himself have even admitted that a British Brexit style referendum in France would probably lead to France leaving the EU - so therefore he have never given the french the option to vote on the issue. Many now fears that Front nationale might become the biggest french party in the European election, so gaing support for an EU war would be difficult - France is already tired of wars after all terrorist attacks and bombings of ISIS and Libya. And the yellow vest uprising have already caused so much divide in the country that it is very doubtful if either Macron or Merkel would even survive sitting out their entire term in office. So there would not be many countries in the coalition of the willing. Only France have a strong military - but France is too divided from the inside to even wanna fight this war.
2
Britain might be divided too, among brexiteers, remainers and scots. But I think the country would unite under the pressure from a common enemy, the same way USA and UK put aside class warfare conflicts and become 'one people' during world war 2. But the EU on the other hand is a fragile construct with too many internal conflicts - west vs. East on immigration, North vs. South in economic issues and farm subsidies, Federalist Germany and France vs. non-federalist Hungary and Sweden. And on top of that do you got ethnic nationalism on the rise in Catalonia. And nationalist parties are on the rise everyware in Europe which is threating the very idea of a globalist Europe. You got Salvini in Italy, Kurz in Austria, AFD in Germany, Orban in Hungary, Vox in Spain, Åkesson in Sweden, nationalists in Estonia and Latvia, Nationalism is also on the rise in France, Belgium, Greece, and the Netherlands. And in Denmark, and Finland. Countries have had enough of globalism. And a war of aggression can be the last that breaks the camels back.
2
I think many Germans are so tired of Merkels open borders policies that they would wish to be conquered by the Poles :P
2
Finland have no naval transport capacity to carry those 600.000 men across the sea. Maybe you at best maybe carry 2000 men on British soil at best. And then we are talking about reservists... old men, teenagers with weapons that aren't always the best of the best. And I also think the fighting morale would be pretty low. I am sure that Finland would put up a determined resistance to defend their own country from a foreign invasion. But invading another island on the behalf of the EU is something I don't think will beat up much entusiasm. I would certainly refuse to serve the corrupt evil EU junta and risk my life for the sake of their crappy project. I would rather join the anti-EU forces instead if I had the option to choose.
2
@kimok4716 The french foreign legion ;)
2
Bomb London. The city of remainers, muslims and bankers. No big loss. Then the UK can destroy Brussels and Strassbourg in revenge.
2
With the last years insanely large US defence budget I bet the USA would be able to win a world war against the entire world. Especially since the military in most European countries are in a terribly weak shape after the end of the cold war. There are no spareparts so most Eurofighters in Germany cannot fly. The Germany military uses broomsticks instead of rifles because of all the large budget cuts. The Swedish military had 800.000 men and the worlds 4th largest air force during the cold war, but today the army only have 2000 men and the air force is in almost an equally sad shape. And we should not forget about morale either. There are many Euroskeptics in Europe who doesn't wanna stay in the EU, and much less risk their lives for it. While war would unite the British people against an overly aggressive and unfair foreign enemy. And America would feel sympathy with its closest friend it have its historical ties to. It would not accept a little island getting bullied over just because its wanting to take back its independence through democratic means.
2
"Norway and Denmark: tHe UK cAn NeVeR bE iNvAdEd" Denmark is not an island, so you can easily drive an invasion army and take over Jylland without having and ships. And Norways military was weak after the budget cuts after the great depression and the population is relativly small. They had coastal artillery with guns from the 1800s to fight the Germans. So these comparisons with the battle of Britain are not that good in my opinion. The invasion of Norway is probably the most similiar comparison you could make with Hitlers invasion plans of Britain. And this invasion was succesful because the Germans made a surprise attack and managed to conquer some harbours and send in reinforcements. But even if Germany won the battle of Norway, so was their victory extremely costly for the German navy who lost a big proportion of its ships. So the invasion of Britain would have been a much tougher thing to do for Hitler. Now had he already lost many warships in Norwegian waters. Many of his ju-52 transport planes had been lose in the invasion of the Netherlands. He would probably not be able to make surprise invasion of Britain like he did with Norway, and therefore would he also need real ships made for amphibous landings - because he could not just do like in Norway and send in a transport ship into a harbour and then let the men run out and take it over. And the biggest danger to a German invasion was not royal airforce, the army or anything else... but the biggest danger was the mega strong royal navy that could easily sink an invasion fleet. Maybe Germany could hope to use some airplanes to protect their ships and try to surprise attack Britain with landing an army. But then even if such an invasion would be succesful would the invasion army soon be crushed anyways. British warships would simply destroy all German ships that transports fuel, food, ammunition from Germany to the invasion army. And when the supplies run out, then it wouldn't matter if the German army was the best trained in the world because no solidier can fight without food and ammo. And a tank is useless without fuel.
2
@eoinbergin9718 Operation Sea Lion (the invasion of Britain) never was a serious threat. The royal navy was too powerful and Hitlers navy was incredibly weak compared to the Kaisers navy in world war 1. Germany did not have transport ships either for transporting more than a only a few divisions - which would be a force far too small to take the island. And Hitlers airforce was never close at winning. German aircraft production was too low. German bombers could not carry any big bombloads. German fighters did not have the range to escort the German bombers deep into British territory. Germany was simply never prepared to take Britain.
1
UK will always be a part of Europe, just like Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, Ukraine, Belorussia and others. The EU might hate you but I don't, and neighter do most Europeans. I hope Britain will do well after it leaves the EU.
1
@mikakatzensuper0072 The EU is stagnent. Only Haiti and Zimbabwe have performed worse than Italy since it joined the EU. Income inequality, has increased in Britain since EEC entry in 1973 – as it has in Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. The same pattern holds for Austria, Spain, Denmark, Finland, and Sweden. We have seen the Euro crisis caused by the Euro currency and the stupid abolishment of capital controls. And that have resulted in economic disasters in Spain, Ireland, Greece, Cyprus, Italy and Portugal. And even among the "winners" within the EU have development been negative. Germany have been able to steal jobs and GDP growth from southern Europe thanks to their advantage of lower wages. And the German government have done this deliberatly by cutting welfare programs and thereby forcing people into poverty and desperation to accept any low wages any company would offer its desperate workers. And the result have of course been rising inequality and poverty in Germany. And what are other countries forced to do then when German companies outcompete them and steal their jobs? - They too are of course forced to also lower their wages like the Germans did by creating unemployment and cutting welfare programmes and forcing people into povery and desperation. And that is what the EU stands for. It rather have poverty and desperation than protectionism and a little bit of inflation. The EU hates you if you are a worker, or if you are poor, or unemployed, or sick. The EU is shooting itself in the foot. When it makes people poorer, then nobody will be able to buy the products that companies make, and then they will need to shut down production and fire workers. And when more workers get unemployed, then even less people will be able to buy any products... and so this vicious circle goes round and round. And the EU handle every area of the economy with this destructive incompetence. And common sense and working solutions are always sacrificed on the altar of the idea of a United Europe. The tax system is another such thing that the EU sucks at. The low tax countries are stealing companies and rich peoples money from other EU countries so that they get big holes in their government budgets. So to fill those budget holes they need to raise taxes on the poor and those who cannot afford to pay an expert to do tax evasion for them. And countries like Ireland can act as a parasite on other EU countries and steal companies that other countries have spent decades to built up. So what is the EUs solution to the problem that it itself created with the free movement of money and removal of capital controls? - The EUs solution is to force all EU countries to introduce a minimum tax rate. So the EU fucks things up for everyone. It makes it impossible for countries to maintain a high tax welfare state even if the voters would want it. And it also makes it impossible for countries that want super low taxes to have it. The EU hates everyone. The EU once again hates workers and the poor, since they are the ones who have seen their taxes been going up the last 30 years, while the rich and big companies pays almost no taxes at all now, despite their profits are bigger than ever, and wages have been falling for the last 30 years. So the EU have fucked up the economy. And it have made life a misery for ordinary people. Only rich aristocrats got any reason to like the EU. Personally do I prefer the American tax system which is the opposite of the European. I want low taxes on incomes so hard work gets rewarded. And I want higher taxes on inheritance, on rents, capital gains, housing and high corporate taxes. The US system rewards hard work, meritocracy and discourages useless speculation that pushes up housing prices. And low taxes on labour also makes the country more competative on the world market. While the EU system does the opposite.
1
@alluraambrose2978 It is the other way around. It is the EU that is the wet dream of neoliberals.
1
@XERXES 8933A/A Atleast do you have a good reason for your support for the EU. Leftwingers that do it however doesn't.
1
The politicians instead wanna waste money on useless garbage. And if your country is weak and cannot defend itself, then they can say that you have to suck dick on the EU and USA because you cannot impossibly remain an independent country. But with a strong military it will get very difficult for politicians to sell the idea of giving away national sovereignty.
1
Interesting aspect. Britains economy relies much on banking, which is almost completly done on computers nowadays - so a hacker attack would be devestating. But on the other hand are industrial robots and smart energy saving homes, alarmsystems and such also vulnerable to hacker attacks - as the Stuxnet computer virus has shown. I guess that the use of computer viruses is a little bit like opening pandoras box - there will be no point of return once you have started to use this type of weapon. It can be funny to use nukes, chemical weapons, and dangerous bacterias/viruses and computer-viruses... but it is not so fun when the enemy starts to use those weapons back on you. And when all countries use the same standardized PLC-industrial robot systems could a big Stuxnet like attack on your enemies computer system easily come back and back yourself in the ass. It would be foolish to use dangerous diseases on your enemy if those diseases then come back and visit your own country and killing millions of people. And likewise would it be counter-productive to spread malware and viruses if those things can come back to your own country and kill millions of computers and destroy most of your industrial base.
1
@benoitbvg2888 Strong economies benifit from free trade, while weak economies needs protectionism. Britains economy is in the latter category, so it would therefore need say no to the common market and protect its own industry and build it up to fit for fight again. Reality is that all countries all countries are strong in some areas and weaker in others. Not even China that is the largest exporter in the world wants 100% free trade - because it is weak in some areas and wants to protect those specific industries from foreign competition. Britain have a potential in many areas. And instead of importing materials from foreign producers, it could just buy things from British firms instead. This is a strategy called "import substitution", and it succesfully turned poor countries like Japan and Korea into some of the richest countries in the world. Britain could also do this and create its own cement and military lorries instead of importing it from abroad for roughly the same price. This would in turn provide British producers with a secure home market, and the negative balance of trade will turn around bit by bit. And instead of letting British industry die, it will have a chance to grow at home, and then in the future it could be strong enough to take on competition from even the best foreign producers. "Why on Earth would anyone build in Britain when building in the EU is just so much simpler and gives you access to a much bigger market, without currency fluctuation???" Britain is still one of the largest markets in the world, and it would be foolish to say no to all profits that could be made there. You also don't need a big home market to be able to export things, and there are many historical examples of this... Sweden is just a country with roughly 8 million inhabitants but it became the richest country in the world in the late 1960s many decades before it joined the EU. And Sweden despite its size became one of the major players in producing mobile phones, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, drilling tools and Industrial machinery, military equipment, civilian nuclear power, paper, steel, and timber. And Sweden is by no means unique. Switzerland, Finland and Singapore have also gotten rich without any EU. And having your own currency is a good thing. It enables you to create money to grow your own economy. It can be a tool the UK can use to help save its companies and jobs when the country is doing badly (as it have been doing the last decades). The Euro is a badly constructed currency. The central bank refuses to print money to fund government spending - unlike the Federal reserve in the USA. And that means that the economy will stagnate from permanent deflationary spiral. And the EU rules for member countries to have a low national debt and a low budget surplus will only make this problem even worse. And the ECB only cares about the goal of low inflation, and caring about low unemployment or high GDP growth is not in its mandate. And my final point would be that it is better to have a central bank that cares about Britains needs, than Britain should have a central bank that only care about the needs of the German economy. Germany and Britain are not the same country. So it would simply be idiotic to have the same rate of inflation and interest rate. "One size fits all" would be a stupid idea if you would try to have the same size of clothes for 28 randomly collected persons off the street. So why would any one then think that doing the same with 28 different countries economies would be a good idea? Only a stupid politician would believe in such stupid shit. Because more than 90% of all economists agree that this is an extremely stupid idea.
1
It would rather be USA that blockades the EU.
1
@StonedAvocado "Are you that bluepilled that you think that the us gov would actually care about anything but money?" I think they care about money and UK is a big economy and a lucrative market... and if the EU doesn't wanna make deals with Britain then an oppurtunity of a lifetime then happens for the USA instead. That will both give America jobs and help them strenghten their ties with their friend and ally, which they have historical bonds with. "There is no need for the us to help the uk" On the contrary, UK its still a huge economy despite 3 decades of poor economic performance. Its still the 5th largest economy in the world. Its an economy 10 x bigger than Finlands. Or to make another comparison, it is an economy with a GDP larger than all the Sub-saharan African countries combined. "Losing the EU as a market would hurt them way to much" USA and EU (I should rather say Germany) are involved in a trade war right now. And USA got everything to gain and nothing to lose from this war, while Germany have nothing to win and everything to lose from it. Historically have trade wars always been won by countries that are big importers while big exporters take a severe hit (like the exporter Japan and the importer USA in the mid-war period).
1
@umaddude3808 More than half of EUs transports are done by ships. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=File:Value_of_extra-EU_trade_in_goods,_by_mode_of_transport,_EU-28,_2002_and_2016_(%25_of_total)_GL17.png And I am sure that some types of goods can be replaced by trucks, planes or railroads. But I am also certain that many types of goods cannot be replace shipping as the way of transport. Sea transports are superior to all other forms of transport when it comes to cheaply transporting heavy bulky goods such as iron ore, coal and grain. And that is the reason why almost all global trade in those goods are done by ship. And replacing gigantic harbours as Hamburg, Rotterdam, Antwerpen with trains and trucks is simply nothing one can do over a night. It is nearly impossible to overstate the importance of sea transports for global trade. During the roman empire was it chaper to transport a ship full of wheat from one end of the mediterranean to the other (from Syria to Spain), than to cart it 75 miles over land. So it was probably no cincidence that Athens became a great power with its many islands and that Greek became the first global world language, the same way english became so after the creation of its huge naval empire. Rome depended on the mediterranean for its empire. Same goew for Genoa and Venice. The hanseatic league and the Swedish empire relied on the baltic trade instead. And Portugal, the Netherlands, Britain were great naval empires as well. So the military and economic importance of sea transports have been great. And its superiority to land transports were overwhelming in speed and cost effiency up until the creation of the railroads. And even today does air transports only represent a tiny bit of all global trade. And airplanes are mostly used for transporting goods of light weight, high value and high price - such as microships that needs a fast delievery.
1
@martint1011 Grammar = racism
1
UK is part of Nato, and if it is being attacked then USA have to defend it
1
@Betterhose USA will side with the defender
1
@ls200076 I am friend of independence and the Swedish constitution. The EU is an enemy of both those things. I am loyal to my own country, while you are not. You want to sell it out to a foreign power. You behave like a Norwegian collaborator during the Nazi-German occupation. You are completly okay with having an foreign power dictating your country's laws and overriding the countrys constitution.
1
@ionocinneide617 That the EU is united when it is not. Greece and Germany are fighting each other over the Euro crisis. Salvini and Macron are fighting each other. Britain and Sweden never liked EU federalism, while Germany and France wants more and more EU. Eastern Europe doesn't want refugees while Merkel have open borders as her dogma. And the more power EU gets and the more important it becomes, the stronger will also the inner clashes and opposition to the EU also become. And the irony is that the EU would probably benifit from a nationalist takeover the next election, because if globalists like Macron gets all power for himself and starts push for unpopular globalists policies, then people will start turning against the EU and the pressure can boil over and the entire EU can explode. Ironically are the nationalists taking the steam out and preventing this from happening. The more Europhile policies of economic shock theraphy for southern Europe, more refugees for Eastern Europe, and a military pact for a country like Sweden which have been neutral for 200 years is a good way of guaranteeing future hatred towards the EU and that people see no point in staying in the club.
1
UK is a great military power even without the empire. But yes, I agree that Britain doesn't have the resources to build a huge navy. And to be truthful, it never had the resources to do that in the past either. And neighter had Germany. Both those once great empires nearly bankrupted themselves with their unsubstainable crazy fleet building programms arms race. I think the US navy does not have to fear any power as a great threat to its dominance. Even the Japanese navy in WWII was never even close of winning, and was outnumbered atleast 4:1 in most classes in heavy warships and much more so in destroyers and navy aircrafts. But even those numbers doesn't give a fair representation, since the dominance of the US navy was even larger if you take technological superiority into consideration and that Japan used many old warships from the 1920s and 1930s while USA had brand new ships. And USA could also have build much more warships if it had seen it necessary to win the war. So great was its industrial capacity that it cancelled the construction of large numbers of warships when victory already seemed secured. Today is the old Soviet submarine navy rusty. And the closest threat to the US dominance is incredibly weak comparativly. And the Chinese navy would need atleast half a century to build up its might before it could challange USA. The US navy have more airplanes on its carrier decks than all of the rest of the world airforces combined. And USA also have a lot of combat experience.
1
Once again, how would the EU get enough transports to get a mighty army over the channel? Hitler managed to take over Europe and the British army was forced to abandon all its tanks, trucks and big guns in Belgium before it could retreat back to Britain. But not even Hitler could attack Britain due to the lack of transport ships.
1
@PokePresto You might be right, but this video is about a war in 2019. The US defence budget is GIGANTIC, and the German airforce cannot fly its planes because of lack of spare parts and the army have to use broomsticks instead of rifles due to budget cuts. And France is too political unstable to wanna participate in a war. And the medium sized countries like Sweden both lacks an army or will to fight. So the USA would easily crush any attacking EU force left to send. Just think about it. The USA spends more money on their military than what China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, India, France, Japan and Germany do combined! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
1
Europes population is ageing, and the only ones having children are conservative muslims on welfare. Youth unemployment have totally destroyed the future of getting a job, an income, a home and making a family for young people in Southern Europe. And after the Eurocrisis do only 30% of the Spanish youths and 12% of the Italian wanna stay in the EU. So good luck finding enough young people brainwashed enough to wanting to die for the EU in a war.
1