Why isn't your country doing its part to make the western

Fascism!

*raises paw*

>>69476293
Why do you care so much about the West?

>muh heritage
Top kek you fat cunt. Go get a real cultural history like us.

>>69476339

You are the west, u cheeky kunt.

File: 1440275289953.png (24KB, 492x475px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 492x475px

>>69476339
>can't be in NATO because he lives in a third world hemisphere

>>69476293

Norway puts in more than Estonia. Le GDP meme shouldn't matter when comparing countries that vary so greatly in GDP.

Our entire parliament has said they wanted to invest in our military. And increase our spendings by 50%.
Our government has also promised to do so, but instead they are just cutting in the budget.

>>69476664
Okay, then America is whiter than Norway because we have more white people in total despite le 56%. You can't have one but not the other.

>>69476740
After our elections in march there is a chance we will have a ruling coalition consisting of only right wing parties. So we will have to wait for that.

>>69476293
why exactly should we pay more money to be loyal lapdog of the USA?

>>69476664
but you are not puting in your 2% and that's the goal

>>69476293
Because you suckers are gonna defend us anyways.

File: 1482590611820_0.png (267KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 420x420px

>>69476959
>having a strong military like any sovereign nation would makes you a loyal lapdog of another power
>having no military and being completely dependent on it instead isn't
Whatever you say, Dieter

File: queen elizabeth aircraft carrier2.jpg (1MB, 4000x1618px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4000x1618px

>>69476293
>The UK isn't threatened by an enemy militarily in any way and they still do it, because they have balls and want to be a strong sovereign nation.

Don't forget because we love ramps.

>>69477180
A

File: 1482769134517.jpg (518KB, 1200x1700px) Image search: [Google]

518KB, 1200x1700px

>>69476293
We actually will spend 1,8% this year and 2% the next.

>>69476293
It's not 2, it's 2.2. Not that it matter in the grand scale of things, but still. And Latvia/Lithuania are the countries where defense expenditure is growing the fastest in the world. Europe needs to step up their game and start buying guns not feeding niggers.

File: george-bushsaid-displayed-on-a-plaque-at-the-town-hall-building-of-B9TMM0.jpg (216KB, 1300x960px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 1300x960px

>>69477222
Absolutely based

File: 1464753629430.png (18KB, 824x928px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 824x928px

why would we when america will pick up the tab and spend money for us?

>>69476293
they are cucks. if russia were to invade them they wouldn't even fight

>>69477570

this 2bh,eternal anglo will always betray you in the end

>>69477605
>America
>Eternal Anglo
Pick one

File: sissihonor.png (50KB, 750x750px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 750x750px

>>69477570
this. Or they come when the war's already over and claim to be the backbone of the conflict. Useless cunts worth of nothing.

>>69477658

eternal mexican then?

>>69477756
The majority of Americans are Scots-Irish or German ethnically.

>>69477815
lmao no they're not. The majority are English and German.

>>69477847
My state is majority English but it's one of only like three. Original settlers were English but that was hundreds and hundreds of years ago and that blood has been diluted by massive immigration from other European countries in the 19th century. We don't even look English m8, you can tell just by looking at us.

>>69476959
>why exactly should we pay more money to be loyal lapdog of the USA?

Having a weaker military makes you MORE dependent on the USA

>>69478042
That's why they should build an strong army for themselves.

>>69478071
>That's why they should build an strong army for themselves.

Well yeah. Every country builds its armed forces for themselves. But they're not doing that, they are free-riders.

>>69477928
>In the 1980 United States Census, over 49 million (49,598,035) Americans claimed English ancestry, at the time around 26.34% of the total population and largest reported group which, even today, would make them the largest ethnic group in the United States

This was in 1980 before the new American category came in (where people of English stock will just put American). Of course it's all been diluted over the past couple of centuries, but it'll still be English and German genes sloshing about which will make up the most percentage.

>>69476293
Because you refused to accept us cunts

>>69478127
Just going off a feeling and you're free to correct me but aren't they restricted for what come to army? Since ww2 and stuff?

>>69478152
I only just learned this actually almost happened in the early 00s like a month ago. I would actually like it if you joined, it should be repurposed as an organizaton to be a bloc of Eurasian-American nations against China and Islamofascism.

>>69478146
The fact that so many people identify with the American category now goes to show that most people have no idea what they're talking about. But there isn't much of a way of knowing for sure because of that and you could be right.

However the "American ethnicity" is most predominant now in the South which is mostly Scots-Irish but where muh heritage is a lot less common so people don't care.

>>69478215
Germany hasn't faced troop restriction since the 1950s iirc

>>69478327
>The fact that so many people identify with the American category now goes to show that most people have no idea what they're talking about. But there isn't much of a way of knowing for sure because of that and you could be right.

Very true and many people will be so mixed by now there's no point attaching yourself to just one country of origin.

File: MB 2016 Western Europe the dramatic decline in combat battalion numbers 19902015.jpg (856KB, 885x1227px) Image search: [Google]

856KB, 885x1227px

>>69478215
Yep. These are the restrictions:

>Armed Forces of no more than 370,000 personnel - of whom at most 345,000 were to be in the Army and Air Force
>No manufacture, possession or control of NBC weapons
>Full application of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to the whole of re-united Germany
>No foreign armies and/or nuclear weapons may be stationed in the area of the former GDR and Berlin
>Additionally, Germany fully acknowledges the current common border with Poland - the Oder-Neisse-line.

Total active personnel in the ENTIRE German armed forces today (this includes plenty of civvies and even university students): 177,308

These restrictions applied to West Germany when the left hand side of pic related was their land forces.

Yes, there are restrictions. NO, they are no excuse whatsoever for free-riding.

>>69477386
if Poland invaded Lithuania who would you support

>>69478327
The deal with russia was they would join if we left.

And English is the majority is. You have no idea how many people used to claim they were German but then took an ancestry test and stopped climbing they were German

>>69477062
why exactly should we waste money for strong military?
who is attacking us?

>>69478042
thats why i support a strong european army

>>69478404
If Germany tried again to take over Europe this time they would succed UK,France,USA are weak

>>69478662
>German military

Lmao

>>69478662
dont worry polan, we are good guys now

File: images(4).jpg (6KB, 218x231px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 218x231px

>>69478508
You but only if you make it look like they attacked first to avoid bad PR. We need intermarium, because it's 2017.

>>69478646
>thats why i support a strong european army

A strong European army requires a strong European state. No more Germany. Your savers will have to underwrite the liabilities of southern Europe high-debt countries. Good luck making that happen, Hans.

>>69478662
>If Germany tried again to take over Europe this time they would succed UK,France,USA are weak

The funniest part of this is that you said it in a reply to a post with a chart telling you that in 2015 the Germans had 34 regular land battalions to the UK's 50.

It's a crazy world we live in when Britain has a stronger land army than Germany.

>>69478759
Hitler made an army in 16 years that took over the mainland
>>69478743
>implying i am a pole
Schlesier here

>>69478807
>in 16 years
That's right. 16 years. During which the UK, France and USA will presumably ignore the German build-up and spend their time flying kites in the park?

>that took over the mainland
For several months, until they lost. Again.

Because we secretly want to be raped.

>>69478886
>implying
you shart your pants after 1933 and you know its true

>>69478886
I think his point is that Germany's capability would be much higher than say Britain's Not that it could topple US but it could but up a much better fight than last time if we gross out nukes.

>>69478948
Congratulations, you are even more cringeworthy than American muh heritage wehraboos. Hope your language finally dies so you can stop LARPing and get back to the coal mines.

File: British Challener 2 and Polish Leopard 2A4.jpg (307KB, 2000x1332px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 2000x1332px

>>69478807
>implying i am a pole

Here are British and Polish tanks working together in a cohesive manner.

File: british rearmament.png (697KB, 2627x616px) Image search: [Google]

697KB, 2627x616px

>>69478948
>you shart your pants after 1933 and you know its true
After 1933, you say? Pic related.

>>69479015
>I think his point is that Germany's capability would be much higher than say Britain's

What is the evidence for that, when they're so behind Britain in capability today?

File: Tali-Ihantala.jpg (16KB, 300x207px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 300x207px

>>69479085
>What is the evidence for that, when they're so behind Britain in capability today?


That's a dubious assumption to make since the ones before you made the same assumption and were pretty buttblasted when Hitler started mobilizing and showing off Wehrmacht for good. Though i meant maximum capability. They have more population and industry. Pretty considerable power if they wish to be.

>>69478662

I doubt it very much sinced theyd only fight 9-5 Monday to Friday

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/10/german-army-forced-to-lay-down-weapons-due-to-overtime-limits/amp/

File: germany-population-pyramid-2014[1].gif (61KB, 610x425px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 610x425px

>>69479234
>That's a dubious assumption to make since the ones before you made the same assumption

No they didn't. Haven't you heard of the naval arms race between Britain and Germany prior to WW1, or the British rearmament that started as soon as the Nazis came into power (years before Hitler started showing off the Wehrmacht)?

>They have more population and industry. Pretty considerable power if they wish to be.

Their population is converging slowly with the UK's and has been for many years. They had a greater population advantage over Britain during the world wars.

Today, Germany has only 15 million more people than the UK, and this is even worse than it looks because their demographics are a lot worse. More of Germany's 80 million are older than the UK's 65 million.

I'm going to support myself with some facts here. First, Germany's population pyramid

File: united-kingdom-population-pyramid-2016[1].gif (61KB, 610x425px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 610x425px

>>69479234
The UK's population pyramid

I hope we leave this dirtfield tbf

NATO is a scam and serves 0 purposes

>>69479395
>>69479431
Wow, if you compare the lower part of those pyramids... the UK actually has more people in all the age groups from 18 to 29 than Germany. In absolute numbers.

File: le difficult decisions man.jpg (2MB, 3001x1801px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3001x1801px

Now a comparison with the past.

Germany to the UK populations

2016: 80(81?) million to 65 million
1907: 67 million to 40 million.

In 1907, the UK had 59.7% of Germany's population

In 2016, the UK has 80.2% of Germany's population (if we give Germany 81 million today)

>>69476293
Better question-
Why the fuck does NATO still exist?

>>69476664
>this post coming from per capita: the country

wew

File: 1459518378240.png (3KB, 221x160px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 221x160px

>>69479743
In 1939, Nazi Germany had 69 million people. Britain had 66.4% of Nazi Germany's population in 1939.

In summary.

1907: 59.7%
1939: 66.4%
2016: 80.2%

File: 1460654400080.gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

>>69479395
>that margin between male 85-94 Germans and female 85-94 Germans

>>69479817
>Why the fuck does NATO still exist?

Because we are in the post-imperial world of many small nation-states that are incapable of protecting themselves against bigger countries. They crave protection, therefore NATO

*waves tail*

>>69479817
you are right its not necessary. We dont need nato.

>>69477062
>let others do your fight
burgers war experience is basically not existing. And all your foreign policy is to keep it there. But you also dont want to lose your influence. Which results in other people should fight for your interest. Nato is the means to do this.

Those billions of schekells in administrative spendings will not go bomb Bosnia by themselves.

>>69479817
As long as r*ssians exist there will be nato, it's that simple
Once r*ssians are gassed to the last woman and child nato can be abolished

>>69477605
We're less likely to betray than the Eternal Kraut

Greeks are so powerful.