France lobbying against UK for NATO Second-in-command position
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't see a problem TBH
In a lot of ways having a country in #2 which is closer to the front line isn't a bad thing - they can't do a Dunkirk when the Russians reach Lille after all
In a lot of ways having a country in #2 which is closer to the front line isn't a bad thing - they can't do a Dunkirk when the Russians reach Lille after all
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Clipperton island
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
they can't do a Dunkirk
On 20 May, the BEF sent Brigadier Gerald Whitfield to Dunkirk to start evacuating unnecessary personnel. Overwhelmed by what he later described as "a somewhat alarming movement towards Dunkirk by both officers and men", due to a shortage of food and water, he had to send many along without thoroughly checking their credentials. Even officers ordered to stay behind to aid the evacuation disappeared onto the boats
So nicely said....
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: London
Age: 58
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure some of the men doing the 'quick runner' as you so nicely put it were back on the beaches 4 years later after having seen the World thanks to the annoying fact that the Germans were invading various bits of it.
And then liberating France with their blood.
By the way we can all cut and paste from the Wiki entry on Dunkirk. Do some serious research and come back. But for starters from that same Wiki entry:
"More than 100,000 evacuated French troops were quickly and efficiently shuttled to camps in various parts of south-western England, where they were temporarily lodged before being repatriated.[103] British ships ferried French troops to Brest, Cherbourg, and other ports in Normandy and Brittany, although only about half of the repatriated troops were deployed against the Germans before the surrender of France."
So the French pulled their men back and only half were thrown into battle. Guess that was the British fault as well.
But like recceguy I too have done no serious research but look at Wiki
And then liberating France with their blood.
By the way we can all cut and paste from the Wiki entry on Dunkirk. Do some serious research and come back. But for starters from that same Wiki entry:
"More than 100,000 evacuated French troops were quickly and efficiently shuttled to camps in various parts of south-western England, where they were temporarily lodged before being repatriated.[103] British ships ferried French troops to Brest, Cherbourg, and other ports in Normandy and Brittany, although only about half of the repatriated troops were deployed against the Germans before the surrender of France."
So the French pulled their men back and only half were thrown into battle. Guess that was the British fault as well.
But like recceguy I too have done no serious research but look at Wiki
Recceguy,
You still don't get this. I personally have a family who suffered death and injury in defence of la Belle France in both wars. You insult their sacrifice. What I read here is just nationalistic posturing, of the De Gaulle nature, without any depth of reason. Please resume your idyll on Clipperton!
You still don't get this. I personally have a family who suffered death and injury in defence of la Belle France in both wars. You insult their sacrifice. What I read here is just nationalistic posturing, of the De Gaulle nature, without any depth of reason. Please resume your idyll on Clipperton!
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The French lost god knows how many people in WW1 which kept the Kaiser in his place - the Britsh were there early but not in equivalent numbers and the Americans turned up late again with reasonable numbers. Without that sacrifice german would have been spoken more widely 25 years before Hitler
We've all fought too many wars in Europe and lost far too many men - on all sides
We've all fought too many wars in Europe and lost far too many men - on all sides
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: M4 Corridor
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The French lobby is groundless. The North Atlantic association was to counter the Soviet threat and only came into its own when the Warsaw Pact formed in the 50s. It preceded the EU by 20 years and has no link with the European Army which the French are so keen to lead. The absence of French forces from NATO for 30 years was obvious to me during the Kosovo war when the "invited guests" spent all day copying the NATO War Plan onto discs and sending them to Paris from where, spookily, the Serbs obtained the targetting programme. The U.S.A. takes their "oldest ally" as second ranked nation in NATO at our peril.
The US always sides with the big battalions or the money
So in Europe for a while that was us BUT since last years its clearer than ever that their long held view of deal with Germany on economics. France on politics : either way we in Uk will go along (poodle fashion) while the other EU nations will side with either Germany or France and we as non Europeans will have zero influence on the rest of the Eu.
So after we leave the EU what grounds have we got for claiming we are the pre- eminent military power in Europe except what we did in the cold war which you may have noticed is so far in the past it is becoming fashionable again.
Anyway, from the way Trump speaks the only military power in Europe he is interested in is Russia and with the Brexit and Trump results they have done more to weaken NATO than all their past military might ever achieved
So in Europe for a while that was us BUT since last years its clearer than ever that their long held view of deal with Germany on economics. France on politics : either way we in Uk will go along (poodle fashion) while the other EU nations will side with either Germany or France and we as non Europeans will have zero influence on the rest of the Eu.
So after we leave the EU what grounds have we got for claiming we are the pre- eminent military power in Europe except what we did in the cold war which you may have noticed is so far in the past it is becoming fashionable again.
Anyway, from the way Trump speaks the only military power in Europe he is interested in is Russia and with the Brexit and Trump results they have done more to weaken NATO than all their past military might ever achieved
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dougie M,
You wrote:
"The North Atlantic association was to counter the Soviet threat and only came into its own when the Warsaw Pact formed in the 50s."
This is how disinformation starts :-) No time to type a couple of words in a search engine? I thought this stuff was being studied in mil. academies worldwide...
NATO was formed in 1949 and it was the first NATO secretary general to say (informally) that the organization's goal was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down."
Then very soon the next major steps were undertaken because of the Korean war.
After Turkey and Greece joined NATO in 1952, the Soviet Union also applied for a membership (in 1954) because formally it was said that NATO was not considering USSR as an enemy, but the suggestion was, of course, declined.
Warsaw pact was signed only in 1955, a week after the NATO's second expansion when Germany joined the club. I think it was nothing but a nervous reply in a sense "we can't take it any more", but it could be justified by the fact that Germany was again openly on the other side, and plans like "Dropshot" were getting closer to the reality.
As for the main subject, from outside NATO it's strange to hear that "who is 2nd in the hierarchy" is an issue. Does it really matter? Look at another chatterbox club - the EU and CEC. There many people now there at high management positions from the countries that many others can hardly find on the map.
You wrote:
"The North Atlantic association was to counter the Soviet threat and only came into its own when the Warsaw Pact formed in the 50s."
This is how disinformation starts :-) No time to type a couple of words in a search engine? I thought this stuff was being studied in mil. academies worldwide...
NATO was formed in 1949 and it was the first NATO secretary general to say (informally) that the organization's goal was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down."
Then very soon the next major steps were undertaken because of the Korean war.
After Turkey and Greece joined NATO in 1952, the Soviet Union also applied for a membership (in 1954) because formally it was said that NATO was not considering USSR as an enemy, but the suggestion was, of course, declined.
Warsaw pact was signed only in 1955, a week after the NATO's second expansion when Germany joined the club. I think it was nothing but a nervous reply in a sense "we can't take it any more", but it could be justified by the fact that Germany was again openly on the other side, and plans like "Dropshot" were getting closer to the reality.
As for the main subject, from outside NATO it's strange to hear that "who is 2nd in the hierarchy" is an issue. Does it really matter? Look at another chatterbox club - the EU and CEC. There many people now there at high management positions from the countries that many others can hardly find on the map.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was only WEST Germany that joined the Club Van.... EAST Germany wasn't asked ...................
And as for status when you are pemanently a supporting player little things like titles mean a lot....................
And as for status when you are pemanently a supporting player little things like titles mean a lot....................
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
A Van, I read Dougie M's quote differently. I read it to mean that although NATO existed from 1949 and did not include the FGR, it only came in to its own in the mid 50s.
I agree with your timing and POV, just that the WP gave it a newer focus. You mention Dropshot, do you think the KGB/GRU were aware at that time? I can also envisage a POV that the USSR arms race could be seen as a defensive one.
I agree with your timing and POV, just that the WP gave it a newer focus. You mention Dropshot, do you think the KGB/GRU were aware at that time? I can also envisage a POV that the USSR arms race could be seen as a defensive one.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HH, PN:
OK, the words "came into its own" may be read in different context. Somebody may say that the process is complete when the whole Europe joins :-)
But it is clear that in early 50's UK was a great power, and even if NATO would consist of US and UK only, the USSR was way weaker. Conversely, the USSR's satellite countries did not represent any serious military power and, perhaps more important, would not fight when the bell rings. It was understood here. In reality, they just allowed to use their territories. Thus, IMHO, creation of WP was nothing but a political show and western military analysts just laughed.
A good question where KGB/GRU knew about the US and UK plans to massively bomb USSR in late 40's and early 50's. In the Russian literature (including memoires of veterans) it is said that they did. I doubt that the details were known, but obviuosly it was enough to know in general that such plans existed. Recall they had lads like Kim Philby working for them.
OK, the words "came into its own" may be read in different context. Somebody may say that the process is complete when the whole Europe joins :-)
But it is clear that in early 50's UK was a great power, and even if NATO would consist of US and UK only, the USSR was way weaker. Conversely, the USSR's satellite countries did not represent any serious military power and, perhaps more important, would not fight when the bell rings. It was understood here. In reality, they just allowed to use their territories. Thus, IMHO, creation of WP was nothing but a political show and western military analysts just laughed.
A good question where KGB/GRU knew about the US and UK plans to massively bomb USSR in late 40's and early 50's. In the Russian literature (including memoires of veterans) it is said that they did. I doubt that the details were known, but obviuosly it was enough to know in general that such plans existed. Recall they had lads like Kim Philby working for them.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
As a matter of military history may I point out the Western Union Defence Organisation which was formed in March 1948 and consisted of the British, French, Dutch, Luxembourg and Belgian forces based on the Treaty of Brussels against the communist threat when the division of Europe became evident with the Russian forces failure to leave the Eastern European states. This evolved into NATO when the USA and others were persuaded of the threat. It was only in 1951 that NATO took over the WUDO tasks.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/West...e_Organization
In 1954 the WEU was formed as a means to permit the rearmament of Germany and Italy, at which point they could also join NATO.
It was only in 2009 that the WUDO tasks were taken over by the EU in the Treaty of Lisbon and the Treaty of Brussels was terminated in 2010 and the WEU in 2011.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/West...e_Organization
In 1954 the WEU was formed as a means to permit the rearmament of Germany and Italy, at which point they could also join NATO.
It was only in 2009 that the WUDO tasks were taken over by the EU in the Treaty of Lisbon and the Treaty of Brussels was terminated in 2010 and the WEU in 2011.
Last edited by ORAC; 16th Jan 2017 at 05:47.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Clipperton island
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.. during the Kosovo war when the "invited guests" spent all day copying the NATO War Plan onto discs and sending them to Paris from where, spookily, the Serbs obtained the targetting programme.
Alll that to create a Mafia-sponsored micro-state in the heart of Europe, with a huge american base on it (Camp Bondsteel...) If Russia had not recovered Crimea on time, there would have been similar ones there to check the Black Sea. Now they have to content themselves with exercises in Ukraine (5 km inside the country, so courageous)
Thanks all for the informative posts about the origins of NATO in the 50s... but how strange now is it that after the Warsaw Pact had disappeared, NATO kept on expanding so much ?
Anyway, 6 days to wait now.... and maybe, probably much of this discussion will have to be reset.
D. Trump teams are currently busy arranging a meeting with Porochenko - should be next February, 30th or 31st....
A_Van, I usually find all your posts very interesting
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"A good question where KGB/GRU knew about the US and UK plans to massively bomb USSR in late 40's and early 50's. In the Russian literature (including memoires of veterans) it is said that they did. I doubt that the details were known, but obviuosly it was enough to know in general that such plans existed. Recall they had lads like Kim Philby working for them."
I think they had chapter and verse Van - but it was Maclean who was important in this context . Maclean was First Secretary in the UK Washington Embassy and saw almost everything flowing between the two countries
I think they had chapter and verse Van - but it was Maclean who was important in this context . Maclean was First Secretary in the UK Washington Embassy and saw almost everything flowing between the two countries
Really, comparing NATO with the Warsaw Pact is just plain silly, akin to comparing Bupa to concentration camps.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I love your metaphor, but elaborating further on Bupa it looks like Trump is going to shake some of its lazy residents/patients enjoying free dinners regularly served by Uncle Sam and suggest them to either pay the bill with no discount or get out. Would be interesting to see how all this will settle down.
Trump worries Nato with 'obsolete' comment - BBC News
Trump worries Nato with 'obsolete' comment - BBC News
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Clipperton island
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And as from yesterday it seems things are really going to change (see D.T interview...) even if the out-going US administration has put in place some last-day measures like the legal status of their soldiers in the Baltic States, to put them out of the reach of the local law. Just wondering how much they had to pay the local governments to accept such a thing - exactly why the american soldiers have been so much appreciated for years in Philippines, Japan...