Do we need NATO?

Discussion of current events
neverfail
Posts: 3676
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: Do we need NATO?

Post by neverfail » Sun May 19, 2019 2:38 am

cassowary wrote:
Sun May 19, 2019 12:31 am

Germany is the strongest economy in Europe. They alone can defend Europe from Russia.
There is a lot that you do not know about Europe Cassowary.

There are a lot of Europeans who are (believe it or not) more concerned about Germany becoming militarily more powerful again than they are about Russian expansionism.

France for instance was done over by their Teutonic neighbor three times in the course of a century. While France long ago made peace with Russia (while it was still the USSR) it keeps a stockpile of nuclear bombs along with intermediate range missiles to deliver them just in case the barbarians to their northeast get frisky once again.

Most nations in Europe that were occupied by Nazi Germany (recalling what an insufferably overbearing bunch Germans can be when they have the upper hand) would support the French position.

Now you know the real reason why the Europeans are incapable of organizing a joint defense policy. Politics, not economics!

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 3075
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Do we need NATO?

Post by cassowary » Sun May 19, 2019 3:13 am

Sertorio wrote:
Sun May 19, 2019 2:18 am
cassowary wrote:
Sun May 19, 2019 1:02 am

The US fought two major wars in Asia Pacific after wWII - Korea and Vietnam.

It has defense treaties with Japan and South Korea. More importantly, the US and its allies frequently conduct freedom of navigation exercises in the disputed waters of the S China Sea.

The US and its allies maintains that the sea is international waters while China lay claim to most of it. The exercises means that the US intends to remain in the region and defend its allies.
As far as I know China has never threatened freedom of navigation in the Pacific. "Freedom of navigation" exercises against China are as necessary as exercises against the Martians... It's all an excuse to coerce othar Asian nations and to trick China in some kind of defensive action which could be used as an excuse to attack it. If ever there is another war in Asia, it will be caused by the US.
I don't agree. China, at the moment, says it gives permission for commercial shipping through THEIR waters. This implies that they can withdraw permission at any time. We need the US to affirm what we all know is correct: S China Sea, where 50% of world trade flows, is INTERNATIONAL WATERS.
The Imp :D

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 3075
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Do we need NATO?

Post by cassowary » Sun May 19, 2019 3:16 am

neverfail wrote:
Sun May 19, 2019 2:38 am
cassowary wrote:
Sun May 19, 2019 12:31 am

Germany is the strongest economy in Europe. They alone can defend Europe from Russia.
There is a lot that you do not know about Europe Cassowary.

There are a lot of Europeans who are (believe it or not) more concerned about Germany becoming militarily more powerful again than they are about Russian expansionism.

France for instance was done over by their Teutonic neighbor three times in the course of a century. While France long ago made peace with Russia (while it was still the USSR) it keeps a stockpile of nuclear bombs along with intermediate range missiles to deliver them just in case the barbarians to their northeast get frisky once again.

Most nations in Europe that were occupied by Nazi Germany (recalling what an insufferably overbearing bunch Germans can be when they have the upper hand) would support the French position.

Now you know the real reason why the Europeans are incapable of organizing a joint defense policy. Politics, not economics!
I may be wrong. But I don't think Europeans are worried about the Germans anymore. That was a long time ago when the Germans behaved as badly as Russians do today. But why don't we ask a Frenchman?

Alex, where are you?
The Imp :D

User avatar
Alexis
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2016 2:46 pm

1967 was a bit late

Post by Alexis » Mon May 20, 2019 9:51 pm

cassowary wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 2:59 am
https://www.americanthinker.com/article ... _nato.html

In my view, the US should cut down on its troops stationed in Europe and send them to Asia. Things have changed since NATO was created.

Europe can defend itself from Russia, if it’s willing to spend more money.
I don't think the attitude of a majority of Europeans, including crucially Germany and Italy, will change until the US clearly and visibly go out of guaranteeing European security. In practice, that would mean not cutting down on troop levels, but dismantling US bases in Europe entirely.

Dwight Eisenhower was Allied military commander on the Western front during WWII before becoming US president. When NATO was founded in 1949, he approved it despite his reservations but wanted Europeans to become militarily independent after 10 years or so, which would have enabled Americans to end their commitment towards European security.

France became militarily independent during the 1960s, leading to dismantlement of US bases on French territory by 1967. So it could be said we were a bit late. Still... this was more than half a century ago.

Dismantling US bases from other European countries would obviously be a good thing for the US, which could lower somewhat their massive defense expenditures. And it wouldn't be a bad thing for Europeans - though Germans would initially be troubled. However... that's not a decision for any European :)

And the fact of the matter is that President Trump does not appear to be ready to do so.

User avatar
Alexis
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2016 2:46 pm

Present and near-term threats, not passé

Post by Alexis » Mon May 20, 2019 10:08 pm

neverfail wrote:
Sun May 19, 2019 2:38 am
There are a lot of Europeans who are (believe it or not) more concerned about Germany becoming militarily more powerful again than they are about Russian expansionism.

France for instance was done over by their Teutonic neighbor three times in the course of a century. While France long ago made peace with Russia (while it was still the USSR) it keeps a stockpile of nuclear bombs along with intermediate range missiles to deliver them just in case the barbarians to their northeast get frisky once again.

Most nations in Europe that were occupied by Nazi Germany (recalling what an insufferably overbearing bunch Germans can be when they have the upper hand) would support the French position.
cassowary wrote:
Sun May 19, 2019 3:16 am
I may be wrong. But I don't think Europeans are worried about the Germans anymore. That was a long time ago when the Germans behaved as badly as Russians do today. But why don't we ask a Frenchman?

Alex, where are you?
Hi everybody... it's agreeable to be asked for, thanks :)

I think it's generally advisable to worry about present, then potential near-term, then potential long-term threats - not yesteryear threats.

First, a little correction to the History record Neverfail :) We did have three wars against Germany in the course of a single lifetime, however we were not "done over" three times. France won WWI, doing more than any other nation to defeat Germany, though we did have two major allies in victory that is the UK and Italy, and a lot of less important ones including the US.

That being said, this is all passé :) Germany is now one of the most pacific countries on Earth, possibly the very most. The risk that they would all of a sudden aim at military agression again is about the same as the risk of a zombi invasion. In the (very) long term, of course nothing can be excluded. But you focus first on present, then on near-term potential threats.

For countries in Western Europe, both present and near-term potential threats to national survival are as low as one could dream. Obviously Jihadist activity is a very actual threat, but it's a small one: neither bombs nor suicide fighters can endanger the existence of even the smaller European nation. For a country like France, the solution is to maintain a limited but effective all-aspect global nuclear deterrence force - which is additionally rather cheap - this to provide a hedge against return of war being major powers. When they can no longer depend on the US, such countries as Germany and Italy might choose to build national nuclear deterrents, or to go the pacifist "we don't need any guarantee" way, or to find some way to mutualize the effect of the French force.

Some Central European countries have a different view, notably Balts and Poles: they see Russia as a potential near-term threat. Their solution is to depend on the US to provide guarantee, and they don't trust Western Europeans to be an alternative. When they can no longer depend on the US, they might choose a variation of the "Finland" solution that is combination of a foreign policy very friendly towards Russia plus a very serious military (relative to their size) based on universal military service - both tending to disincentivize any potential Russian agression.
Last edited by Alexis on Mon May 20, 2019 10:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Alexis
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2016 2:46 pm

Asians & Nukes

Post by Alexis » Mon May 20, 2019 10:20 pm

neverfail wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 4:40 pm
Milo wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 9:01 am
Maybe the US should pull its over 132 000 troops out of Asia,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_ ... eployments
May God save Asia if it does!

Asia = a conflagration waiting to happen.
Asia does seem to be in a bit of a tense geopolitical situation.

I don't think the US will pull over from Asia anytime soon. They see China as their rival for "Number One" nation, and reservations by many Asian nations about the rise of the Chinese juggernaut next door creates a large opening for cooperation with them that both further US interests and limits China.

That being said, if the US did pull over, North-Eastern Asians at least could find an alternative very quickly: both Japan and South Korea are at most a couple years and probably only a few months away from simple but effective nukes. South Korea already has medium range ballistic missiles, and Japan could build them rapidly.

Taiwanese, I don't know.

South-Eastern Asians, I'm not so sure.

neverfail
Posts: 3676
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: Present and near-term threats, not passé

Post by neverfail » Tue May 21, 2019 5:14 am

Alexis wrote:
Mon May 20, 2019 10:08 pm

First, a little correction to the History record Neverfail :) We did have three wars against Germany in the course of a single lifetime, however we were not "done over" three times. France won WWI, doing more than any other nation to defeat Germany, though we did have two major allies in victory that is the UK and Italy, and a lot of less important ones including the US.

That being said, this is all passé :) Germany is now one of the most pacific countries on Earth, possibly the very most. The risk that they would all of a sudden aim at military agression again is about the same as the risk of a zombi invasion. In the (very) long term, of course nothing can be excluded. But you focus first on present, then on near-term potential threats.



:lol: Veuillez m'excuser, mon ami. Il peut y avoir juste un tout petit peu de révisionnisme historique ici. :D

1. 1870 Franco-Prussian war. France had no supportive foreign allies to help it out then and the fledgling Imperial German forces just walked over the French army. During the ceasefire that followed with the demoralized French army busy fighting fellow Frenchmen for weeks during the crushing of the Paris commune; I sometimes wonder why the Germans did not take the opportunity to occupy other parts of France with a view to future annexation? Considering what they could potentially taken, the annexation of your border provinces of Alsace and Lorraine by Imperial Germany as part of the peace settlement looks to be with historical hindsight like quite modest acquisitions.

2. 1914-18. In relation to the size of its population France probably bled more than any other belligerent; at least on the allied side. However I can see how it was only the timely arrival of allies that saved it on more than one occasion. I am surprised that you did not mention Czarist Russia. We know that the German army (figuratively) subsequently urinated all over the Ivans but meanwhile the Russia campaign adsorbed so many of their soldiers, munitions and supplies that the German drive into France ran out of "puff" by the time it reached the River Marne. At that point the German army was forced to fig in and occupy a defensive posture.

Meantime, the French position was bolstered by the timely arrival of large numbers of soldiers from Britain along with its imperial domains - including some divisions of volunteer Australian infantry.

By 1918 France must have been bled white of manpower of military age. Even with the help of its British Empire allies France could not possibly have inaugurated the 1918 offensive that finally made the German side sue for armistice (recalling the 1917 mutiny within the French army).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1917_French_Army_mutinies

It was the arrival of fresh US troops in numbers that made the difference.

I wont risk affronting your national pride my more than briefly mentioning mentioning World War Two and the subsequent rescue mission inaugurated by France's Anglo friends.

Suffice to say that France survived arguably because the French make better diplomats than they do soldiers and military planners: the opposite to Germans.
............................................................................................

P.S. I accept your point that the Germans are now a nation of pacifist pussycats. That might even better explain their reluctance to bolster their own military strength (and therefore their unfitness to lead Europe in a joint European defense policy.

User avatar
Alexis
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2016 2:46 pm

A bit of WWI history

Post by Alexis » Tue May 21, 2019 6:24 am

neverfail wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 5:14 am
:lol: Veuillez m'excuser, mon ami. Il peut y avoir juste un tout petit peu de révisionnisme historique ici. :D
Indeed, there was a dose of historical "revisionism", to be understood as "error". In what you wrote :)

Arguing about appreciations and opinions is often pointless, and I won't risk it. What can and should be done is to recall facts, and I will stick to them.

You are absolutely right to point out the role of Russia in August 1914, starting an offensive against Germany before being fully ready, so as to do their part in defeating the Schlieffen plan of defeating France rapidly then turning eastwards and defeat Russia. That being said, the 1914 summer German offensive did not fail because it "ran out of "puff"", but because it was defeated in the Marne battle by French forces.

Allied victory in WWI was obtained first and foremost thanks to French military contribution, which was head and shoulders above that of the Britain, or more precisely the British empire, which nonetheless was the second contributor. A third main contributor was Italy, thanks to their brilliant victory over Austria-Hungary in 1918. All other military contributions were small, including the American one - although a legend exists which says the opposite. Where the US contributed most was in economic support: America lent money, then forgot a big chunk of those debts after the war.

What happened in autumn 1918 was that the French army, after having helped the British who had been momentarily defeated, began to advance irresistibly, the Germans being forced to retreat progressively. That success was the outcome of military reforms during 1917-1918. When German forces approached their border - that is, when they faced the prospect of fighting not on foreign territory which they had devastated, but home - Germany suddenly cracked and sent negotiators with mission to sign about anything that the Allies would have them sign.

I know this can come as a surprise, because a legend of US being the main force behind WWI victory exists. If you don't believe me, please research the matter. :)

Jim the Moron
Posts: 1456
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:51 pm

Re: A bit of WWI history

Post by Jim the Moron » Tue May 21, 2019 8:23 am

Alexis wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 6:24 am
neverfail wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 5:14 am
:lol: Veuillez m'excuser, mon ami. Il peut y avoir juste un tout petit peu de révisionnisme historique ici. :D
Indeed, there was a dose of historical "revisionism", to be understood as "error". In what you wrote :)

Arguing about appreciations and opinions is often pointless, and I won't risk it. What can and should be done is to recall facts, and I will stick to them.

You are absolutely right to point out the role of Russia in August 1914, starting an offensive against Germany before being fully ready, so as to do their part in defeating the Schlieffen plan of defeating France rapidly then turning eastwards and defeat Russia. That being said, the 1914 summer German offensive did not fail because it "ran out of "puff"", but because it was defeated in the Marne battle by French forces.

Allied victory in WWI was obtained first and foremost thanks to French military contribution, which was head and shoulders above that of the Britain, or more precisely the British empire, which nonetheless was the second contributor. A third main contributor was Italy, thanks to their brilliant victory over Austria-Hungary in 1918. All other military contributions were small, including the American one - although a legend exists which says the opposite. Where the US contributed most was in economic support: America lent money, then forgot a big chunk of those debts after the war.

What happened in autumn 1918 was that the French army, after having helped the British who had been momentarily defeated, began to advance irresistibly, the Germans being forced to retreat progressively. That success was the outcome of military reforms during 1917-1918. When German forces approached their border - that is, when they faced the prospect of fighting not on foreign territory which they had devastated, but home - Germany suddenly cracked and sent negotiators with mission to sign about anything that the Allies would have them sign.

I know this can come as a surprise, because a legend of US being the main force behind WWI victory exists. If you don't believe me, please research the matter. :)
Please let's not forget the Canadian contribution -roughly similar to that of the US ("Lafayette, we are here"). Together, while not equal to France's efforts, nonetheless they were significant.

User avatar
Alexis
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2016 2:46 pm

Re: A bit of WWI history

Post by Alexis » Tue May 21, 2019 8:54 am

Jim the Moron wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 8:23 am
Please let's not forget the Canadian contribution -roughly similar to that of the US ("Lafayette, we are here"). Together, while not equal to France's efforts, nonetheless they were significant.
You are absolutely right, of course.

Also, and in order to clarify any risk of misunderstanding: I know full well that my country was liberated in 1944 by soldiers of the US and the UK (including Canadians, Australians & other Commonwealth soldiers) mostly, Free French troops making only a small contribution, especially in June 1944 when the heaviest fighting took place.

I was born in Normandy, and my home city is presently a small city there where the bridge is adorned with a monument to British troops who took it from the occupiers, helped only by a small number of French Resistance forces.

It's just that WWI was quite different from WWII in this regard. :)

Post Reply