Printable View
I never said anything about a European army, and I'm not going to try to answer the question of whether it's a viable option or not. My point is that anyone who thinks that Great Britain can just close its doors and pretend to be isolated from the rest of Europe is in for a shock.
That was fully understood.Quote:
Originally Posted by Perplexed
I don't think national armies should be gotten rid of. For one the UK still has its obligation to the former Empire (you have alliances right ?), nor do I think every country should be forced to participate (some countries have just always been neutral). IMO it should be more a kind of 'coalition of the willing ' (heh). Would such a thing work ?
Most? Well of course the Dutch army, that of Portugal or Spain to name just a few don't compare to the Turkish army but we have the notable exceptions of France, Brittain and even Greece (for most of the latter half of the 20th century there was an arms race between Greece and Turkey)Quote:
Now the Turkey thing was purely hypothetical, considering current global politics, but their army is far better than most European ones, with the exception of France and the UK perhaps. They are generally considered one of the most valuable NATO partners.
The Danes have mandatory military training for civilians, same for the other Scandinavian countries I believe. They could muster a fairly dependent militia if required.
Many countries here have thriving arms industries, your own country is a good example.
It's all speculation what will happen if Europe is invaded with little foundation. The possibility of nuclear retaliation by France or the UK makes the whole question moot anyway. A more realistic problem is that without military might we can't fulfill our obligations to the NATO and independently intervene in humanitary crises.
The last part is pretty close to the truth already.
Just clarifying my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by SSNeoperestroika
In my opinion common european army could not exist. There are many differences beetwen armies into Europe - some caused by history.
For example - I can't imagine polish soldiers fighting together with french ones.
Furthermore Europe is not as easy as it looks like. Maybe armies are small and look weak but European counties got strong industry and can easy made more weapons, better equipment and similar.
When I'm reading opinions that North African countries got better armies than European, I'm laughing. Where do you think these Northern African countries bought weapon :)
I think that one european army would be useless. There must have been one common language, for example english. But on this option France would never agree. And one common language would cause problems with new recruits - because learning new language took longer than learning how to use weapon.
We can't forget about Eastern Europe. Countries there ( I mean Poland, Turkey and maybe Ukraine) got worse army than western countries but they can mobilize more men. Here we still got common military service and when equipment will be improved, armies will be even stronger than western ones.
Quite possible is forming smaller units, like courpses - soldiers from 2 or 3 coutries can training together. But I simply can't imagine one , big european army.
Japan would never threaten our own industrial capabilities either...Quote:
Originally Posted by KrooK
As in both World Wars?Quote:
Originally Posted by KrooK
EDIT: Whoops. I thought you said British and French. :oops:
No, despite the existance and the possibility of the EU becoming a state in itself, it is not my belief that Europe should have a single army. Perhaps an organization akin to the NATO (or the Warsaw Pact) would be better.
A fragmented army, with only a command superstructure in common, would make a good army. After all, you wouldn't have to deal with one tactic, and one set of standardized equipment, you'd have to keep track of countless designes used by the various armies (not to mention the whole translation problem).
High-level command, yes ... complete merging of the armies ... no. After all, each army has it's own traditions, just bunching them together would kill that.
True, I might have put too much emphasis on the whole self defense issue. :embarassed:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
An flawed characterization. The EU is a supranational organisation with state like characteristics, not an alliance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
I can't say I really like the idea of swearing loyalty to my monarch rather then my people, either. I don't mind the monarchy, but it's a principal issue.
1) I think most Americans drastically underestimate the potential strength of European nations, because the US is far more militaristic and prone to flex its muscle than any country in Europe, even Russia. Anyway...
2) Pan-European military: great idea in theory, utterly impossible in practice. Far too much nationalism and history in the region, and would prove impossibly cumbersome; NATO, a far vaguer and an older institution, is still wracked by debates over whether 7.62x11 or 7.62x11.001 ammunition (mild sarcasm) should be adopted across the alliance
3) I am not Christian, but I still find some of its prophecies eerie...
(from http://www.teachinghearts.org/dre00maps.html#greece )
http://www.teachinghearts.org/dr0imapeurounite.gif
Several attempts have been made to unite Europe. None have achieved the unity present under the Roman empire during the reign of the Caesars.
Various attempts to unite the nations included war, marriage between the royal houses, religion and the latest attempt at an economic union.
For a long period there was a successful but turbulent union with the church. But the nations (notably Britain and France) were constant enemies. There has never been a successful political union under one ruler since the Caesars. All attempts have failed. Britain seems to be the country that continues to escape. Prophecy says that there never will be a successful political union under one ruler. At least not one that will last.
Attempts to unite Europe...
538-1798
Religion
Popes and kings
Successful religious union by force for western empire from 538-1798.
768-814
War
Charlemagne
Region of France, Germany and Italy (Holy Roman Empire)
936-973
War
Otto I the Great
Unsuccessful political union. Germany, north Italy. He was able to promote church and state union but he did not unite the territory of the old Roman empire.
1294-1328
War
Charles IV
Unsuccessful political union.
1300-1922
War
Ottoman Turks
Turkey, eastern Europe and Middle East influence.
1643-1715
War
Louis XIV
Unsuccessful political union.
1795-1812
War
Napoleon
Unsuccessful political union. Britain and most of the Holy Roman empire escaped
1866-1871
War
Bismark
German unification. Prussian who wanted to unite Germany. Prussia, north and south Germany, France (Lorraine, Alsace)
538-1918
Marriage
Queen Victoria/European Royalty
Unsuccessful political union even though European royal families were related. Carlos 1 of Spain and Queen Victoria of England were two examples. Queen Victoria was called the "Grandmother of Europe" because she successfully married her nine children to many royal families. But political unity was elusive. Prophecy predicts an unsuccessful union by marriage.
1914
War
Kaiser Wilhelm
Unsuccessful political union in World War 1. Germany, Belgium, Prussia
1940s
War
Adolph Hitler
Unsuccessful political union in World War 2. Most of the European continent were either allies or directly occupied, there were allies in parts of North Africa. But England, Switzerland, Spain, Egypt, Palestine and most of the far eastern Roman Empire were not captured
2001
Economy
European Union
Successful economic union of parts of the Roman empire. Prophecy does not support a political union under one government, but it does support a religious union under the church.
2005
Political
European Union
The union is now in doubt as France and the Netherlands rejected the constitution in 2005. Prophecy remains true.
:inquisitive:
I beleive that all that really stands in the way of a united Europe is imagination. A beleif in things that really do not matter.
Unfortunatley imagination is the biggest power of the human mind.
Bugger.
An army in the traditional sense of the word is of little use nowdays (and since quite a few years relatively speaking).
I'm rather surprised that people are unaware of the european efforts to enhance the deployment capability of mobile forces from various EU states, an existing example being this and a more recent project (that still faces some difficuties) being that one.
But it's true that NATO remains the main operational force in the region, and it'll take some really goal-oriented political will to develop a decent level of independance and military autarky.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
While I agree with your point I think calling it anti-Americanism is a bit harsh.Quote:
The day is long past where any one European nation has the power to make a real impact on the world, and unless you guys unite you will be stuck having to deal with the Legendary European peninsula merely being a stage for the puppets of the superpowers, as it was during the Cold War.
A European army would be of no use. An army is used to defend something, but as Europe is a diverse area what would it be defending? White man? Typical "European ideals" which are disappearing? In the end it would make EU a firmer union and as a result remove diversity within Europe, and since there isn't, has never been and will never be something "typically European", the army can't and won't defend that, but end up being the tool of an not elected power elite in Brussels, or if elected, it'll end up becoming locked to a two party system. The only way a "European army" could work is to have a loose alliance and a pact that if one country is attacked by a country with more military resources than them, and the attacker is anti-democratic and had no justification for attacking, the European countries could help each others in the form of an alliance. But building up a European army as a part of extending the centralization and EU influence would give more problems than it could ever solve. Soviet occupation is even preferable over a stronger EU, because against Soviet occupation Europeans would still have an incentive to fight the anti-democratic centralized rule - though with a slowly, sneakily built-up EU, based on some non-existing but through propaganda brought forward "typical European values/culture" (the only typical and common values within Europe are Christianity and the remnants of it, but most Europeans today are atheists, so there really no causality which is common for European countries that defends the proposition of making it a union or a single country, especially when we so how bad it went last time it happened with Rome), people would hesitate to rebel when (and I say when because it's a matter of time) it goes corrupt (but instead there will be centuries of unrest, murder attempts of leaders, coup d'etats, conspiracies for and against leaders, civil war and similar, much like the fall of Rome, until the unwanted union is crushed - often conveniently by outsiders attacking when internal strife has weakened it). To be honest, a European military alliance without any formal requirements where all countries think of their own gain works splendidly against threats like the Soviet union. Remember that historically European countries have often made alliances before to protect themselves against expansionistic neighbors. If the USSR would attack a country or two, the others would immediately form an alliance not out of helpfulness to the attacked but because an expansionist country that can conquer one or two countries is likely to try and continue. There's no need for a EU army, but perhaps local military could be educated in a standardized European command system with the same gestures, terminology and so on (but not tactics and equipment) to make cooperation more effective when needed, without in return giving away military secrets of each country or giving up the diversity and democracy within Europe. A standardized command system could facilitate cooperation within an alliance if/when it's needed.
Lots of good points have been made already in the thread before I got here, so I won't revisit them.
The original premise for creating a European Army is that there is an external threat in the traditional sense, ie Russia. (The parts about African nations or Turkey being able to knock over any individual country's armies is silly - maybe on their own turf, but trying to invade Europe, the Belgian army or even the Irish Defence Force might have some trouble, but the Grenadier Guards could break them in time for tea and Pimm's :smile:)
The truth is that for the foreseeable future there will be no traditional threats to Europe. The USA (like it or not) is the pre-eminent superpower and guarantees Europe's security through NATO. The existence of nuclear weapons in their hands guarantees destruction to anyone who might think of that route. Putin's Russia is a major threat, but economically, not militarily - Europe's energy supplies are increasingly in the hands of that anti-democrat.
The requirements of forces in Europe will be to address asymmetric warfare conditions and peacekeeping/peacemaking roles. Thought has already been given to this and most of Europe's armies are adjusting - and specialising. This trend will only continue, and doesn't need a unification of armies with all the logistical and political problems outlined before.
(Incidentally, this is why Blair's plan to upgrade Trident is sheer folly and waste - there is absolutely no need for any nation to possess nuclear weaponry in the light of the USA's pre-eminence in that field. What a legacy he might have left if he had the courage to give up a useless but symbolic weapons system, unilaterally, as an example to the Iranians et al.)
Functionally, the strength of most European armies is their traditions. I am of course biased, but the British regimental system is effective largely because of the loyalty and pride generated by those traditions. My regiment fought at Waterloo, and has that battle honour on its colour. Would a Frenchman feel comfortable serving in that unit? Perhaps, but more likely we would dissolve all such units for the Euro army and have nice, absolutely numbers - such is already happening, sadly, in the hands of Westminster bureaucrats, let alone Brussels ones. Patriotism might be a two-edged sword, but it is quite essential in armed services. People fight and die for their family, their mates and their regiment - which are all represented conveniently by their 'country'. It might be hard to motivate someone to put their life on the line for the European Onion. :stupido2:
Maybe one can dismiss this as nostalgia, and perhaps it is, but I have seen how effective it makes a unit. Even the American military is a little jealous, though they have glorious battle honours too.
Hmm, I digress. In essence then, I believe that a Euro army would be counter to the very flexibility required for the modern age of warfare, and become a toothless, rootless political punching bag. NATO works pretty well, guarantees our security on our home soil, and includes the world's only democratic superpower.
I believe the jargon of the day is: Sorted! :2thumbsup:
Another thing I didn't really go into was whether we should help our American allies. The US army is overstretched as it is. Countries like North Korea and Iran know they can get away with pretty much anything these days. Even Sudan seems to able to slaughter people by the thousands without any retaliation from the 'free world'.
Besides our own defense and besides our commitment to NATO, I can still see a role for a European army. The US, for better or for worse has chosen to become a global police force, but even they are not equipped for the task (well, they might be with the proper leadership, and without that mess in Iraq at the moment). Maybe we should do our part too ?
Yes, we should. But not in illegal wars, nor without serious and reflective discussions. The UN sadly, is not up to the task as it contains dictatorships on the security council, but they should be involved as much as possible as a UN resolution, properly created, holds the most authority of all.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
Failing that, NATO is a well qualified body to discuss such support.
However, the very question of whether the US or anyone else should be the world's policeman is a very thorny one. In a sentence, my personal belief is that it is virtually impossible to impose solutions on countries by military force, so we should avoid all such conflicts.
(Hmm, if I'm still suffering from writer's block after my next cup of tea, I might pursue that in a new thread).
I don't think Russia would pose such a threat. Sure, they may have a huge country and lots of natural resources (gasp!) But if you look at the human geography of Russia, their population is on the decline yep. The number of people suffering from AIDS is growing and most of them don't even have proper care. The number of people below porverty is growing. I don't think Russia will have the manpower to fight. Even if they have, I don't think they'll have the morale.
Europe, although Europe consists of a 'single' cultural identity, it is in fact still made up of tiny fragment of cultures. Italian, French, German, British, Swiss. You are gonna have lots of cultural problems and a HUGE language barrier to overcome. The talk of Europe being one state or one country is actually, imho, impossible, maybe possible in the next two thousands years. Europe has been fragmented into thousands of culture, only to be hold together by the Roman Empire before being fragmented into thousands of fiefdom, kingdom, dukedom.... The present "Europe" formed because of Charmelange (spelling?) when he conquered most of Europe.
So an European Army. I wish. But fat chance. Germany and France have been acting like superiors to the other EU members in the EU.
Well Europe is Europe, you can't really compare it to anything, except maybe the Greek Alliance to defeat Persia but there the motivation was totally different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
I think that the point has been made, there's too much history.
As to the current armed forces, so far everyone has ignored the German Army, arguably the best in the world, although it is still geared too much for defence of central Europe and it's support services remain somewhat mobile. Many British Servicemen also have a high opinion of Dutch, small though they may be. Then the Swiss and the Scandanavians would be hard to defeat on their own soil.
I'm not that worried about a Turkish invasion, they don't exactly hav a broad front to attack from.
Just to clafiy my above post, I didn't say that the British see themselves as non-European, just that they think of themselves as more independant.
The need for defence:
As has been said, practically none. Russia's army is more of a danger to itself than us. And why bother? We are so dependant on them that eacefully cutting off gas wins a "war" faster.
Africa? If anything a decent Navy / Air Force is required. Until there's a point where they gain air / water superiority in the med there's nothing to worry about.
The need for "offence"
Oh great, we can have the EU poncing round the world like America with a "holier than thou" attitude handing out what we percieve to be the "better" morals, and then get shot at.
Europe has done the foreign intervention thing. People didn't like it. They wanted Independence. Well, they've got it - well done! Worse than colonial rule? :laugh4: Tough.
Not only do I see no reason to help countries that generally booted us out not so long ago, but it is hideously expensive to get involved in these foreign entanglements, especially when what is bieng done is so vague.
Command structure
Who is going to be in charge? The council of Ministers? The Minister for war for all member states? :laugh4: But then if there were not this modus oparandi for doing nothing, trying to get everyone to fight under one country woudn't work. Countries would hold back troops if they didn't agree with the fight. Even with economic matters when the EU reprasentative is sent individual countries still delight in contradicting what he says. In war it'd be worse.
The need for stand equipment.
Well duh! We've not managed that in the last 50 years, so I'm not holding my breath. Unless there are common designs that are used and then created for all by the member states it's not going to happen. Perhaps start with small arms and then work up to bigger items. There are some great companies in Europe, so quality is not the issue, it is countries accepting compromise and not bieng arrogant and obstinate (ahem, France...)
Someone said that Britain is in for a shock if it thinks it doesn't need Europe. Funny how many shocks the UK is going to recieve. Not entering the Euro was supposed to finish us. Now failing to subsume ourself in the world's most beaurocratic farce is going to be the end of us...
In defence the Eu might just work. In attack we might manage to bore our foes to death (if we can even decide that we reach consensus that they are foes of course...)
~:smoking:
The thing about the language barrier is what you should tell the french foreign legion where all sorts of people can come and serve(if they make it in).Quote:
Originally Posted by littlelostboy
How hard can it be to teach some soldiers english for example?:inquisitive:
It's a matter of national pride, I guess. Although English is the lingua franca for the world and most Europeans are multilingual, in the long run, I don't think they'll like to take orders from a foreign language. But this my opinion and I'm not sure about European mindset as I'm not one myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Depends on country, I guess. The smaller ones do not have trouble. From what I've seen, the Germans and Austrians would also have no real problems. But the French?Quote:
Originally Posted by littlelostboy
The French always ruin everything.:laugh4:
As i stated before i think the Euro army would be very hard to achieve and also im against it becouse im not federalist.But Command structure or compability shouldnt be a problem.
The only sensible way to create such an army would be to create Mutual European command structure.In that case the individual militaries of single countries only would need cutdowns in the areas that wouldnt be necessary.There wouldnt be any sense what so ever to build the army from scratch by building whole new army.The militarys of single nations would only change their organizations to be compatible in communications and command,which is the case mostly becouse of Nato.
So basicly to build up Euro army would be the same to build united high command and commanding structure where forces from individual countries would still operate under their current leadership and the liason officers would take care of the cohesion between different armys.So in purely military perspective it wouldnt be too hard to achieve it,becouse mostly the current military organisations and logistics chains would remain.
The simple problem is that while some of us think EU as a federal state,the majority doesnt and i would like to state that im part of that majority. In order to thrive here in Europe,we dont have to put ourselves under one huge state that would never be as effective as some of our current Governments are. What EU can bring us is good cooperation between Nations on many issues and also help us not turning against each other in war,like so many times before have happened.But why cant we just leave it into that. If there are people who are afraid of security of Europe,we can always make a mutual protection pact between European Nations.No sane country would attack against our combined armies.
About EU acting as world police.I think that we should leave it to US. Our combined militaries are always capable of Supporting the US if the need comes.:bow:
I do resent the implication and will attribute it to your “writer’s block”. If the world’s pre-eminent superpower is engaged in an illegal war that would make them a belligerent nation. Since the U.S. is the major power in NATO and the UK (the ones overtly involved in an “illegal” war perhaps?) is a close ally then Europe is under a very grave threat indeed and may need a cohesive military sooner rather than later. Not trying to be reactionary but if I interpreted your statement correctly, that’s how the reasoning would flow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
As to the language issue: There is only one language and we all speak different dialects of it. This isn’t something I’m well versed on but if you look at the different major languages of the world you will find that they’re all related. This is most clearly indicated in basic words like brother for example. If a new language were to be developed based on indo-European or whatever language category the European languages fall under it could be done. This conversion would most likely take several decades and you’d have to force the changes on several countries. If this language is workable and taught to all schoolchildren as a second or third language, Europe would have a common tongue.
And the Russians: :inquisitive: Keep in mind that their manufacturing sector is woefully obsolete and that they generate a large portion of their revenue from arms and energy sales; not a good prerequisite for a friendly country. Russia culture also intentionally distances itself from other cultures. Just remember that Czarist Russia was very close to the French and the Soviets used the French hatred, envy, whatever, of the US against NATO and the U.S. Many of the opposition you see in France you’ll encounter in Russia. Plus don’t forget that France also makes a lot of money selling weapons to nations that could be an adversary to a unified Europe.
In less I missed it no one here is focused on the global implications of a united European force. As someone mentioned before that a military is an extension of diplomacy but it is also a tool used to implement policy and ensure (global) security. China is very much in the old school mindset of a large standing military as a tool to acquire (at least) regional power. If the Chinese decided that they wanted to become overtly belligerent and disrupt the global economy for personal gain (like through energy possibly) and the U.S. could not or did not react, Europe would be in a bind. If, in the future, Russia and China decided to cooperate on some sort of energy extortion to the detriment of Europe, sorry guys, you’re screwed. It’s also a game about “face” too. If Europe is perceived to be weak hostile nations will cause problems for it. Don’t forget that isolationism still runs strong in the American spirit and how rapidly the world changed in the late 80’s and early 90’s.
What would a Euro army do? What would its’ purpose be?
Europe isn’t getting invaded (at least by anyone who hasn’t been invited). Russia isn’t going to move west. A large ground defense force is unnecessary even if NATO went away. War with the USA is laughable for a host of reasons. So what is the point of a Euro force beyond pretentiousness?
Power projection would be a good reason.
A Euro army would be useful if the EU could foresee itself willing to go in harm’s way to protect and enhance the interests and values of itself or its’ allies around the world. But can we expect the EU to ever behave thusly? I doubt it.
Even if the political will to act forcefully is evident power projection remains very expensive. Defensive forces that are more or less static are rather cheap. America’s advantage doesn’t lie in numbers, equipment or training. It is mobility. If you can’t quickly get your forces where you want to them to be then the best tanks and troops are all for naught. To do that you need lots of transport aircraft and a large efficient navy. And that takes a lot of euros…
This is something I forgot to mention and is very important: A Blue Water navy. In order for any nation to be taken seriously it has to be able to project force via one of these things. Thanks for bringing it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nelson
Language: let's not mess around. It's English. I know the French are upset about this, but TOUGH.
Obtaining a large Army and Navy would allow us to project force. On who and for what ends has been made less clear.
If Russia decided to withold gas / oil, can the EU attack, even if it could make up its mind? Well, it'd be illegal. And as yet there are no other countries who are coming up to Europe to attack us, so I see no reason to make some structure to go and get them - whoever they are.
Likely enemies are going to engage in a covert / terrorist war. Cheaper, more effective and usually deniable. America is brilliantly displayig how much mess can be made trying to attack terrorists with an old fashioned army. Masses of lives and capital wasted - bugger all results. OK, few attacks on the mainland but that is partly because every extremist and his heavily clad wife are making life hell in Iraq.
It is far better currently to have a small defensive army that can counter the limited threats that exist. With the massive arms industry that is in Europe we are aware what weaponry the world has as we make a large amount of it.
A navy is great. But as was shown in The Falklands, a small number of modern missiles are lethal. Better to invest in them.
Although China does have a large moderately modern army and airforce, the weapon that it is most likely to use is its economic might. It could seriously destabalise the dollar if it wished, and all without firing a shot. Europe should concentrate on this side of power, as it is more subtle and more deployable.
Or we could invite potential enamy leaders to a coference and bore them to death...
~:smoking: