EU army

[Kagemusha]

Should EU nations create EU army from their current militaries?In EU every country has an army created for Nations self defence.Should we convert these Nationalistic armies into one big EU army?

[Ja'chyra]

It would be unworkable at the minute, it would take decades to get that kind of thing in place.

[Kagemusha]

It would be unworkable at the minute, it would take decades to get that kind of thing in place.

Tell me why?National Armies already have their active command structures.You would have to create only new HQ.Ofcourse shaping those military structures would take time.

[Franconicus]

They should and they will! Although I do not believe that all EU countries will join. GB will not.
There is a cooperation of Germany, France and the BENELUX already.
First of all you must have rules what this army should do. As you know Germany has some selfrestrictions.
Second, they need a common foreign policy as well.

[Kagemusha]

They should and they will! Although I do not believe that all EU countries will join. GB will not.
There is a cooperation of Germany, France and the BENELUX already.
First of all you must have rules what this army should do. As you know Germany has some selfrestrictions.
Second, they need a common foreign policy as well.

If Britain wouldnt join it would shrink the capacity of such army very much ,because GB has the most powerfull army in EU area.
Btw what restrictions German Army still has?

[CBR]

kagemusha:

A EU army can only be possible if EU has the same foreign policy which would mean a stronger EU and I thought you were against that?

Right now EU countries are wasting lots of money when buying equipment so if it could be done in a centralised way that would be a good start.


CBR

[King Ragnar]

. GB will not.

We hopefully wouldn't, i would see no advantage in doing this, it would cost to much and wouldnt be up and running anytime soon, and there would be to much dissagreement on how it would work ranking etc.

[Redleg]

They should and they will! Although I do not believe that all EU countries will join. GB will not.
There is a cooperation of Germany, France and the BENELUX already.
First of all you must have rules what this army should do. As you know Germany has some selfrestrictions.
Second, they need a common foreign policy as well.

That is exactly why it won't work. Some nations have their own restrictions for what the military can be used for. To merge say the German Army into an EU army would create the necessity to ignore the German Constitution or to have the Constitution amended.

Second common foreign policy for all nations in the army would be required - and I don't believe Europe as a whole can formulate a common foreign policy.

And Third - if England doesn't particpate - most likely other nations will also not particapate and that will lessen the crediblity of such a unified force.

Cooperation is different then a unified command - common cause must be the formost consideration for such a force - and once common cause is missing the force become irrevelant because it will disengrate from within.

[Ja'chyra]

Tell me why?National Armies already have their active command structures.You would have to create only new HQ.Ofcourse shaping those military structures would take time.

Where can I start, what training levels would they impose, what equipment would they use, whose publications would be used, which system of support would be used, which style of operations would be used, whose rank structure would be used, would it be tri-service, could they still swear to Queen and country, so many questions and so meany personalities would mean it would take decades.

Saying you would only need a new HQ is pretty niaive, no offense but if you don't work in that area you don't really know.

[Kagemusha]

Where can I start, what training levels would they impose, what equipment would they use, whose publications would be used, which system of support would be used, which style of operations would be used, whose rank structure would be used, would it be tri-service, could they still swear to Queen and country, so many questions and so meany personalities would mean it would take decades.

Saying you would only need a new HQ is pretty niaive, no offense but if you don't work in that area you don't really know.

What i meant you wouldnt re-organize lets say British army.You could use your own equipment and You could swear to Queen and country as much as you would like.British Army would be an Army group.Commanding of one Army group doesnt effect other Army groups anyway.
It would be up to high command which part of your army would be suitable for certain assignments.Ofcourse in the long run EU would support its own weapons industry for its Army.But you cant say it doesnt work because European Armies differ of each other.You can count how many multi national operations have been succesfully completed after WWII.

[Ja'chyra]

I don't see that working either, the training disparities would be enormous as would the capabilities of each army group, also who else would appoint the command structure.

What you are suggesting is a EU equivalent of NATO, not an EU army, which is more workable.

[Redleg]

What i meant you wouldnt re-organize lets say British army.You could use your own equipment and You could swear to Queen and country as much as you would like.British Army would be an Army group.Commanding of one Army group doesnt effect other Army groups anyway.
It would be up to high command which part of your army would be suitable for certain assignments.Ofcourse in the long run EU would support its own weapons industry for its Army.But you cant say it doesnt work because European Armies differ of each other.You can count how many multi national operations have been succesfully completed after WWII.

They were successful because the operations were conducted under one centralized command. There are also a few cases where the unified command broke down and the mission was considered a failure. Somilia for one comes to mind.

What you are describing here is not so much as an EU army but another command structure much like NATO. Which is still in place with many of the nations that are members of the EU. To accomplish what your advocating here - all you have to get accomplished is kick the United States out of NATO - or invite the US into the EU - then the command structure and organization is already in place.

Pretty soon Europe will have so many chiefs that there wont be enough Indians to do the work.

[PyrrhusofEpirus]

I'm against military in general, but I think EU must acquire it's own army. I'm afraid this is the only way to break of dependance from the warlike US.

[bmolsson]

Sure, if needed. I have a hard time to see any actual threat that require a sizeable European Army.

[Viking]

As long as they don`t pull Norway in, I`m fine.

We`re engaged in enough EU non-member crap as it is thanks to that deal(don`t know it`s english name, sorry).

[Boohugh]

You guys really need to do some research on the EU military:

http://www.eurocorps.org/site/index....n&content=home

The first stage of what Kagemusha is suggesting basically exists. Even the second stage,of cooperating on research projects, etc, also exists (the Eurofighter project is the best example). The only problem is the Eurocorps can't do very much offensively, although it is very useful for reconstruction work (e.g. after the Kosovo conflict).

I voted 'no' for a European army because it would mean having a common foreign and defence policy, which just isn't feasible. It couldn't work on a "join in if you want" basis because if the UK didn't want to take part, the other countries would be unable to mount any sort of successful military operation (the logistical support just doesn't exist in other armies, even if the fighting formations do, and that includes the French and German armies).

The military cooperation on research doesn't necessarily work either. The Eurofighter is, again, a good example of this. It is heavily delayed and massively over-budget because there were disagreements over its specifications, due to differing needs between nations (which caused the French to pull out of the project and develop their own plane, the Rafale) and disagreements over who will build which parts.

Just a few things to think about...

[Al Khalifah]

The only problem is the Eurocorps can't do very much offensively

That is pretty much the only purpose of a combined European armed forces. The suggestion that a foreign power would initiate a conventional arms assault on an EU member state is somewhat farcical. There just isn't a nation in proximity that could execute such an assault and from a logistical perspective, there isn't a nation in the world that could conquer a united Europe.

[Devastatin Dave]

Yes, only if it has a French commander...

[Al Khalifah]

So the American Civil War didn't happen?

And the United States won did it not.

It would've been very disappointing if it hadn't. That's the point of a civil war.

And again the colonies were not Europeans.

Were they natives? While I'm sure there were aborigines and maoris in the Australian and New Zealand armies that fought in WW2 on the British side, I'm pretty sure that the majority of these armies would have been composed of only recently resettled Europeans.
Fair enough they didn't actually live in Europe. You are correct there, but since they were part of the British Empire, they would be expected to fight. You are making an unreasonable statement by picking the difference. All subjects of the British Empire would be expected to fight for the crown, so in a way, doesn't that make them British by proxy (and hence European)? The British Empire couldn't possibly have sustained itself so large and so long if it depended entirely on soldiers born and raised in Britain. The only distinguishing feature between an Australian soldier in WW2 and a British solder in WW2 would be that the Australian soldier had lived in Australia.

Europe and you Europeans have never done this in your entire history Every time Europe was threatened, Europeans achieved to surpass their internal fights and to protect the continent. And in fact Europe has been more warlike in the last 250 years of history then the United States.

While I wouldn't agree with your initial wording (which seemed crass and didn't get the point across) I will agree that the point you were trying to make is true after some explanation. I think it's a rather unfair comparison in that the fundamental difference between Europe and America is that one is not a single nation but a series of nations. The nations in Europe up until the last 50 years have also been Empires that relied on foreign labour and soldiers to sustain themselves. Bordering nations inevitably go to war. If by Americans, I meant all those who live in the North American continent, then there have been great internal struggles there too and not all wars in America were settled just by Americans. The War of Independence could not have been won without the French and the North could not have won the Civil War without the Irish immigrant soldiers (do they count as Irish if they were born and lived most of their lives in Ireland?)

[Redleg]

It would've been very disappointing if it hadn't. That's the point of a civil war.
Were they natives? While I'm sure there were aborigines and maoris in the Australian and New Zealand armies that fought in WW2 on the British side, I'm pretty sure that the majority of these armies would have been composed of only recently resettled Europeans.

You might want to check the data a little more closely - in WW1 and WW2 most of the Australian and Canadian Armies consisted of citizens of those two nations and many were born there, not in Europe.

This site lists several of the allied nations -

http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/w...s/stats01.html

The First World War helped to foster a sense of Australian nationalism, even though national feeling was expressed within an Imperial framework. Western Australian troops identified with their fellow Australians, taking pride in their achievements and sharing a sense of common identity distinct from that of British soldiers. Australian troops compared very favourably in physique and stature to the average English soldier, showing initiative and a disrespect for authority which the British High Command often found difficult to accept.

http://www.liswa.wa.gov.au/federation/fed/040_wwar.htm

The colony of Western Australia was granted a constitution by the British Parliament in 1890. At that time it contained less than 50,000 colonists and an unknown number of Aboriginal inhabitants. It was a remote backwater, isolated by hundreds of kilometres of sand and sea. Connected to the rest of Australia by a single telegraph line from 1877 and a steamship service which braved the Southern Ocean, the colonists looked across the Indian Ocean towards Great Britain for trade, investment and guidance.

Australia became a Nation in 1890 by a measure passed by the British Parliament. So while part of the commonwealth - Australia is its own nation.

And that is just the first one by the Alphabet of the former colonies - that fought for the British. Should I continue?

Fair enough they didn't actually live in Europe. You are correct there, but since they were part of the British Empire, they would be expected to fight.

Again that was not the point of the orginial comment by that individual.
Every time Europe was threatened, Europeans achieved to surpass their internal fights and to protect the continent.

Those individuals that fought under the Australian, Canadian, New Zealand, and 60 other nations fought under their own flags, for the allies - and because of where they came from they were not European.

You are making an unreasonable statement by picking the difference. All subjects of the British Empire would be expected to fight for the crown, so in a way, doesn't that make them British by proxy (and hence European)?

Not at all - it makes them only members of the British Commonwealth. So the Grukra's are European now? They fought with honor in both wars, how about the Indian Troops that fought in both wars for the british, are they also European?

Once again the unreasonable statement that needed to be ridiculed was Every time Europe was threatened, Europeans achieved to surpass their internal fights and to protect the continent.

The British Empire couldn't possibly have sustained itself so large and so long if it depended entirely on soldiers born and raised in Britain. The only distinguishing feature between an Australian soldier in WW2 and a British solder in WW2 would be that the Australian soldier had lived in Australia.

Someone needs to study their history a little more.

While I wouldn't agree with your initial wording (which seemed crass and didn't get the point across) I will agree that the point you were trying to make is true after some explanation.

I treated the comments I was addressing exactly the way they deserved - with crass and ridicule.

I think it's a rather unfair comparison in that the fundamental difference between Europe and America is that one is not a single nation but a series of nations.

Not at all - the individual made that way when he made the statemetn of Every time Europe was threatened, Europeans achieved to surpass their internal fights and to protect the continent. its a false statement and deserving of the ridicule in which I treated it. Once again it seems you Europeans like to point out and ridicule things about the United States, however don't like your little area of the world criticized in the same way. If you accept Europeans doing this exact same thing to America - but reject it when it is against Europe - well your arguement is hypocritical.

The nations in Europe up until the last 50 years have also been Empires that relied on foreign labour and soldiers to sustain themselves. Bordering nations inevitably go to war.

Hence the comment of Every time Europe was threatened, Europeans achieved to surpass their internal fights and to protect the continent. is false even under that standard. However once again foreign labour and foreign soldiers - does not mean Europeans are doing it now does it?

If by Americans, I meant all those who live in the North American continent, then there have been great internal struggles there too and not all wars in America were settled just by Americans. The War of Independence could not have been won without the French and the North could not have won the Civil War without the Irish immigrant soldiers (do they count as Irish if they were born and lived most of their lives in Ireland?)

Again I have never stated such a ridiculous statement of Every time America was threatened, Americans achieved to surpass their internal fights and to protect the continent. I am fully aware of the help the United States recieved in its revolution from England, and the help during the Civil War from immigrant soldiers (not just the Irish - they were just the major immigrant group that became soldiers during the civil war - there were others to include a German immigrant regiment.)

[Al Khalifah]

Hey Red, recognise when someone is agreeing with you.

[Ja'chyra]

Oh look, another pissing contest.

Sorry Kage, looks like your threads ruined.

[Redleg]

Hey Red, recognise when someone is agreeing with you.

Agreeing would mean you did not need qualifiers.

Oh look, another pissing contest.

Oh look another idiotic comment from the peanut gallery.

Sorry Kage, looks like your threads ruined.

Yep it got ruined almost from the start by cheap shots at America on a thread about the European Union forming an Army. To bad you didn't recongize that aspect of it now isn't it.