thekirk Posted December 18, 2010 Posted December 18, 2010 What's going to be fascinating to observe is how all this plays out, over the next few decades. Many of these decisions seem to be based on a lot of rosy assumptions about things, and yet another off-loading onto the United States defense establishment. What, for example, is Germany going to do if the rest of Europe plays along, does the same thing, and Europe is then faced with a world that doesn't include the US Navy to secure sea lanes for export of products, and import of resources? Does Germany really think that France and England are going to use their nuclear arsenal to defend Germany, and risk retaliation by whoever threatens Germany? Mutual defense is all well and good, right up until its your territories at risk if your ally doesn't capitulate. Will French ships secure German sea lanes, if the US Navy isn't there anymore? What happens when all these rosy projections about the benign nature of the world vaporize in the harsh light of reality? Europe relies on international trade, and yet, has done nothing to ensure it has the ability to enforce freedom of the seas. Subtract the US Navy from the equation, and then what? Bye-bye export markets, and all those cheap imports. Strike off the US Navy, and I bet that the insurance implications alone will be enough to crash the world system. An interesting thing that I note: The core economies of Europe are disarming, while some of the ones on the periphery, like Greece, are not. How's this going to work, within the European situation? Is Germany going to effectively subsidize the Greek military, with the bank bailouts? Or, will Germany insist on Grecian equivalent disarmament as austerity measures, with Turkey facing them across the Aegean? How's that going to play, without a significant German force to back Greece up, after the austerity measures took hold? Is Greece supposed to simply expose its throat to the Turks, and then capitulate? Where the heck is that trend going? How can Germany actually guarantee Grecian security, in order to enable the Greeks to pay back German banks? And, if the Greeks decide to tell German banks to go to hell, and they're not paying back those German pension funds? Then what? Inter-European amity is not going to last, when the countries like Greece are the only ones with significant defense establishments. I don't think the politicians in Germany, or the rest of Europe, have thought this whole process through very carefully. Many decisions seem predicated upon always having the US around as a guarantor of peace. What happens when the US tires of that role, and decides Europe is irrelevant to US security? Or, more likely, goes belly-up as the economy here crashes under the weight of the idiocy going on in government? Ah, well. I have memories of facing off with nuclear disarmament activists and terrorist apologists while I was stationed in Germany back in the mid-1980s. I have a certain sense of schadenfruede at contemplating their children and grandchildren actually having to live in a world where their apparent fondest wishes came true--That the US left Europe to its own devices. When the inevitable retrenchment happens, and the US re-evaluates its defense commitments, all these rosy projections about how easy and cheap it will be to defend Europe are going to come home to roost, and there's going to be hell to pay when the public finds out just how much it will cost to rebuild the infrastructure they've shut down or destroyed. Or, what living without that security structure implies, in a world where the US no longer effectively provides security for Europe. Historical examples abound, one of which immediately springs to mind: The long Roman retreat from Britain and Gaul. Hopefully, the Europeans haven't forgotten how to build effective military organizations by the time reality slaps their grandchildren or great-grandchildren in the face. I'm left with the feeling that reality is going to catch up to some of these people far quicker than they think.
BansheeOne Posted December 18, 2010 Posted December 18, 2010 Banshee, Germany is but the latest of a long string of powers, great and lesser, that have gone off national service since the UK in the early sixties. In every case that I can recall, the recruiting remained substandard until pay and living conditions received substantial improvements. To what extent do you see the need for improvements in that regard? I have not been in a BW Kaserne since 1978, and have no idea how far accomodations and other features have been enhanced. I've not had any personal experience for ten years either, but the topic figures regularly in the annual report of the Bundestag's Defense Ombudsman and was its main point three years ago. Bottom line: we poured boatloads of ressources into bringing the East German ex-NVA barracks up to Western specs, while the Western barracks have been rotting away over the last 20 years. After the ombudsman screamed bloody murder, a crash program "Kasernen West" worth several billion was hastily commissioned. The complaints that still crop up range from the luxurious (no internet access in community rooms!!!) over the usual (too many soldiers crammed in because the last defense minister decided to save conscription from the charge of inequality by drafting more recruits, after bases "we didn't need any more" had been closed down and sold off) to the serious (leaky roofs, rotten washrooms including legionellae breeding inside the plumbing). Overall, the situation has improved. A program from the 90s which has been just around the corner ever since is "Kaserne 2000", which is aimed mostly at reducing the number of bunks in enlisted quarters (the original plan was for just two beds) and do away with the community washrooms; instead, two quarters each would share one, like in some low-class hotels. I don't think it has been fully implemented at any base; and if the cynism born out of post-CW experience holds true, once a barrack is rebuilt to top standards, it will likely be closed down and sold off for civilian use ...
Ken Estes Posted December 18, 2010 Posted December 18, 2010 ....I'm left with the feeling that reality is going to catch up to some of these people far quicker than they think.Perhaps reality has passed you by. Peace has broken out, and the Rus are no longer coming across the wire tomorrow. There are no territorial ambitions among Europeans, including a self-reduced Russian empire. The logical consequence, given the past decades of collective security, is that the alliances can stand down to a professional core, maintaining proficiencies that will assist greatly should the winds veer, which is in any case not around the corner. Nobody is abandoning defense, nor are they going to need the USN to defend their sea lanes [shocking, that]. If the RW could double itself three times in four years and emerge as a Wehrmacht, one can see the merit. As Slick Willie once entoned, "It's the economy, stupid!"
lastdingo Posted December 19, 2010 Posted December 19, 2010 Perhaps reality has passed you by. Peace has broken out, and the Rus are no longer coming across the wire tomorrow. There are no territorial ambitions among Europeans, including a self-reduced Russian empire. The logical consequence, given the past decades of collective security, is that the alliances can stand down to a professional core, maintaining proficiencies that will assist greatly should the winds veer, which is in any case not around the corner. Nobody is abandoning defense, nor are they going to need the USN to defend their sea lanes [shocking, that]. If the RW could double itself three times in four years and emerge as a Wehrmacht, one can see the merit. Exactly this. There's simply nothing that drives up our military strength requirements. We could spend more on the military and the net result could be less security because it might provoke an arms race. Besides - the whole USN could sink today and NATO would still unite more naval power than all powers that are not clearly friendly to NATO together.
thekirk Posted December 20, 2010 Posted December 20, 2010 Exactly this. There's simply nothing that drives up our military strength requirements. We could spend more on the military and the net result could be less security because it might provoke an arms race. Besides - the whole USN could sink today and NATO would still unite more naval power than all powers that are not clearly friendly to NATO together. I seem to recall the UK making a similar calculation circa the 1920s. Didn't work out so well for them in the long run, did it? At least a part of the reason one Adolf Hitler was convinced he could run rampant was the lack of investment in the military on the part of his opponents. A deterrence in being gives far more pause to potential aggressors than the idea that you possibly might, maybe, could rearm yourself before he strikes. Hitler might have been the victim of a coup, had his generals been forced to contemplate taking on a full-strength and completely established British Army and RAF along with the French military. Hell, he may have looked at the odds himself, and decided "Bad idea...". Comparing the costs of the two courses of action, which was cheaper, over the long haul? Disarmament, followed by hurried rearmament and a massive war that broke the Commonwealth? Or, would the UK have been better off making the necessary investments in peacetime to maintain a viable force-in-being, and preventing that war from occurring in the first place? Hell, given what the Allies pulled on Germany at Versailles, the idea that another war wasn't going to happen was absurd, and they should have planned and spent money accordingly. Either that, or foregone the entire travesty that was Versailles in the first place, if they didn't want to spend the money. Europe is making the assumption, as did the UK, that there's no threat on the horizon. How accurate was that for them, historically? Further, while Europe can probably get a bunch of coastal defense ships into the waters off of Europe and the Med, how capable are they of deploying viable fleet assets around either the Cape of Good Hope, or Tierra del Fuego? Are there any capital ships? Fleet trains? Could a European fleet influence sea lanes as far away as the Indonesian archipelago, if necessary? How long could they sustain something of actual use at that distance? I honestly don't care, one way or the other. I'm just bemused by the ahistorical optimism many in Europe seem to feel about these issues. Time will tell, no doubt.
APF Posted December 20, 2010 Posted December 20, 2010 Hitler might have been the victim of a coup, had his generals been forced to contemplate taking on a full-strength and completely established British Army and RAF along with the French military. Hell, he may have looked at the odds himself, and decided "Bad idea...". Last thing I've read is that the french army alone should've been able to contain the german forces 1940. On paper, that is. No amount of hardware will save you from outdated theories or 'wunderwaffen' (here: the german combined arms in comparison to the french command system). A religious belief in bunkers and massive blunders (think of what happened in Eben Emael: missing firing pins, gun crew meant to alert the garrison sent to destroy documents instead etc.) didn't really help, either. Greetings
thekirk Posted December 20, 2010 Posted December 20, 2010 Last thing I've read is that the french army alone should've been able to contain the german forces 1940. On paper, that is. No amount of hardware will save you from outdated theories or 'wunderwaffen' (here: the german combined arms in comparison to the french command system). A religious belief in bunkers and massive blunders (think of what happened in Eben Emael: missing firing pins, gun crew meant to alert the garrison sent to destroy documents instead etc.) didn't really help, either. Greetings That's the usual narrative by the apologists for the French and the UK. France and the UK both screwed up by not keeping their armed forces up to date through the 1920s and 1930s. Had they actually done so, WWII would have taken a far different course. The early phase of the breakout into France after the Germans attacked was a lot more narrowly run than many of the German fanboys want to admit. Had the French spent just a little more money on things like field radios and training, they might have prevailed over the Germans. Had the UK spent the money to maintain a viable field Army, their contributions would have been quite a bit more significant, and possibly successful. You don't undo the neglect of decades overnight, and despite the cited "success" of the expansion of the Reichswehr, let us not forget that that didn't exactly work out in the German's favor, either. The post-expansion Wehrmacht was a hollow force, missing much of its logistics train and lacking key elements. The early successes they scored were at least partially due to the ineptitude and poor preparation of their opponents. Had the French and the UK fielded up-to-date military forces that weren't cobbled together at the last moment, the odds are we'd be reading today about the short sequel to WWI, where the Nazis struck out of the east in desperation, and were summarily crushed. You don't just throw together an effective military overnight. Look at the lengthy list of failures on the part of the US, in the early part of WWII. How many lives would have been saved, had we maintained even a fraction of the forces we wound up requiring through the 1920s and 1930s? Hell, just having a larger base of trained manpower to base the expansion on would have made a huge difference in effectiveness. In some ways, we're still paying the price for the cheap-jack decisions made during the 1930s. We'd have been a hell of a lot better off, if MacArthur hadn't decided to drop the .276 Pedersen in favor of saving money and keeping the .30-06--And, that's just one small example. The most expensive thing in the world is a second-best army in wartime. The second most expensive thing in the world is having to build a winning army from nothing, in wartime.
swerve Posted December 20, 2010 Posted December 20, 2010 Had the French and the UK fielded up-to-date military forces that weren't cobbled together at the last moment, the odds are we'd be reading today about the short sequel to WWI, where the Nazis struck out of the east in desperation, and were summarily crushed.Actually, it was the Wehrmacht which was cobbled together at the last moment. It was all new, with completely new units, equipment & doctrine. The French army was, arguably, handicapped by not being cobbled together at the last minute. It was still going along in the same old way that had worked in the past, with lots of equipment accumulated over the previous 20 years & some left over from WW1, & with numerous long-service officers who were sure they knew what they were doing . . . .
seahawk Posted December 20, 2010 Posted December 20, 2010 The situation in Europe was so different form today, that a comparison is just stupid. There no open territorial disputes in Central Europe, there was no European Union, no Euro and down to the level of the population there was no Europe. If you look at Greece for example, they surely have more pressing needs than having a big army, an army they simply can not afford.
swerve Posted December 20, 2010 Posted December 20, 2010 (edited) Comparing the costs of the two courses of action, which was cheaper, over the long haul? Disarmament, followed by hurried rearmament and a massive war that broke the Commonwealth? Or, would the UK have been better off making the necessary investments in peacetime to maintain a viable force-in-being, and preventing that war from occurring in the first place? Well, let's look at what worked in 1940, & what failed. Strategy A: maintain a large force in being throughout the 1920s & 1930s. Keep it as well-equipped as your economy can stand, buying as much new equipment as you can afford after paying for the force in being. Continue to train to do what you have proved works, & invest in equipment to support your proven tactics. When your enemies start building up their forces, follow suit, expanding based on that force in being. Strategy B: scrap almost all your equipment. Maintain a minimal force throughout the 1920s. Make up new tactics. Experiment with new equipment designs, but don't put any into production. Suddenly, in the 1930s, start building up forces based on using those new, unproven, tactics, spending as much as you can raise on new, untried equipment, hastily built & put into service. Edited December 20, 2010 by swerve
Archie Pellagio Posted December 20, 2010 Posted December 20, 2010 The big difference there though is the expectation of forces to do stuff now with very little chance of WWIII kicking off in 10-15 years. The Germans then had the luxury of not having to fight a war with the army they had, so they could maintain an overskilled cadre so that when the schtick hit the fan, they just had to flesh out the OR's with draftees. Not really an option today.
thekirk Posted December 20, 2010 Posted December 20, 2010 The situations aren't specifically equivalent, but the generalities are. You don't pull a successful army or navy out of a hat, at the drop of a threat. Tear down the infrastructure that's been built up, both physical and in personnel training, and you're not going to regenerate that overnight. Hopefully, you'll get the opportunity as your threat manifests, but I think a quick review of the 1930s in the UK parliament will show how hard that can be. Not to mention, expensive. Hell, even with lots of pre-war planning for it, the US barely pulled off its expansion of forces. You have to wonder at the might-have-beens, had they actually kept the military ticking over on a decently funded basis. We surely would have had a much larger cadre to base the training off of, and might have avoided the on-the-job training phase we had early in the war. Deficiencies like the Tank Destroyer doctrine might have been figured out, pre-war, and we could have gone to war with a far better armor force than the one we wound up with--Which has influenced what, the last 50 years of armor development here in the US? People talk about how the allies were the beneficiaries of having started their re-armament later than the Germans, and all that. What they miss is that that re-armament might not have even been necessary, had they simply kept their forces going on an evenly-funded scale over those years. I have often reflected that a lot of that "See, we really were smart not to buy new weapons in the 1930s..." crap is coming from politicians and generals who didn't want to be blamed for failing to maintain readiness in the face of an obvious threat--And, a threat that was actually encouraged by their failure to prepare.
lastdingo Posted December 20, 2010 Posted December 20, 2010 (edited) Europe is making the assumption, as did the UK, that there's no threat on the horizon. How accurate was that for them, historically? Further, while Europe can probably get a bunch of coastal defense ships into the waters off of Europe and the Med, how capable are they of deploying viable fleet assets around either the Cape of Good Hope, or Tierra del Fuego? a ) Europe is almost entirely allied or befriended today. There were only three major invasion groups against Central Europe from outside Europe, ever.Indogermans (pre-historic), Asian steppe people (Huns mostly) and the Ottomans (only up to Vienna).Who should attack us and prepare quicker than we can? The Arabs? Israel? Iran? Russia? China? We have more serious issues than defence paranoia to throw our money at. b ) I can't see how we could be seriously bothered by hostile naval power at the other end of the world. A war against South Africa or Chile would not seriously bother us. In fact, the British might send a single sub and leave a mark if necessary. c ) Think again about what you're thinking constitutes "defence". You seem to believe that defence is about being able to defeat everybody, everywhere, even without actually existing allies.That's a 14 y.o. Clancy fanboi version of defence policy. It doesn't stand the easiest plausibility test. Mankind would ruin and possibly kill itself if this standard was widely adopted. Curiously, we didn't even strive for such dominance during the Cold War when there was actually a (misunderstood) threat. Edited December 20, 2010 by lastdingo
thekirk Posted December 20, 2010 Posted December 20, 2010 Ah, well. Hope the optimistic worldview turns out to be true, for all our sakes. Just because you're living under another halcyon period like the Pax Romana, however, doesn't make it any less necessary to be prepared for bad things to happen. You sound as though you honestly believe that Europe has no interests outside it's narrow little part of the world--Which I have to question. Where are the European export markets, and where do most European imports come from? Care to extrapolate what happens if say, Argentina, decides to start charging "Transit Fees" for rounding Cape Horn? Or, if Iran decides to cut off oil flow from the Arabian Gulf? What's the European game plan, then? Send a pithily worded diplomatic cable? What does Holland do, if Venezuela decides to make a grab for Aruba, and the US isn't up for policing the Caribbean? As a region, Europe has off-loaded nearly all of its strategic military influence, relying on the US to serve as a proxy, and bill-payer. What happens when the US isn't there, or decides its interests aren't in line with European ones? It's your super-national entity. You guys get to figure out how to keep it going. I'm just wondering how you're going to manage it when you've pretty much written off your armed forces. I have a sneaking suspicion that we may all be finding out what the world looks like absent the "tyranny" of the US military, before long. I honestly don't see how we can afford to keep doing it the way we have, for much longer. Which means that if you want European ships to have unfettered access to ports around the world in order to keep your economies afloat, you'd best be prepared to be able to exert force at those distances. Unless Europe is envisioning some form of autarky as a future game plan, the concept of drawing down the military to the extent that Germany is doing seems a trifle... Optimistic?
lastdingo Posted December 21, 2010 Posted December 21, 2010 Ah, well. Hope the optimistic worldview turns out to be true, for all our sakes. Just because you're living under another halcyon period like the Pax Romana, however, doesn't make it any less necessary to be prepared for bad things to happen. You sound as though you honestly believe that Europe has no interests outside it's narrow little part of the world--Which I have to question. European politicians have hobbies afar, but Europe has no great interests afar that require military power. Where are the European export markets, and where do most European imports come from? Who cares? The military is neither related to this question nor has it proved relevant in protecting access to markets in peacetime. The whole military/trade connection leads to many irrational conclusions. The U.S. involvement in the Persian Gulf region was largely for the sake of supposedly securing oil supply. The U.S. would have been better off simply making a good price offer for crude oil from elsewhere - even before the real expenses began in 2003. The military is a terribly inefficient and largely ineffective tool for securing trade.Care to extrapolate what happens if say, Argentina, decides to start charging "Transit Fees" for rounding Cape Horn? I wouldn't care. Maritime transportation costs are negligible in the overall picture and the stupidity could be handled in a diplomatic effort jointly with man other interested parties.Or, if Iran decides to cut off oil flow from the Arabian Gulf? Not our problem. It would first and foremost be the problem of developing countries which would be much less able to buy crude oil at increased prices from elsewhere. A few billions Euro per year greater energy costs might actually help us to push for better energy tech. In worst case we could reduce oil taxation a bit. The economy wouldn't feel a difference and the fiscal cost in the event would be lesser than spending enough on the military for the capability of deploying hundreds of thousands of troops in a remote place (and that spending would be always necessary, not only if Iran blocks the Gulf). Besides; even the U.S. with its insane military spending level hasn't the resources to handle such a crisis well. What's the European game plan, then? Send a pithily worded diplomatic cable? Do nothing, probably. It's a problem for some traders and for really involved countries, such as Saudi-Arabia, which can bomb Iran to shit. What does Holland do, if Venezuela decides to make a grab for Aruba, and the US isn't up for policing the Caribbean? Holland would do nothing. The Netherlands might do something, such as sending their navy which can take on the Venezolean Navy and Air Force at once. Add a single frigate from every other major European navy and we would overpower Venezuela so baldy it wouldn't be funny any more. As a region, Europe has off-loaded nearly all of its strategic military influence, relying on the US to serve as a proxy, and bill-payer. Sure, The U.S. is a bill-payer. That joke cracked me up.Seriously - Japan and PRC are the bill payers in this game.And what good is "strategic military influence"?Does it reduce unemployment, improve education? What is it good for?Some men probably get a boner thanks to power fantasies when thinking about their countries' military, but I tell you: Pills are cheaper for this purpose. What happens when the US isn't there, or decides its interests aren't in line with European ones? Who cares?The U.S. has proved to be astonishingly incapable of producing favourable outcomes with military might.We wouldn't need the U.S. for a Panama or Grenada invasion, and all other US. military adventures post-'53 were quite worthless or disasters. Oh, wait. panama and Grenada were pretty much irrelevant as well. Remember '91? It wasn't necessary. Hussein never intended to invade SA. We could have embargoed him to give up his 19th province while his neighbours take care of their issues. That might have sped up our fuel efficiency innovations and we would have been better off around 2005 when oil prices were really high. It's your super-national entity. You guys get to figure out how to keep it going. I'm just wondering how you're going to manage it when you've pretty much written off your armed forces. I have a sneaking suspicion that we may all be finding out what the world looks like absent the "tyranny" of the US military, before long. I honestly don't see how we can afford to keep doing it the way we have, for much longer. Which means that if you want European ships to have unfettered access to ports around the world in order to keep your economies afloat, you'd best be prepared to be able to exert force at those distances. Really? I remember having read about the Dutch-English wars of the 17th century. The Dutch never succeeded in their attempt to force the English to drop their navigation act (and the Dutch were a maritime superpower at that time).A similar endeavour worked in Japan 1864 and in China in the 19th, but I can assure you that we've got enough military power let for such gunboat diplomacy in technologically backward regions if it was desirable at all. We handle most conflicts with words nowadays, though. Interestingly, nobody felt compelled to fly aircraft into our banking centres. Coincidence? Unless Europe is envisioning some form of autarky as a future game plan, the concept of drawing down the military to the extent that Germany is doing seems a trifle... Optimistic? You can really only think of the military as an effective tool to master present and coming challenges?Seriously, 95% of all nations would be totally fucked if that was true. Luckily, the military is merely one of the less effective and on top of that one of the least efficient tools. That insight should have settled in long ago. How many refresher courses do you need to get this? Only children think that they can solve problems with a big stick. Adults are supposed to have learnt that you can only destroy with a big stick - and make many, many enemies.
thekirk Posted December 21, 2010 Posted December 21, 2010 Good luck with all that. You seem to forget that most of the oil in the Persian gulf goes onto the world market. Oil is fungible, and had we ignored Saddam and paid him off, as you suggest, instead of ejecting him from Kuwait, you'd be the ones paying the price in Europe. Along with the rest of us. I wonder what he would have jacked the price up to, by now? Of course, paying off the thug is the "adult" thing to do, I suppose. Perhaps the Iraqi Kurds would also be extinct as an ethnic group, these days. Or, is that a benefit? Hard to discern these fine points of morality with you more sophisticated Europeans, sometimes. Who was it that sold Saddam the factories to make the chemical weapons he used, again? I sort of remember hearing a bunch of German names, for some reason--Karl Kolb, Fritz Werner Company, Quast GmbH, names like that. Strangely, the same work was refused by the US Pfaudler Company, because they saw it as suspicious. I guess the almighty dollar wasn't as powerful as the almighty mark, eh? Does that create any dissonance, in your worldview? It should. I doubt it will, though. I'm also struck by your off-handed remark about the price of oil not really affecting you lot in Europe. Apparently, bankrupting the emerging economies of the third world, and starving huge numbers of poor people in those economies isn't worth your concern or action. Ah, that fine, nuanced European sophistication, yet again. I also note in your writings that you make no mention of, or take any responsibility whatsoever for European intransigence and undermining of the sanctions regime put in place against Saddam--Which virtually forced the US to resort to using that "big stick" you refer to, and breaking things. Remember the sanctions regime? Perfect example of what you're espousing as an "adult" way of handling international issues, no? Remember Oil for food? All that "humanitarian" and oh-so-very "adult" diplomatic work, which European nations almost immediately set about undermining in the name of profit as soon as those measures went into place? While at the same time advocating for ending them as quickly as possible? Mmmmm... Remind me... Who was it mostly making money off of Oil-for-food, again? Total-Fina-Elf is a firm that comes to mind, for some reason... Schlumberger? Couple of shell corporations owned by cronies of Jacques Chirac? Or, am I imagining things? Seem to remember a son of a UN Secretary General getting a couple of Mercedes out of the deal, too. Who did the most to block actually doing anything against Saddam, while helping him hide the money he needed to rearm and selling him goods and services that enabled him to do so? Were some of those people named Chirac and Schroeder, or is that equally imaginary? Kind of undermines your point about diplomacy being the tool of supposed "adults", doesn't it? More accurately, those initiatives, which were urged on the US by y'all sophisticated Euros, were merely pretexts for keeping Saddam in power, and profiting off his regime as a captive market. All in the name of what? Money? Oh, that's what an "adult" does, I guess: Profits from petty tyrants killing masses of brown people far away. Too bad we foolishly agreed to following those more "mature" and "statesmanlike" options, urged on us by our allies. I guess we were counting on our putative "allies" actually having some slight sense of integrity. I suppose, however, that the almighty Euro was more important than upholding international law, eh? Lucky us, to have such staunch and forthright allies, aren't we? And, we're the greedy, immature ones. A psychological term comes to mind, here: Projection. Do let me know when Germany gets around to finally publically identifying and prosecuting all the companies that took part in sanctions-busting in both Iraq and Iran. You might want to ask the BND something about that, too--they apparently have knowledge of something, since they confirmed much of the pre-war intelligence about WMD. From things I saw in Iraq, I surmise at least part of the reason they did so had to do with them knowing precisely what German companies sold the Iraqis in defiance of the sanction regime. Some of those German companies apparently still do at least a little sanctions-busting, or we wouldn't be seeing the name "Siemens" figure so prominently in the Stuxnet case, now would we? What part of the non-proliferation treaties covers sale of dual use industrial technology, again? And, how is it that the Iranians got enough Siemens products into their centrifuge program to make Stuxnet worth writing to focus on them in the first place? Do you really want people to believe that's just a fortuitous coincidence? Suuuuuurrrre... I believe you, I do. There's no chance anybody in Germany did anything at all shady and/or immoral, helping Iran build nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, the US is supposed to foot the bill for a missile defense system, intended to cover Europe against Iranian missiles. There's something there I can't quite put my finger on as being just a little... Wrong? Wouldn't it have been a bit cheaper, for you more sophisticated and mature Europeans to have foregone helping to create the problem in the first place, and actually supported the sanctions program intended to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Iranians? Or, would that have affected the bottom line at Siemens too much? Gotta keep those stockholders happy, somehow, I guess. Don't worry, though--I'm sure the Israelis have a list of the responsible parties, and I'm equally sure that list is going to see some use, someday. Let's hope it's not for targeting purposes, shall we? I've always found it interesting that they named their nuclear program after Samson, and I've often wondered which specific temples they're intending to shake down with it. I suspect a few of them are going to be the ones containing the companies that enabled the various Iranian/Arab WMD programs. For some reason, the name "Siemens" comes to mind again... I don't think the Israelis are going to go quietly, the next time someone asks them to board the metaphorical cattle cars. Can't say I blame them, either. You dream of a world run by "adults". I hope you see one, someday, and I hope it matches your imaginings. The track record, however, leads me to think it's not going to be anything like your fantasies. It is, however, a lot more likely to look like the rest of human history--Messy, dirty, and very, very bloody. The blood is usually enabled by the pie-in-the-sky dreamers, I've noticed. "Peace in our time...". Too bad the UK didn't pay attention to Churchill in the days when he was railing against Hitler, and demanding preparation for war. Had they listened, things might have turned out better for everyone, including the people of Germany. Knowing human nature, similar wishful thinking is likely to be taking place when the moment comes for a disarmed Europe to rearm in a timely manner. Better hope your enemies then are as inept as Hitler was facing the UK.
BillB Posted December 21, 2010 Posted December 21, 2010 Good luck with all that. You seem to forget SNIP reams & reams & reams of text Jesus, do you get paid by the word or something? BillB
BansheeOne Posted December 21, 2010 Posted December 21, 2010 I'm just glad neither of the usual suspects here runs German defense policy.
Ken Estes Posted December 21, 2010 Posted December 21, 2010 Jesus, do you get paid by the word or something? BillB No kidding. It is amazing, but there are various syndromes related to one's self-fascination with own words lit up so well on a screen...<wow, just wow>. The computer and internet can be blamed for must of this stuff. If one were left with just pen and ink, eh.
swerve Posted December 21, 2010 Posted December 21, 2010 People talk about how the allies were the beneficiaries of having started their re-armament later than the Germans, and all that. What they miss is that that re-armament might not have even been necessary, had they simply kept their forces going on an evenly-funded scale over those years. France pretty well did. Fell to 1926, but then returned to pre-WW1 levels as a share of GDP, over twice the proportion spent by the UK. Its failure was that it didn't modernise tactics & training enough, & where it did modernise made some significant mistakes (e.g. tank design), not that it didn't keep its forces funded. German spending overtook French GDP share (then around 6%) only in 1936, in the frenzy of arming to catch up. You're saying "allies" when you mean "Britain", & ignoring France.
thekirk Posted December 21, 2010 Posted December 21, 2010 France pretty well did. Fell to 1926, but then returned to pre-WW1 levels as a share of GDP, over twice the proportion spent by the UK. Its failure was that it didn't modernise tactics & training enough, & where it did modernise made some significant mistakes (e.g. tank design), not that it didn't keep its forces funded. German spending overtook French GDP share (then around 6%) only in 1936, in the frenzy of arming to catch up. You're saying "allies" when you mean "Britain", & ignoring France. Yes, I'm painting with a broad brush, but I'm also including the likes of Poland and Czechoslovakia when I think about this. Granted, that isn't really fair to the Poles or the Czechs, given the economic considerations of the time, but they still paid the price for it. It's ironic when you consider just how fragile the German Army really was, in a lot of ways. If Poland had had more resources, and a better army at the time Germany invaded, what then? Or, if the UK had enough military resources on hand that they could actually do more than stand on the sidelines? German success was a narrow-run thing. It could have been derailed any number of ways. Imagine the effect a couple of squadrons of Spitfires or Hurricanes could have had on the Luftwaffe. Of course, those planes would need proper utilization, but... France may have spent the money, but they spent it in wrong places, much of the time. How many modern aircraft (not to mention the trained pilots to man them...) did they have, and how many sets of portable communications equipment? Some of the things that could have enabled a successful defense would literally have cost nickels and dimes compared to the stuff they did spend money on. How much training time was spent conducting joint operations air-ground operations, for example? At least a part of the problem wasn't money, per se: It was a lack of attention paid to the issues, and a lack of imagination by the establishment, who were expecting a re-run of WWI. Had the war happened a few years later, and if reformers like De Gaul had had a chance to see their reforms actually implemented, then the events of 1940 would have taken a much different course. And, there was nothing stopping the French from doing that in the 1930s, and actually being prepared for the war when and how it happened, now was there? All of it stemmed from a lack of will to actually prepare for the war that loomed in front of them, and which they'd set the stage for via Versailles. Utter foolishness.
Meyer Posted December 21, 2010 Posted December 21, 2010 (edited) It's ironic when you consider just how fragile the German Army really was, in a lot of ways. In what ways? Imagine the effect a couple of squadrons of Spitfires or Hurricanes could have had on the Luftwaffe. Of course, those planes would need proper utilization, but...Hmm, zero effect? And FYI, there were a really good number of Spitfire&Hurricane squadrons commited to the fight, and more than a couple that were not, because Britain did not want to "waste" it in the campaign.There were a number of things that could have helped the French cause, mainly better planning of the campaign, a doctrine and practice better suited to a mobile warfare, better allies (see above) to name just a few. None of that depended on throwing more money. Edited December 21, 2010 by Meyer
swerve Posted December 21, 2010 Posted December 21, 2010 (edited) Yes, I'm painting with a broad brush, but I'm also including the likes of Poland and Czechoslovakia when I think about this. Granted, that isn't really fair to the Poles or the Czechs, given the economic considerations of the time, but they still paid the price for it. France may have spent the money, but they spent it in wrong places, much of the time. How many modern aircraft (not to mention the trained pilots to man them...) did they have, ...?Neither Poland nor Czechoslovakia underspent, relative to their resources. Czechoslovakia folded when it realised it was completely alone & any resistance it put up would be just for honour. Exactly how alone it was is shown by the fact that Poland annexed some of its territory in 1938. Poland was relatively poor, but had maintained large armed forces throughout the inter-war period. They failed because they were outdated, outnumbered & outgunned, but that was due to the population & wealth of the Polish state (Germany had over twice the population & about four times the GDP) & the old-fashioned mentality of much of its military leadership, not because the state failed to fund its forces as well as it could. You've made a claim which is demonstrably false for three out of the four countries you've referred to. Don't you think it's time to say "OK, I was wrong on that"? You are, of course, right about France spending much of its money in the wrong places, but that's a different argument, & the biggest problem wasn't where the money was spent, but organisation & tactical concepts. France had plenty of tanks, for example, & compared to German tanks of 1939-40, their armour, mobility & armament were adequate: their chief faults were (1) how they were employed (poor command structure), & (2) their ergonomics - those poky little one or at most two-man turrets, commanders expected to double or even triple up as radio operators/gunners etc. The AdlA failed to use anywhere near all its modern aircraft mostly because of organisational problems: pilots were kicking their heels on airfields in June 1940 while hundreds of fighters sat in depots. These issues weren't due to money not being spent, or even spent in the wrong places (tanks were definitely a good place to spend!). The same equipment & manpower, but with different tactical concepts, different (not necessarily more) training over the previous few years, better organisation in some areas & modest diversions of spending towards such things as field radios (& yes, I know you've mentioned it - I heartily agree with you on that) might have won in 1940. Give it the Wehrmacht & Luftwaffe equipment & change nothing else, & I reckon it would have lost in exactly the same way. Here's a prime example of idiocy: in May 1940, only a third of the Dewoitine D520s manufactured had been accepted by the AdlA, the rest being returned to be upgraded - a process which reduced the number of new ones built in May. The old standard D520s were still better than any other French fighter, & could have fought effectively in the May battles. Overall, the AdlA would have got more new-standard D520s into use by just accepting all the new-builds, of whatever standard. You see? Not money, just proper management! Imagine the effect a couple of squadrons of Spitfires or Hurricanes could have had on the Luftwaffe.Perhaps you should do more reading. In May 1940 there were 10 RAF Hurricane squadrons in France, plus more operating from SE England. The RAF deployed 452 of them to France overall, including replacements, of which most were lost. Edited December 21, 2010 by swerve
Ken Estes Posted December 21, 2010 Posted December 21, 2010 Well, that's it. The CDU convention signed off on the reform last night with a vast majority. Cabinet decision is expected for mid-December. The defense minister wants the plan for re-organization of the MoD finished by late January/early February. Conscription may run out as early as April. New overall force structure to be finalized by mid-2011. Then the screaming and shouting about base closures will start.Still, I envy your governance.
lastdingo Posted December 21, 2010 Posted December 21, 2010 (edited) Oh, ad hominem? Well, some people don't have much else...A look at the date of my registration and the quantity of my posts should silence all stupid remarks about quantity of words here. Anyway. Iraq's oil was largely off the world market during the 90's in any case.A no-war reaction to the invasion of Kuwait would have taken the Kuwaiti oil off the world market beyond 1991, that's all.Both could have returned to the world market long before 2003, so it's actually not known whether the military approach to the problem had any economic advantages.Germany paid iirc Bn 20 DM for Desert Storm. That would have sufficed to pay the additional costs of buying oil on the world market with the world market being reduced by a lack of Kuwaiti oil - well into the mid-90's. An enlargement and maintenance of a military for operations like Desert storm - even only a participation with two divisions - would cost many billions per year. The trade argument cannot compensate for this. Remember the sanctions regime? Perfect example of what you're espousing as an "adult" way of handling international issues, no? Remember Oil for food? All that "humanitarian" and oh-so-very "adult" diplomatic work, which European nations almost immediately set about undermining in the name of profit as soon as those measures went into place? While at the same time advocating for ending them as quickly as possible? Well, there was no problem with Iraq after 1996. It had disarmed as requested. It had left Kuwait long ago. Job done. Regime change was no legitimate foreign policy desire in UN politics. The UN is about respect for member states, for peaceful coexistence. Read the charter. The Iraq affair was basically a closed file by '97 if the U.S. hadn't developed an ideology of Iraq regime change that ultimately costed them thousands of lives and a trillion dollars. I see no failure in the European position in regard to Iraq sanctions post-'96.The real failure was to set up a sanction regime with open end and thus to allow a single nation to veto an end to the sanctions even at a time when the sanctions had long since become illegitimate. Edited December 21, 2010 by lastdingo
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now