Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: user23 Nov 1 2010, 10:23 PM

Given our Armed Forces are going to be working much more closely with the French why not do what no doubt will eventually happen and form a European Army, Navy and Air Force?

Posted by: Iommi Nov 1 2010, 10:26 PM

Isn't that what NATO's for?

Posted by: On the edge Nov 1 2010, 10:33 PM

Having an EU force would be a great idea. We are no longer a World power - so should discharge military obligations via Europe. That is, we will do what ever our peer nation states do, on an exactly equal basis. Oh - we've solved the credit crisis at a stroke!

Posted by: GMR Nov 1 2010, 10:36 PM

You mean surrender totally to Europe? Hitler would have been proud.

Posted by: Iommi Nov 1 2010, 10:37 PM

Don't stop there; world army?

Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 1 2010, 10:44 PM

'1984' was a novel, not a textbook........

Posted by: Bloggo Nov 2 2010, 08:36 AM

It seems to me to be the next step on the road to a unified Europe. I guess the financial pressures on both countries make the idea attractive but I think it will lead ( eventually) to the loss of our sovereignty and maybe our security.
Who knows where it will lead?

Posted by: Bloggo Nov 2 2010, 08:47 AM

I heard an amusing comment last night on the TV. It was reputed to have been a quote from Maggie Thatcher. Apparently she was asked what the French would do in the event of an invasion to protect Paris and she said "No one knows as they haven't done it yet"
Something to think about eh!

Posted by: Iommi Nov 2 2010, 09:07 AM

According to the gospel of QI, France have the most successful army in Europe, in terms of battle and wars fought and won.

Posted by: Bloggo Nov 2 2010, 09:20 AM

Well I guess their researchers know their stuff but I am struggling to recall any recent wars won by the French in the last 200 years. I know they connolised a great deal of South East Asia in the 18th and 19th century.
Does anyone have a list of "victories"???

Posted by: Iommi Nov 2 2010, 11:06 AM

"La guerre

Despite their reputation, the French have fought more military campaigns than any other European nation and won twice as many battles as they have lost. The British may pride themselves on superiority at sea, but it was driven by the realisation that they could never win a land war on the Continent. The French Army has usually been the largest, best equipped and most strategically innovative in Europe. At its best, under Napoleon in 1812, it achieved a feat that even the Nazis couldn’t repeat: it entered Moscow.

Perhaps this dominance helps explains another French victory. Whether it is ranks (general, captain, corporal, lieutenant); equipment (lance, mine, bayonet, epaulette, trench); organisation (volunteer, regiment, soldier, barracks) or strategy (army, camouflage, combat, esprit de corps, reconnaissance), the language of warfare is written in French. "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/qi/7930116/QI-Quite-Interesting-facts-about-France.html


If England occupied what is now France, do you think we would have repelled the German army in WWII?

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 2 2010, 11:16 AM

Not only that but the other European countries didn't come into being until relatively late, giving France & England an unfair advantage in terms of battles fought & won.

Posted by: Bloggo Nov 2 2010, 11:21 AM

No, highly unlikely as Britain was terribly ill-equiped in 1940. Also I don't think we would have won the war at all if not for the USA.

Posted by: Blake Nov 2 2010, 11:35 AM

The idea of a European military is simplistic and part the typical cosmopolitan, internationalist and deluded mindset.

The truth is, European countries post war have mostly failed to invest in the best equipment and in sufficient quantities. Where is the European B-2 squadron I ask???

Also, a lot of European countries are explicitly anti-British. I cannot see them coming to our assistance if one of our sovereign territories was attacked or threatened.

Our true friend is still the US, a partner who has been on our side when we have needed it.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 2 2010, 11:36 AM

Do we need a B2 squadron? Who is paying for it?

Posted by: Blake Nov 2 2010, 12:00 PM

If we want to win conflicts in future, yes, we need the best science and engineering can offer.

It will be supported the same ways as current projects are. Overall a good investment as fewer platforms are needed as such assets are deployed in fewer number due to their precision.

Posted by: Bloggo Nov 2 2010, 12:01 PM

I am a little sceptical about the level of support we would get from any of our "partners". I would be happier if we could maintian our our armed forces with the ability to act independently should the occasion arise.
Dependence on others will work against us in the long term taking away our right and ability to make decisions about the protection of our country and citizens.
.

Posted by: Gumbo Nov 2 2010, 12:08 PM

I am no historian but I am not entirely sure that statement is 100% accurate. As I understand it the Americans didn't want to get involved with the second world war as they saw it as a European war and rejected a lot of pleas from Churchill. It wasn't until the attack on Pearl Harbour that they decided to join in a bit more.

Posted by: Blake Nov 2 2010, 12:24 PM

Erroneous; what about Clare Chennault and the Eagle Squadron.

Posted by: Gumbo Nov 2 2010, 12:29 PM

In what way? taken from wikipedia about Eagle Squadron: "The group first saw combat on 20 December 1941, 12 days after Pearl Harbor (local time). "

Posted by: Blake Nov 2 2010, 12:47 PM

That must be a selective quote.

They gave us several Battle Of Britain heroes. That was in 1940 of course.

Posted by: Gumbo Nov 2 2010, 12:56 PM

A few volunteers does not make a nations support. I would not put all my eggs in the American basket if I were you. As I said they held back full support until it suited them. Did they support the Falklands war?

Posted by: Bloggo Nov 2 2010, 12:56 PM

8 I believe along with approx 500 other foreign nationals but they were all acting as individuals.

Posted by: Bloggo Nov 2 2010, 01:00 PM

Yes, by giving us economic support and the imposition of sanctions against Argentina.

Posted by: Blake Nov 2 2010, 01:05 PM

And vital intelligence supplied by the SR-71.

Posted by: user23 Nov 2 2010, 01:13 PM

Slightly off topic, but you've reminded me of this

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1158970/BNP-shot-uses-POLISH-Spitfire-anti-immigration-campaign.html

Posted by: Gumbo Nov 2 2010, 01:17 PM

I believe that the US government were very torn on the whole episode and as much as possible didn't want to get involved.

My point is that as a nation the US will serve its best interests first and then support its friends second.

Posted by: Gumbo Nov 2 2010, 01:24 PM

Where are you plucking this sh*t from? are you privvy to some secret documents that the rest of the general public are not party to?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 2 2010, 01:38 PM

Just an idea, but rather than a squadron of B2's, how about we just hand soverignty of the Falklands over to Argentina? And Spain can have Gibralta too.

Posted by: Bloggo Nov 2 2010, 01:47 PM

Yes, there was some reluctance to side with us but I think that they were pushed into a corner.

Quite right, which is why I believe we should maintain our own military capability.
Afterall we are always falling out with the French!!

Posted by: On the edge Nov 2 2010, 02:39 PM

Lets face facts. A UK army has an honorable and deserved place in our history - but in the position we are today, its as appropriate as HMS Victory. We no longer have an Empire. We are not a World power - in military or economic terms. No nation state is likely to attack us alone and we really haven't much to defend. Its pretty arrogant for us to try an act as a World Policeman. Yes, of course we should 'help' the major powers - but then that should be at exactly the same rate as our European peers. That's where we are in reality - at best another Nordic state.

Posted by: Blake Nov 2 2010, 03:11 PM

I cannot agree with this.

Britain is the sixth or seventh largest economy in the world. That is pretty significant given that there are over 200 states worldwide.

Furthermore, we are a leading member of the G7, we have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council (one of only 5 states) and we are a nuclear power.

We have to have the power to defend ourselves, our allies and international interests. World conflicts do not have a timetable we can conveniently plan for and so rearm and train to a nice tidy timescale.
They have a tendency to be forced on us. Twas ever thus. We must be prepared. I do not mind paying more tax to be defended.

In any case, why is it always defense that takes the hit so much on spending reviews? There are scores of other areas of big government that should be slashed.

As Thomas Hobbes so wisely posited; defense of the nation must always be the top priority of government.

Posted by: Andy1 Nov 2 2010, 04:06 PM

If the Falklands ever becomes an issue again, we will have to ask the French if we can borrow the keys to the Aircraft Carrier. Now I believethat alot of the Argantine equipment was French made at the time and I believe still is.

Posted by: Bloggo Nov 2 2010, 04:12 PM

You're right, our forces were on the wrong end of French Exocet missiles.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 2 2010, 04:28 PM

Now be fair, the Argentinians also made good use of their English Electric Canberras.

Posted by: GMR Nov 2 2010, 05:25 PM

They never did well against us. In fact Churchill had to sink their ships at the beginning of the second world war because they wouldn't comply.

Posted by: GMR Nov 2 2010, 05:25 PM

Exactly. That is the wishes of most Europeans.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 2 2010, 05:29 PM

Apart from that one skirmish in 1066. When they took over the country.

Posted by: GMR Nov 2 2010, 05:35 PM

I agree that we should work together.... but as an individual country, and not something that was swallowed up by a conglomerate who has grand designs of Empire building. That would be a price too far to pay.

Posted by: GMR Nov 2 2010, 05:36 PM

Only for a year (or nearly).

A friend of mine is writing the history of that invasion.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 2 2010, 05:38 PM

Re-writing by the sound of things.

Posted by: Jayjay Nov 2 2010, 05:39 PM

Not terribly up on the military but could we have a situation such as the twin towers - pilot radio's in hickjackers on board, airport phone security services, security services telephone the home office, home office telephones french equal, french home office phones the french PM, french prime minister phones the airforce, who then scrambe the planes and shoots the airplane down?

Under what circumstances could france withdraw their assistance, if we didn't agree with them on some EU proposal?

I also feel very uncomfortable that french generals could be in charge of our SAS.

Posted by: GMR Nov 2 2010, 05:43 PM

I haven't read what he is in the process of writing. But we'll soon find out when he releases his book. He's a medieval historian.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 2 2010, 05:47 PM

I'd guess he'd have to be.

No doubt writing about the fact that the French became Anglicised. Still does not get away from the fact that the French took over the country. For good.

Posted by: GMR Nov 2 2010, 05:49 PM

I wouldn't say 'for good'.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 2 2010, 05:50 PM

Well they hadn't packed up & left by Christmas had they?

Posted by: blackdog Nov 2 2010, 05:50 PM

No point - we won't have any aircraft to fly off the carrier.

Posted by: GMR Nov 2 2010, 05:52 PM

What? Some stayed, yes... but not as a controlling force. Like some of us are in France.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 2 2010, 06:07 PM

It wasn't the French that invaded in 1066, it was the Normans, and they were vikings, not Franks. It doesn't make much sense thinking about the Saxons as us, because we're really quite a mixture of successive European invasions of genetics and cultures and the England of 1066 is much more like something from Beowulf than what we call England now.

Posted by: blackdog Nov 2 2010, 06:12 PM

Well we still have William the Conquerer's descendant on the throne.

The French did pretty well against England up to the last time we fought in 1815. We celebrate battles like Agincourt and Crecy - but it was the French that won the wars and the English monarchs were kicked out of their continental lands. With the help of most of the rest of Europe we eventually prevailed over Napoleon - I doubt if we could have done it alone.

In WWI things were pretty desperate until we handed over control of our armies to the French - in a matter of months the war was over.

As for Thatcher's comment re Paris - the French did pretty well to defend it in 1914 and 1918 - perhaps not so well in 1870 and 1940. Mind you their allies supposedly holding the north of the front in 1940 packed up and ran away pretty quickly ...

If you need an ally you could do a lot worse than the French.

Posted by: Iommi Nov 2 2010, 06:16 PM

Vikings invaded Northern France and become Normans; they then invaded us. They took-over and eventuality merged with us, but not before creating modern England in the process. Isn't Newbury Norman?

Posted by: GMR Nov 2 2010, 06:25 PM

I never said we couldn't. Something is always better than nothing.

Posted by: GMR Nov 2 2010, 06:26 PM

I know Norman, I wonder if it is the same one?

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 2 2010, 06:51 PM

Nonetheless, it was an invasion by the French, bringing with them French language, culture & ideas. End of story. England was changed forever after 1066. It certainly wasn't a Nordic influence.

Then of course the bloomin Dutch took over after the Glorious Revolution....

Posted by: On the edge Nov 2 2010, 07:46 PM

Then of course came the Americans...and that 'special' relationship. Was it Teddy Roosevelt who said they didn't want to rule the World just own it.

No getting away from it as a World power, we've shut up shop and sold out. Yes, a few nations can still recall what our Grandparents did - but memory fades. Some of us fondly recall driving British cars and riding British bikes.

Which nation state is going to attack us? And if our forces are really about protecting - how come we are not in Zimbabwe right now?

It is absolutely right we are now looking towards Europe and a collective response to defence. I'm sure our peer nations will match our contribution (on a per capita basis) to any call for help from Uncle Sam.

Posted by: Iommi Nov 2 2010, 07:54 PM

This could kinda back fire big time. If we form a European super army, should a country fall-out with another, then Europe would be obliged to help-out. No-doubt this would upset the Russians and or Chinese and then we have a big problem, rather than a 'little spat' between two countries. Think Chechnya.

Posted by: GMR Nov 2 2010, 08:15 PM

I was just watching it on the news. Even though they are going to join forces it will not stop them from going their separate ways if they need to; i.e. if, say, the Falklands were invaded again.

Posted by: Iommi Nov 2 2010, 08:27 PM

The Falklands is much less likely at the moment as they are better protected.

One question often heard is: 'could we defend the Falklands today?'. Well we never defended them the last time. We had to re-claim them. Argentina's army is much less capable now that before I understand. Now if Russia or China decided to!



One thing that gets me is the idea the threat to Europe from Russia is over...is it fu...

Posted by: GMR Nov 2 2010, 08:35 PM

I used them as an example.



True



I agree as the future has a long path to be travelled upon.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 2 2010, 09:12 PM

I suspect it would hasten another arms race - and with the emergent big powers (China etc.) the resultant conflict doesn't bear thinking about. Not that any of us would get that luxury with the weapons on hand now.

Posted by: Bill1 Nov 2 2010, 09:54 PM

Weren't France the aggressors when they were winning battles?

(Sorry to backtrack, but this is the first chance I've had to comment.)

Posted by: Iommi Nov 2 2010, 09:56 PM

Winning battles is usually about being more aggressive than your advisory, but yes, they went on a European tour as it were.

Posted by: GMR Nov 2 2010, 11:00 PM

Instead of a joint enterprise with the frogs what about with the yanks (it only takes one for them to come down).

Posted by: Bill1 Nov 3 2010, 09:53 AM

"The frogs"?

Posted by: Iommi Nov 3 2010, 10:50 AM

He's a supporter of UKIP!

Posted by: blackdog Nov 3 2010, 02:19 PM

I don't suppose they'd be that interested - they've got plenty of carriers of their own.

And the nuclear test sharing is more of a vague attempt to keep the UK and French deterrents viable if the Yanks decide to withdraw their support.


One what? Come down where?

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Nov 3 2010, 05:28 PM

As an "American" (Not a Yank) who first arrived in England to support a NATO mission (Cruise) this topic is kinda funny.

If you compare the relationship between the UK and the US, I would probably go with the US as the French left active NATO particpation in the 50's and 60's and asked all the foreign troops to leave.

If I was still in the military, I know which nation's forces I would want on my side...

Posted by: GMR Nov 3 2010, 05:32 PM

Don't tell me you've never heard of that expression... and what is their favourite food?

Posted by: GMR Nov 3 2010, 05:34 PM

Yes, a good point.




I don't know, the conversation was yesterday and a lot has happened since then; for a start I've woken up

Posted by: GMR Nov 3 2010, 05:34 PM

Exactly!!!!!

Posted by: GMR Nov 3 2010, 05:35 PM

I agree with you; I'd rather side with the yanks Americans.

Posted by: Bill1 Nov 5 2010, 12:37 PM

I have, I have also heard expressions about Italians, Germans, Arabs, black people, Pakistani people, Chinese people etc etc, that doesn't mean I approve of those words.

I dont know what the French as a nation regard as their favourite food, but I would wager it isn't what your implying.