International News
See other International News Articles
Title: What the heck happened to Germany’s military?
Source:
HotAir
URL Source: https://hotair.com/archives/2018/02 ... ck-happened-germanys-military/
Published: Feb 27, 2018
Author: Jazz Shaw
Post Date: 2018-02-27 18:24:25 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 11064
Comments: 114
One of the more controversial platform items in Donald Trump’s foreign policy stance on the campaign trail had been an insistence that our Europen allies start investing more in their own military forces and carrying a bit more of the defense load. One country in particular was called out on this and that was Germany. Many in the media scoffed at the idea and even termed it insulting to our German allies. But how real was the need for improvement? Recently it’s been revealed that Germany’s military isn’t just behind the curve on investment and improvements. It’s practically dysfunctional. German Newspaper Die Welt reported on the dismal state of the Bundeswehr (the unified armed forces of Germany and their civil administration) last week and the numbers are staggering. (Translated from German – may be imprecise.) In the Panzerhaubitze 2000 it is already close again: In the inventory of the Bundeswehr, there is this artillery gun 121 times. But only 75 are available, 42 operational (56 percent). Even more dramatic looks at the army aviators. The total stock of the NH90 transport helicopter is 58. In 2017, 37 of these were available on average, while only 13 were available (35 percent). Four of them are in action in Mali – which incidentally means that hardly any staff is available for training at home. Failure to withdraw the NH90 from Mali in the middle of the year will stall the ability for years to come. So the Germans have 95 operable tanks at any given time and less than 200 working Armored Personnel Carriers. Their Air Force is in serious trouble. They have roughly forty operable fighter jets, a good portion of which are already committed to operations around Turkey and Syria. And then there’s the Navy. Shall we talk about the German submarine force? It’s going to be a short discussion. Coming into this winter they had one (!) operable submarine. Sadly, that one grounded on the rocks a few months ago so their total fleet of subs currently stands at… zero. How did things get to this point? A recent interview with the German Defense Minister included some choice quotes. One of them was the explanation that Germany hasn’t paid as much attention to the military because “we are surrounded by friends.” The alternate and somewhat more dismal explanation is, “because we just don’t care.” Germany’s Parliamentary Armed Forces Commissioner, Hans-Peter Bartels, gave a blistering interview to DW this month, citing numerous shortcomings, and they go beyond a lack of heavy machinery. He said that the Army lacked sufficient protective vests, winter clothing and tents to be able to take part in a major NATO training mission. The soldiers are “under stress” and lacking discipline or leadership in too many cases because the German Army has 21,000 vacant officer posts. So will that be changing? Hey… Germany has politics just like we do. Spending two percent of their GDP on the military is a big ask and will require a lot of votes. Don’t hold your breath. And in the meantime, if something serious flares up in that region you may be waiting a while for the German cavalry to arrive. Poster Comment: All of the NATO forces have declined severely. Britain and Germany were two key allies who greatly shrunk their military. And America under 0bama neglected the military badly in fundamental ways. The military was hollowed out. Trump was right to lower the boom on Germany's Merkel. Despite her backtalk, she's left the German military in a shambles. America really has no western European allies to speak of. Thus, the total stock of Leopard 2 main battle tanks is 244th In 2017, an average of 176 were available, the remainder was in the repair or was stored in depots. Of these 176 tanks, 105 were actually ready for use, which makes a quota of on average 60 percent – and yet nothing is said about the extent to which maintenance and spare parts supply are actually sustainable…
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-12) not displayed.
.
.
.
#13. To: tpaine (#6)
We have to win them over to sanity, by using capitalism. ROFLMAO! Good one! In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
And you were doing SOOOO good right up to then! The Frogs are only capable of beating themselves,and chances are that would end up in a draw. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
I had no idea that Islam was armed with ideas. Do tell more. Especially to the relatives of people put to death or chased out of their country of birth by Islamic loons. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
The Frogs are only capable of beating themselves,and chances are that would end up in a draw. Yes, yes, all sorts of prejudice against the French, blah, blah. It's not based in present-day military fact. Truth is, the French have the most effective, deployable military forces in Europe, and they are routinely deployed all over the world. No other European power outside of Russia does anything like that. The UK does still have possessions here or there, but British forces don't, for example, keep the government's stable in half of Africa. The French do. Old prejudices are fun, but objectively, France is, in fact, the most militarily capable and widely deployed European power, with Britain next. They're the only independent military force that deploys in any strength for their own missions also. Other European countries, the "Coalition of the Willing", are still in Afghanistan alongside of the Americans. But the French - just them - are all over Africa, keeping the stability of their former colonies, keeping the oil flowing and the trade working. Places like Sudan, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Nigeria with its endless strife: these are former British colonies. The British are really gone. They do not have forces deployed all over Africa, and they don't have the forces TO deploy all over Africa. But the French are routinely deployed all over Africa, and have been since the 1960s. They have the forces to do it, and their forces are more experienced operationally, as a whole, than any other Western European country's precisely BECAUSE they always have operational forces in a few dozen countries. The Soviets called the French "the Cubans of the West" for a reason, and those reasons have not changed: France is still holding her own empire in her orbit, and she's doing it by providing them something that is otherwise in short supply in Africa: peace and stability. French African states have poverty, but they do not lapse into civil war every ten years like the rest of it, because the French keep the peace. This is immensely valuable to the people of those countries. And it works out for the French because the French get the oil concessions and other raw materials, mining and agricultural contracts. So sure, make fun of the French. They lost to the Germans in 1940. They lost in Vietnam. They left Algeria. Ha ha. Can't fight their way out of a paper bag. Hah hah. Truth is, in terms of real world military footprint, the only European country besides Russia that really has one outside of the home soil now is France. And it's a substantial footprint. France is the number four arms exporter in the world (after the Superpowers). So, have fun with the stereotypes, but come away with some more knowledge.
Islam is a belief system, an idea. It's tied to a culture, and those folks cling to it quite tenaciously. Their numbers are blooming in Europe, which has largely lost its own native religion, so Islam is expanding into a vacuum.
WW II didn't start with a war on a lone power. The three Axis powers went to war, in stages. So you could have a WW III. China gets the Norks to nuke some American targets, even in the States, possibly including Japan. We wipe out the Norks but not before their army levels Seoul. In the meantime, Iran (having consolidated its realm with Iraq, Syria, Lebanon) threatens Israel and the Saudis and the Gulf oil states. And Russia takes advantage by grabbing Georgia and Ukraine, threatens to grab some (worthless) NATO countries. And Turkey decides now is the time for some neo-Ottoman conquest and grabs the oil at Kirkuk and the northern half of Syria. Then China goes after Taiwan, the South China Sea, Vietnam, maybe more, sinking half our Pacific fleet in the process. You could have a pretty credible world war. And our NATO allies would be sitting on their asses, totally helpless. Israel and Australia and Egypt and the Japs and the South Koreans and the Saudis and a handful of other smaller powers would stick with us but our formal allies in NATO would be worthless and helpless. Just like they are now. Just like they were on September 1, 1939 when Hitler took Poland.
I've read this elsewhere. France does still have its old colonial empire and it keeps them more engaged. If France is our strongest NATO ally, we really are screwed.
Of course France is our strongest NATO ally - it has the largest nuclear arsenal. Nobody can invade France anymore. That's the problem with World War III scenarios. Russia and the US have nuclear arsenals capable of exterminating their enemy several times over, and neither will take a loss. The Chinese can't win if the US, or Russia, goes nuclear. The Russians could invade Europe as far as the Americans, or the British, or the French, let them come, and then no farther. Any of those three countries has sufficient nuclear weaponry to destroy Russia as a meaningful entity. Nuclear weaponry has the odd effect of making military spending all about spending, cash, dollars, power and posturing, because the major combattants (Russia, the US, France, the UK) CAN'T go to war with each other. China's arsenal is small enough and vulnerable enough to be stricken or knocked down, and it's possible that the French or British arsenals could be neutralized. But the US or Russian arsenals? Can't be neutralized in any meaningful sense, and have the firepower to simply take out every single city in each other's nations, and all of the ports and fleets and factories. So, who's going to invade? The Russians are passive-aggressive. They've never started anything major against the West ever, and if they didn't back then, now with nuclear weapons, they won't. War with Russia is a fantasy unless WE invade THEM. And we're never going to do that either, not ever. God. Invade RUSSIA? Who even wants it? We'd know we were lining up for Armageddon, and we'd either die in the snow like everybody else who ever tried it OR, if we were actually going to win, they'd simply wipe our country from the face of the earth and we'd lose. We can't win. They can't win. And we've both always been mature enough to know that. Other countries - the Japans and Germanys, and probably the Frances and Britains of the past - were NOT mature enough not to know that. But the Russians and the Americans have been throughout the nuclear age. Who does that leave? China? They are doing the big conventional force thing, for the same reason we do it: it's visible, it's tangible, it employs a lot of people, it looks big and bad and makes people happy. It generates a lot of production and tech, which leads to arms sales and money. There's domestic political power to be had in parades and big armies. But actually going to WAR with the US? We would exterminate the Chinese race from the face of the earth, with nuclear weapons, and they don't have anything like the capacity to hit back in any meaningful way. We might lose a few cities - we might not - but they would be gone. And then we'd all suffer in the nuclear winter. Russia is the only country that REALLY matters, when you get down to the fundamental truth. Military spending is about jobs and politics. It isn't about actually defending ourselves from the Russians, or them from us. Truth is: we can't. It's impossible. If we really go to war, we're ALL dead. Every one of us. The United States would be annhilated by the Russians, and vice versa - not one city would be left, and the rural populations would have mass dieoffs from the radiation and the disease. There would be no energy, no transport, no anything - the Sahara Desert times two. The people in charge on both sides have known that since 1970, when their arsenal matched ours. We can't fight, and we know it, so we haven't. Conventional war? Not unless one side or the other is willing to be utterly humiliated before the entire world and do nothing. We were so willing in Vietnam, and they were so willing in Afghanistan. Truth is, neither country could win in either place, because the populations were too large to fight, and our economies were not strong enough to send World War II sized armies to go and occupy all of it. So we lost and they lost. But any DIRECT assault on the other's homeland, with the actual possibility of conquering the other at home? Automatic nuclear war of extinction. What the Germans did in Russia in 1941-1945 cannot ever be done to Russia again, or to America. Pointedly, what the Germans did to France in 1940 can never be done again either. France doesn't have enough nuclear weapons to completely annhilate the Russians or the Americans or the Chinese, but they have enough to take out the top 100 cities and inflict 200 million deaths - effectively ending the country. Nobody can invade France, or Britain, unless they can disarm the nuclear forces. The Pakistani and North Korean nuclear threat probably CAN be taken out, by force or espionage. The Israeli force is a very interesting question in and of itself. But no combination of surprise or politics can take out the US or Russian arsenal. And therefore we will always have peace and there will be no war. So all of this military spending is REALLY about employment, political favoritism, spreading around cash and contracts, and having a force sufficient to go beat up the Yusufzahies (or whomever) when our, or the Russians', pride is tweaked. Military spending should be understood in that light: a big military is an absorber of the unemployed, a discipliner of the lower elements, a brake on crime, available forces for various executive actions, and a great place to generate profits for industry. It's not REALLY about national survival in war anymore: nuclear weapons guarantee that for the USA.
You mean just like WE were in 1939. WE didn't declare war on Hitler for invading anybody. The British Empire did, and the French Empire did. WE didn't. We sat back and let them be creamed. We only came in against Hitler because HE declared war on US! If he hadn't done that, we would have focused our war on Japan. FDR would have looked for a provocation, but the United States did not declare war on Germany on December 8, 1941. If Hitler had not declared war on us on December 11, 1941, we would not have been at war with Germany until a later date, and maybe never.
Yeah,and they have a union that can vote to not deploy. And correct me if I'm wrong,but aren't French soldiers given a written guarantee that they will never have to fight out of France if they don't volunteer? After all,that's why the FFL exists. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Ok. You're wrong.
Isn't that the Dutch? And maybe the Danes too? Or is that just a guarantee that they get to be at home on weekends? I recall a stir about that some years back, they were planning war games and someone thought their union would keep them home for the weekends. There was a great deal of harumphing about at the Pentagon as I recall.
The French Foreign Legion? It's still a well-known popular song in the EU. Little girls, 8-12, sing it in the Eurovision song contests and such.
Ok. You're wrong. Since when? Tell me,why do YOU think the FFL was formed? In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Yes. Only the officers are French citizens. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
The Foreign Legion is the modern-day descendent of the Regiments of ancient Royal France called the "Volontiers Entrangers". By the time of Louis XIV France was the center around which Europe turned. France was the largest country, the French economy, the strongest and most luxurious. The French Army was the largest and most professionally organized as well, and France was essentially permanently at war, pressing the Northwestern border relentlessly to the Rhine, intervening endlessly in Flanders. True ethnic nationalism had not yet been born, but France was the place to be, and for the militarily interested, the sort of men looking to become mercenaries, to make their way forward to glory, service to the French King in the Frontier Regiments was the way to get trained, get paid, get plunder and experience, and seek glory. Louis, for his part, was more than happy to augment his forces with foreigners willing to serve, and the Foreign Volunteers Regiments fought with distinction throughout the period. The French Foreign Legion of today is simply the modern descendant of a French military tradition that dates back 400 years. It is not that France desperately needs soldiers. It's that France wanted, and still wants, a powerful army, and recognizes that motivated men from any country, if organized and disciplined by a proven military method, can be harnessed up to serve the French state well. Also, the notion of birthright nationalism is a bit different in France. The French have a view of themselves as being a culture by choice - a "way". The French say "Est anglais qui peut - est francais qui veut." - He who is English, is English because he CAN be (i.e.: he was born there), but he who is French, is French because he CHOOSES to be - anybody can choose to be French: adopt the culture, speak the language, serve Louis (later the State), and you're in. That's why the French "foreign legion" was founded. It was a vehicle to harness up a great number of able-bodied foreign military men and put them to good use in the service of the French state. In the age of the Republic, it was particularly useful to take the trained forces of defeated foes who were very effective military men but whose state was shattered, and give them a path forward in the military in the service of La Republique. After World War II there was a lot of German spoken in the Foreign Legion, for there were so many trained combat veterans in Germany facing a bleak future whose military skills were of great use to France. That's why the French Foreign Legion exists. It's why the Foreign Legion's ancestors, the Volontiers Etrangers, existed for centuries. It has been a very effective expedient, which is why Frederick the Great copied it so well.
HELL NO !!!!! Germans had great military in WWII. Who are the psychos that want to rebuild it? The same ones who talk about "Polish concentration camps"?
But...but...What about the Communists Soviet Gulags and their own Death Camps?? Were they Holiday Inns??
The same "psychos" who would rather Germany NOT become a Caliphate state and retain its own unique national identity. The past is past. Let the grudge go.
My initiation with the French Foreign Legion was when Laurel and Hardy joined them (or was that the Three Stooges?)
No, they weren't nice places. But the fundamental difference between Nazi Germany and the USSR is that Nazi Germany attacked the West and Soviet Russia stuck to itself until Germany attacked it, then the USSR and the West both fought Germany and Japan to bring them down. Then they stopped fighting. The difference between war and cold war is the difference between lightning and the lightning bug. Stalin killed a lot of his own people. Hitler burnt down London. Huge difference. We and the Soviets manage to sit next to each other with nuclear weapons for 42 years without going to war. It's not really possible to imagine the same scenario sitting next to Hitler.
NEITHER was a good guy, Vic. In any context. Stalin starved, executed or imprisoned at least 30 million of his own people. The Soviets took a piece of Poland. And before that swallowed up smaller sovereign states to consolidate their "Soviet Union." ...Then the USSR and the West both fought Germany and Japan to bring them down. PURELY a self-defensive measure against Germany. One was going to attack the other in any case. (Commies vs Nazis had already been festering.) The Soviets did NOT "fight" Japan during WWII; They were political opportunists who were awarded Japanese territory in exchange for a cosmetic "Declaration of War." We and the Soviets manage to sit next to each other with nuclear weapons for 42 years without going to war. It's not really possible to imagine the same scenario sitting next to Hitler. On this point we agree. But ONLY because America held all the winning cards against the Soviets.
ROFLMAO! What kind of alternative history books have you been reading? The FFL was created because the French Army got tired of all the wars and decided to not fight outside the borders of France. They would fight if attacked,but were not going to attack anyone else. So the French formed the FOREIGN LEGION to FIGHT IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES to protect French interests. It was not only a way for foreigners,many of whom were foreign criminals seeking French citizenship to keep from being arrested,as well as French criminals could enlist,serve an enlistment,and then leave with a fresh start thanks to a spanking new French citizenship. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Of course they were,comrade! They were noting more than trade schools to teach the unskilled how to earn a living while living in luxurious accommodations in the countryside so they could benefit from all the fresh air! You just GOTTA keep up with modern history! In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Have you tried to explain that to the Finns,the Ukrainians,the Balts, and the Poles? In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Yes,and they did it with the help of their fellow SOCIALIST ALLIES,NAZI GERMANY. Stalin and his goomba Hitler had an agreement to divide the country before the invasion ever began. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
The kind that convey what happened in the past.
That's not the West.
But, but, but. What about prices of wheat 10 years ago?
Will you go to fight on the Eastern Front again? Or your children?
You are lying! Stalin killed 300 million people. But it has nothing to do with the topic you try so desperately to derail.
You certainly can explain this to them. Because you visited them on vacation.
That's not the West. In that case I guess they don't count,huh? BTW,they are to the west of people to their east. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
You certainly can explain this to them. Because you visited them on vacation. I sure can. I would tell them that is one example of how free people can dress if they want because there is no commissar insisting they put on a uniform. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Oh yes! Please go there again, and tell them [brainwashed Finns,the Ukrainians,the Balts, and the Poles]. They are still convinced that Havaiian shirt and colorful loose short pants ARE the uniform.
They didn't count enough to us for America to get involved in a war for their defense. Nor did England, France, Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Greece, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Greece or any of the other places that Germany invaded from 1938-1942. Nor did they count after Pearl Harbor. The Japanese attacked us on December 7, 1941. We declared war on Japan on December 8, the next day. We didn't declare war on Germany even after Pearl Harbor. Hitler declared war on us, three days later, and commenced torpedoing our ships up and down the coast. THEN we came into the European war - once we were dragged into it by the Germans. So you are correct - all of those people don't count - to Americans. Even after Pearl Harbor Europe didn't count enough for us to declare war on the Third Reich. We were dragged into that war by the Germans. If they never declared war on us, we would have crushed Japan in a couple of years and left Europe to its fate. You can't have it both ways (though you can try). Being sanctimonious about the invasion of nations in the East by Russia, as though THAT deserves a maximal American effort to stop, when America did not of its own volition do anything to stop Germany overrunning the ENTIRETY of Europe. We NEVER decided to go help Europe. The Germans dragged us into the war and we had to fight. We were not the good guys riding to the aid of the beleaguered West and East. We were the last guy on the block who hadn't been beaten up by the Nazis, they attacked us, and we won. It's good for everybody that we did, but we most certainly did not do it to protect the rights of ANY of the countries in Europe that were overrun and attacked. We only did it because Hitler declared war and the Germans started torpedoing our ships right off our coast. We stopped that and crushed Germany, and in the process of crushing Germany we ended up liberating part of Europe. We didn't go over there because the Germans attacked their neighbors, though. So your initial proposition is correct: nobody in Europe counted to us. It was not our affair. It SHOULD have been our affair, when Germany overran Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg and France, and then firebombed London. That SHOULD have been the signal for us to get off our asses like the Canadians did. But it wasn't. We didn't care about East OR West. They didn't count to us. We entered the European war only because we ourselves were attacked. Why, then, suddenly care about the Baltic States? Because we WANT a war with Russia, for some reason? Why Russia and not Nazi Germany? Doesn't make sense. Or rather, it DOES make sense: having won an empire and become hegemon of half the world, some -such as Patton - wanted to extend our conquests and conquer the whole thing. But to declare war on Russia in 1946 and attack? We would have been no better than Hitler, and we would have had no better luck either, unless we used atomic bombs. On what pretext could we have done that? That Russia was in occupation of the Baltic States? Seriously? We could justify incineration of millions of civilians in Russia because of a sudden burst of self- righteousness over some Eastern European territories that HAD BEEN Russian for hundreds of years, and had only enjoyed a shaky independence for 20 years, between the world wars. THAT would be justification for an American-perpetrated genocide? No. It would have merely been a pretext. And Americans wanted nothing of it. Patton did, but the nation did not.
I know one thing. I do not want the revival of German army! I do not want any f***ing German troops around !!! To fight on Eastern Front again they would have to go through Poland again. And if you are so clever, Pete, go preach your doctrine to the Latvians, Western Ukrainians, Croats and Bosnian Muslims. They will love it. I am not sure about Romanians and Hungarians. And please stay away from Greeks and Serbs, for your own good, buddy.
Oh yes! Please go there again, and tell them [brainwashed Finns,the Ukrainians,the Balts, and the Poles]. They are still convinced that Havaiian shirt and colorful loose short pants ARE the uniform. Calling you an idiot is bragging on you,comrade. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
They obviously don't count with you,either. You can't have it both ways (though you can try). Being sanctimonious about the invasion of nations in the East by Russia, as though THAT deserves a maximal American effort to stop,.... Remind me where I EVER claimed European invasions of each other was any of America's business. Seems to ME that EUROPEANS should have gotten on their high horses and banded together to join forces to stop Germany first,and then Russia. OOOOPS! That's right,the pussy Frogs have union rules against their soldiers fighting outside of France! My bad. Sorry. It SHOULD have been our affair, when Germany overran Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg and France, and then firebombed London. That SHOULD have been the signal for us to get off our asses like the Canadians did. True dat. IF the Fabalous Fiery French had gotten off their asses and made ANY effort at all to do anything buy cower behind their Maginot Line to stop the Germans,MAYBE the US could have justified HELPING the Europeans defend themselves against the Nazi's,instead of having to step in at the last moment to save their worthless asses for them? We entered the European war only because we ourselves were attacked. "We",WHO Frenchman? In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Why fight them,comrade? You know the Poles can't take care of themselves,and need a strong dictator like Stalin to do their thinking for them. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
I served in the US military just like you did, comrade. "We" means us Americans. World War II is a long time ago, and the Cold War turned out quite well, so there isn't a whole lot of point getting riled over things that happened so long ago. I'm just not gonna get cranky about World War II. It turned out as well for us as it did probably BECAUSE we stayed out of it until the rest of the combatants had broken themselves economically and bled themselves badly. We came into the fight a giant on a battlefield of broken toys. That worked to our benefit. No, the French military unions don't vote on whether or not to go to war. As here, the French President decides whether to deploy forces or not, and if he sends them, they go. As here, if the public doesn't agree, they can remove the President or weaken his party at the ballot box in the next election.
Comments (54 - 114) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestWe've not even started to really fight the Islamic shiria culture. -- Sure, -- we've been fighting their fanatics, but the real fight against a fascistic religion --- with millions of so far non-fanatical followers, - We can hope will never happen. Such a religious war would make WWII look like a picnic..
#14. To: Vicomte13 (#8)
The main exception to this is France, which still has an empire, and an army and a navy and air force to deploy to guard it.
#15. To: Vicomte13 (#9)
Ideas have to be fought with ideas.
#16. To: sneakypete (#14)
(Edited)
And you were doing SOOOO good right up to then!
#17. To: sneakypete (#15)
Do tell more. Especially to the relatives of people put to death or chased out of their country of birth by Islamic loons.
#18. To: sneakypete (#12)
What world power do we have to go to war against these days?
#19. To: Vicomte13, sneakypete (#16)
(Edited)
Truth is, the French have the most effective, deployable military forces in Europe, and they are routinely deployed all over the world.
#20. To: Tooconservative (#19)
If France is our strongest NATO ally, we really are screwed.
#21. To: Tooconservative (#18)
ust like they were on September 1, 1939 when Hitler took Poland.
#22. To: Vicomte13 (#16)
(Edited)
It's not based in present-day military fact. Truth is, the French have the most effective, deployable military forces in Europe,
#23. To: sneakypete (#22)
And correct me if I'm wrong,but aren't French soldiers given a written guarantee that they will never have to fight out of France if they don't volunteer? After all,that's why the FFL exists.
#24. To: sneakypete, Vicomte13 (#22)
Yeah,and they have a union that can vote to not deploy.
#25. To: sneakypete (#22)
(Edited)
After all,that's why the FFL exists.
#26. To: Vicomte13 (#23)
And correct me if I'm wrong,but aren't French soldiers given a written guarantee that they will never have to fight out of France if they don't volunteer? After all,that's why the FFL exists.
#27. To: Tooconservative (#25)
The French Foreign Legion?
#28. To: sneakypete (#26)
ell me,why do YOU think the FFL was formed?
#29. To: Tooconservative, no gnu taxes, VxH, Vicomte13, sneakypete, Deckard (#0)
But how real was the need for improvement? Recently it’s been revealed that Germany’s military isn’t just behind the curve on investment and improvements. It’s practically dysfunctional.
#30. To: A Pole (#29)
Germans had great military in WWII. Who are the psychos that want to rebuild it? The same ones who talk about "Polish concentration camps"?
#31. To: A Pole (#29)
Who are the psychos that want to rebuild it?
#32. To: Vicomte13 (#28)
#33. To: Liberator (#30)
But...but...What about the Communists Soviet Gulags and their own Death Camps?? Were they Holiday Inns??
#34. To: Vicomte13, a pole (#33)
(Edited)
But the fundamental difference between Nazi Germany and the USSR is that Nazi Germany attacked the West and Soviet Russia stuck to itself...
#35. To: Vicomte13 (#28)
That's why the French "foreign legion" was founded. It was a vehicle to harness up a great number of able-bodied foreign military men and put them to good use in the service of the French state.
#36. To: Liberator, APole (#30)
But...but...What about the Communists Soviet Gulags and their own Death Camps?? Were they Holiday Inns??
#37. To: Vicomte13 (#33)
No, they weren't nice places. But the fundamental difference between Nazi Germany and the USSR is that Nazi Germany attacked the West and Soviet Russia stuck to itself until Germany attacked it
#38. To: Liberator (#34)
The Soviets took a piece of Poland.
#39. To: sneakypete (#35)
ROFLMAO! What kind of alternative history books have you been reading?
#40. To: sneakypete (#37)
Have you tried to explain that to the Finns,the Ukrainians,the Balts, and the Poles?
#41. To: Liberator (#30)
But...but...What about the Communists Soviet Gulags and their own Death Camps?? Were they Holiday Inns??
#42. To: Liberator (#31)
The past is past. Let the grudge go.
#43. To: Liberator (#34)
Stalin starved, executed or imprisoned at least 30 million of his own people.
#44. To: sneakypete (#37)
Have you tried to explain that to the Finns,the Ukrainians,the Balts, and the Poles?
#45. To: Vicomte13 (#40)
Have you tried to explain that to the Finns,the Ukrainians,the Balts, and the Poles?
#46. To: A Pole (#44)
Have you tried to explain that to the Finns,the Ukrainians,the Balts, and the Poles?
#47. To: sneakypete (#46)
I would tell them that is one example of how free people can dress if they want because there is no commissar insisting they put on a uniform.
#48. To: sneakypete (#45)
(Edited)
In that case I guess they don't count,huh?
#49. To: Vicomte13, sneakypete (#48)
Being sanctimonious about the invasion of nations in the East by Russia, as though THAT deserves a maximal American effort to stop, when America did not of its own volition do anything to stop Germany overrunning the ENTIRETY of Europe. We NEVER decided to go help Europe. The Germans dragged us into the war and we had to fight.
#50. To: A Pole (#47)
I would tell them that is one example of how free people can dress if they want because there is no commissar insisting they put on a uniform.
#51. To: Vicomte13 (#48)
So you are correct - all of those people don't count - to Americans.
#52. To: A Pole (#49)
I know one thing. I do not want the revival of German army! I do not want any f***ing German troops around !!! To fight on Eastern Front again they would have to go through Poland again.
#53. To: sneakypete (#51)
"We",WHO Frenchman?
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]