renton Posted January 3, 2019 Share Posted January 3, 2019 53 minutes ago, Antiochas III said: No, sadly as to get a Pan-European Army, all we would night now need is basically the US to leave NATO. I think for a Euro Army to work it really would require a level of political integration beyond what we have today. The problem really is that each member state spends a lot of money developing sovereign capabilities that are replicated across all countries, and thus a simple conglomeration of existing forces would be a very inefficient and lop sided force. That has been permissible to date because the US has always kept it's own full spectrum force and so long as you went along with them and let them run the show you can hitch your own forces on to their capabilities. However, a Euro Army (and Navy, and Air Force) would have to start from the position of first pulling together what they have, then figuring out what they need and re balancing the force after the fact. It means that maybe, France doesn't need all that infantry, or that Germany doesn't need three naval bases because it's more efficient for France to raise a bigger Navy (more ports, existing infrastructure, etc) and defend Germany's coast line for it. It means that you can pull all the military intelligence stuff and transport and control together and centralise it, it means you can rationalise the location and number of bases across the continent and you'd eventually have a fairly mean looking, full spectrum force that could deploy significant forces abroad instead of the penny packets of troops that most EU countries can now. The down side of that is that any sovereign actions any single country wished to under take would be severely constrained as their money is now going into a central pot, and their own forces may have given up several capabilities to fund those same capabilities elsewhere. In short, in order to make the EU armed forces useful at a tolerable cost, you have to give up a lot of independence of action of your own state forces to do it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted January 3, 2019 Share Posted January 3, 2019 The idea that Labour members are annoyed with Corbyn over Brexit is entirely media driven. The Guardian has been reduced to reporting made up stories and hoping they come true.It must be my imagination that there were a significant number of Momentum members pushing for a second referendum at the Labour Party conference.Was that made-up too? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted January 3, 2019 Share Posted January 3, 2019 16 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said: It must be my imagination that there were a significant number of Momentum members pushing for a second referendum at the Labour Party conference. Was that made-up too? Why don’t you just ignore him? He just havers absolute pish and people bite. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted January 3, 2019 Share Posted January 3, 2019 ....and of course you'd be lying hence your use of the bus remark. If we have a "peoples vote" and we won't it has to include only leave options. Can I ask how you'd feel if we win Indyref2 and the Ruth Davidson and her ilk use the uncertainty card to call for a people's vote on the outcome of a successful indyvote? I remember reading that "Independence is a blank card and we can then create the country we want" type style claptrap used regularly. The big difference is that: (a) Any IndyRef2 referendum will be binding. (b) Any IndyRef2 referendum will be accompanied by a detailed White Paper and not a back of an envelope promises and wish list. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted January 3, 2019 Share Posted January 3, 2019 15 hours ago, Sherrif John Bunnell said: A pan-Euro army would include the Finnish and they are the only lads you need when it comes to getting the Russians telt. They got beat despite having Nazi help. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted January 3, 2019 Share Posted January 3, 2019 As i've said before there are two major downsides to a Euro Army. (i) Being able to send non national soldiers to deal with domestic matters like Catalan protests, Gillet Jeunes etc (ii) Reducing public accountability for military action. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted January 3, 2019 Share Posted January 3, 2019 3 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said: It must be my imagination that there were a significant number of Momentum members pushing for a second referendum at the Labour Party conference. Was that made-up too? The conference agreed on a motion. Obviously it wasn't unanimous. The fact that Labour are expected to change policy due to polls carried out by a company owned by a Tory MP is beyond ridiculous. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted January 3, 2019 Share Posted January 3, 2019 5 minutes ago, Detournement said: They got beat despite having Nazi help. The Germans blockaded Finland to stop them getting arms, and were in a pact with Russia. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted January 3, 2019 Share Posted January 3, 2019 1 minute ago, welshbairn said: The Germans blockaded Finland to stop them getting arms, and were in a pact with Russia. You obviously read the start of something. What happened later was Finland allied with Germany, attacked the USSR and were eventually defeated. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted January 3, 2019 Share Posted January 3, 2019 10 minutes ago, Detournement said: You obviously read the start of something. What happened later was Finland allied with Germany, attacked the USSR and were eventually defeated. More of a stalemate, followed by an armistice. Then they kicked the Germans out of Lapland. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted January 3, 2019 Share Posted January 3, 2019 The Soviets 100% won the Continuation War. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted January 3, 2019 Share Posted January 3, 2019 FACT 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted January 3, 2019 Share Posted January 3, 2019 27 minutes ago, Detournement said: You obviously read the start of something. What happened later was Finland allied with Germany, attacked the USSR and were eventually defeated. The Soviets opportunistically invaded Finland in 1939 in the Winter war. Later the Finns allied with Germany to try and win back the territories they'd been forced to concede in '39 and did so until the tide of war turned in '44. however, the Finns were able to halt the offensive in Summer of 44 and signed the Moscow armistice that pretty much put them back where they'd been after the Winter War. Which given the outcomes for the other nations where the Red Army swept over, was a pretty decent result for them all round. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted January 3, 2019 Share Posted January 3, 2019 In Isaac Deutscher's biography of Stalin he states that Stalin was relatively benign towards the Finns because he personally granted Finland independence in 1917 and didn't want to contradict that act. You are basically right about the events but they did much more than try to reclaim territory and significantly participated in the Siege of Leningrad which killed 1 million Soviet civilians. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted January 3, 2019 Share Posted January 3, 2019 2 minutes ago, Detournement said: In Isaac Deutscher's biography of Stalin he states that Stalin was relatively benign towards the Finns because he personally granted Finland independence in 1917 and didn't want to contradict that act. You are basically right about the events but they did much more than try to reclaim territory and significantly participated in the Siege of Leningrad which killed 1 million Soviet civilians. That's one interpretation, the other is that in difficult terrain the Finns did well enough to hold the Soviets up at a time when the punctual destruction of Hitler's army was far more important to the Soviets - the arrival of the Western Allies on the continent in June, while useful to the Soviets in terms of drawing off German forces did put a ticking clock in place in terms of how much of Europe the Soviets could add to their sphere of influence. There is also plenty of evidence to suggest that they would've annexed Finland if they could've - Molotov's comments on the subject for one, the annexation of the Baltic Republics another. See also their halt before Warsaw to allow the Germans to liquidate the rebels so that the Soviets would find it easier to bring Poland into Communist control. They may have tried to do more than reclaim territory, but that makes sense in terms of their war aims of securing their own sovereignty. It gave them something, if they'd been able to hang on, to trade away for other concessions. The Soviets were not exactly known for being honourable brokers (ask the Poles). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted January 3, 2019 Share Posted January 3, 2019 2 minutes ago, renton said: See also their halt before Warsaw to allow the Germans to liquidate the rebels so that the Soviets would find it easier to bring Poland into Communist control. There's no evidence that actually happened. And the accusation isn't that they halted but that they didn't race to Warsaw. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted January 3, 2019 Share Posted January 3, 2019 4 minutes ago, renton said: That's one interpretation, the other is that in difficult terrain the Finns did well enough to hold the Soviets up at a time when the punctual destruction of Hitler's army was far more important to the Soviets - the arrival of the Western Allies on the continent in June, while useful to the Soviets in terms of drawing off German forces did put a ticking clock in place in terms of how much of Europe the Soviets could add to their sphere of influence. There is also plenty of evidence to suggest that they would've annexed Finland if they could've - Molotov's comments on the subject for one, the annexation of the Baltic Republics another. See also their halt before Warsaw to allow the Germans to liquidate the rebels so that the Soviets would find it easier to bring Poland into Communist control. They may have tried to do more than reclaim territory, but that makes sense in terms of their war aims of securing their own sovereignty. It gave them something, if they'd been able to hang on, to trade away for other concessions. The Soviets were not exactly known for being honourable brokers (ask the Poles). The Russians also lost far more men, 4 times total casualties not including civilians. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted January 3, 2019 Share Posted January 3, 2019 7 minutes ago, Detournement said: There's no evidence that actually happened. And the accusation isn't that they halted but that they didn't race to Warsaw. The Soviets were something like 8 miles from the City centre when the uprising started. German front lines opposite them were weak. They sat on their hands - the Soviets were not known for dragging their tail up before beginning an offensive so outrunning their logistics isn't a particularly strong excuse. They simply didn't want the Poles to be in a position to assert any degree of sovereignty. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted January 3, 2019 Share Posted January 3, 2019 4 minutes ago, renton said: The Soviets were something like 8 miles from the City centre when the uprising started. German front lines opposite them were weak. They sat on their hands - the Soviets were not known for dragging their tail up before beginning an offensive so outrunning their logistics isn't a particularly strong excuse. They simply didn't want the Poles to be in a position to assert any degree of sovereignty. And they had an airbase 5 minutes away. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted January 3, 2019 Share Posted January 3, 2019 The Germans had four Panzer divisions and the Red Army had fought across Eastern Europe by being conservative and not extending their supply lines. And it's worth remembering that the Warsaw uprising wasn't something which just happened. It was a British idea supplied by the RAF and the USSR had already objected to it. It's not really a surprised that Stalin didn't react to support Churchill's operation after Churchill had spent years declining to open a second front. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.