Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

What now for the EU ?

I always thought that the biggest issue was C2 arrangements for the release of nuclear weapons and De Gaulle being especially unhappy about the US being able to launch nuclear strikes from France without him having an effective veto?

Among other things. The baseline was that de Gaulle was not in favour of placing French forces under US Command, period. He considered that a nation could have alliances but that, ultimately, any nation should be able to decide what was best for her, not another nation, especially if it is located across an ocean, 6,000 km away.
 
And on you go onto ignore. I get back 10 valuable minutes of my day by not having to wade through your increasingly tedious posts.

I am happy to engage with any sensible EU supporter who posts well reasoned replies, even though I may not agree with them.

Rants end up in the 'ignore bin' - which currently contains most of the SPOTY 2020 contenders.

Bye...
Said someone incapable of challenge.
 
Indeed, that's why NATO HQ is in Belgium not France as originally intended and why the recently moved from HQ building (new HQ is over the road) has a warren of what are basically tarted up portacabins as a lot of the office accommodation.
Apparently a rather senior American politician Lyndon B Johnson (POTUS) insisted that his Secretary of State ask DeGaulle if that also included the over 60,000 US servicemen who died for French freedom and are buried in France. DeGaulle left the room in embarrassed silence.

ETA. @Murphy_Slaw got there first. In my time at NATO it's still a bit of a sore point when the US and French are in meetings together, the US really wasn't happy and still don't trust the French an inch.
Wasn’t NATO HQ in Fontainebleau until at least the late 50s? An uncle was a monkey there on National Service.
There was certainly an international school there in the mid-60s for the brats.
Or am I thinking of SHAPE?
 
Absolutely, but you’re entitled to feel a little miffed if you sacrificed a lot of blood and treasure to give him the house and he hasn’t even bothered to say thank you.

Dues were given where deserved but after years of facing off with Roosevelt who tried to have him replaced by a string of Vichy puppets up to November 1944, de Gaulle had very good reasons to be very cautious with the USA.

On the other hand, the USA, at a cost of about 350,000 KIA, established dominance over the Western and Asian world for 70 odd-years, without the burden of being seen as a colonial power and with the added bonus of being seen as the liberator.

In the long run, it was a bargain, except for the 350,000 US KIA of course.
 
Excuse if already posted.


Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

I would not be surprised at all if the UK returns to CSDP Ops as a "third nation". More and more nations, even located far and away like NZ, are getting partner status to join CSDP Ops and it would not be in the UK's interest to leave that box unchecked.
 
I would not be surprised at all if the UK returns to CSDP Ops as a "third nation". More and more nations, even located far and away like NZ, are getting partner status to join CSDP Ops and it would not be in the UK's interest to leave that box unchecked.
Default Strategic mindset comes to mind.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
 

Tyk

LE
Wasn’t NATO HQ in Fontainebleau until at least the late 50s? An uncle was a monkey there on National Service.
There was certainly an international school there in the mid-60s for the brats.
Or am I thinking of SHAPE?

Yup, they'd not been in their purpose built military and diplomatic HQ's long either. as a result of DeGaulle NATO decamped pronto and quite a few of the NATO staff are still very aware of what went on.
 
Ta - 'Training' assignments then.

Yes because most EU nations, Germany in particular, are against participating in combat Ops. They say that this is Op Barkhane's role....

EUTM Mali will soon change its modus operandi, operating more as decentralized mobile training teams than from its location in Koulikoro.
 
Yup, they'd not been in their purpose built military and diplomatic HQ's long either. as a result of DeGaulle NATO decamped pronto and quite a few of the NATO staff are still very aware of what went on.

NATO HQ used to be in Paris, near the avenue Foch.

Today it is the university of Paris Dauphine.

Some pictures and background info here

 
Yes because most EU nations, Germany in particular, are against participating in combat Ops. They say that this is Op Barkhane's role....

EUTM Mali will soon change its modus operandi, operating more as decentralized mobile training teams than from its location in Koulikoro.
Most other nations are against Germany starting combat ops too.
 
Out of curiosity - what were 'EU Military Missions'?
Some minor Deployments in the francophone part of Africa. Nothing to see here, please disperse.
 
. . . In my time at NATO it's still a bit of a sore point when the US and French are in meetings together, the US really wasn't happy and still don't trust the French an inch.
Does anybody ?! :( .
 
Most other nations are against Germany starting combat ops too.

I am not in the least worried. The armed forces' career is seen as utterly senseless in Germany today and bright young things never even consider it.

I have spent 8 years in international HQs working alongside German officers; mostly very nice and decent individual but zero fire in them, little else than civil servants in uniform.
 
I am not in the least worried. The armed forces' career is seen as utterly senseless in Germany today and bright young things never even consider it.

I have spent 8 years in international HQs working alongside German officers; mostly very nice and decent individual but zero fire in them, little else than civil servants in uniform.
Yeah, yeah, they said the same in 1936... ;)
 

Latest Threads

Top