Thread: Future of NATO...

Originally Posted by Thiseas

THE Brittish Didn't Came To Help Greeks when Greece was attacked by the Italians. They only came when the German came over to help their Italian allies.

Britain was bound to assist Greece by the declaration of 1939, which stated that in the event of a threat to Greek or Romanian independence, "His Majesty's Government would feel themselves bound at once to lend the Greek or Romanian Government [...] all the support in their power."[29] The first British effort was the deployment of RAF squadrons commanded by John d'Albiac, which were sent in November 1940.[30] With the consent of the Greek government, British forces were dispatched to Crete on October 31 to guard Suda Bay, enabling the Greek government to redeploy the 5th Cretan Division to the mainland.[31]

On November 17, 1940, Metaxas proposed to the British government the undertaking of a joint offensive in the Balkans with the Greek strongholds in South Albania as the base of the operations. The British side however was reluctant to discuss Metaxas' proposal, because the deployment of the troops the implementation of the Greek plan demanded would seriously endanger the Commonwealth military operations in North Africa.[32] During a meeting of British and Greek military and political leaders in Athens on January 13, 1941 General Alexandros Papagos, Commander-in-Chief of the Hellenic Army, asked Britain for nine fully-equipped divisions and corresponding air support. The British responded that, because of their commitment to the fight in North Africa, and all they could offer was the immediate dispatch of a small token force of less than divisional strength. This offer was rejected by the Greeks who feared that the arrival of such a contingent would precipitate a German attack without giving them any sizable assistance.e[›] British help would be requested if and when German troops crossed the Danube from Romania into Bulgaria.[33]
"We did not then know that he [Hitler] was already deeply set upon his gigantic invasion of Russia. If we had we should have felt more confidence in the success of our policy. We should have seen that he risked falling between two stools, and might easily impair his supreme undertaking for the sake of a Balkan preliminary. This is what actually happened, but we could not know that at the time. Some may think we builded rightly; at least we builded better than we knew at the time. It was our aim to animate and combine Yugoslavia, Greece, and Turkey. Our duty so far as possible was to aid the Greeks."
Winston Churchill[34]

Churchill held to his ambition to recreate a Balkan Front comprising Yugolavia, Greece and Turkey,[34] and ordered Anthony Eden and Sir John Dill to resume negotiations with the Greek government. A meeting attended by Eden and the Greek leadership, including King George II, Prime Minister Alexandros Koryzis—the successor of Metaxas, who had died on January 29, 1941—and Papagos took place in Athens on February 22. There the decision to send a British Commonwealth expeditionary force was made.[35] German troops had been massing in Romania and on March 1, 1941, Wehrmacht forces began to move into Bulgaria. At the same time, the Bulgarian Army mobilized and took up positions along the Greek frontier.[34] On March 2 Operation Lustre, the transportation of troops and equipment to Greece, began and 26 troopships arrived at the port of Piraeus.[36] On April 3, during a meeting of British, Yugoslav, and Greek military representatives, the Yugoslavs promised to block the Strimon valley in case of a German attack across their territory.[37] During this meeting, Papagos laid stress on the importance of a joint Greco-Yugoslavian offensive against the Italians, as soon as the Germans launched their offensive against the two countries.f[›] Until April 24, more than 62,000 Commonwealth troops (British, Australians, New Zealanders, Palestinians and Cypriots) were sent to Greece, comprising the 6th Australian Division, the New Zealand 2nd Division, and the British 1st Armoured Brigade.[38] The three formations later became known as 'W' Force, after their commander, Lieutenant-General Sir Henry Maitland Wilson.g[›]

Source

Originally Posted by Thiseas

Not only they din't help the Greeks but they where giving guns and ammunitions to the Germans and Italians by the end of 1943 in order to keep the partisan away from taking over the country after the war was over.

Of course the Germans and Italians didn't have any guns of their own

Originally Posted by Thiseas

Mainland Greece was free of German or other(bulgarian or italian) ocupation
since 1943, and only major cities and ports where occupied.

So it was free from Axis occupation, except for the cities and/or ports

Being from a country that spent not inconsiderable amounts of blood fighting the Axis on both the Greek mainland and Crete in an attempt to defend Greece from occupation, I would take umbrage at this point simply from your denigration of their efforts.
However, what I most take umbrage from is your complete idiocy in re-inventing history as Britain and the Allies conspiring with the Axis forces
(who they just happened to be at war with at the time) solely to disadvantage Greece.
One of my criteria as a moderator is that our members display an at least passing semblance of having been touched by the light of reason. You have not.

Originally Posted by Thiseas

why didn't the West Truly help them when they asked for directions after the collapse of communism?

But america did, they gave them MacDonalds and Coca Cola and the UK gave them pop groups!!! Intel gave them the internet and Chelsea FC got in return, a Russian Mafia Boss!!

Originally Posted by Parihaka

However, what I most take umbrage from is your complete idiocy in re-inventing history as Britain and the Allies conspiring with the Axis forces (who they just happened to be at war with at the time) solely to disadvantage Greece.)

Oh come on, keep an open mind.

The whole thing is possible....right? )

WOW, that was a malignant little tumor, wasn't it? Did he come in just to push our buttons, or are all Greeks that freakin' ignorant? Are they really taught that filth, or did this one come across his own version of the historical record all on his own?

Good kill, by the way.

Deficit Proposal- Nat'l Review

Back on track- this opinion is offered by Niles Gardner of the Margaret Thatcher Foundation and Sally McNamera of the Heritage Foundation. It's an explicit rejection of France's ploy to gain access to the command levels of NATO for the price of a thousand plus French paratroopers to be stationed in the east (173rd Airborne's A.O?) while we shift forces south.

More importantly, it's a rejection of France/Germany's attempt to lever influence and resources from NATO via an EU-based defense structure which is a clear rejection of the Berlin Plus agreements. The endorsement of such a proposal by America's permanent representative to NATO, Ambassador Victoria Nuland, stands in stark contrast to the comments of Nicholas Burns, her predecessor, only four years earlier in September of 2003-

"...We codified, we negotiated Berlin Plus, and agreed to it in March of this year. Berlin Plus is the way forward to good cooperation between NATO and the EU."

At present I agree with Burns' earlier comments. What's changed in Washington since 2003 to justify this 3200 mil shift in policy? However, I'm not opposed to an EU-based security initiative. Only, I see it without the support or even existance of NATO. Should this come to past, the U.S. should withdraw from NATO and re-assess the nature of it's strategic relationships with the nations of Europe on a case-by-case basis.

Whether this leads to the collapse of NATO is not relevant under the circumstances of an emerging European defense umbrella that moves command & control effectively into the hands of France. If so, so too the obligation of maintenence and sustainment for such an enterprise.

I don't want France's paratroopers in Afghanistan at this cost. If so, I want out of NATO.

Equal Alliance, Unequal Roles- Kaplan NYT

Robert Kaplan argues otherwise, essentially suggesting that our current two-tiered alliance is just fine, save for America's impolitic strong-arming and disparagement of our valued allies.

"...the twin burdens of NATO deployments in Afghanistan and Kosovo and the inability of most alliance members to spend at least two percent of their gross domestic products on their militaries.

In these circumstances, countries like the United States and Britain will simply have to carry a heavier burden than others. But what of it? NATO has always operated as a multi-tiered organization. During the cold war, northern countries essentially ran the show while the southern ones went meekly along (except for Greece, which often protested loudly)."

Don't you know that two-tiers have always existed? Even in the all-for-one, one-for-all world of Soviet expansionist ambitions it really was two-tiered. America would suffer the burden of Europe's defense disproportionately should the Soviet Union attack. An interesting premise (if not completely accurate) with Europe's inability to meet even it's 3% GNP military budget targets of the time (and 2% now). Kaplan says-

"Had there ever been a land war in Europe, American forces would have done the overwhelming amount of the fighting, so why should Afghanistan and future armed clashes be any different? NATO forces were never deployed in a war zone during the cold war, so the inequalities within the organization were masked. Now that its forces are taking the field, those inequalities are exposed."

As such, and with the onerous threat of the Red Army removed from the picture, we should be neither surprised and, indeed, grateful for the limited, second-tier support which NATO receives in Afghanistan. I didn't know this interesting fact but Kaplan suggests-

"Rather than bully the Germans into doing what they’re not very good at — counterinsurgency — in the violent south of Afghanistan, we should be grateful that they’re doing something they are good at — nation-building — in the relatively peaceful north."

Since when have the Germans validated this particular skill of "nation-building"? Did I miss something? Ah well, the path of least resistance, nicely greased with falsely-conferred platitudes of skills unproved.

Finally, Kaplan gets onto something really worth discussing-

"Europe, merely because of its economic weight, is going to be a significant military power in the 21st century. Our goal should be for that military power to be expressed as much as possible through an American-led alliance."

Kaplan is correct on both counts here. However, while our goal should be to channel that power through our influence, it should not be so at the expense of our core values. Kaplan extolls the virtues of NATO, even imperfectly managed. Fair enough, but he doesn't offer an explicit rejection of the ESDP.

If so, then Kaplan finally points the way in his last paragraph-

"The United States will have to forge plenty of other military alliances in the 21st century: area-specific ones for the Pacific and Indian oceans; and culturally specific ones, namely the core group of Anglo-Saxon nations that have borne the brunt of responsibility in Iraq and Afghanistan. But simply because NATO cannot be an alliance of equals does not mean that it won’t play a significant role in our grand strategy: to create a web of global arrangements and liberal institutions that will allow America to gradually retreat from its costly and risky position of overbearing dominance."

It'll be a magician's weaving that creates a web of alliances and "global arrangements" that move forward the prospects of greater peace. Conversely, Kaplan's vision could be a harbinger of our pre- W.W.I world of entangled alliances. Still, I AM intrigued by both the belief that our pan-Asian alliances must be stronger and that the common culture and shared values of traditionally Anglo-Saxon nations may merit consideration.

A new and different commonwealth of sorts?

I dunno, through the 21st century a lot of nations in the Far East are probably going to be tempted to grow closer to the PRC in exchange for aid, and eventually the PLA may actually develop enough of a credible power projection capability that they could set up their own protection racket. I for one wouldn't be sure that Australia would support a pro-American alliance in our neighbourhood, since we've already made it clear that we won't be getting invloved in any conflict over Taiwan.

Also I feel the need to point out that there is a very strong undercurrent of blind anti-American prejudice that runs through Australia and Britain, while Governments and the minority of people who know what they're talking about may see the necessity of continued engagement in Afghanistan and Iraq, many people simply label it as "American imperialism" and refuse to even listen to any argument otherwise. So I'm not so sure that this notion of "Anglo-Saxon" common values really exists in the real world anymore.

As for the troubles with getting the EU heavyweights to actually lift a finger in Afghanistan (a mess they helped make too), perhaps it is time to simply threaten to abandon NATO, abandon all defence committments to Europe and form a new non-regional Alliance.