Nothing to be ashamed of. All of Western Europe was too, for 50 years… 
[/quote]
Game, set and match.
Nothing to be ashamed of. All of Western Europe was too, for 50 years… [/quote]
We can always rely on Tigerman 
Nothing to be ashamed of. All of Western Europe was too, for 50 years… [/quote]
If referring to the old Soviet threat, then i hardly think the USa alone prevented them from invading, if referring to WWII, then again the USA was not alone in restoring independence.
But then again, expecting anything less from two ‘die in the wool, good old boys, amercian patriots’ is asking to much.
Nothing to be ashamed of. All of Western Europe was too, for 50 years… [/quote]
If referring to the old Soviet threat, then i hardly think the USA alone prevented them from invading, if referring to WWII, then again the USA was not alone in restoring independence.[/quote]
WWII didn’t last 50 years. I think its obvious I was referring to the post war period.
Please enlighten us, who assisted the US in protecting Western Europe from the Soviets?
Tigerman
Strange you should ask that when the answer is so simple, how about the western europeans themselves, or are you really so blind to believe that everyone servciemen available in western europe was American !!!
[quote=“Traveller”]Tigerman
Strange you should ask that when the answer is so simple, how about the western Europeans themselves, or are you really so blind to believe that everyone servciemen available in western Europe was American !!![/quote]
You’re obviously joking… er, right?
Look, while the Brits are definitely game, they did not possess the military capability to defend Western Europe from the Soviets.
None of the other Western European nations contributed much at all to the defense.
Get serious. What were the defense budgets of Western European nations during the cold war?
[quote=“Traveller”]Tigerman
Strange you should ask that when the answer is so simple, how about the western Europeans themselves, or are you really so blind to believe that everyone servciemen available in western Europe was American !!![/quote]
coughAmerican ICBM’scough
[quote=“Traveller”]Tigerman
Strange you should ask that when the answer is so simple, how about the western Europeans themselves…[/quote]
I needed a good laugh. Obviously you never served in the military. In the event of a surprise Soviet invasion of Western Europe in 1980, Soviet troops were expected to be on the North Sea D+6. Yeah, that’s right. One week. Because of our German allies, we were supposed to fight on the border in an “eggshell” defense and fight for every inch of German soil regardless of military reality.
I suggest you get a copy of the British 1957 White Paper on Defense*. This is when it was decided that since the next war would of course be nuclear and it would be the US and Soviets doing the fighting, there was no need for Britain to continue to spend large amounts of money on defense nor was it necessary to maintain a large standing army, air force or navy. National Service ended and British military might evaporated.
*If you want to read it online, access will cost you about $6500US.
adam-matthew-publications.co … t/p567.htm
[quote=“tigerman”]
Look, while the Brits are definitely game, they did not possess the military capability to defend Western Europe from the Soviets.[/quote]
They were lucky to make it to the Falklands. The US had to provide an A/S (anti-submarine screen) and maps for god’s sake.
Guys, as usual, a different opinion is taken as criticism. The point is the other countries did have defence forces, however good or bad. To suggest that ONLY the americans stopped the soviets from invading is pure bloody rubbish. Yes, the US forces contributed, and to a large extent may well have been instrumental in preventing an invasion, but they were not alone, lets get some real perspective on things.
Whilst the US had the majority of nuclear weapons that were behind the stalemate as so to speak during the cold war, other western nations also had some deterrent, maybe on a much smaller scale, but it was still there.
I am not saying that the US did nothing, far from it, but it is not correct to say that the western european nations did nothing either which is what you guys are saying.
post WW2 western Europe was pretty good when it came to pouring piss from a shoe. 
no, it is refuted with facts.
The point is, they were bad. And of little or absolutely zero deterrent to the Soviets.
To suggest otherwise is absolute rubbish.
Yes, let’s get some real perspective. I already asked you what the defense budgets were for European nations while the US was protecting Western Europe. Answer that and you’ll have some real perspective on the issue.
Can you state exactly what that deterrent was?
I say they did nothing, or next to nothing. Can you tell us what they did?
The Dutch troops had longhair and wore hairnets when I was there. They certainly deterred the Serbs at Srebrenica…think how effective they would have been against the Soviet 40th Guards Army if it had rolled across the border at Venlo one fine December morning in 1980…
The Dutch troops had longhair and wore hairnets when I was there. They certainly deterred the Serbs at Srebrenica…think how effective they would have been against the Soviet 40th Guards Army if it had rolled across the border at Venlo one fine December morning in 1980…[/quote]
That reminds me of the Swedish guard I watched in Stockholm in 1982… long hair and unshaved faces… marching all out of step in front of the palace… it was comical, really.
Doesn’t anyone here believe in research? Just bop over to FAS and check the numbers. The European-based deterrent was more than enough to render the USSR impotent as a modern national state. The French submarine launched deterrent, composed of later M-20 SLBMs, comprised 100 missiles each delivering a 1.2 megaton warhead. The Sovs would not be in good shape with their 100 or so largest cities wiped out by French SLBMs. That doesn’t even count other French delivery systems, or similar British systems. The British submarines were capable of carry 192 warheads each, though they did not carry so many normally (about 96). No one serious could believe that the Sovs would not be deterred by all that firepower, whatever the US position added. Further, had the US nuke deterrent not been present, Europe easily could have built more nukes. Several years ago Scientific American also had an excellent article on the probable effects of the Franco-British nuclear arsenal that showed it would do grave damage to the Soviets.
The Europeans contributed in many ways to the defense of Europe, for example, much of the support infrastructure was European (was we were embarrassed to find out in Gulf War I when US minesweeping capabilities turned out to be insufficient). I would suggest tracking down total US troop commitments in Europe during the 1980s, which, as I recall, were about three hundred thousand, and compare them to the armed forces already there. The Bundeswehr was almost 500,000 during the 1980s (I am having some trouble finding good numbers for the mid-1980s). And let’s not forget – the war would be fought on European land, not US, so that the “costs” would be borne by those in harm’s way. It is narrow-minded and unrealistic to imagine that the Europeans did nothing while America protected them from the USSR.
Vorkosigan
Just doing a very cursory tour of the net I found that at the end of the cold war, 1990, the defense budget of Western Europe was around 60% of the total US military budget. Western Europe’s contribution to NATO was around 40%. Obviously the US was still the major player but the only player?
Oh, and France’s budget at 51 billion was actually about 10 billion higher than the UK’s.
This subject is not at all my territory or interest so I hope some non-snide, non-partisan responses can be made. Got that? I’m asking questions not picking on your motherland.
Well unfortunately most of Belgium’s defense budget goes to paying salaries of administrative staff and pensions. I believe the latest figure on this was 80 percent which left very little for actual weapons purchases much less defense capabilities. We need not even discuss offensive or peacekeeping operations or forward capabilities. Sorry but unless you can come up with something hard on this to show that Europe is capable of defending itself, I remain unconvinced.
Would you like a garden to go with that straw man? Nobody claimed that “Europe was capable of defending itself.” Rather, the issue was whether the European contribution to its own defense was a significant one. Clearly, with its important nuclear deterrent, and large armed forces, and extensive expenditure on support, and other key functions, Europe played a key role in its own defense. Some posters here have some unrealistic views of Europe’s contribution to NATO.
Vorkosigan
V:
Now nice to hear from you finally. Seem to have forgotten to answer after I buried you in that onslaught of statistcs proving that the US was responsible for only 1 percent of Saddam’s conventional weapons and not much higher of a percentage for wmds.
Wanna go for round 2 when I finish researching this particular subject.
Looking at Eurodefense budgets much goes to administration and pensions. Yes, France has a nuclear deterrent but given a massive Russian invasion, would they have used it? Doubtful.
Love Fredd
I’m sorry Fred was this addressed to me?