European Army Plans

A European Defence Strategy

Core Messages
� The security of the Union and that of its friends and allies requires a holistic, strategic civil-military
vision that combines achievable means and ends. Military defence is but a small part of the effort and
military power is most certainly not an end in itself. However, for the EU to be a legitimate and
effective security actor, it must possess a limited but credible military defence component embedded
firmly in the �assertive multilateralism� of the Union�s wider security responsibilities.
� The European Security Strategy (ESS) upon which this strategy is based is a pre-strategic concept.
It must be rapidly hardened into a mechanism that defines when, where, why and how the European
Union will act. Only such a strategic concept can generate the consensus that will in turn weld all the
EU�s security tools (aid and development, prevention of strategic intrusion by terrorists, robust policing
and armed forces) into the single institutional framework that contemporary security demands.
The Strategy
� The Venusberg Strategy 2004 calls upon EU member-states to rapidly harden the European
Security Strategy into a European strategic concept. A European Strategic Concept would represent
a new departure in transnational security thinking and organisation, because it would meld
into a single conceptual framework national, civil and military, as well as offensive and
defensive security and defence efforts.
� To develop a strategic concept the European Security Strategy must be translated into security
and defence missions with a detailed military task list developed thereafter that would form the
basis for a strategic European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP).
� The strategic ESDP military task list will in turn provide the framework for European force transformation,
integration of European armed forces, planning for future missions, equipment programmes
and defence financing requirements.
� The EU should be in a position to undertake all ESS-type missions at their most demanding by 2015.

www.cap.uni-muenchen.de...
in germany, the venusberg papers are a big thing, there are much discussions bout it.

[edit on 26-9-2004 by Wodan]

MOD EDIT: Trimmed quote a bit. Link requires Adobe Reader.

[edit on 26-9-2004 by RANT]

Well, its about time we got a common army. I'm all for removing all the national borders too.

Originally posted by Ghaele
Well, its about time we got a common army. I'm all for removing all the national borders too.

With all this in mind, shouldn't Europe move towards a common language? If so, which should it be? English? Then the French would get mad. German? No, the French would get mad. How about Italien? Can't do that, the French would get mad. OK, OK. Go with French. Can't do that, because the French will get mad. It's their language and nobody else can have it.

[edit on 28/9/04 by Intelearthling]

What makes this so humerous is a report I saw on euronews about the euroforce which is a french/german force considered to be the first step torwards a european army. What makes it funny is that in an interview with one of the soldiers, she mentioned that alomst non of the french speak german and vice -versa but that "we get long O.K. with hand signals"
Bwahhahahahahahahahahahahahahah
How are these idiots gonna defend europe if they cant even talk over the radio.

Originally posted by mwm1331
What makes this so humerous is a report I saw on euronews about the euroforce which is a french/german force considered to be the first step torwards a european army. What makes it funny is that in an interview with one of the soldiers, she mentioned that alomst non of the french speak german and vice -versa but that "we get long O.K. with hand signals"
Bwahhahahahahahahahahahahahahah
How are these idiots gonna defend europe if they cant even talk over the radio.

- Don't be so ridiculous; they'll get along just as well and effectively as any armed forces would do if they had (like the armies of Europe) operated and trained together for the last 40+yrs.

Jayzuss, some of you guys really do end up clutching at absurd-no-thought-or-consideration-at-all straws to do this sneering & looking down your noses business, huh?

(BTW I wouldn't worry too much about whether a handful can or can't speak each others language or not, there's a marked tendancy for them all - or almost all - to speak impeccable English....... and, let's get real here, the general rule of thumb is that your 'average' continental Europeans puts your 'average' British and Americans totally to shame when it comes to language skills......so I think the laughter should be aimed elsewhere, eh?)

Sorry to burst your buble sminkey but the whole point of the report was that the lack of an abillity to effectivly communicate was casing a degradation of the "euroforce's" capabillities.In point of fact the quote was in realtion to these problems whch were very well highlighted by the report.The bottom line is that if two halves of an army don't speak a common language they won't be an effective battle force.

Originally posted by mwm1331
Sorry to burst your buble sminkey but the whole point of the report was that the lack of an abillity to effectivly communicate was casing a degradation of the "euroforce's" capabillities.

- .....and I'm saying it's lazy journo rubbish as even half a moments thought about the realities of Europe's armed forces over the last 40yrs would have told you or anyone.

So then you feel you are more qaulified to discuss the communications problems or lack therof than the soldiers who were interviewed and quoted as saying that the lack of communicaton was a problem?
Hmmm interesting.

Originally posted by mwm1331
How are these idiots gonna defend europe if they cant even talk over the radio.

Considering you are an American living in Europe, I get the feeling you relish the opportunity to take advantage of anonymity when it comes to posting your euro-hate on ATS. Which makes sense.

That said, I would pay the airfare and one nights accomodation just to see you say such a thing to a German or French soldiers face.

I express the same view whether I am on an online message board or in person, my views do not change based on my audience, perhaps you mistook me for Senator Kerry?

Originally posted by mwm1331
So then you feel you are more qaulified to discuss the communications problems or lack therof than the soldiers who were interviewed and quoted as saying that the lack of communicaton was a problem?
Hmmm interesting.

- Look man I'm not trying to be rude to you or anything but I am asking you to think about this.

Just because a journo can turn up one or two mouth-pieces to say what they want said does not prove the point.....particularly one so obvious to anyone who knows the slightest thing about this.

I ask you to consider how Euope managed for 40yrs+ post WW2 in the NATO arrangements from organisation level and all the way down through to troops on the ground.

I also ask you to consider the very high linguistic standards common across most of Europe.

(It may actually be that when asked specifically if a person could not speak French to a French person or German to a German person that the commentator could, quite honestly, say that this was not totally ideal.....but as I have been saying most continental Europeans have several languages, English - to a high standard - being the most common among all)

Sorry but I rate this story as lazy, knowingly patronising and utterly worthless garbage for the empty heads who lap this kind of base crud up.

Heres the problem though sminkey. Even given that nato was able to coordinate thier movements and exercises if I am not mistaken there was very little interminglng at the troop levels I.E. there were french divisions, german divisions, American divisions etc. Now they are attempting to create a pan european armed services where the french germans brits etc. fight side by side. (at least that was they way I understand it) Now it would seem to me that if you are going to have troops from multiple nations living and fightng shoulder to shoulder it would make sense to ensure that they all speak a common language. When members of this force are saying that the only way they can communicate is by "hand gestures" it appears to me that this was not done.
hey I could be wrong but as I have only limited info to go on untill someone posts verifiable info I have no choice but assume the info I got was correct.

Originally posted by mwm1331
Even given that nato was able to coordinate thier movements and exercises if I am not mistaken there was very little interminglng at the troop levels I.E. there were french divisions, german divisions, American divisions etc.

- Hmm, I think you'll find there were always secondments going on. France was always a little different what with their 'in but out' arrangements.

Now they are attempting to create a pan european armed services where the french germans brits etc. fight side by side. (at least that was they way I understand it)

- Well true that is what they are doing, but then that was always how it was. Brits operated before side by side with Germans etc etc.

Now it would seem to me that if you are going to have troops from multiple nations living and fightng shoulder to shoulder it would make sense to ensure that they all speak a common language.

- That would be ideal yes, but, not necessarily IMO essential (and as I say the history shows this to be true).

In any case widespread common coded communications render 'in the clear' communications etc a liability one can do without....even if anyone were using such methods anymore.

When members of this force are saying that the only way they can communicate is by "hand gestures" it appears to me that this was not done.

- This is the bit I find really hard to believe. I have yet to travel in cointinental Europe and not find just about every other if not actually every person fluent in excellent English. I'm sure there are villages where this is not how it is but honestly I find it hard to believe that a group of more than 4 Europeans isn't going to have a means of common spoken conmunication.

hey I could be wrong but as I have only limited info to go on untill someone posts verifiable info I have no choice but assume the info I got was correct.

- I'd suggest the info is inaccurate to say the least. It's just politics.

There are a number of 'sides' in this.....and some really don't want a 'Euro Army' (for a variety of reasons.....ranging from the, IMO down-right weird, UK Euro-sceptical position of 'they're taking over' all the way through to the Euro-left's 'it'll end up being used one way or another as a tool of US policy').

I'd be a bit more discerning about what you believe.

I want the UK to be FREE from the oppression of the EU!

Adolf Hitler tried it once before 60 odd years ago. I'm British/English and i will program my children to resist the evil that the dictatorship in the making will bring.

Tony Blair is a traitor and should be executed along with all his supporters.

There are those of us who would resist the EU. At the moment via legal means....

Be warned: resistance is brewing.

Can someone tell me why there wasnt a European army created when europe had the USSR breathing down its neck?

Now that the USSR is not even around they need a combined army what gives. I know NATO was created for just that reason but I dont understand why that is not good enough any more. Perhaps this is a new instrument for Europe to project military power on a global scale.

I have been to many countries in Europe, and 80% of the people I met could speak almost perfect English. Every secondary school in Europe has to teach a second language and usually that language is English. Even in some colleges you have to do languages as a mandatory subject.
So I doubt there would be much communication trouble at all.
Plus, I bet there are lots of users right here on ATS that are from non-English speaking countries, and they manage to write very good English.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Can someone tell me why there wasnt a European army created when europe had the USSR breathing down its neck?

Right after WWII people had been just fighting against each other they still had strong adverse emotions against each other despite political treaties.
Soviet union would've been too intimitated and would've possibly reacted in a very negative way if such an army would've been accomplished. And then came NATO and Warsaw pact, so there were too armies that held halves of europe on opposite sides.



And the linguistical problems aren't invincible especially with younger people. Armies consist mostly of people on their 20's,30's... not from 75 year old french intellectualist socialist farmers who would never speak english. With the younger europeans almost everyone can speak english.

English is already accepted international language in air-traffic for example. I don't see why french soldiers wouldn't accept communication in english military terms. The french doctors have to use latin to communicate medical terms, but I don't see them torching cars and climbing to barricades.
Using english for something doesn't mean they have to introduce two floor red buses in Paris.

Sure there are problems especially at the beginning, but they are not such problems that they couldn't be overcome.

For example in the french foreign legion there are people from all over the world. So the foreign legion is completely incapable of communication or action because everybody didn't speak french when they joined ? Certainly a continent wide army is different than some special forces, but people can adapt and people already have the tools in their braind for at least to work together with english.

[edit on 28-9-2004 by vibetic]

And you don't even have to have one common language to have unified army able to communicate, at least on higher than cannon fodder levels. In Finland we have a separate unit (Dragsvik) for those whose primary language is swedish. But that doesn't mean finnish defence forces are in state of dysfunction.

[edit on 28-9-2004 by vibetic]

Rustiswordz said -

I want the UK to be FREE from the oppression of the EU!

- er, what oppression? If you open your eyes you'd see that UK subjects are actually enjoying greater human rights than ever before thanks to Europe.

The EU is a collective of states cooperating ever closer and agreeing mutually beneficial methods, laws and standards across the largest most wealthy functioning trading and political group in the world.

Adolf Hitler tried it once before 60 odd years ago.

- This is just so wrong not to mention being utterly stupid insulting garbage.

How dare you blithly compare a murderous (by the multi million) fascist dictatorship with a collective of free democratic countries who have always freely chose to act together through their own nominees and democratically elected ministers.

Have you the slightest idea of how insulting and devaluing that kind of idiotic tosh is to those who actually really suffered Hitler and his bloody gang for real?

Clearly you can't even see how you piss over the graves of the soldiers and civillians who fought nazism, millions paying the ultimate price, with such pathetic nasty comments?

I'm British/English and i will program my children to resist the evil that the dictatorship in the making will bring.

- I'm thinking 'Jimmy' from 'The fall and rise of Reginald Perrin'. That's about right isn't it?

Rust whatever you attempt you cannot guarantee 'jack s.'.....and if you do try my money would be on your kids laughing at your out of date ideas soon enough anyway.

Tony Blair is a traitor and should be executed along with all his supporters.

- I know who it is that keeps sounding like a traitor to our laws and democratic choices and it isn't Blair Rusty, it's you, time after time here. Maybe Blair should start giving you the type of government you clearly wish for....but execute the likes of you hmmm? How would that be?

There are those of us who would resist the EU. At the moment via legal means....

Be warned: resistance is brewing.

- Yeah yeah yeah. What's this? Threats of terrorism against the popular vote, huh?

Well get used to it Rust. Blair and Co. are set to walk the next election and the UK will move ever closer to Europe. The people don't fear Europe; just the fringe loonies on the tory and ukip right.

Big deal, there's a bunch of you bitch about the EU and how lefty(!?) Blair and Co. are down the bar, so what? A bunch of Jimmy's wow, how a really scary traitorous revolutionary bunch.

A handful of terrorists that would be hunted down mercilessly is what lies in store for anyone stupid enough to persue that line Rust. Wake up.

No doubt there are a few dangerous dreamers over this but - just like the fox hunting crowd - you just don't have enough support, particularly amongst the young.

Get over it. We've been to Europe, they're just like us and they don't frighten us at all.

Hitler is gone and never coming back. Wise up.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Can someone tell me why there wasnt a European army created when europe had the USSR breathing down its neck?

Now that the USSR is not even around they need a combined army what gives. I know NATO was created for just that reason but I dont understand why that is not good enough any more. Perhaps this is a new instrument for Europe to project military power on a global scale.

- I think you'll find the idea is that this is to be another tier of military choice. This is not instead of NATO, NATO will continue, as will all the other collective arrangements.

The idea (as I understand it) is that this is to be an option for when NATO action is either not appropriate or NATO is unable or unwilling to act.

In the days of the cold-war I think it was felt that an arrangement like NATO was much more appropriate as it did more to 'bind' the American continent to the European one and present WARPAC with less chance of division. Obviously this was felt to be in everyone's interests much more than a separate Euro-army might have been (not to mention the difficulties the issue of (arming or not) Germany would have presented then to a completely 'Euro-army').