Once upon a time it was difficult to stop the French and German armies marching into another countries...... illegally.
First there was Napoleon in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.
Despite being so short he would have had to use stepladders to snog a dwarf and the fact he had a fetish for female sweat, he had an ego the size of the British Empire. He thought nothing of marching into a European country and claiming it for himself. He even had the audacity to try and invade Great Britain, until the likes of Nelson and Wellington put paid to that.
Then there was Hitler. A mustachioed twerp with one testicle who thought he would create a world empire populated by blond hair and blue eyed robots by marching into various European countries and slaughtering their Jews. Thankfully, the Russians and the British (both peoples he stupidly tried to invade) put paid to his nefarious ways.
But, in the early twenty-first century, when it comes to occupying a country LEGALLY the French and Germans don't want to know.
In Afghanistan, it is the close allies of the Americans, British and Canadians who are carrying most of the burden. So, too, are the Dutch.
Britain has just announced another 500 troops for the war-torn country, taking the total British contingent there to over 10,000. The US is to send another 30,000 troops.
Needless, to say, though, the French and Germans will not be sending any more troops. They are probably too busy trying to build their Empire in Europe, including the creation of an EU Army. If they think the British would ever have their soldiers and equipment controlled from Brussels they need their heads seeing to.
Afghanistan and a lesson in EU humility
By Daily Mail Comment
02nd December 2009
Daily Mail
German soldiers in Afghanistan. They might have been fearsome in the 1940s, but today Germany won't allow its troops in Afghanistan to fight at night
In Monday's solemn statement to MPs, Gordon Brown declared that he had set a number of conditions for the sending of extra British troops to Afghanistan - among them the securing of a cast-iron commitment that other nations would be 'bearing their share'.
This condition had been met, he claimed - and he duly deployed a further 500 soldiers to Helmand province, taking Britain's total to 10,000.
Last night, President Obama - after weeks of indecision - finally announced he would be sending an extra 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan, and that he expected a further 10,000 to follow from his country's allies.
Abstaining from war: French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German counterpart Angela Merkel have refused to join U.S. President Obama's latest Afghan push
But were those key NATO neighbours France and Germany - defended so resolutely by America during the Cold War - prepared to 'bear their share'?
Non, said President Sarkozy. Nein, said Chancellor Angela Merkel.
The reality is that the countries of Eastern Europe will have to take the pain for them.
The British Army consists of 148,000 personnel; the French Army consists of 134,000 personnel; and the German Army consists of 102,000 personnel. Despite the armies being fairly close in size, the French and Germans have only a fraction of the troops in Afghanistan that the British have. Britain currently has 9,000 troops in the country, but will soon send another 500. Including special forces (the exact number of which has not been made public), that would mean Britain will probably soon have over 10,000 troops in Afghanistan. Germany has 4,365 troops in Afghanistan and France has 3,095. Canada has 2,830 troops in Afghanistan, despite its army having just 36,000 personnel.
If the West's involvement in Afghanistan is a war on terror - and there is no doubt that with nuclear-armed Pakistan being dragged into the debacle with the Taliban firmly ensconced on its borders that the stakes are terribly high - then France and Germany's behaviour is deeply regrettable.
Let's not forget that both countries claim to be steadfast supporters of the NATO-led mission in Afghanistan.
They also share the declared ambition of the EU one day having its own united army, one of the central planks of the Lisbon Treaty, which came into operation yesterday and which was so disgracefully imposed upon the British people.
The idea of an EU army was always a bad - if frightening - joke. Today, it is simply laughable. France and Germany should hang their heads in shame.
Coalition fatalities in Afghanistan
United States: 857
Britain: 235
Canada: 132
Germany: 40
France: 36
Denmark: 30
Spain: 26
Italy: 22
Netherlands: 21
Poland: 15
Others: 52
TOTAL:1,465
dailymail.co.uk
First there was Napoleon in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.
Despite being so short he would have had to use stepladders to snog a dwarf and the fact he had a fetish for female sweat, he had an ego the size of the British Empire. He thought nothing of marching into a European country and claiming it for himself. He even had the audacity to try and invade Great Britain, until the likes of Nelson and Wellington put paid to that.
Then there was Hitler. A mustachioed twerp with one testicle who thought he would create a world empire populated by blond hair and blue eyed robots by marching into various European countries and slaughtering their Jews. Thankfully, the Russians and the British (both peoples he stupidly tried to invade) put paid to his nefarious ways.
But, in the early twenty-first century, when it comes to occupying a country LEGALLY the French and Germans don't want to know.
In Afghanistan, it is the close allies of the Americans, British and Canadians who are carrying most of the burden. So, too, are the Dutch.
Britain has just announced another 500 troops for the war-torn country, taking the total British contingent there to over 10,000. The US is to send another 30,000 troops.
Needless, to say, though, the French and Germans will not be sending any more troops. They are probably too busy trying to build their Empire in Europe, including the creation of an EU Army. If they think the British would ever have their soldiers and equipment controlled from Brussels they need their heads seeing to.
Afghanistan and a lesson in EU humility
By Daily Mail Comment
02nd December 2009
Daily Mail
German soldiers in Afghanistan. They might have been fearsome in the 1940s, but today Germany won't allow its troops in Afghanistan to fight at night
In Monday's solemn statement to MPs, Gordon Brown declared that he had set a number of conditions for the sending of extra British troops to Afghanistan - among them the securing of a cast-iron commitment that other nations would be 'bearing their share'.
This condition had been met, he claimed - and he duly deployed a further 500 soldiers to Helmand province, taking Britain's total to 10,000.
Last night, President Obama - after weeks of indecision - finally announced he would be sending an extra 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan, and that he expected a further 10,000 to follow from his country's allies.
Abstaining from war: French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German counterpart Angela Merkel have refused to join U.S. President Obama's latest Afghan push
But were those key NATO neighbours France and Germany - defended so resolutely by America during the Cold War - prepared to 'bear their share'?
Non, said President Sarkozy. Nein, said Chancellor Angela Merkel.
The reality is that the countries of Eastern Europe will have to take the pain for them.
The British Army consists of 148,000 personnel; the French Army consists of 134,000 personnel; and the German Army consists of 102,000 personnel. Despite the armies being fairly close in size, the French and Germans have only a fraction of the troops in Afghanistan that the British have. Britain currently has 9,000 troops in the country, but will soon send another 500. Including special forces (the exact number of which has not been made public), that would mean Britain will probably soon have over 10,000 troops in Afghanistan. Germany has 4,365 troops in Afghanistan and France has 3,095. Canada has 2,830 troops in Afghanistan, despite its army having just 36,000 personnel.
If the West's involvement in Afghanistan is a war on terror - and there is no doubt that with nuclear-armed Pakistan being dragged into the debacle with the Taliban firmly ensconced on its borders that the stakes are terribly high - then France and Germany's behaviour is deeply regrettable.
Let's not forget that both countries claim to be steadfast supporters of the NATO-led mission in Afghanistan.
They also share the declared ambition of the EU one day having its own united army, one of the central planks of the Lisbon Treaty, which came into operation yesterday and which was so disgracefully imposed upon the British people.
The idea of an EU army was always a bad - if frightening - joke. Today, it is simply laughable. France and Germany should hang their heads in shame.
Coalition fatalities in Afghanistan
United States: 857
Britain: 235
Canada: 132
Germany: 40
France: 36
Denmark: 30
Spain: 26
Italy: 22
Netherlands: 21
Poland: 15
Others: 52
TOTAL:1,465
dailymail.co.uk
Last edited:
