|Truppenübungsplatz und Flüchtlingslager Oksböl - gestern, heute und morgen|
An der dänischen Westküste nordwestlich von Esbjerg existierte am Ende des Zweiten Weltkriegs für einige Jahre eines der größten mit Deutschen belegten Flüchtlingslager. Nur wenige Kilometer von der Nordseeküste entfernt bewohnten ab 1945 in Spitzenzeiten über 35.000 Menschen auf dem Gelände eines Militärlagers der ehemaligen deutschen Wehrmacht quasi eine eigene Stadt. Wie es dazu kam, was dort geschah und welche Auswirkungen dieses Phänomen hatte, will der folgende Aufsatz untersuchen ? und einen Blick in die Zukunft werfen, denn durch die Aktivitäten einer dänischen Kulturinitiative des Vardemuseums zeichnet sich die Möglichkeit einer interessanten Zukunft für die Anlage ab.Mehr ...
|Schutz und Hilfe - kostenloses eBook zum Download|
"Schutz und Hilfe - Die Geschichte der Entwicklung des Schutzes der Bevölkerung in Deutschland bei Katastrophen und kriegerischen Auseinandersetzungen von 1871 - 1945" heisst unser neues eBook. Godeke Klinge, der sich seit Jahrzehnten mit dem Thema befasst, selbst schon ebenso lange beim THW tätig ist, am Aufbau des leider nicht mehr existierenden Bevölkerungsschutz-Museums in Hamburg beteiligt war und vielen aus unserem Forum nicht unbekannt sein dürfte, hat sein fundiertes Wissen und seine Recherchergebnisse über diese Ära des Bevölkerungsschutzes auf 190 Seiten nidergeschrieben und uns freundlicherweise zur Veröffentlichung zur Verfügung gestellt. Ab heute stellen wir es kostenlos als eBook im PDF-Format zum Herunterladen bereit.
Weiter zum Download-Bereich ...Mehr ...
|Kelvedon Hatch RGHQ 5 - Britischer Ausweichsitz|
Wie die meisten anderen NATO-Länder (und nicht nur die ...) hatte auch Großbritannien während des Kalten Krieges bauliche Vorsorge getroffen, um die Regierung und Verwaltung im Falle eines Krieges in geschützten Bauwerken zumindest für begrenzte Zeit arbeits- und funktionsfähig zu halten. Im Gegensatz zu vielen anderen Staaten in Ost und West setzte das Vereinigte Königreich allerdings nicht auf einen zentralen Ausweichsitz bzw. Regierungsbunker, sondern plante mit verteilten Ressourcen, also mehreren Schutzbauwerken an unterschiedlichen Orten.Mehr ...
Wohnort oder Region: Dedenhausen/ Region Hannover
Verfasst am: 25.03.2004 11:46
Titel: Abzug von US-Soldaten
|Bei Spiegel Online gibt es gerade einen Artikel zum geplanten Abzug von US-Soldaten aus Deutschland. Nach angeblichen "Geheimplänen" des Pentagons soll ungefähr die Hälfte der in Deutschland stationierten Soldaten abgezogen und in andere Länder verlegt werden. In richtigen Zahlen ausgedrückt sind das ungefähr 35.000 Soldaten, die Deutschland verlassen sollen.
Nur so zur Info, weil wir das Thema schon einmal diskutiert haben
Wohnort oder Region: Kiel
Verfasst am: 04.06.2004 11:22
|USA planen Abzug von zwei Divisionen
Die Vereinigten Staaten planen einem Zeitungsbericht zufolge den Abzug von zwei Heeresdivisionen aus Deutschland. Demnach sollen die 1. Panzerdivision und die 1. Infanteriedivision in die USA verlegt werden. Es wäre die bedeutendste Umstrukturierung des US-Militärs seit den fünfziger Jahren.
Der gesamte Artikel ist hier: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/.....53,00.html
Ausführlicher: http://www.nytimes.com/ bzw. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06.....4MILI.html
A Pentagon Plan Would Cut Back G.I.'s in Germany
June 4, 2004
By MICHAEL R. GORDON
WASHINGTON, June 3 - The Pentagon has proposed a plan to withdraw its two Army divisions from Germany and undertake an array of other changes in its European-based forces, in the most significant rearrangement of the American military around the world since the beginning of the cold war, according to American and allied officials.
Pentagon policy makers said the aim is to afford maximum flexibility in sending forces to the Middle East, Central Asia and other potential battlegrounds. But some experts and allied officials are concerned that the shift will reduce Washington's influence in NATO and weaken its diplomatic links with its allies, all at a time of rising anti-American sentiment around the world.
The proposal to withdraw the divisions comes at a time when
the Army is stretched thin by deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. But Pentagon officials said the move, which has been under consideration for some time and involves forces in Asia as well as in Europe, is unrelated to the current fighting.
Under the Pentagon plan, the Germany-based First Armored Division and First Infantry Division would be returned to the United States. A brigade equipped with Stryker light armored vehicles would be deployed in Germany. A typical division consists of three brigades and can number 20,000 troops if logistical units are included, though these two divisions have only two brigades each in Germany, with the other brigade in the United States.
In addition, a wing of F-16 fighters may be shifted from
their base in Spangdahlem, Germany, to the Incirlik base in Turkey, which would move the aircraft closer to the volatile Middle East; a wing generally consists of 72 aircraft. Under the Pentagon plan, the shift would be carried out only if the Turks gave the United States broad latitude for using them, something that some officials see as unlikely.
The Navy's headquarters in Europe would be transferred from Britain to Italy. Administration officials are also discussing plans to remove some F-15 fighters from Britain and to withdraw the handful of F-15 fighters that are normally deployed in Iceland, though final decisions have not been made.
Administration officials said Douglas Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy, recently briefed German officials on the plan. The Germans were told that the withdrawal plan had yet to be formally approved by President Bush and that the United States would listen to their concerns, an American official said.
Officials said they expected the major decisions on the rearrangement to be made in a month or two. But the main direction of the Pentagon plan appears to be set.
"Everything is going to move everywhere," Mr. Feith said a
year ago, as the Bush administration was beginning to
develop the details of its plan. "There is not going to be
a place in the world where it's going to be the same as it
used to be."
For Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, the reasons for
the reshuffling seem clear and compelling: that the purpose
of military units is to fight and win the nation's wars,
and they should be stationed in locations that enable the United States to use them most efficiently and with minimal political restrictions.
"It's time to adjust those locations from static defense to
a more agile and a more capable and a more 21st-century posture," Mr. Rumsfeld told reporters on Thursday on a flight to Singapore.
Proponents of Mr. Rumsfeld's plan see little merit in
keeping a large number of forces in Germany now that the
cold war is over. They argue that the United States would
be better off withdrawing most of them and establishing new bases in Southeastern Europe, from which forces could be rushed if there was a crisis in the Caucasus or the Middle East.
"From a strategic point of view, there is more sense in
moving things out of Germany and having something in
Bulgaria and Romania," said Joseph Ralston, a retired
general and a former NATO commander.
But some experts and allied officials are concerned that a substantial reduction in the United States military presence in Europe would reduce American influence there, reinforce the notion that the Bush administration prefers to act unilaterally and inadvertently lend support to the French contention that Europe must rely on itself for its security.
Montgomery Meigs, a retired general and the former head of
Army forces in Europe, said substantial reductions in
American troops in Europe could limit the opportunities to train with NATO's new East European members and other allies. While American forces can still be sent for exercises from the United States, he said, it will be more difficult and costly to do so.
"You will never sustain the level of engagement from the
United States that you can from Europe," he said. "We will
not go to as many NATO exercises or have as many training events."
Other specialists have warned that the greatest risk is the possible damage to allied relations.
"The most serious potential consequences of the
contemplated shifts would not be military but political and diplomatic," Kurt Campbell and Celeste Johnson Ward of the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies wrote in an article published last year in the journal Foreign Affairs, well before the extent of the changes now planned became known."Unless the changes are paired with a sustained and effective diplomatic campaign, therefore, they could well increase foreign anxiety about and distrust of the United States."
Gen. James Jones, the American commander of NATO, has
supported the withdrawal of the two divisions from Europe
on the understanding that American ground units would
rotate regularly through Europe, allied officials say. But
some allied officials believe it is less clear that the Pentagon will finance and organize the regular rotation of forces that are central to General Jones's vision, especially since so much of the United States' energy and effort is focused on Iraq.
Already, administration officials have said a brigade of
troops is to be shifted from Korea to Iraq. That reflects
both the demand for additional forces in Iraq and the new thinking about positioning forces in Asia.
Pentagon officials insist they are effectively managing relations with key allies. "What we have been hearing from the allies privately and publicly is that they understand the U.S. is changing and want to stay connected," said Andy Hoehn, deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy. "The real message is that we have been consulting with the allies and the result has been pretty positive."
The Pentagon plan was discussed at a May 20 meeting of top United States officials. Administration officials declined to comment on the record about the session. A State Department official said that the meeting was a "snapshot at a given time," and that some ideas have continued to be refined since then. In the meeting, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who was once the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he thought it was unlikely that the Turks would agree to allow the United States to operate freely from Turkish bases. Gen. Richard B. Myers, the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also said securing Turkey's agreement was a long shot and indicated that he favored keeping the F-16's in Germany, according to an account of the session that was provided.
No United States forces are to be removed from Italy. The Navy's European headquarters, however, is scheduled to move from London to Naples.
Earlier plans to move that headquarters to Spain have been dropped. While skeptics have wondered if the switch from Spain to Italy is related to the decision by Spain's new Socialist government to withdraw its troops from Iraq, Defense Department officials insist that it is being made on cost grounds.
Regarding Britain, administration officials are discussing
a plan to remove some F-15 fighters. Some Defense
Department officials have suggested moving an air command center to Britain from Germany as compensation if F-15's are removed. But General Myers indicated that he thought the F-15's should remain in Britain, according to an account of the meeting.
Iceland has long been a sensitive matter, with civilian officials at the Pentagon pushing to remove the small number of F-15's that are regularly rotated through Iceland under a bilateral agreement reached during the cold war. That could upset a government that has been generally supportive of American policy and which relies on the F-15's for its air defense.
Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, said at
the May 20 meeting that Mr. Bush would not support the withdrawal of the aircraft until a way was found to mollify the Icelanders. One possibility is to make Iceland a "cooperative security location," Defense Department jargon for a base to which forces could rapidly deploy in a crisis.
The Caucasus has also figured into the Pentagon's
calculations. Here the issue is not about moving out, but whether to move in. At the May 20 meeting, senior officials agreed that stationing troops in Georgia could be destabilizing, especially since Russia still has not withdrawn all its forces from that country, a former republic of the Soviet Union. The idea was dropped.
Civilian officials at the Defense Department have pressed
for a presidential speech or announcement in mid-June about
the new military posture. But State Department officials
have argued that this would not leave sufficient time for consultations with the allies and would make the new policy appear to be a fait accompli.
Some officials have noted that the stationing of forces in
past decades has entailed more flexibility on all sides
than many people realize.
During the May 20 meeting, Mr. Powell is reported to have observed that Army troops like being stationed in Europe and noted that the Germans had never stood in the way when the United States wanted to send its German-based forces on other missions. The United States sent Army units in Germany to fight in the Persian Gulf conflict in 1991 and in the Iraq war in 2003.
||Alle Zeiten sind GMT + 1 Stunde
Du kannst keine Beiträge in dieses Forum schreiben.
Du kannst auf Beiträge in diesem Forum nicht antworten.
Du kannst Deine Beiträge in diesem Forum nicht bearbeiten.
Du kannst Deine Beiträge in diesem Forum nicht löschen.
Du kannst an Umfragen in diesem Forum nicht mitmachen.
Du kannst Dateien in diesem Forum nicht posten
Du kannst Dateien in diesem Forum nicht herunterladen