Our forces must be stronger than Germany's

Yahoo

17-05-2025

Without wanting to go all two-world-wars-and-one-world-cup, are we really content for our armed forces to be outstripped by the Germans?
For one thing, ever since the Second World War, the Bundeswehr, as well as the Austrian Bundesheer, have observed a rule whereby their troops cannot be used for combat operations. As a result, they have zero battlefield experience and once had to take part in Nato exercises wielding broomsticks.
They have little leadership and planning experience, too, for much the same reason. Nato has always had an American supreme commander and a British deputy, a hangover from 1945. The Allied Rapid Reaction Corps, Nato's headquarters for deploying forces at short notice, has been based in Gloucestershire since 2010 and has always been under British command. The Germans, who won't deploy troops in anger and have no nuclear capabilities, have always sat way down the pecking order.
All that may be poised to change. In his first major speech to the German parliament this week, the new chancellor, Friedrich Merz, committed to spending 5 per cent of his annual GDP on defence and said that Germany must have a stronger army than Britain.
If that didn't send a shiver of irritation up the spine of the Prime Minister, it certainly sent one up those of many in British uniform. This is not a case of keeping up with the Germans. We need to be leading them.
Never trust the Boche, people used to say. Thankfully, those days are far behind us. The fact remains, however, that our world-leading armed services are simply much better than theirs. Frankly, if that wasn't the case after our major deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention Bosnia and the Falklands, something would be seriously wrong.
Andrew Fox, a former Parachute Regiment Officer and researcher at the Henry Jackson Society, can attest to that. 'Austrian airborne was good when we fought in Bosnia but their tactics were mental, as they had never been used in real life,' he told me.
'Our experience on the battlefield outstrips anyone in Europe. Man-to-man, our soldiers can beat anyone. Whenever we had competitions with American companies, we would crush them. It was embarrassing.
Then came the kicker. 'In Bosnia, the Romanians and Austrians thought we were rock stars. The problem is, there aren't enough of us.'
The depletion of Britain's armed forces is hardly something new. It has caused us serious operational damage already. In Iraq, the Multinational Division (South-East), which contained Basra, Maysan, Al Muthanna and Dhi Qar, was under British command. The episode was a debacle. The reasons were plentiful, but the fundamental one was a lack of adequate troop numbers.
Similarly, in Afghanistan we deployed well under 10,000 troops to Helmand, an area of about 36,500 square miles. To place that in context, the Gaza Strip spans less than 1 per cent of that territory. Since 2023, the Israelis have sent in about 300,000 troops.
We simply can't have even ten German bombers in the air without British expertise behind them. Our fates have long been linked: Waterloo would not have been won without the Prussians. This week, satellite images showed a buildup of Russian forces at forward operating bases just miles from the Finnish border. We've got to get serious quick.
Obviously, that means emergency surgery – right now – on public spending. For too long, successive governments have tried to buy votes by flattering a pampered population with a bloated welfare state, a disgracefully wasteful NHS and corrosive and costly immigration, while neglecting everything that made us strong.
Goodbye, luxury Britain. Once again, Europe needs us.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.