Not MY Voice

BNP Defence Policy. The Policy of Strategic Failure.

BNP Defence Policy.

The Policy of Strategic Failure.

————————————————————

BNP Contradiction and Race Wars

The first point of the BNP Defence policy states that The British Army Must be Used to Defend Britain, setting out its policy and strategic vision. However, the article goes on to completely contradict itself and shows very clearly that British forces are to be used for a racial war and perhaps only racist based war.

The BNP declare that;

Britain must be prepared to launch limited operations where it is necessary to protect our citizens abroad

However, but not just British citizens, but actually BNP approved whites.

more recently there were clear grounds to rescue people of British descent from the murderous regime in Zimbabwe.

So a Griffin would use forces to help people of British Descent in Zimbabwe, i.e. whites not blacks, Asians etc and NOT actual British citizens at all.

The BNP do not explain how they would do this.  Zimbabwe is a landlocked country, the closest points of entry are through Mozambique and South Africa. Both those countries would not tolerate a racist force (whose only aim is to protect whites) from operating on their soil and the South African forces would be a considerable match for any British Expeditionary force.   Mozambique, has a limited conventional army and it is but a short hop from the port of Biera to Mutare in the Eastern Highlands of Zimbabwe (a terrain more like the green Scottish Highlands).  This would quite clearly involve war with Mozambique and the other SADC members will see this as a blatant re colonisation of Zimbabwe, a Rhodesia Pt II. Should the army get to the Zimbabwean boarder, the poor transport infrastructure and Zimbabwean forces would not allow a white mass to unite with invading forces. Therefore the only way to rescue the whites in Zimbabwe would be for total control of the county.

Zimbabwe has NO “strategic or commercial interests to defend nor were British citizens threatened”.  But these are the exact  reasons why the BNP claimed to have  opposed the war in Afghanistan and Iraq.  The BNP clearly set out;

The purpose of Britain’s armed forces is to protect British interests at home and abroad – and nothing else. During the recent Iraq War, which the BNP opposed, there were no strategic or commercial interests to defend nor were British citizens threatened.

And in Zimbabwe…? None of those apply either. The only reason for invading Zimbabwe and its neighbours would because of race.

Rejecting Collective Security

The BNP appear to be against our forces training working and fighting alongside her  Allies, contrary to some 2,500 years of military philosophy and experience from such masters of military strategy like Sun Tzu to Clausewitz etc.   As part of Rejecting Collective Security they are against having a continued presence in Germany and very clearly this utter Rejection of “Collective Security” refers to NATO.

NATO is an organisation whose roots were laid down by Churchill, with the Atlantic Charter, an agreement between the US and Britain who stood against Germany in Europe although with assistance from the Free French and other uprooted allies free Polish Forces, Belgians, Dutch and ALL nations of the Commonwealth – i.e. Collective security.

The Atlantic Charter  brought a closeness between Britain, France and the US.  After the defeat of Germany the unity of forces was still essential to the democratic forces of Western Europe and Northern America, and the formation of NATO.

Today, NATO is very much needed.  Although the Cold War is over, NATO has expanded further east into the former Soviet Bloc (Warsaw Pact) countries.  This provides mutual protection for all because democracies do not fight each other.

However, geopolitics always comes into play, regardless of the political ideology of some of the key players.  Russia, is coming back into its own as its economy is rebuilding from the Soviet era, through the cleptocracy of the last 20 year. It has restarted its policy of sending bombers on recognisance mission into British airspace to test our capabilities and more frightening than most people recall, Russia appeared quite prepared to go to war with NATO over the conflict over Georgia and Ossetia.

We also face a very real prospect of Nationalist and ultra nationalists having an actual and dominant influence on Russian Politics.  It is not un-imaginable that we could have a nationalist Russian government in the next 10-15 years.  To understand the importance of this, and why Britain needs to remain in NATO we should only consider the political difference in Europe between 1933 and 1939.

A failure to understand geopolitics and Russian is perhaps the reason why the BNP declare that;

We shall recall our troops from Germany, where we see little purpose in their continuing presence. The Cold War has long since passed and our troop presence in Germany is superfluous and little more than an insult to the Germans.

Should there be a war between Russian and NATO (excluding a full nuclear exchange) the most likely place for combat is central Europe. British forces being familiar with these areas and training in such terrain remain crucial to the strength and competency of British forces and the Germans appear to be welcoming to the British.

Spurious Claims of Degradation

The BNP set out that twice during the 20th century, the UK came close to the brink of destruction because of the neglect of our defences.

Wrong.  They have not given any example, but it is fair to presume that one of those examples would be early WW2.

The British defences were not neglected,  during the interwar period Liddell Hart  continued with huge and expensive experiments in what was later called Blitzkrieg (when German Heinz Guderian put into practise what had been developed by the British armour on the plains of Salisbury). Britain developed Radar, mono-winged aircraft, advanced interceptors, developed strategic bombers, kept a modern naval fleet all in the face of no real peer of military threat in the World.  There is no sign the armed forces were neglected at all. Scaled down and modernised in the face of no peer threat? Yes. But neglected? no

The BNP also appear to think that the ‘armed forces’ consists of just the land forces (infantry, armour etc) and this would help explain why The UK did not come close to destruction.  The Royal Navy had such a heavy and total presence that the British Isles have not EVER had any realistic prospect of amphibious invasion, not since at least the Spanish Armada. Although Germany had dominant land forces up to about 1943 it didn’t have a competent surface fleet (not a single aircraft carrier, nor full battleship, only their ‘pocket battleships’).  Further, they did not have invasion barges to carry their army across the Channel. The best it could do was to ‘borrow’ private industry barges from the Rhine (halting their own transport, temporarily crippling their own industry in the Rhur-Rhine Region) and have them stacked together to give the impression of a pending fleet. The RAF soon quickly destroyed most of them in their ports.  The RAF also had total dominance of airspace over the British Isles.   German Blitzkrieg relied on tactical airpower (don’t forget the main weapon of German PZ  III wasn’t their 57mm cannon, but the supporting dive bombers and artillery). The Germans would not have been able to use their tactical airpower to support their ground forces, in the face of strong RAF airpower, and so their Blitzkrieg would have been halted quickly out of fuel or ammunition as the Royal Navy prevented any re supply.

The above shows the BNP have no strategic vision nor understanding of the nature of combined branches (air force, navy and army) in warfare have.  There was therefore NO ‘Brink’ that the UK was brought to, due to any claimed neglect of ‘armed forces’.

Using historical analysis the BNP cannot claim there is any current “degradation” nor is there any example of this, they have not provided any details. The UK has been fighting a war on two fronts, and the way British Mechanised forces sliced through Iraq 1,000’s of miles away from home shows the UK armed forces as clearly competent.  On the battlefield the UK forces dominate, in the harshest of terrains and environment. The biggest threats are from booby traps and IED’s

However, the British forces are not suited for nation building, and the BNP could not give any example of how they would pacify non state terrorist threats, bearing in mind the Clinton era appeasement failed.   Even if the BNP do give an increase defence spending 1% above inflation for every year (this year they would by 4.5%) as set out in their manifesto, they cannot show how to stop global terrorism. 911 killed British people too, and other cells have targeted British people abroad. Despite their claimed pledges, the BNP policy is nearly child like- to pull the blanket over you head, to hide from the real world and imagine there are no monsters under the bed .

A clear indicator that the BNP operate a hide-under-their blanket is that the BNP do not believe the Taliban actually operate outside of Afghanistan. Just to show you how clueless the BNP strategy is here is Andrew Brons, debating on the Taliban;

“The Taliban….is killing British soldiers…… However, it is not extending its battles beyond Afghan borders. We could stop it from killing British and allied soldiers tomorrow by removing our troops.
(http://andrewbrons.eu/2009/12/16/a-murd … nt-be-won/ ).

The Taliban is not battling beyond Afghanistan? WRONG. The Taliban have considerably infiltrated Pakistan and took ground there (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8312932.stm ). It is of the up most importance that Pakistan does not fall to the Taliban. This could result in a Taliban armed with Nuclear weapons with a competent missile delivery system.

However, rather than committing against the Taliban Brons also appeared to be discussing lightening sanctions against them.  This ignorance and unjustifiable appeasement of the Taliban, one of the most abhorrent and dangerous organisations shows how incompetent any BNP Defence policy is and will make the world a more dangerous place.

However, the Battle for Afghanistan could be discussed for decades but the BNP do appear to have lied when they declare “During the recent Iraq War, which the BNP opposed”.  Despite many requests there does not appear to be a single example of BNP opposition.  Contrary to this, there are many examples of BNP members protesting against the stop the war coalition.  We await strict proof that the BNP did actually oppose the War.

In fact, we await strict proof that the BNP have a credible Defence policy.

_____________________________________________________________________