The treaty required a council which was not NATO, it was the North Atlantic Council , the council underwent changes in 1950 and 1951 to split off the the organisation to become known as NATO. Most history books repeatedly use the term NATO members when they mean NAT members or NAC members.
The treaty makes no reference to any separate organisation, it is for different nations to co-operate together via the Council.
The first chairman of the North Atlantic Council was Dean Acheson from 1949 to 1950, he was Secretary of State for the USA, he was never employed by NATO nor had a NATO title.
The first NATO secretary was Baron Hastings Ismay in 1952 - who also uses the term NATO loosely in his 1954 book, the book indicates that the integrated organisation (ie NATO) came about in early 1951 after the 6th meeting of the Council.
The North Atlantic Military Committee were partly responsible for setting up aspects of NATO and had discussed it from late 1949 (as a minute title, not an entity) but I can find no evidence that there were personnel assigned to NATO or employed by NATO until later.
The North Atlantic Military Committee later became the NATO Military Committee, I thought this happened in 1955 but it appears to be much later(?). however again, many books etc use the term NATO Military Committee all the way back to 1949 - the simple proof against this is the minutes of their meetings until at least 1969 were titled "North Atlantic Military Committee".
The first Chairman of the North Atlantic Militarily Committee was Omar Bradley in 1949, his title at the time was not "NATO Military Committee in Chiefs-of-Staff Session" as claimed retrospectively, he never had NATO title.
If you can find any documents that were contemporary at the time that say otherwise I would be more than interested to see them, the NATO archive is full of stuff but difficult to plough through.
We don't do charity in Germany, we pay taxes. Charity is a failure of governments' responsibilities - Henning Wehn
The Americans vehemently didn't wan't to become part of integrated structure with any other nation.
Why did they change their mind?
Because during the Korea war they wanted the option to use an atomic bomb against Korea and China, however if they dropped the bomb it would have brought the USSR into direct conflict with America. They realised that if NATO was formed then it would bring in Europe to help deal with the USSR. They also expanded the Treaty to bring in more European countries.
We don't do charity in Germany, we pay taxes. Charity is a failure of governments' responsibilities - Henning Wehn
I doubt none of the above having read much of it over the years. Its inception with or without the "O" was not for the Korean War as you indicated in a previous post, because of the Korean War, of course restructuring took place which is common were treaties are concerned and are overtaken by events. Initially with or without the "O" it was for the defence of Europe. I see this as a light hearted forum not a university debating society, I have no wish to trawl through University libraries, Government papers or National Archives again, it only scares the children.
God help us, Come yourself, Don't send Jesus, This is no place for children.
The USA's capitalist viewpoint has failed yet again. The "support" for Ukraine has been targeted not to save lives but to extend the war in order to bankrupt Russia. This has failed in a spectacular manner, Russia's economic growth is almost double the USA's (5.4 to 2.9), Russia is getting economically stronger rather than weaker.
All that has happened will increase the chances of the further strengthening of Russia and increase the chances of this struggle overflowing into other parts of Europe.
Much of this could have been avoided if the USA wasn't controlling Ukraine with pathetic restraints.
If Putin is prepared to hit the nuclear button, then he is, nothing can change that other than an insurgence within Russia. You have to presume Putin is not prepared to go nuclear otherwise you may as well lie down and let Russia takeover the whole world.
My biggest fear is the USA doing "preemptive" nuclear strikes on Russia, unlikely during a Biden regime but who knows who the next ego driven President is going to be? There is no way that USA will allow Russia to grow significantly.
We don't do charity in Germany, we pay taxes. Charity is a failure of governments' responsibilities - Henning Wehn
Putin offered peace long ago but glorious Britain stood in and put an end to that, the only people who get anything from war is the war mongers.
Do you think it was a genuine and reasonable peace offering? What surety did he offer to show it was genuine? Would you agree to give away UK mainland soil to an invader who had already taken land away previously?
Putin didn't stop at Crimea, he carried on his advance a few years later.
The big elephant in the room is "What would NATO have done if Ukraine had already been a member?"
I agree, most nation leaders are war mongers but that is because we follow history and agree that us the people will be ruled by our lords, they in turn see their function as keeping the surfs subservient, there is no greater subservience than giving your life away to someone else's beckoning.
When we stop voting for rich people, we will probably stop our war mongering, in the mean time "tea breaks over, back on your heads!".
We don't do charity in Germany, we pay taxes. Charity is a failure of governments' responsibilities - Henning Wehn
