I never said the US army did. I said that the US Army was stationed in Germany, which is between Denmark and the WP.
The reason why Denmark *wasn't* a battleground is because the US put boots on the ground, physically, between Denmark and the Soviet Union.
But, seriously - without trying to be a smartass - you might want to check out the different sectors of responsability for various NATO corps.
Your rebuttal is infantile. Basically, your rebuttal is that the Soviets would have invaded Germany to get to Denmark without engaging in combat with US forces on their southern flank. It's a stupid claim for you to make.
It is not my claim at all. But the Soviets/WP would not only have faced US forces in the clash in Germany, not even in southern Germany. The Polish and Soviet divisions in the north tasked with the conquest of Denmark would have faced German and Danish formations. If they had tried a air/amphibious landing on Denmark they would have faced Danish units.
My point was to contrast the typical Continental European exercise in bullshit -- "not the right war, not OUR war, here's your token force" -- with the US defense of Europe. Four divisions plus supporting arty and air forces and as you yourself have noted a reinforcement policy of ten in ten.
I understand your viewpoint, fully, but I don't agree with it. I think Denmark's response to Iraq and Afghanistan have been resonable given the size of Denmark and the overall situation. I also do not think the situations are entirely comparable - WWII or the WP block on your doorstep compared to Afghanistan and Iraq.
My point is that if the USA had taken, throughout the cold war, the attitude that Continental Europe has taken in Iran and Iraq -- not our war, costs too much, too busy fiddledicking around guarding our borders from Canada or whatever -- none of that US support would have existed. That's why you keep ducking the basic questions. With an army of 10K regulars and 4K reserves, what the fuck was Denmark doing with its forces that it could muster barely a platoon for Afghanistan and under orders to avoid seeking engagement?
Denmark have deployed battalion size units to both Iraq and Afghanistan. They have in Afghanistan been used in the most dangerous part of the country, the south. Last time I checked their loss ratio were greater than the troops of any other NATO/ISAF etc force deployed to Afghanistan.
Your rebuttal has been "although the force was available it cost too much to deploy, was the wrong war, was not Denmark's war, was not in the right place, was not in the right time." Yours is a *typical* continental European attitude towards cooperation even in mutual defense treaties. There is always a demand to help you. There will always be an excuse for being unavailable when you're needed.
My take is more that the Danish response to Iraq and Afghanistan has been resonable given the size of Denmark, the nature of the threat etc. I also think most of your countrymen agree with me.
The US did that in 1918.
Another case of total war that compares badly to Iraq/A-stan. The US inducted 3 million men, and sent about 1 million overseas.
Well, basically you are confessing that there will never be a "good reason" to adequately support the USA, because the USA will never be under threat of foreign occupation by anyone.
I think it is highly unlikely that foreign armies will ever "water their horeses in the Ohio river", but our take on "adequately" differs. I think Denmarks contribution to Iraq/A-stan can be described as adequate for a nation with the history and size of Denmark.
So your reality is that the treaty will only obligate the US to respond to European wars, rather than Europeans responding in force to a war in which they otherwise would not be involved but in which the US is involved.
Defence of the NATO member states (the US or others) is one thing, expeditionary efforts in the third world is something else. I think it would be unrealistic for a nation to be expected to send it's entire military force (basically) to the Mid East/A-stan - unrealistic on several levels.
THAT is the fundamental and profound difference between the rest of Europe an the UK. It's not about size, it's about fundamental cultural values that at the heart demand that everyone else carry your shit, but that you all individually and collectively do nothing by way of reciprocity.
I see no fudamental or profound difference between the British or Danish response to Iraq or A-stan, other than you, md, taking a sh1t on the Danes for not being there in great enough numbers - though admittedly, you might be somewhat misinformed (deliberately or not) about Denmark.