Should Germany become a military superpower again?

[John Sansom]

Hi, Vestandwaffe.......and that's exactly what history is.....irony. With respect to who does what, when, and where, the answer lies in knowing the perils of locking oneself into an overly rigid formula. Sacrificing flexibility on the altar of rigidity can lead to disaster.

Uh oh. That wasn't much help, was it?

 

[Verstandwaffe]

Hi, Vestandwaffe.......and that's exactly what history is.....irony. With respect to who does what, when, and where, the answer lies in knowing the perils of locking oneself into an overly rigid formula. Sacrificing flexibility on the altar of rigidity can lead to disaster.

Uh oh. That wasn't much help, was it?

Well this is another kind of discussion as I may not find really the benefits or justification of going thousand miles away to kill others.

Anyway, the thing is germany should boost her military capabilities, specially force projection, where A400 is an importante element but is facing the delays we all know.

 

[legal Forum]

Germany already is a super power. For the past two years, Germany has been the number one exporter in the world. They have even surpassed China, although China is expected to secure the top spot in 2009.

Germany is the economic power house of Europe and many of its companies are brands recognized globally from Siemens to BMW to Opel to Marklin to MAN and on and on.

We can learn a lot from today's Germany.
Source(s):
Militarily -- the German Leopard II is the tank of choice of many of our NATO allies. Also, Germany has for many years been the only foreign power allowed to fly combat training missions inside the USA.
Legal Advice Forum

 

[No 17869]

Superpower

Germany should re-arm and become a super power. its has all kind of base to become a super power.

 

[The_General]

There are some very fundamental flaws in your reasoning, mostly I guess due to the fact that you have a profound misconception of the German people and the way we (I'm German) think about the World Wars.
First of all, concerning the dark history of our military past, it's the other way round. It's mostly according to German people that our military history is considered a dark one, other nationalities doesn't seem to have as much problems with it, as can be seen by multiple calls for us to spent more money on the military, join this and that etc. (even from the British, who seem to consider it some kind of fun to remind us of our history all the time).
Our military past is full of wars and slaughter, Germany and it's predecessors (as most of western europe) have been settings for war and conflict for centuries, actually since the beginning of historical record. As I want to keep this short, I'll leave that aspect out of this.
You have to understand the following: After WW2, when the POWs returned to their destroyed cities, when the people suddenly realised what had happened in Nazi Germany and in the concentration and death camps and so on, the German people's very natural reaction was: This must not happen again. This did not have to be stuffed down their throats.
Soon after, mostly in the FRG the children of the war generation started to ask their parents how they could let this happen- "What have you done?" The result were the events of 1968 and the following years. Again, nobody had to stuff this down our throats, it came from within the young people.
From then until now, we're constantly working to understand our past and esp. what happened from 1933-45. Every few years, new aspects arise and are discussed. Every new book about Hitler or the German people during that period of time triggers new passionate discussions.
As time passes, the discussions become more and more factual and more ripe and seen with all cpability to differenciate one has to say: Yes, we had very, very dark chapters in our history, oftentimes involving the military. The fact that other nations have these as well doesn't make it better by a single inch.
This understanding did not have to be stuffed down our throats.






Interestingly your reasoning is used by those few right wing extremists we still have here with almost exactly the same words.




No. The time has come to fulfill our military obligations in the world together with our friends and allies in the EU and NATO. Nothing more.



I personally think that Russia is very bad example of how things can go if a former super power (Russia isn't one) tries to rise again.
I further hope that nationalism (as we understand it today) is something that has been overcome in the civilised world forever. I don't have anything against patriotism, though, and that's a whole different matter.

And, as I don't consider being a superpower is a cool thing by itself I too have to ask: what for? Why should we?

As a sidenote, I know that Germany has the economical and technological abilities to become one, however I think that Germany lacks the geographical footprint in the world...

I disagree with you, I am German as well and i think the quotation you quoted was completely right, we get this stuffed down our throat nearly every day, I can't hear it anymore. In school we chewed it through every year again and again. I live in London since 3 years and everyday I have to bear stupid jokes. All the nation's do have skeletons in their closet, but noone talks about them because they were victorious. Britain and France with their horrible exploitation of countries and nations during the colonial times, but noone cares!
Another interesting approach is, why did the rest of the world declare war on germany for its expansion into the east, although the colonial powers expanded steadily for centuries over the world, Britain and it's peak ruled 25% of the landmass of the world. There is aöways other reasons and people behind the curtain who are deciding. There is mighty people they want war because it is so lucrative for them, do you actually believe that the Americans didn't know that Pearl Harbour would be attacked after provoking the Japanese massively or the same thing in the First World War, when the Americans send the Lusitania deliberately into German waters to join the war at the British's initiative. But I go off on a tangent, I think Germany should become at least a little more powerful, it lost many of it's most important scientist after WW2 to the Americans but there is still huge human resources, technology and industrial output which would make it possible to catch up, on the other hand who should be the enemy of a stregthened Germany?
I think Germany should use the money and arms that they are giving to Israel for free (which contradicts our constitution) fo themselves.

 

[riksavage]

I disagree with you, I am German as well and i think the quotation you quoted was completely right, we get this stuffed down our throat nearly every day, I can't hear it anymore. In school we chewed it through every year again and again. I live in London since 3 years and everyday I have to bear stupid jokes. All the nation's do have skeletons in their closet, but noone talks about them because they were victorious. Britain and France with their horrible exploitation of countries and nations during the colonial times, but noone cares!
Another interesting approach is, why did the rest of the world declare war on germany for its expansion into the east, although the colonial powers expanded steadily for centuries over the world, Britain and it's peak ruled 25% of the landmass of the world. There is aöways other reasons and people behind the curtain who are deciding. There is mighty people they want war because it is so lucrative for them, do you actually believe that the Americans didn't know that Pearl Harbour would be attacked after provoking the Japanese massively or the same thing in the First World War, when the Americans send the Lusitania deliberately into German waters to join the war at the British's initiative. But I go off on a tangent, I think Germany should become at least a little more powerful, it lost many of it's most important scientist after WW2 to the Americans but there is still huge human resources, technology and industrial output which would make it possible to catch up, on the other hand who should be the enemy of a stregthened Germany?
I think Germany should use the money and arms that they are giving to Israel for free (which contradicts our constitution) fo themselves.

"Britain and France with their horrible exploitation of countries and nations during the colonial times, but noone cares!"

Excuse me mate, as far as deaths caused by colonial powers is concerned, both Germany and Belguim excelled, they both killed more African nationals than either Britian or France according to UN statistics, so don't throw stones in the glass house!

 

[Feanor]

Well if you wanna start at that, we could consider that the root cause of all of these things is the capitalist system that allowed the first world to develop so quickly, and at the same time created the need for this expansion. See how easy it is to lay blame?

 

[kato]

I live in London since 3 years and everyday I have to bear stupid jokes.

Try moving to a country that doesn't live 60 years in the past.

I think Germany should use the money and arms that they are giving to Israel for free (which contradicts our constitution) fo themselves.

Exactly in what way does handing out free weapons contradict the contitution? Paragraph numbers please.

as far as deaths caused by colonial powers is concerned, both Germany and Belguim excelled, they both killed more African nationals than either Britian or France according to UN statistics

Link/Source? Because quite seriously, i don't believe that - and that's not even counting African nationals forced to fight for Britain and France in Europe in WW1 and WW2.
Even the most encompassing statistics barely count more than 100.000 dead in the genocides in Southwest Africa. For comparison, Italy killed half a million Ethiopians between 1935 and 1941 alone, and if we want big numbers, the USA killed twice that Italian number in half the time in the Philippines. And France definitely killed more people than Germany in the Algerian War in the late 50s alone.

 

[swerve]

Excuse me mate, as far as deaths caused by colonial powers is concerned, both Germany and Belguim excelled, they both killed more African nationals than either Britian or France according to UN statistics, so don't throw stones in the glass house!

Belgium didn't become a colonial power until 1908, when it took over King Leopolds personal domain in Congo, for the sole purpose of stopping the killing there. So unless you hold the Belgian state responsible for the personal actions of the half-German, half-French bloke who was its constitutional monarch, in territories which were legally & de facto completely outside the control of the Belgian state, & which it required international agreement to eventually take over, then its hard to see how you think Belgium excelled in brutality.

I don't know how many Africans were killed in the conquest & holding of British colonies in Africa, but the suppression of the Sepoy Revolt probably killed a lot more Indians than all the German colonial wars in Africa combined.

This is not to say that Britain was more brutal than Germany in its colonies, but the scale was so much greater that the Germans couldn't really compete.

 

[John Sansom]

In apportioning and/or assessing blame for decidedly questionable military and/or administrative behaviour of the past, it's critically important to try to understand the mechanics of the then prevailing "environment". For instance, I am not German so it's incumbent upon me to try to understand the complete context within which blitzkrieg was visited on neighbouring countries. That doesn't mean I have to approve of it anymore than I might be asked to reach further back into those times of colonial endeavour to take siddes, as it were.

Anyway, that's enough babbling for now. Fact is, Germany will become what Germany will become. It will develop pretty much in accordance with the will of the German people as expressed through subsequent governments.

A super power? Very unlikely.

 

[vengence]

Germany is already becoming a superpower as it is building great planes,quality machine guns, masters at navy equipments.

I would not be superised if Germany will regraded a super power in the next 40 years.

 

[riksavage]

Belgium didn't become a colonial power until 1908, when it took over King Leopolds personal domain in Congo, for the sole purpose of stopping the killing there. So unless you hold the Belgian state responsible for the personal actions of the half-German, half-French bloke who was its constitutional monarch, in territories which were legally & de facto completely outside the control of the Belgian state, & which it required international agreement to eventually take over, then its hard to see how you think Belgium excelled in brutality.

I don't know how many Africans were killed in the conquest & holding of British colonies in Africa, but the suppression of the Sepoy Revolt probably killed a lot more Indians than all the German colonial wars in Africa combined.

This is not to say that Britain was more brutal than Germany in its colonies, but the scale was so much greater that the Germans couldn't really compete.

Whilst I'm certainly not defending Britain's African track record, my argument is that other countries took a far more 'aggressive' approach to the indigenous population under their care.

Officials in the Belgian Congo for one won first prize as the most abusive of all European powers (UN claim, not mine) and the recent slaughter in Rwanda is a throw back to King Leopold's social engineering of the Hutu and Tutsi tribes, and his wide spread practice of chopping off limbs, which became standard practice for minor offences. Following official estimates:

1885 to early 1900s Democratic Republic of the Congo, formerly Belgium Congo and Congo Free State King Leopold II of Belgium and his colonial administration Congolese population Unknown. Estimates range from 3 million during part of the period, to 30 million victims.

As for the German's, they first practiced genocide in Africa by systematically annihilating the Herero and Nama peoples.


My previous comment was 'don't throw stones in a glass house', and I still stand by that.

Whilst Britain certainly won gold medals for expansionism in Africa, led by such ambitious characters as Cecil Rhodes, the country also pioneered the fight against slavery, banning the trade in 1807 and slavery all together in 1834 led by the likes of Willberforce. Livingstone's primary goal was to end slavery and not just to convert the locals to Christianity and civilize the 'dark' continent. British ships were the first to patrol the African coast to try to prevent other nations from engaging in the slave trade.

Also the wide spread killing of Sepoys following the Indian mutiny was largely driven by the Cawnpore massacre and desire for revenge. In fact both sides took no prisoners and killed indiscriminately. The siege of Delhi became Britain's Stalingrad, failure to win would of resulted in the end of Britain's presence in India.

 

[swerve]

...
Officials in the Belgian Congo for one won first prize as the most abusive of all European powers (UN claim, not mine) and the recent slaughter in Rwanda is a throw back to King Leopold's social engineering of the Hutu and Tutsi tribes, and his wide spread practice of chopping off limbs, which became standard practice for minor offences. Following official estimates:

1885 to early 1900s Democratic Republic of the Congo, formerly Belgium Congo and Congo Free State King Leopold II of Belgium and his colonial administration Congolese population Unknown. Estimates range from 3 million during part of the period, to 30 million victims.....

You missed my point, because you have misunderstood the nature of the Congo Free State, the entity that preceded the Belgian Congo, from 1885 to 1908. It was not a Belgian colony. It was the personal domain of Leopold, by international agreement. An odd creation, a corporate state, run by a company owned by Leopold as an individual, not in his capacity of constitutional monarch of Belgium. The Belgian state had no authority there. The atrocities were committed by persons employed directly by Leopold (one of whom was Henry Morton Stanley), some of whom were Belgian officers & officials released to his employment, but mostly mercenaries, & employees of companies licenced by Leopold to exploit the resources of Congo. Some of these firms were Belgian, others were American, French, etc. Their employees were an equally mixed lot, as were those of Leopold. For example, Joseph Conrad, a Polish citizen of the Russian Empire, was one of them. He wrote about the horrors he witnessed there in Heart of Darkness.The commander of the force which conquered Katanga for Leopold was Canadian - and he had exactly one Belgian under his command. Belgium was only able to take control of Congo with the agreement of the other nations which recognised it, & did so in order to bring an end to the abuses. It then proceeded to run the state in a way which almost guaranteed disaster when it withdrew suddenly (all officials, technicians etc. imported, a dire lack of educational opportunities for locals or job prospects for any who did manage to get an education, etc., etc), but it did end the horrors of Leopolds regime.

Rwanda & Burundi suffered from the social engineering of Belgium (which appears to have sprung from a deadly combination of arrogance & ignorance, not malice), but not Leopold. They were never part of his state. They were part of German East Africa until WW1, & then handed over to Belgium, several years after Leopold had been removed from all authority in Africa.

 

[Stylesm4]

All countries should be allowed to develop its national defence. Those who use the political language such as "concerned", "alarmed" and "worried" is apart of the normal situation between states who are unfriendly to each other.

Also I would like to say that "the son should not pay for the crimes of his father" by that I mean the current generation of Germans had nothing to do with the Holocaust. Also, sometimes I feel that some sections of society in other European countries have to fall back to the glorious victory of WW2 whenever they want to discredit Germany. Attitudes must mature, especially if you are a fellow NATO member state, do not be alarmed if Germany wants to build up its defence.

 

[TrangleC]

Regarding colonial history and "who did what?", there is an interesting article about something rarely discussed:
Monbiot.com » How Britain Denies its Holocausts

 

[F-15 Eagle]

do not be alarmed if Germany wants to build up its defence.

I agree with everything you said, but the question is. Will Germany build up its defenses again?

Will they build up their Army which should be number 1 priority, then air force, such as more fighters like the EF and even some modern bombers. And more submarines for their Navy.

 

[matthew22081991]

No. Germany should be admired for her welfare advances and to be honest paying for an army of "a million men" is ridiculous. What do you propose Germany do with this army, given is pacifist constitution? Especially seeming as Germany has little interest in fighting abroad, and Europe is hardly a likely arena for a war now, is it? And how do you propose Germany fund this army without public support? No German electorate is going to support this when it means slashing their welfare.

I am shocked at how many people have voted yes to this! Why? Why should Germany become a military superpower? They wouldn't do anything with it and the Germans do not want it.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

No. Germany should be admired for her welfare advances and to be honest paying for an army of "a million men" is ridiculous. What do you propose Germany do with this army, given is pacifist constitution? Especially seeming as Germany has little interest in fighting abroad, and Europe is hardly a likely arena for a war now, is it? And how do you propose Germany fund this army without public support? No German electorate is going to support this when it means slashing their welfare.

I am shocked at how many people have voted yes to this! Why? Why should Germany become a military superpower? They wouldn't do anything with it and the Germans do not want it.

Why should the U.K. or Russia or the U.S. be a military superpower but Germany can not?

They can always change their constitution and they have the right to.

WWII and the holocaust was almost 70 years ago, modern Germany is not what it was during Hitler. There is no need to be so paranoid about Germany building up its defense forces. The military to me seams a better place to put its money than a welfare nanny state.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Regarding colonial history and "who did what?", there is an interesting article about something rarely discussed:
Monbiot.com » How Britain Denies its Holocausts

Britain at one point almost took over the entire world, and thats just with wooden ships.

So how is it o for Britain to have a superpower status with nuclear weapons but Germany is not allowed because of something that a different generation did almost 70 years ago? Modern day Germans had nothing to do with it. Its like today's American whites having to pay for what happen to African Americans during slavery in the 1800's. It makes no sense and IMO its just childish and immature to label Germany as bad and evil for wanting to build up its military today.

 

[kato]

Nukes? Germany unilaterally abandoned plans for own nukes in favour of NATO nuclear sharing. Back in the 50s.

Not that there isn't any capacity for them. After all, Germany's uranium enrichment plants have an output that's like 5 times that of Iran, and there's a couple tons of "spare" plutonium around in Germany.