Should Germany become a military superpower again?

[FluffyThoughts]

Their about the only country in Europe with the Industrial muscle to make a fair stab at it in a short space of time, with all that high end engineering and manufacturing capability devoted to churning out tanks and fighter bomber and subs....
It would be glorious!

Pedantics first: it is "They are" or "They're". Their implies ownership. [Sorry, we are talking about the Germans...! Sorry KATO!!! ]

Next, Germany's demographics and economic outlook will put them down to number three in the [current] EU by 2050, after the [disbanded?] UK and France. [Src.: The Economist (various) ]

Germany may need to pull it's weight within NATO, but the idea of Germany becoming a global power to rival the US is - IMHO - poppy-cock. What next, Russia becoming a global-player...! [Sorry Feanor, could not resist! : ]

 

[Beatmaster]

The point is that there is a difference between a war crime, and the organized genocide of people(s). The later act isn't committed by the military in many cases btw.
"State Terrorism" is a modern scare word put up to mangle all kinds of war crimes into a single definition. It's untrue even just for mere "war crimes", and genocide itself is commonly not an operation of a state government anyway - but one of a people, against another one. Regarding war crimes, there's still a difference between dehousing and similar "broad" attacks on civilians with a good chance for them to survive, and the cold-blooded "compensation killing" of civilians after partisan attacks for example.

Beatmaster:

Sadly, far too many of the postwar generations seem to have "forgotten" what their fathers and grandfathers did - intentionally or not. And those who forget history are bound to repeat it. Far too few people were punished for the Holocaust, and both Germans and Allies are responsible for that. There was a good reason for the '68 students chanting "unter den Talaren der Muff von 1000 Jahren". And to some extent, this was even still the case in the 80s, when i grew up, before the problem solved itself biologically. Of course then we bought ourself the problem on a far more dangerous scale again in 1990.

Hate for acts on such scales won't disappear in a mere 50 or 60 years, unless there is an intentional disinformation campaign being waged. People around here "remember" the Badish Count selling out to Napoleon to gain territory. In some places they "remember" the strife of the 30-Year-War. And that's really no different anywhere else in the world. However, it's not a case of "those who are without sin...". It neither should nor will never be.

Perhaps i'm seeing this all from an inherently different perspective - since my family was hunted and put in concentration camps to die if they didn't manage to flee to other continents. I have found similar sentiments though in other people that i know from all over the world.

---

In case a moderator takes offense to this post or its off-topic-ness, it's probably my last one on this thread.

I see your point and i must say its true for most of your comment.
If i take my grandfather as an example than i can say he did fight in Afrika, Calais (France), Arnhem (Netherlands) and in poland as a Medic the day he died he said:

May god forgive me for all the people i could not save.

So my point is forgetting a horrible event like WW2 intentionally or not is almost just as bad as the people who started it. But the people who acctually seen it will never forget it.

And it must not be forgotten not now not ever because this is something that must not happen again.

Many people have died due a wars in general.
A war is not a toy or a game there is no game overscreen with in the left corner a button "Press enter to retry"

And yeah you are right about bringing warcriminals in to put the in jail.
Some criminals are still out there and thats unacceptable.

Fact remains that at some point someone should have said: Enough stop this bullshit.
This did not happen sadly.
So at the present day there are enough war zones with potential to reach almost the same level of mass destruction as WW2 did.
And if you think of the past and you look at the future then you see that the same mistakes already have been made.

I ask myself the question: what are the world leaders thinking? are they not seeing what they are doing?

Kato you said: Sadly, far too many of the postwar generations seem to have "forgotten" what their fathers and grandfathers did - intentionally or not. And those who forget history are bound to repeat it.
right?

If this is the case then i believe that almost every nation worldwide is forgotten what happend in WW2 and other wars.


Anyway as always you are right Kato just see my point and think about it.
Here on this great forum we talk about Aircrafts, Tanks, Bombs and what if topic's.
But keep in mind guns do not kill people but the man behind it.

 

[John Sansom]

To qualify as a super power, Germany would probably have to engage in a form of national re-militarization that would cause international alarm. That just ain't gonna happen...and largely because the Geman people wouldn't tolerate it. However, like it or not, Germany does have a certain military genius which appears to be alive and well without being overly pushy. From a western point of view, Germany is a capable and resolute ally. Best to leave well enough alone.

 

[Iam]

the bigger question is
"Is the west comfortable with Germany as a super power (military or other wise)" ? I don't think the rest of the world is that concerned.

On a lighter note(Not to offend anyone ), reminds me of one of Mel Brooks compositions
" I want peace, peace, peace.
A little piece of England, a little piece of France, a little piece of India and Pakistan for a dance "

 

[nevidimka]

The point is that there is a difference between a war crime, and the organized genocide of people(s). The later act isn't committed by the military in many cases btw.
"State Terrorism" is a modern scare word put up to mangle all kinds of war crimes into a single definition. It's untrue even just for mere "war crimes", and genocide itself is commonly not an operation of a state government anyway - but one of a people, against another one. Regarding war crimes, there's still a difference between dehousing and similar "broad" attacks on civilians with a good chance for them to survive, and the cold-blooded "compensation killing" of civilians after partisan attacks for example.

So what your saying is, the civilians in nagasaki and Hiroshima had a good chance of survival against those 2 nukes... Ohh.. Man.... Why didnt anyone tell me that!..

Pls Kato enlighten me, as I'd like to relearn my Nuke 101 knowledge.

 

[nevidimka]

I was also born in Germany and i have seen my grantfather suffer every day from the flashbacks of WW2.
There are no good words for a war specially a war with genocide and holocaust chapters in it.
Every child born after WW2 did ask himself and his parents the question how could this horrible war happen in the way it did,
When i was a little child and i came to the Netherlands to a small town called Valkenburg ZH i was beat down almost everyday because i was a German (Mof)
So i did not see the war, i did not have any part in it, because i was born in 1981 but i did get my share from it.
So i found out the hard way that the war was stopped at 1945 but it lasted for my grantfather 1991.
He did see how other childeren kick my ass and beat me down only because i was German.
And he could not face me when i asked him why this all happend.
It was not only me who did have to face the hate against Germans but many others to.

Today only the bitter taste and memories remains.

So Nevidimka iam sorry to say but you really do not know what you are talking about on this matter.
The Germans are a proud and friendly country full with dreams and hopes just like everyone else has. But after the war it was almost forbidden to have dreams due the fear and anger against Germans.
So in my opinion the generations after 1945 did faces a invisible war called hate and anger and it took them many years even the present day there are still people how "stuff the past into our throats"
But one thing is for sure noone in Germany like to see the past repeat it self, And Germany has made a great effort to learn from our past and face the truth.
As i said before they do not need to be a superpower but they already are in some way because its a sleeping giant.
It always has been and it will be.

I agree with the other posters that germany needs a strong person that can make things happen, but the greatest need of all is stability and safety.

And what Fallstaf said: "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. And this wil be a tough task because the world needs stability and safety and in my view the world is lacking stability and safety right now.

And in my opinion this should be the goal for every capable selfrespecting country or superpower.

Sorry to hear that beastmaster. I'd thought 50 years is long enough for WW2 to just be a page in the history books, not kids beating another just because he is German. It shows the poor educational/awareness level of the country that you reside in actually.

However its my observation that your views, are shaped by your experience as well as many German's experience of living through the aftermath of a lost battle of WW2. That also seems to shape your opinion and many German's opinion that if Germany was to become a superpower again, it will go on a another evil rampage with death and destruction as a result. My argument is, that it does not need to be so. The German ppl should be smarter today than to have other home grown Hitler's to guide them again.

Things are different now. Like I said the world is moving to a multipolar world, and the bigger and strongest will have some leverage on world opinion, as you can see the drive of Russia, china, India to be major powers of the future. Otherwise it will be left to USA as the center of power and many world decisions in favour of USA. So if Germany wants to be more vocal, more influential on world affairs, it has to become a major power. Otherwise, stopping the sale of BMW's are not gonna make any1 rethink their decisions.

Now these are just my opinion. If they are not the same as 99% of the German population, I'm sorry, but do not flame me for it.

On a side note, you seem like a person who is personally affected by a long fought war, and yet you are a member of a forum that talks about war machines whose purpose is nothing but instruments of war?

 

[kato]

So what your saying is, the civilians in nagasaki and Hiroshima had a good chance of survival against those 2 nukes...

Of the population of Hiroshima, 25% were killed within 24 hours of the bombing (most by being burned or struck by debris). Another 25% died within the next several months (until the end of '45), from radiation poisoning mostly. The remaining 50% survived, with perhaps 10% of these dying within the next two decades from related damages such as cancer. That is to say those are percentages of those people who were actually still in the city. About a third of the population had been evacuated earlier already.
In Nagasaki, the numbers were somewhat lower than that through terrain effects - with 20% killed within 24 hours, another 20% within a few months. Likewise, a portion of the population had been evacuated to rural areas previously.

Yes, those are still gruesome numbers. But it's not like using a nuclear weapon against a city assures certain 100% civilian casualty rates.

Similarly, Dresden (since i mentioned dehousing), which every Neonazi seems to pull out. Seriously. So, even if 40,000 people died, which is about twice of what reputable historians allege? That's less than 5% (!!) of the people housed in the city at the time - roughly 600,000 citizens and 200,000 refugees packed into the area. For comparison, the dehousing of Darmstadt killed 10% of the (smaller) population there, and dehoused 60% of the population.

 

[Feanor]

Similarly, Dresden (since i mentioned dehousing), which every Neonazi seems to pull out. Seriously. So, even if 40,000 people died, which is about twice of what reputable historians allege? That's less than 5% (!!) of the people housed in the city at the time - roughly 600,000 citizens and 200,000 refugees packed into the area. For comparison, the dehousing of Darmstadt killed 10% of the (smaller) population there, and dehoused 60% of the population.

That's not the point. Both are intentional targettings of civilians. In my opinion both acts had a place at Nuremberg.

 

[kato]

Of course, but that's not the point. The point originally was that genocide isn't a "war crime", but something different. Call it a crime against humanity if you want. Whereas dehousing and deliberate bombing of civilians are "mere" war crimes.

 

[Beatmaster]

Nevidimka sorry that i did give you the idea that i might flame you, i have no intention to do so )

I fully understand what you are saying, and some parts i can see the logic.
But try this one for example...

When Hitler came to power there was a very differend Germany then today.
Germany was on the brink of colapsing into a major civil war, due the fact that it was punished so hard for the things it did in WW1.
Economic, Social and the political failure on every front.
No jobs almost no food and for many civilians no future only the burning desire to do something to make thing better.
Hitler exploited that desire in a almost genuis but very very evil way.
The results are history as we al know.

For example:

Picture a very poor but populated country that has the same problems as Germany did from 1925 up to 1945. Then it could happen very easy.
Just scream:
I promise you work, i promise a future and so on..... and behind the screens you shoot everyone that might not agree with you then you can turn almost any country into a war machine.

So what i try to say is that in my humble opinion Hitler was a like a virus and it needed a host and Germany was that perfect host at the time.

If you look at the present day Germany wil not be infected by another fool.
Because the people will not allow it, they have a loud voice and thats something they did not have in 1925/1945 so if they say no than it will be for 99% no!!!

You said :
However its my observation that your views, are shaped by your experience as well as many German's experience of living through the aftermath of a lost battle of WW2. That also seems to shape your opinion and many German's opinion that if Germany was to become a superpower again, it will go on a another evil rampage with death and destruction as a result. My argument is, that it does not need to be so. The German ppl should be smarter today than to have other home grown Hitler's to guide them again.

And here is the part i do not understand:
That also seems to shape your opinion and many German's opinion that if Germany was to become a superpower again, it will go on a another evil rampage with death and destruction as a result.

Who said that Germany might be digg up its waraxe? i did not thats for sure.
Because the German people are way smarter than you give them credit for.
Lets say for a second that Germany starts to build a few nukes and rebuild its army lets say twice the size as it is today oke?
Then you can say that Germany has not only become a superpower but also a very seriouse ally or enemy with almost the same caliber as the US or Russia.
Then do you really think that the Germans would allow another madman behind the desk? or that its ally's friends and other country's would accept this? i don't think so because if this should happen, than Germany will be burned down in a economic way with sanctions and other political and perhaps even military pressure to get this person fly out of the window asap.
Anyway i hope so should this happen

And then when this all happens the end result is a Germany again wil need 40/50 years to recover from such a blow and in this period of time it wil be almost the same situation as 1933 only then it would be possible to pull the same trick as hitler and his gang did.
Because at that time Germany was a wounded animal struggeling for its survival and its is wel known a cat in trouble....can do very crazy things.

So my point here is if Germany wants to be a superpower let them do so.
Because only then it will be clear or the German people did pay attention from the lessons learned from the past, on the otherhand it is not fair to say that they must not be a superpower because of the "What if factor"
Because if you look beyond the Germans then you will see enough country's who might be a potential superpower and with more risk to do something very stupid.

As long the German goverment can maintain its stability, security, economic and political structure it will be almost impossible if not impossible to change into a massive killing machine.

But indeed there is always factor x and there will be always a "what if" situation so noone can say its 250% impossible.

o and ps
you said: you seem like a person who is personally affected by a long fought war

Affected? perhaps but,
I just like reading the topic's here and give my opinion, i might even learn from it.

 

[John Sansom]

Whooo, boy! Here's a challenge. How to stay on topic while noting that the use of nuclear weapons against Japan more than probably savd a lot of lives which would have been lost in non-genocidal combat outside of the "war crime" sphere. Sadly, there is still a singular lack of comprehension of what was going on in those days and what was driving military decisions of the time.

 

[kato]

Whether an atrocity "saved" the lives of soldiers is irrelevant. There should never a weighing between lives. Also, while GC IV wasn't written yet back then, Hague II definitely was in power. 22,25,26,27 definitely apply, and Hague II had been ratified by both sides.

As we're also talking about Germany - the German Constitutional (Supreme) Court has actually condemned such thinking under the first article of the German constitution - the dignity of man is inviolable and the second article anyone has a right to life. Under its ruling, the killing - or harming - of an innocent human to save any other people, no matter how many, violates his dignity by violating his right to life.

---

Also, i'd really suggest this thread to be cleaned up and/or closed.

 

[Durendal]

I think Germany has a very respectable army already.
It can't become a military superpower, even if it wanted to.
It lacks the resources both material and in human terms.
Neither could France or Great Bitain once again become a superpower as they were in centuries past.

The time of single European countries being able to project military might at will and control vast regions of the globe are over.

 

[Durendal]

In fact it can be suggested that the time of superpowers in general is over.
If you look at how the technological gap has shrunk and guerilla armies made out of mostly illiterate peasants can frustrate if not wither down even the most powerful armed force.
Examples are Vietnam,Afghanistan,Iraq, Afghanistan 2 , Israel and Hezbollah etc.
It already started in the early 60's and has only become smaller.
The "superpowers" aren't so super anymore when it comes to there overall military might.

 

[John Sansom]

I see your point quite clearly, Kato.....and you're right. However, the alleged "atrocity" is not irrelevant to those whose lives were saved nor to those upon who it was imposed. Irrelevancy in this conundrum is a bit of a philosophical dodge. Put aside for the moment the essentially correct legislative structures, and consider instead how best to save the lives of troops without the commission of a crime upon others. This appears to be the only way to strengthen treaties, accords, and international laws while struggling to at least reduce casualties in the pursuit of a socio-military goal.

It's a bit of a maze, and one in a very dark alley indeed.

 

[Feanor]

In fact it can be suggested that the time of superpowers in general is over.
If you look at how the technological gap has shrunk and guerilla armies made out of mostly illiterate peasants can frustrate if not wither down even the most powerful armed force.
Examples are Vietnam,Afghanistan,Iraq, Afghanistan 2 , Israel and Hezbollah etc.
It already started in the early 60's and has only become smaller.
The "superpowers" aren't so super anymore when it comes to there overall military might.

I disagree.

In Vietnam the guerillas were funded by a super power, trained by a super power, and supplied by a super power. Soviet arms, training, and advisors on the ground (often operating SAMs) were what kept them going.

The war in Afghan for the USSR was a clear case of doctrinal problems. I recall reading in an article that the Soviet General Staff actually asked for 400 000 troops to carry out the invasion. Instead it got ..... 40 000. No surprises. Not nearly enough to effectively control the borders or establish proper presence throughout the country which would enable them to hold the ground.

The war in Iraq is essentially being won right now.

The second Afghan war with NATO is a problem more of unwillingness of the European NATO allies to commit the necessary forces, rather then the ability of the guerillas to fight.

As a coutner example, let me give you the second Chechen war. A demoralized, rotting away, untrained, unpaid, and poorly equipped, Russian Army managed to defeat the Chechen insurgency and effectively stabilize the Russian North Caucus. Did it take some brutality in terms of the measures involved? Yes. Was is justified morally? Debatable. Did it work? Definetly.

 

[riksavage]

I think Germany has a very respectable army already.
It can't become a military superpower, even if it wanted to.
It lacks the resources both material and in human terms.
Neither could France or Great Bitain once again become a superpower as they were in centuries past.

The time of single European countries being able to project military might at will and control vast regions of the globe are over.

Superpower status is not necessarily dictated by the size of country, but ability to project its power, carry a big stick and control events. If a European power (Britain, France or Germany) were to develop a unique technology, which gave it a proprietary and strategic edge over everyone else, then they could again become a superpower. For example if any of them were able to develop the technology to produce cheap and limitless energy in the form of a substitute for fossil fuel then they could not only generate revenue to build and equip a large modern military, but also have the strategic clout to manipulate alliances by deciding who benefits from their limitless wealth and destroy the economies of exisitng oil produces by flooding the market. The British Empire was built on the back of the industrial revolution, who is to say down the line a European power doesn't invent or discover a technology, which gives it a proprietary global advantage, which no one else has immediate access to, but desperately needs.

 

[MarcH]

Well, I think one would need a reason, to finance a bigger military. Superpower status isn't really necessary, since in my opinion this has no benefit for Germany's economy.
A bigger navy would be nice, to protect sealanes as well as a bit of an amphibian assault capability for peace support operations.
Add in some strategic air transport and that is everything Germany needs to protect it's interests.
(And spread the word of mercedes and beck's beer throughout the world)

 

[dragonfire]

Couldnt read the entire thread.

My opinion is that Germany should have better millitary capabilities across all its branches, it would be advisable though that it plan to modernize its forces but wait out the current financial crisis prior to implmenting the plan

 

[Xeno]

Germany is indeed able to be a superpower in future if its necessary. Anyway, if Europe plans to build an EU-Army, Germany is forced to spend the same percentual amount on military then Britain or France does. That would be around $80 billion and therefore the second largest military budget on earth. Considering that Germany is already an economic superpower and looking at her supreme abilities to build up a large and high quality army in a very short amount of time, i would count us already to one of the mightiest countries on earth.

But i might be biased because of my origin. Excuse my bad english.