Should Germany become a military superpower again?
- Thread starter F-15 Eagle
- Start date
- Status
I think that's true. And I think that this attitude is healthy to some degree, having evolved through a very bloody European history. I wouldn't want to live in a country where the population shouts "war" everytime somebody else says or does something wrong. That's immature and dangerous.
And is this such a bad thing? We had a century with 2 major wars, that (apart from what happened to other countries) cost the lives of millions of Germans, made millions homeless, traumatized generations, cost land and left the German people seperated for 40 years. Is it so mad to not go crazy about offensive capabilities?TrangleC said:
But again, we're evolving and I think you should notice that too. We'll probably always have another self-conception than the countries you're talking about, but I think that we're slowly moving towards a sensible position.
Which was 20 years after they'd started settling there. By the end of WW2, there were hundreds of thousands of Jews in what was soon to become Israel - i.e. far more than in Germany - and a significant minority had been born there. It was too late to carve a Jewish state out of Germany. Even without the original reasons for settling in Palestine, why would they have wanted to move from there to Germany? Germany was devastated by war, hungry, cold in winter (& desperately short of fuel or transport to move it), & they had no particular reason to feel less threatened in Germany than where they already were.
There's actually a sorta interesting gem of information hidden in obscure german Government literature, namely in the Handbook for Civil Protection, a survey from 1969:
"If you were asked, would you participate voluntarily in civil protection measures in wartime?"
Born after 1948 : Yes - 28%, No - 57% (no wartime experience)
Born after 1939 : Yes - 27%, No - 57% (no conscious wartime experience)
Born after 1929 : Yes - 24%, No - 62% (experienced WW2 passive)
Born after 1919 : Yes - 23%, No - 62% (experienced WW2 active)
Born after 1904 : Yes - 16%, No - 74% (experienced WW1 passive and WW2 active)
Born before 1904 : Yes - 7%, No - 82% (experienced WW1 and WW2 active)
See some connotation in the numbers?
I didn't say it is a bad thing.
All i said was that it is like that and that is why i can't imagine Germany becoming a major military power in the forseeable time, even though it made some progress towards normality in the last 15 years or so.
Just today i listened to a audio book by Peter Scholl-Latour, who should be well known to every German here. A very wise man who pretty much predicted every international political development that happened in the last 50 years way ahead of time and often was riduculed by people for what he said but always turned out to be right.
In that book he talks about an French, German, Belgian and Dutch attempt to create a common defence plan in 2004 and how the German media ridiculed this idea and basically everybody said it is stupid and any attempt by a few European nations to do something like that without Great Britain and ultimately the USA being a part of it, would be futile and ridiculous.
I think this kind of stupidity (by the German media) shows that there is a intelectual elite in Germany that is totally delusional and has no clue of reality at the moment.
France and Germany together have a population of about 150 million people, the same as Russia and together form a economical powerhouse that would play in the same league as the USA, even without the rest of Europe. Why the fuck should the two of them, together with Belgium and the Netherlands, be unable to create a significant force on the world's political stage, a powerful military and a common defence strategy?
I don't see anything ridiculous about this idea and wehn it comes to common European defence politics, there will have to be something like that, a unit of a few strong European countries that act together without feeling obliged to ask every single one of the 25 EU member states before making any decision. The way the USA used their influence not just on Great Britain, but also on the new, eastern European members to influence European foreign politics as a whole, made that clear.
If the EU ever wants to be more than just a trade union, it will have to go "lean and mean" in terms of common defence, with a small group of nations within the big EU working together, unseparable by the USA and it's European satelite states and if neccessary ignore the bickering by the rest of the EU.
Nothing against the USA and the NATO, but it becomes more and more obvious that the interests of the USA and of Europe are not identical anymore and most likely will diverge and differ increasingly in the future.
So will Germany become a military superpower again?
No.
Will it become part of a small group within the EU that forms a capable military alliance with it's own identity and interests?
It has to.
The Core Europe plan as devised by Schäuble and Lamers? That was always more of a bailout plan - if the EU doesn't work, we'll fall back on that. With tighter cooperation than the EU to make sure it works out this time. Or Verheugen's and Lamy's "Federation Franco-Allemand"? Now that one really was ridiculous.
Very good post of yours.
But nevertheless, he indeed is a knowledgable man but with a very distinct sense for the privilege of his age to know everything better than others. And, as most wise men he has a much to rational approach concerning international politics.
We're talking about Europe and countries that are very friendly and very closely connected and all of them are blessed with a strong national identity and very individual ideas of what armed forces are to be used for and who should take the lead.
Of course, if this was a world built on pure rationality the whole thing would be a good idea. It's a shame it isn't.
Ok, seems like I misunderstood you. This way it sounds reasonable.
My worst nightmare would be former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt and Peter Scholl-Latour in one Room shouting "No, I knew it first" at each other
But nevertheless, he indeed is a knowledgable man but with a very distinct sense for the privilege of his age to know everything better than others. And, as most wise men he has a much to rational approach concerning international politics.
Having said that it is my opinion that in this case the relevance of the German media is severely exaggerated. If it had been doable and not just a good, yet idealistic idea from the drawing board, it would have been done.
We're talking about Europe and countries that are very friendly and very closely connected and all of them are blessed with a strong national identity and very individual ideas of what armed forces are to be used for and who should take the lead.
Of course, if this was a world built on pure rationality the whole thing would be a good idea. It's a shame it isn't.
I hear you and I understand your reasoning, I just don't think it is a realistic concept.
We'll see. I think that within a few years we'll see if the enlarged EU works out. Perhaps the concept of a core-EU will be revitalized though I hope that it will not be neccessary.
Considering they're both ... well, not exactly at their mental height anymore... would probably be a somewhat sad affair. Just saw Scholl-Latour in a debate on TV two weeks ago, he had difficulties getting his thoughts together to bring them across.My worst nightmare would be former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt and Peter Scholl-Latour in one Room shouting "No, I knew it first" at each other
But nevertheless, he indeed is a knowledgable man but with a very distinct sense for the privilege of his age to know everything better than others.
Two of the mentioned states are in fact some of the worst followers towards a completely decentral "Europe of Regions" (Germany and Belgium).
Such as - while the German Embassy in Brussels is pretty big (and ugly), the one of Baden-Württemberg and Bavaria are both almost as big - and situated physically closer to the EU offices, in the case of the Bavarian Embassy right next to the European Parliament.
backlash92
New Member
The numbers are getting better though and i think they will continue to grow, more yes votes that it, over the years and the german people will eventually get there confidence back and become a major world country again. The problem is people are just scared of the germans becoming a world power agian because of what they produced in the last century. 2 war world wars started on your behalf is not a good score for a country and therefore people have reason to be scared. but you have to look at how the world is run now. I dont think the germans will have another dictator produce out of Germany. not all germans are crazy like hitler.
a) First it is idiotic to lay all the blame of WWI at Germany's (and Austro-Hungary's) door. All parties carry - if an uneven - part of it, just like France is not alone to blame for the war of 1871.
b) The international framework is far different now and the cooperation between the European nations is - if imperfect, boring, frustrating - very very deep.
c) Saying that "people" are scared of "the Germans" is quite gross. There are members of some nations which still struggle with the relationship because of past events but by large it is a very minor phenomenon.
d) Stating that "not all germans are crazy like hitler" is actually quite insulting at all levels. More so to those in modern Germany which have absolutely nothing to do with it.
Said that I tend to see the EU as the most promising institution to integrate the European states further and the lower the risk of military conflicts between the member states. Ironically the German Empire achieved quite the same on a regional level, as it incorporated former German states which also had participated in quite a few devasting wars against each others.
backlash92
New Member
Thats not what i meant. you took the words i put and wrapped them to what you wanted to hear. An people are scared. if you go up to an average person and say "should Germany become a military superpower again?" they will say no. and if you ask them why they will most likely say that they dont want another world war or Hitler again. An when i said "not all germans are crazy like hitler" is a little bit insulting and thats my fault. but people are scared of germans just because they take a german and portray him as hitler. please dont twist my words around to fit your needs.
The_Zergling
New Member
It is however important to note that Hitler (and the other fascist leaders of the time) was backed by a relatively rational citizenry, that when combined with various institutional and external (namely, economic) factors created a situation where a man like him could come to power.
Point being that it doesn't necessarily take someone as crazy as Hitler to produce disastrous consequences. This isn't to say that it would necessarily happen if Germany were to try building up as a military superpower, but "Hitler won't happen again" isn't particularly solid an argument for it.
backlash92
New Member
yeh i thought about that after my post...and you are right. you have to have support to rise to power and the time was right for hitler to rise. but what if another powerfull man rises in a time appropriate for another dictator an he becomes one? that is what people are hesitant about (not scared...sorry bout the earlier post
) and where did someone post "Hitler won't happen again" if it was me please quote the post i stated that inThe_Zergling
New Member
Oh, I didn't mean that someone had literally said "Hitler won't happen again" - it was a paraphrase of sentiment, rather than an actual quote. Sorry for any misunderstanding.yeh i thought about that after my post...and you are right. you have to have support to rise to power and the time was right for hitler to rise. but what if another powerfull man rises in a time appropriate for another dictator an he becomes one? that is what people are hesitant about (not scared...sorry bout the earlier post
As you observed correctly, my point was that various factors came together to facilitate Hitler's rise, and one of them was a serious upgrade in military capability. That obviously isn't to say that military development necessarily indicates desire for aggression, but particularly for a country with a past history of such and no obvious need to assert itself militarily, I can see why it would be troubling for people.
John Sansom
New Member
Well, lads.... "Hitler" has happened again, in many and diverse places. Cambodia, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Argentina...and the list goes on. Fortunately the "liebensraum" phenomenon has been somewhat muted in more recent times.
As for Germany, like the rest of us she is fully capable of forgetting the past while repeating the mistakes thereof. But, unlike the rest of us, she is far less likely to do so.
As for Germany, like the rest of us she is fully capable of forgetting the past while repeating the mistakes thereof. But, unlike the rest of us, she is far less likely to do so.
I believe that Germany can re-emerge as a superpower due to their capabilities. Germans are excellent at engineering and good weapons come from good engineering. Germany is a country that can pack a big punch. Yet why would they want to become a superpower? They are fine as it is and have spent little on their military which has allowed them to spend it on things like education and infrastructure. Plus, if they tried to re-emerge it would face resistance from other countries of course. That could slow the re-emergence or even perhaps stop it completly.
Last edited:
I think we need to look at the psyche of a country and its desire to become a superpower. To make that step you have to change your entire ideology and commit to spending huge amounts of GDP on defence, whilst sacrificing social and economic programmes. The Soviet Union maintained its superpower status at a tremendous cost to its domestic economy. In the end the Russians simply couldn't afford to compete with the spending power of the US (Starwars programme in particular), which possessed an unparalleled nonmilitary economic base built on innovation and technology. The German populous quite frankly are NOT interested in becoming a military Superpower, it brings zero gain to the table unless they are directly threatened and are forced to come out from under the protective US umbrella. The Kaiser tried it, Hitler tried it - Germany has learnt its lesson.
NATO was formed to keep "The Russians out, The German's down and Americans in Europe". If NATO disintegrates due to the American's finally getting sick and tired of providing the lions share of deployable assets willing to stand at the spear-point whilst others look on nervously rubbing their hands, then the countries in Europe will have no choice but to spend more on restructuring their militaries. Unfortunately though all this talk about France, Germany and others joining up to form a 'strong and capable military force' in Europe is a pipe dream for one reason - EGO's. You will never resolve the issue of who's in charge (The French will see it as their divine right to lead the force). Plus each country will be governed by domestic issues and debilitating caveats (just look at Afghanistan) resulting in the force becoming a paper-tiger.
Germany, like many other countries in West have costly social programmes and an expected high-standard of living which remains the paramount concern of the electorate, which cost billions to maintain. Only countries like India, which is determined to put a man on the moon, build a blue water navy yet continues to tolerate the fact that 60 plus % of its population lives below the poverty line has any real chance of becoming the next superpower - they are simply prepared to accept social deprivation in exchange for a seat at the top table.
NATO was formed to keep "The Russians out, The German's down and Americans in Europe". If NATO disintegrates due to the American's finally getting sick and tired of providing the lions share of deployable assets willing to stand at the spear-point whilst others look on nervously rubbing their hands, then the countries in Europe will have no choice but to spend more on restructuring their militaries. Unfortunately though all this talk about France, Germany and others joining up to form a 'strong and capable military force' in Europe is a pipe dream for one reason - EGO's. You will never resolve the issue of who's in charge (The French will see it as their divine right to lead the force). Plus each country will be governed by domestic issues and debilitating caveats (just look at Afghanistan) resulting in the force becoming a paper-tiger.
Germany, like many other countries in West have costly social programmes and an expected high-standard of living which remains the paramount concern of the electorate, which cost billions to maintain. Only countries like India, which is determined to put a man on the moon, build a blue water navy yet continues to tolerate the fact that 60 plus % of its population lives below the poverty line has any real chance of becoming the next superpower - they are simply prepared to accept social deprivation in exchange for a seat at the top table.
Last edited:
Why do you think it's fortunate? "Loving room" sounds like a good thing to me.
That will entirely depend on the focussing of the European nations after such a split. Don't forget that NATO-Europe still has in excess of 2 million soldiers, and everything they need for mutual defense. And at least 10% of those 2 million are deployable as of now.
It actually works quite well with current and past EUFORs. There have been a couple, you know.
Poverty lines are arbitrary terms. Going on equal standards, poverty in say the USA is twice as high as in the EU-Core-5-States, which are all extremely close. State transfer payments do significantly lower poverty in Germany, but even without such transfers, poverty would still be remarkedly lower than in the USA.
The problem with most European standing armies (with the possible exception of the UK) is just that, they are 'standing', trapped within a relatively limited geographical area by a severe lack of strategic lift and indigenous logistical supply-chains capable of sustaining out of area operations.
Today's clear and present danger is not the Soviet Union, but that represented by asymmetrical warfare being fought on the plains of A-STAN and inside the ghettos of European cities such as London, Paris and Amsterdam against a disaffected youth attracted by an extreme view of the world and hatred of the West.
If Pakistan goes South, which is a distinct possibility and turns in to Talibanistan, then all the standing armies in Europe staring Eastwards are going to be about as much use as a chocolate fireguard. Thousands of tanks and APC's sitting on parade squares aren't going to prevent Pakistan nuclear weapons getting in to the hands of extremists.
The European's need to spend money transforming their militaries in to true expeditionary fighting units, which are backed up by strategic intelligence gathering assets capable of being deployed globally. Until this happens they will remain dinosaur organisations trained and equipped to fight the last war, not the next.
- Status