No, I consider this sad military action as being of the same kind as dozens of other colonial actions which were taken by the imperialistic powers of this time.
Not even closely comparable to the two big wars of the 20th century.
Should Germany become a military superpower again?
- Thread starter F-15 Eagle
- Start date
- Status
Not even closely comparable to the two big wars of the 20th century.
Do not confused wartime mobilization, and peacetime support. Wars are relatively short, intense periods of confrontation. Thus more resources are mobilized for a short time.
The Lamy-Verheugen-Plan was to create a German-French Confederation with a joint military, and joint federated government. A confederation with nearly the population of Russia, and with a nominal GDP of 6 trillion dollar, roughly half that of the USA (35% of the European Union), and #2 worldwide. Definitely material for more than just the default hegemonial regional power in Europe.
Subsequent synergy effects between the merged militaries would obviously have created the necessary funding and personnel for more power projection assets, if seen as needed.
Waylander: One could view the Boxer Rebellion as the first step, or rather the participation in the wider imperialistic meddling in China.
wimpymouse
Banned Member
HAHAHAHAHAHA, what is the US if not the Fourth Reich?
nfloorl:Is being a/the "world cop" the reason to the US being a superpower do you think?
Well, if that's the reason for being a superpower then it's helluva cheeper for the German government to pass out free "mini police" T-shirts (that many small kids are running around with) to its citizens, and put the remaining money on infrastructure and culture.
wimpymouse
Banned Member
Assuming that we will have to totally disregard the fact that Imperial Germany were looking to extend the railway of the Orient Express from Constantinopel down to Bagdad and the oilfields of Iraq, and that Brittain and the Frensch, naturally, couldn't have that. Disregarding that, yeah, then it was Germanys fault alright.
IMO increasing military personnel alone does not make germany a military superpower. N.Korea has like what 1 million soldiers? nuke's and they still do not qualify as a superpower.
Also Germany not only have to surpass substantially what UK and France has it has to develop the whole range of weapons that a super power should have. Germany currently doesnt have SSBN's, carriers, a navy that is capable of projecting power anywhere in the world. Its air force does not have a strategic long range strike capability that can travel half the globe to unleash nukes.
A france and germany Union? I wonder what does the french have to say to that. They still have bad memories of the past.
Also Germany not only have to surpass substantially what UK and France has it has to develop the whole range of weapons that a super power should have. Germany currently doesnt have SSBN's, carriers, a navy that is capable of projecting power anywhere in the world. Its air force does not have a strategic long range strike capability that can travel half the globe to unleash nukes.
A france and germany Union? I wonder what does the french have to say to that. They still have bad memories of the past.
Of all countries, Germany has the least want and need to be a military superpower. The only thing that would provicate them to be one, is say sudden decline in US power, sudden rise is Russian and/or Chinese power and they start behaving in a biliegerant way to EU countries or germany in particular. Even then France and UK would have to bury their head in the sand. A wholely unlikely situation and one everyone would be trying to avoid (inc the russians and the chinese).
Remember Germany did fight a multifront War with Uk, France, Russia, US and at some stages they looked like they might even win. Germany is a nation big enough to be a superpower (larger than France or UK) It has the largest population in EU and a massive technology and industrial base (equal of anything any other super power has). It has a proven ability to go from almost nothing in terms of military to superpower in a few short years.
France and Germany have had good relations for numerous years and it wasn't the first time these people had fought wars against each other and they get over things pretty quickly. If its against outside agressors (USSR) these two will tightly bond. Just look how closely they work together to steer the EU.
Germany is proberly 1.2-1.5 times the potential power of France or the Uk. Combining with either or both would make a Federated nuclear power to become a clear superpower.
Remember Germany did fight a multifront War with Uk, France, Russia, US and at some stages they looked like they might even win. Germany is a nation big enough to be a superpower (larger than France or UK) It has the largest population in EU and a massive technology and industrial base (equal of anything any other super power has). It has a proven ability to go from almost nothing in terms of military to superpower in a few short years.
France and Germany have had good relations for numerous years and it wasn't the first time these people had fought wars against each other and they get over things pretty quickly. If its against outside agressors (USSR) these two will tightly bond. Just look how closely they work together to steer the EU.
Germany is proberly 1.2-1.5 times the potential power of France or the Uk. Combining with either or both would make a Federated nuclear power to become a clear superpower.
Beatmaster
New Member
I agree to most of your tekst.
Keep in mind that Germany as an nation has a very dark history specialy ww1 and ww2.
But this is not a garantee that Germany is heading for a ww3.
They have payed there punishment voor the early mistakes.
So to all
Its not right to say "Germany should not be a superpower" because of its history.
If you see the news Germany is building its economy and his military overall power, they even have there own spysat now.
They are close with UK/ France and the Netherlands and working closely together with them on more than just one project.
So Germany has no need to be a superpower and for homeland security they should do just fine with over 500K soldiers don't you think?
Could they be a superpower? very easy they even have the power to go to the next level.
Should Germany be seen as a solid partner? I think yes with there economy, political power and military power.
Keep in mind that if you need a strong partner within the EU you could do mutch wors than Germany.
Oke theoretical lets say they wanna be a superpower,
Anyway if Germany really pushes its drive to be a superpower and have the strenght to back it up in a orderly fashion then hell yeah why not, because it would boost the NAVO and EU specially if they consider a UK/France pact.
For the US and some EU country's there will be some problems because when Germany becomes a superpower there voice in Brussel ( Belguim) will be a lot louder i assume.
On the other hand NAVO in general would have a mutch greater impact and its political strenght will increase overtime.
The only problem is that in the EU not everyone shares the same idea, so if they need to take action then its common that some EU members do not approve or do not like to help.
And with UK/France and Germany on the same level you actually do not need the others to execute some plans or actions,
In these day's we al know that the UK and France are the EU's military backbone strenghted by other nations.
And we also know that in some cases the EU did not have the strenght to execute some of the plans they did have.
So its overall power was lowered the past few years.
And now with a possible awaking giant like Germany who is driving the NAVO/EU road this could be a turning point for NAVO/EU and US
Because as an enemy the Germans have proved to be a pain in the ass
So i assume that as an ally they should do just fine call it good faith or:
Deutsche gründlichkeit
Ps
Someone wrote that the germans have plans that include nukes?
In my knowlegd Germany has no own nukes right?
Only the US and NATO nukes are based for some part in germany?
And if i do remember correctly but iam not sure, did Germany sign a paper with on the bottom line "I declare to never build nukes"?
Correct me if iam wrong.
So my question is where the hell do they should get these nukes from?
O and Kato are you still human? because the size of your brains and knowlegd about these matters is really insane
Earlier I mentioned that Hitler is not their 1 trick pony. What I meant is not Nazism nor Halocaust, but rather the will of the people of Germany to be a major power. If Hitler managed to make Germany a superpower from the ashes of WW1, then germany is well capable of becoming a superpower with its economic power today. All it needs is a leader who is strong enough to put it in that direction.
When you look at WW2, the innovation from its war machines were amazing. A superpower not only needs the will, but also the capability to fulfill the need to become a superpower. And the military innovation shown by Germany in WW2 shows that it has the capability to become 1, so why play second fiddle to another super power be it the Soviet Union/Russia or USA?
Some1 mentioned that Germany has a dark history of its military past, but a dark history according to whom? According to people outside germany, non germans. If you realise, in war the loser is always wrong and the winner is always right. The same thing is stuffed down the throat of the Germans for generations after losing the WW2. Germany is accused of bringing deaths to many , including the jews, and since they are the losers they must be wrong. But didnt USA incinerate more than a million innocent civilians, womans, childrens, babies in their cot's with nuclear weapons? They are still right coz they won didnt they? Those things swept under the carpet wasnt it?
I just think its in the people of germany to be a major power, and throughout the cold war they were shackled and broken apart by the 2 superpower forcefully so that they would not try to be a big power again. but things are changing now, the cold war over, the world moving to a multipolar world. the time is ripe for Germany to move towards becoming a superpower again.
I think generations of Germans after WW2, were forced to accept the fate and not to rise up again. A further generations grew up being brainwashed thingking that thier past is an evil 1. But I believe their will for power is just lying dormant until now.
For example look at the Russians. The last generation during the breakup of Soviet Union was so much agsint the communist system and aspired everything western, that they broke up the Soviet Union. With the breakup of the Soviet Union and a decade of hardship, losing its military and political status in the world and being humiliated by the west, the next generation started to make a drastic change. The new generation missed their former power, and became more nationalistic, and they are re charting their move to reclaim what they lost with the Soviet Union. It looks like the anti west Russians just skipped 1 generation and they are moving back into confrontation. Why it only skipped 1 generation is because Russia is not shackled nor forced to renounce its military aspirations like the Germans were subjected to.
Same thing can happen with the Germans as the new multipolar world begins and the shakles are removed. It just will take abit longer than 1 generation for the Germans.
When you look at WW2, the innovation from its war machines were amazing. A superpower not only needs the will, but also the capability to fulfill the need to become a superpower. And the military innovation shown by Germany in WW2 shows that it has the capability to become 1, so why play second fiddle to another super power be it the Soviet Union/Russia or USA?
Some1 mentioned that Germany has a dark history of its military past, but a dark history according to whom? According to people outside germany, non germans. If you realise, in war the loser is always wrong and the winner is always right. The same thing is stuffed down the throat of the Germans for generations after losing the WW2. Germany is accused of bringing deaths to many , including the jews, and since they are the losers they must be wrong. But didnt USA incinerate more than a million innocent civilians, womans, childrens, babies in their cot's with nuclear weapons? They are still right coz they won didnt they? Those things swept under the carpet wasnt it?
I just think its in the people of germany to be a major power, and throughout the cold war they were shackled and broken apart by the 2 superpower forcefully so that they would not try to be a big power again. but things are changing now, the cold war over, the world moving to a multipolar world. the time is ripe for Germany to move towards becoming a superpower again.
I think generations of Germans after WW2, were forced to accept the fate and not to rise up again. A further generations grew up being brainwashed thingking that thier past is an evil 1. But I believe their will for power is just lying dormant until now.
For example look at the Russians. The last generation during the breakup of Soviet Union was so much agsint the communist system and aspired everything western, that they broke up the Soviet Union. With the breakup of the Soviet Union and a decade of hardship, losing its military and political status in the world and being humiliated by the west, the next generation started to make a drastic change. The new generation missed their former power, and became more nationalistic, and they are re charting their move to reclaim what they lost with the Soviet Union. It looks like the anti west Russians just skipped 1 generation and they are moving back into confrontation. Why it only skipped 1 generation is because Russia is not shackled nor forced to renounce its military aspirations like the Germans were subjected to.
Same thing can happen with the Germans as the new multipolar world begins and the shakles are removed. It just will take abit longer than 1 generation for the Germans.
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...
There is an inherent difference between "collateral damage" and "organized genocide".
The nuclear bombs killed a few hundred thousand people in collateral damage. Germany killed over a million people through the siege of Leningrad alone. Both were military events with trastic consequences for civilians, and both are played down as mere military operations with large impact on the war.
The Holocaust wasn't a military event. It was an organized systematic genocide of people deemed "subhuman" in certain circles for decades or centuries (Jews, Sinti, Roma, disabled people, Homosexuals), going to new until then unknown dimensions. And far too few participants in this genocide have paid for it.
There are no events in history to compare it to - fortunately. And before someone pulls out Stalin, or Mao's Great Leap Ahead - no. We are not talking systemic extinction of specific groups there. Not even the Cultural Revolution comes close. And no, not the near-extinction of Native Americans over the course of 500 years either.
The nuclear bombs killed a few hundred thousand people in collateral damage. Germany killed over a million people through the siege of Leningrad alone. Both were military events with trastic consequences for civilians, and both are played down as mere military operations with large impact on the war.
The Holocaust wasn't a military event. It was an organized systematic genocide of people deemed "subhuman" in certain circles for decades or centuries (Jews, Sinti, Roma, disabled people, Homosexuals), going to new until then unknown dimensions. And far too few participants in this genocide have paid for it.
There are no events in history to compare it to - fortunately. And before someone pulls out Stalin, or Mao's Great Leap Ahead - no. We are not talking systemic extinction of specific groups there. Not even the Cultural Revolution comes close. And no, not the near-extinction of Native Americans over the course of 500 years either.
Ok, since your the German, I'll accept that. However what I was really trying to say is that, to be a Super power today does not necessarily mean you have to go on a crazy conquest over Europe like that Hitler did. The USA and Soviet Union remained super power for a long time without going to war didnt they? I notice that Germany want to play more active role in EU as the world moves into a multipolar world, but how do you make your statement matter in the multipolar world if your not a power to be reckoned with? Russia realised the hard way that its views, concerns are not taken into consideration by the West once it lost its superpower status, hence it is back on a path to reclaim its status internationally.
I dont know what their aim is nor am I associating myself with them. However if you feel that the use of Nukes against the Japanese was justified, I believe that is a view that is very disturbing. There is no justification of Nuclear weapon use unless the survival of the country itself is at stake. I think what is more dangerous than having Nuclear weapons is that when people start justifying its use.
Doesnt that sound more like Germany trying to reassert itself in the military sphere in a world where there is no more cold war nor Soviet Union?
Last edited:
Both were done with the attacking side knowing full well what the final outcome would be, wouldn't you say? In fact the Nuking of Japan is nothing collateral at all. They are both intended. This is again deviating from the topic, lets get back to the topic.
I don't see where you're going with this, but I agree with what u stated.
Last edited:
In my opinion Germany has no interest in becoming a new super power.
You only need to look at the current state of US economy and by consequence the future capability of the US military to know that the costs outway the benefits massivly.
The reasons for this are clear. Germany has focused its scientific capabilty's on creating an export driven economy. Its scientists are researching products that can be exported, in contrast the limited US scientific capability is overstreatched in researching military weapons that can't be sold because they are too expansive for other nations or because they are too high-tech and the US won't sell them.
The essention is that you can only use youre limited amount of scientists once. And the Germany has put the development of a healthy economy first, with a positive trade surplus as a result. Germany has only maintained its military industry and put it second. The United States has gone beserk with militairy spending and neglected its economy.
The US needs to know that production of militairy goods alone can not maintain a super power, when everyting else needs to be imported into the United States it can no longer be considered a super power.
The US needs to share its role as superpower and all its responsabilities with the EU so the cost of military expenses can be reduced in the US. Because it is vital that US rebuilds a more sustainable economy and it will have to cut in its military programs to do this.
In that sense Germany and others will become more important in the future.
You only need to look at the current state of US economy and by consequence the future capability of the US military to know that the costs outway the benefits massivly.
The reasons for this are clear. Germany has focused its scientific capabilty's on creating an export driven economy. Its scientists are researching products that can be exported, in contrast the limited US scientific capability is overstreatched in researching military weapons that can't be sold because they are too expansive for other nations or because they are too high-tech and the US won't sell them.
The essention is that you can only use youre limited amount of scientists once. And the Germany has put the development of a healthy economy first, with a positive trade surplus as a result. Germany has only maintained its military industry and put it second. The United States has gone beserk with militairy spending and neglected its economy.
The US needs to know that production of militairy goods alone can not maintain a super power, when everyting else needs to be imported into the United States it can no longer be considered a super power.
The US needs to share its role as superpower and all its responsabilities with the EU so the cost of military expenses can be reduced in the US. Because it is vital that US rebuilds a more sustainable economy and it will have to cut in its military programs to do this.
In that sense Germany and others will become more important in the future.
I would actually agree. Acts like the fire-bombing of Dresden and nuking of Japan, where no major enough to warrant such strikes military targets were present, is deliberate targetting of civilians. In my opinion those are acts of state terrorism, no less then the atrocities committed by Soviet forces in Afghan, or Nazi's in concentration camps.
Beatmaster
New Member
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.
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 use intentional targetting of civilians as part of a conflict, by a military or paramilitary organization, as my definition of terrorism. In the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that's exactly what happened in my opinion. Naturally it's different from genocide, which is systematic extermination of an ethnic, national, or religious group of people. However that doesn't make the A-bomb drops justified.
- Status