Onkel
New Member
Right. Perhaps this didn´t happen because Antisemitism was common sense in Europe back in this days.
Should Germany become a military superpower again?
- Thread starter F-15 Eagle
- Start date
- Status
Right. Perhaps this didn´t happen because Antisemitism was common sense in Europe back in this days.
And not all Nazis were German.
Don't be too hard on your ancestors. That was after the Nazis had already got their hands on most of the levers of power, had arrested some of the opposition leaders, & had 50000 "monitors" in polling stations, intimidating voters, stuffing ballot boxes & the like. The highest Nazi vote was in the regions with most "monitors", of course.
The highest Nazi vote in a free election - before they'd shown what they were like in power - was 37.8%, & they got 33.1% in the last free election. Before the crash of '29, they'd never got more than 2.6% on their own, or 6.5% on a combined list.
Misguided Fool
New Member
Well, i agree with your point that the Nazis weren't democratically elected, but Germany's most famous and revered leader at the time, Hindenberg (u?) allowed von Papen to give hitler the Chancellor seat.
A Jewish state on German territory wouldn't have worked out and would have ended terribly.
The Jews prefer Jerusalem over Holstein
backlash92
New Member
u just gave yourself a double-negative by saying they didnt appose as an excuse and then saying what would hapen to those who apposed as a counter-excuseO.K. that´s nice, but to easy. Most of those who didn´t agree didn´t oppose - Apart from the question if I had opposed - you know what happened to opposition in Hitlers Reich. They found themselfes easily on the scaffold or in a concentration camp -it needs a lot of heroism to face that threat.
But Kato and Swerve are right. Millions of germans had to move and leave their homes. Because of that, there is still some distrust between Poland and Germany- some polish people fear that Germany wants it´s eastern parts back. But I can proudly say this fear is causeless. Apart from some (sorry, mate) misguided foolsnobody even thinks about this.
backlash92
New Member
i never said they were ALL german...i said "the nazis were german" my bad, poor choice of words. The majority of Nazis were german
Onkel
New Member
Yeah I know. I thought about this problem several times. On one hand I don´t want to apologize everything that did NOT happen with NaziTerror against german opposition- on the other hand I don´t know If anybody could have changed things in germany after 1933. Perhaps the Wehrmacht´s Generals. But the single citizen? I´d really like to know.
Georg Elser almost did it in 1939. After the war started, that's when it would have been in the hands of Wehrmacht personnel. And it's not like there weren't any attempts between September '39 and June '44. Look up von Breitenbuch or von Gersdorff for example.
backlash92
New Member
1. where r you getting this info on saying a huge part of the population wants the defense force to be dismantled?
2. This would be stupid to dismantle the entire defense force as they would be open to attcks. im not sayin anyone will attck them but you never know.
3. Where are you getting the information on everybody being pacifist.
By living there and sometimes reading a newspaper and watching tv news.
I might be wrong, but your interest in the matter and your reaction to my post suggests that you are german too. If you are german and at the same time not aware of the pacifistic attitude of the broad german population, you would have had to spend the last 30 years on the moon.
Misguided Fool
New Member
I don't know, being surrounded by hostile countries whose population is increasing far faster than your own, with large reserves of oil and much greater land area, and trying to develop nuclear weapons (iran, regardless of what they say), with the stated goal of wiping Israel off the map ... i would chose Holstein
. Then again, i'm not drawn by faith to a place of my ancestors Perhaps, but I doubt that the Jews would want to live right next to the Vaterland after 1945.I don't know, being surrounded by hostile countries whose population is increasing far faster than your own, with large reserves of oil and much greater land area, and trying to develop nuclear weapons (iran, regardless of what they say), with the stated goal of wiping Israel off the map ... i would chose Holstein
backlash92
New Member
Oh there is pacifisim but we would have to take a national poll to really see how many germans are pacifist. honestly though, would you tear down the defense force, people may not like all of them but they are defending the country from outside threats.
Which is the most important point in this slightly arkward discussion. Although there might have been something just in making Germany give up territory for a jewish state, Israel was founded where it is due to historical and religious reasons- it's the promised land. They wouldn't have gone elsewhere, I guess. And IIRC they were promised a state there at the end of the Great War already, appr. 30 years before Israel was actually founded.Then again, i'm not drawn by faith to a place of my ancestors
If you define pacifism as "opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes or gaining advantage" (as wikipedia does, sorry), then I guess that actually most Germans would call themselves pacifist- even those who dress black and throw bricks and light cars in the name of peacebachlash92 said:
But the German pacifism isn't as rampant and crazy as TrangleC thinks, the broad population thinks respectful of the Bundeswehr. Sure, there is quite a strong minority that think that everything that has to do with the military is child murder (at least that was what I was told on a bus trip back home from the barracks I served at) and then there is a very small community of militarists. But the broad population shares a pragmatical view. And if you follow the development of the Bundeswehr, operational deployment and so on during the last 10-15 years you'll find that TrangleC's view is wrong, although I must confess that from the outside it may seem right sometimes...
I think that most of the positive feelings towards the Bundeswehr in the German population come from deluted ideas about what an army actually is there for. The German politicians and media always sold the operations on the Balcans and in Afghanistan as purely humanitarian to the population. As long as the Bundeswehr soldiers are basically social and construction workers in uniform, sending them abroad is ok with the German population. But i am very sure about what would happen if that would change. That is why it is almost unthinkable that the Bundeswehr would join in on the real war that is going on in the south of Afghanistan. The population would never support that, even if it would make sense and if there would be a military solution to the problems in that part of the world.
The Bundeswehr generally has a problem with being accepted as being a real army by the own population. They always have to justify everything they do or buy with humanitarian reasons. When they created the KSK, they couldn't tell the people: "We want special forces so we can send them on secret missions.", they had to say that the KSK is needed pretty much exclusively to evacuate European citizens from conflict zones. That was ok for the German people. Building up special forces for power projection and to serve general national interests would not have been ok.
It is the same problem with the military budget.
It is extremely hard to get funding for aqquisitions like the Typhoon, basically because multirole fighting aircraft cannot build schools or escort muslim women from home to their working places.
When they wanted new transport aircraft, they couldn't just say a modern army needs airlift abilities, they had to tell the people that those aircraft can be used to drop food and other supplies for refugees in Africa.
The Bundeswehr is an army that basically has to masquerade itself as a humanitarian organisation to be accepted by the own population.
The Bundeswehr generally has a problem with being accepted as being a real army by the own population. They always have to justify everything they do or buy with humanitarian reasons. When they created the KSK, they couldn't tell the people: "We want special forces so we can send them on secret missions.", they had to say that the KSK is needed pretty much exclusively to evacuate European citizens from conflict zones. That was ok for the German people. Building up special forces for power projection and to serve general national interests would not have been ok.
It is the same problem with the military budget.
It is extremely hard to get funding for aqquisitions like the Typhoon, basically because multirole fighting aircraft cannot build schools or escort muslim women from home to their working places.
When they wanted new transport aircraft, they couldn't just say a modern army needs airlift abilities, they had to tell the people that those aircraft can be used to drop food and other supplies for refugees in Africa.
The Bundeswehr is an army that basically has to masquerade itself as a humanitarian organisation to be accepted by the own population.
That's more because:
a) Germany has always had special forces for secret missions, and it's an accepted fact.
b) The outward appearance of the KSK can easily be considered elitist, and not at all representative of the "citizen in uniform".
c) KSK was created for just that reason, extraction of personnel and civilians in hostile conditions.
d) KSK was only later formed into a combined special forces group by adding in pretty much all other pre-existing groups to enlarge the KSK.
Also of course, saying that "we're forming a new special forces group to conduct secret operations in peacetime" doesn't sit well with Article 87 of the constitution. At all. As in the whole thing would have been illegal and a breach of constitution if that reasoning was used.
Even if it was a later amendment to the constituion, Article 87 gives a clear reason for what reasons Germany has a military, and it clearly states for what it may not be used - namely anything not stated expressly by the constitution.
The A400M project constitutes a nominal extension of airlift capacities of the Bundeswehr by nearly 300% compared to Cold War times adjusted for the size of the Bundeswehr. Meaning they're spending about 6.2 billion Euro more than they'd absolutely have to, and hence they damn better make sure to tell the taxpayers that their money will be used for things they feel good about.
Sure, but don't forget that this is exactly what we are talking about: What do the Germans feel good about?
In another country it would have been no problem to tell the people that the army needs those planes for military purposes and to increase the offensive abilitys of the military.
In Germany however, you had to sell the whole thing as a means to help victims of natural catastrophies and refugees, to get enough support for the project.
That is the difference i'm talking about.
There are quite a number of countries where the population takes the same attitude, especially when it's their money being spent.
The German attitude is a very specific one. As long as it's in line with the goal stated by the constitution - defense of the country's territory - it's ok. Nobody in Germany, except some left-wingers, has ever blinked an eye at tanks being bought, or bunkers being built, or surface-to-air missiles being installed, or literally dozens of coastal submarines being procured.
What's protested against is anything that stinks of power projection, preparation to attack another country within its territory, anything like that that hasn't been part of the German definition of state of war since the Bundeswehr was installed by the Allies in the 50s.
- Status