Germany plans to build Europe's largest military(npr.org)
npr.org
Germany plans to build Europe's largest military
https://www.npr.org/2022/03/17/1087137501/germany-is-building-whats-expected-to-become-europe-s-largest-military
52 comments
you can have "more feminism" along with nuclear power and military, I'm not sure what the issue is there. just require compulsory service for women if it's required for men. even if women aren't as able to do infantry because of strength requirements, there's a ton of roles in the armed forces (logistics, mechanics, etc.) that don't require lugging 200kg.
You don't have to wait 1-2 years, there are already studies for the US voting.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...
Basically, the TL;DR version of this is that no, the average voter's decisions do not sway the decision of politicians, but the politicians decisions are heavily correlated with the preferences of the top 10% earners.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...
Basically, the TL;DR version of this is that no, the average voter's decisions do not sway the decision of politicians, but the politicians decisions are heavily correlated with the preferences of the top 10% earners.
I've noticed this for many many years, and it's part of the reason why I changed to registering as an independent. Listen to the candidate's campaigns, their goals, their views...it all sounds great. Then they get voted in and don't do anything of what they said they would do. On one hand it's frustrating, but on the other hand it works the same when looking at the opposing candidate. So it's kind of like...things won't get better but they probably also won't get drastically worse if my chosen candidate doesn't win.
The US needs more than two parties. Unfortunately the system is rigged against that, and neither of the two ruling parties are eager to fix the system that keeps them in power.
Isn't this expected due to recent events?
My govt spent a lot of resources battling covid. It wasnt the mandate they were voted in on. Covid meant their progress on campaign issues was sidelined a fair bit.
Situations change. I would be more worried to have a party in power that ignores the issue of the day. (which happens frequently, for example with climate change).
My govt spent a lot of resources battling covid. It wasnt the mandate they were voted in on. Covid meant their progress on campaign issues was sidelined a fair bit.
Situations change. I would be more worried to have a party in power that ignores the issue of the day. (which happens frequently, for example with climate change).
It's not a big surprise. Modern neo-left politicians have a long track record of this kind of policy inversion when they get into power. The same thing happened with the Lib Dems in the UK. They only really had two policies going into coalition with the Conservatives: a referendum on proportional representation, which got modified into something slightly different and then they lost, and eliminating student fees, a pledge which they immediately abandoned once they were in power and realized how expensive it would be. Then it happened again with Brexit: a whole lot of MPs promised to respect the vote and implement the referendum, then once they got into power immediately and publicly reversed this position, in some cases even crossing the floor to join different parties that had 180 degree different policies (this doesn't automatically trigger a by-election in the UK, though really it should).
The issue is not really communication breakdown. The problem is that politicians often don't really research their positions going in. Then once they are in government they get access to lots of briefings, 'secret' information, they have to start thinking about budgets and so on. Suddenly they realize their policies weren't quite as obvious as they thought they were. Getting rid of nuclear was flagged for many years as an obviously stupid move but the Greens could blow off such criticism as "right wing" and thus (to their supporters) not even worthy of consideration; suddenly they're in the hotseat and can't do it so easily anymore.
The issue is not really communication breakdown. The problem is that politicians often don't really research their positions going in. Then once they are in government they get access to lots of briefings, 'secret' information, they have to start thinking about budgets and so on. Suddenly they realize their policies weren't quite as obvious as they thought they were. Getting rid of nuclear was flagged for many years as an obviously stupid move but the Greens could blow off such criticism as "right wing" and thus (to their supporters) not even worthy of consideration; suddenly they're in the hotseat and can't do it so easily anymore.
How about Obama promising to close Guantanamo and protect whistleblowers? I was really hoping he'd have all the torturers prosecuted. That will probably never happen.
> How about Obama promising to close Guantanamo
The US isn't and executive dictatorship and Congress refused to allow the use of funds for that purpose. As in most modern democracies, the main policy-setting body of government in the US is the legislative, not executive branch.
The US isn't and executive dictatorship and Congress refused to allow the use of funds for that purpose. As in most modern democracies, the main policy-setting body of government in the US is the legislative, not executive branch.
Maybe I am mistaken, but as the commander in chief he is allowed to send troops to a different base if he wanted?
> Maybe I am mistaken, but as the commander in chief he is allowed to send troops to a different base if he wanted?
He is not allowed to do anything that costs money if Congress has prohibited spending money for that purpose, as it did for closing the detention facility at Guatanamo (which, not Guatanamo itself, is what Obama had campaigned on closing.) It also prohibited transferring detainees to US bases.
The President could have reassigned the US troops assigned to the detention facility without closing it or transferring the detainees, but I can't imagine that would be regarded as a good thing.
He is not allowed to do anything that costs money if Congress has prohibited spending money for that purpose, as it did for closing the detention facility at Guatanamo (which, not Guatanamo itself, is what Obama had campaigned on closing.) It also prohibited transferring detainees to US bases.
The President could have reassigned the US troops assigned to the detention facility without closing it or transferring the detainees, but I can't imagine that would be regarded as a good thing.
I wasn't suggesting closing the base. It seems like he could have attempted to do a run around congress. Instead of closing the base or detention center or whatever he could have transferred the troops to different bases.
Several of the prisoners released (re)joined terrorist organizations when they got back to the Middle East. I am of course not suggesting he should have released more prisoners.
I was thinking more of transferring prisoners to a Middle East base. I think doing questionable things to enemy combatants in a war zone is generally considered more acceptable? I am not sure if he could have done that or not. I assume if he transferred the base personnel to a Middle Eastern base they could have taken the prisoners without extra cost. (There of course would be an extra cost, but no additional money would need to be spent)
If there is one thing politicians are known for it is wiggling their way out of stuff with slick maneuvers. I am sure Obama could have figured out a way.
Several of the prisoners released (re)joined terrorist organizations when they got back to the Middle East. I am of course not suggesting he should have released more prisoners.
I was thinking more of transferring prisoners to a Middle East base. I think doing questionable things to enemy combatants in a war zone is generally considered more acceptable? I am not sure if he could have done that or not. I assume if he transferred the base personnel to a Middle Eastern base they could have taken the prisoners without extra cost. (There of course would be an extra cost, but no additional money would need to be spent)
If there is one thing politicians are known for it is wiggling their way out of stuff with slick maneuvers. I am sure Obama could have figured out a way.
Couldn't he just have released the detainees? There wasn't any legal basis for keeping them there, as far as I understand, and if there was, he can pardon.
> Couldn't he just have released the detainees?
Well, for the most part foreign countries weren't willing to take them and bringing them into the US (whether for release or prosecution or detention) was prohibited (whether for release, imprisonment, or trial) was prohibited by Congress, so, no.
Well, for the most part foreign countries weren't willing to take them and bringing them into the US (whether for release or prosecution or detention) was prohibited (whether for release, imprisonment, or trial) was prohibited by Congress, so, no.
It is odd, and yet it surprisingly makes sense too. But it's certainly weird to see German conservatives oppose military spending, while social democrats and greens embrace it. But that's also because just now, the threat of Russian aggression has become undeniable. Germany has for a long time pretended that Russia was just another peaceful country that they could trade with. And they were very reluctant to abandon that illusion because they depend so much on Russian gas.
I will say, as a Green opponent of nuclear power myself, I think Germany in general, and the Greens in particular, are wrong about banning nuclear power before they've banned coal power. Coal is by far the bigger evil. Ban coal first, then oil, and after that, we can worry about nuclear. I'm not a fan, but in the age of global warming, it's probably the lesser evil.
I will say, as a Green opponent of nuclear power myself, I think Germany in general, and the Greens in particular, are wrong about banning nuclear power before they've banned coal power. Coal is by far the bigger evil. Ban coal first, then oil, and after that, we can worry about nuclear. I'm not a fan, but in the age of global warming, it's probably the lesser evil.
Wont it raise some red flags especially in France and UK. They even viewed German Reunification with some amount scepticism and concern.
Is there any post WW2 aggreement that binds how much conventional forces Germany can have?
A German business associate said that the German school system drilled into their heads deep awareness of Germany's war record. To be contrasted with, for example, Japan.
So Donald Trump was right?
I don't understand. What do you mean by this? Donald Trump isn't mentioned in this story at all.
The Trump administration was an advocate for Germany taking over more of its own defense: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/ambassador-grenell-tells-...
Every US administration has been an advocate of that more or less since post-war Germany was allowed to have 'its own defense'.
two examples at random
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v14...
https://www.nytimes.com/1981/02/22/world/us-warns-its-allies...
two examples at random
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v14...
https://www.nytimes.com/1981/02/22/world/us-warns-its-allies...
[deleted]
As much as I think Putin's actions justify increased military power in Europe, Germany does not have a great track record as a military super power.
Norm has some good points: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXdtafGdIVM
Norm has some good points: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXdtafGdIVM
> Germany does not have a great track record as a military super power.
They were never really a super power, they were just very fast (i.e. tactically and strategically strong, but in absolute terms not amazing). This changed as things went on, due to good engineering and solid use of resources. They are still well-known for good engineering and the culture that goes along with it and they've moved on ideologically from the problematic past they had. It is not something endemic in Germans that makes it so that whenever they have power they must devolve into fascism. Current day Germany is a fine example of this, because they already have a large amount of (economic) power.
They were never really a super power, they were just very fast (i.e. tactically and strategically strong, but in absolute terms not amazing). This changed as things went on, due to good engineering and solid use of resources. They are still well-known for good engineering and the culture that goes along with it and they've moved on ideologically from the problematic past they had. It is not something endemic in Germans that makes it so that whenever they have power they must devolve into fascism. Current day Germany is a fine example of this, because they already have a large amount of (economic) power.
what could go wrong?
Again?
Make Калининград Königsberg Again.
[deleted]
No, they lost in 1945 and honestly Germany probably deserved a lot more taken from it. If it wasn't for the cold war, it would have been rightfully broken up in pieces instead of getting away with just getting divided in 2 for a few decades.
And the current situation does not excuse Revanchism for Nazi Germany's defeat even if it's to "own russia". Especially since the third Reich literally killed 20 million USSR citizens and waged a war of extermination against the soviets.
And the current situation does not excuse Revanchism for Nazi Germany's defeat even if it's to "own russia". Especially since the third Reich literally killed 20 million USSR citizens and waged a war of extermination against the soviets.
Once all the Germans were warlike and mean
But that couldn't happen again
We taught them a lesson in 1918
And they've hardly bothered us since then
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j20voPS0gI&t=1m44s
But that couldn't happen again
We taught them a lesson in 1918
And they've hardly bothered us since then
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j20voPS0gI&t=1m44s
Here we go again. Like the Mark Twain said “History Doesn't Repeat Itself, but It Often Rhymes”.
People are already imagining a worst case scenario. Realistically, Germany has very little to gain from attacking its neighboring countries and has a lot to lose in becoming a worldwide nuclear practice target should it pull anything funny. The people very clearly don't want this either.
They have a lot to gain defending what they have. They have a lot to lose trying to forcibly take things from neighbors.
They have a lot to gain defending what they have. They have a lot to lose trying to forcibly take things from neighbors.
Realistically they're not going to be a threat of course, but it's still unsettling to see Germans enthusiastically cheer doubling their military.
They played Putin, this anthem, in very strange way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bgMl3NQwS4 , Dec 12, 2021.
Someone told them an old joke:
A father have his son money to buy a knife. He went and bought a pocket watch instead. A father is furious, but is trying to explain: "Imagine, enemies came, murdered your parents, raped your sisters. What are you going to do then? Tell them 'It's half past two now'?"
A father have his son money to buy a knife. He went and bought a pocket watch instead. A father is furious, but is trying to explain: "Imagine, enemies came, murdered your parents, raped your sisters. What are you going to do then? Tell them 'It's half past two now'?"
To all those now worrying that we are on the way to a Fourth Reich! Fear not! I'm sure the money will be wasted and squandered just as it was for the last 20 years. Even though Germany was often criticized for its small spending on the military, lets not forget that due to the large GDP, the spending in absolute terms is not that meager: 50 billion Euros per year! That is only about 15-20% less than Russia.
What has it gotten us? A completely dysfunctional army with almost no working equipment. The part that is working is in large part outdated. As the Ukrainian ambassador to Germany pointed out, the Ukrainians have already destroyed more Russian tanks and armored vehicles and jets than the whole Bundeswehr currently has in working condition.
Just as in many Western militaries, the procurement is so f*ked up that most of the money is spent on the development of new weapon systems so at the end of the day, no money seems to be left to actually buy any. The US seems to compensate by just spending even more money. Germany just didn't buy anything and the soldiers are driving around in Wolfs (G wagons! Sans the louis vuitton leather seats, though) from the 70s and can hardly keep more than a handful of their jets in flying condition.
What has it gotten us? A completely dysfunctional army with almost no working equipment. The part that is working is in large part outdated. As the Ukrainian ambassador to Germany pointed out, the Ukrainians have already destroyed more Russian tanks and armored vehicles and jets than the whole Bundeswehr currently has in working condition.
Just as in many Western militaries, the procurement is so f*ked up that most of the money is spent on the development of new weapon systems so at the end of the day, no money seems to be left to actually buy any. The US seems to compensate by just spending even more money. Germany just didn't buy anything and the soldiers are driving around in Wolfs (G wagons! Sans the louis vuitton leather seats, though) from the 70s and can hardly keep more than a handful of their jets in flying condition.
In 2015 the German army had to use wooden sticks in exercises because they had no guns.
https://www.newsweek.com/germany-cant-explain-use-broomstick...
In 2017 the German navy had zero operational submarines. They were all broken.
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2017/10/20/all-of-germanys...
In 2018 the German air Force had only 4 Eurofighters combat ready.
https://www.dw.com/en/only-4-of-germanys-128-eurofighter-jet...
Hopefully the situation has improved since then?
https://www.newsweek.com/germany-cant-explain-use-broomstick...
In 2017 the German navy had zero operational submarines. They were all broken.
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2017/10/20/all-of-germanys...
In 2018 the German air Force had only 4 Eurofighters combat ready.
https://www.dw.com/en/only-4-of-germanys-128-eurofighter-jet...
Hopefully the situation has improved since then?
[deleted]
I doubt it
> due to the large GDP, the spending in absolute terms is not that meager: 50 billion Euros per year!
This is ignoring the labor costs and other costs differences between Russia and Germany. A euro goes a heck of a lot further in Russia and pays quite a few more soldier salaries.
And also for all that money even at cheaper wages, Russia military is embarrassing and appears to be in a state of poor maintenance. It’s only mighty due to callousness towards civilians and willingness to be a meat grinder if its own people.
This is ignoring the labor costs and other costs differences between Russia and Germany. A euro goes a heck of a lot further in Russia and pays quite a few more soldier salaries.
And also for all that money even at cheaper wages, Russia military is embarrassing and appears to be in a state of poor maintenance. It’s only mighty due to callousness towards civilians and willingness to be a meat grinder if its own people.
I beg to disagree. I don't think 1 euro to spend is more efficient in Russia than in Germany or other European country, just because it has cheaper staff and commodity. A lot is lost by nonsensical bureaucratic decisions and also by corruption ; some of this has even bought a few private jets and yachts by oligarchs, as well as useless (so far ?) military bases and bunkers on-land, and so forth.
That is a fair point but both that comment and mine shows it’s actually rather difficult to make sensical comparisons between absolute spend between two countries as different as Germany and Russia. There’s a thousands factors making the value of money in each country super different.
I doubt anyone is as worried about the 4th Reich as much Germans.
I am pretty sure anyone expressing these worries outside of Germany is either a troll, completely ignorant or a combination of the two.
I am pretty sure anyone expressing these worries outside of Germany is either a troll, completely ignorant or a combination of the two.
People often talking about the strength of armed forced in terms of how much money was spent on them, but money does not guarantee quality. Russia shows that you can have a big but useless military. Ukraine shows how you can do a lot with a little. It's possible to sink massive amounts of money into useless weapon systems, not to mention the corruption around their procurement.
I'd like militaries to look a bit more at effectiveness, at having a military that they can actually use, and that is well suited for the kind of missions they're likely to use them for, and not merely at size and money.
I'd like militaries to look a bit more at effectiveness, at having a military that they can actually use, and that is well suited for the kind of missions they're likely to use them for, and not merely at size and money.
The worry is not about fourth reich. Worry is about whether the army raised in a pacifist country will be able to recruit sufficiently to increase the numbers and when the time comes, whether they want to fight. General reddit 'experts' seem to suggest, the army would instead propose an economic partnership with the opposing side to settle everything amicably (:
I have also heard germans complaining that the rules of engagement imposed on german troops make that they are in a world of trouble if they ever fire a single shot even in self defense.
In the last election, the "Green" political party gained quite a lot on a promise of "no nuclear power", "less military", and "more feminism" and guess what, now they are the ones extending nuclear power plants and investing heavily into military.
I predict that in 1-2 years, we'll have scientific studies about the disconnect between what voters wanted and what politicians delivered. Because in this case, it really seems like the communication broke down somewhere in between. The discrepancy is beyond obvious.
Quotes in German:
(We stand for a world without nuclear power) "Wir Grüne im Bundestag stehen für eine Welt ohne Atomkraft." https://www.gruene-bundestag.de/themen/atomausstieg
(We stand for peace, disarmament, cooperative security, and a culture of military restraint) "Wir Grüne im Bundestag stehen für Frieden, Abrüstung, kooperative Sicherheit und eine Kultur der militärischen Zurückhaltung" https://www.gruene-bundestag.de/themen/sicherheitspolitik