German Politics Thread

I can acknowledge that many people would not feel comfortable with Germany or Japan building strong armies. However, I am on the opinion that their feelings should not weigh more heavily than the basic security of those countries, which I feel are put at risk by overrelying on an alliance with a country that has recently questioned its defence treaty obligations to them.

Granted, in the case of Germany and Europe, I feel a common EU army or increased armed co-ordination without the US is probably the best way to go. But if such plans keep getting obstructed or forstalled, then I do absolutely think Germany should build up its armed forces.

It depends in the end on what kind of strategic function the BW is supposed to fullfill. If I remember correctly, the current idea is that the BW should be able to a) operate in foreign missions and b) serve as part of the NATO defence plans for Europe. For b) it needs to be able to deploy one division in short order, which is currently beyond its' capabilities. No country could seriously feel threatened if the BW increases its' capabilities to meet this objective (because one division is hardly able to conquer anything, except Luxembourg perhaps). I doubt that any additional increase would be approved by the German government anyway, especially now when Merkel will probably not be around to fight for it.

Yeah, neither the SPD nor the Greens would agree.

I agree that we need an European army - one which we can disconnect from the US if necessary. Sorry, but recent events have shown a need to be able to operate more independent from the US and even without it, I wouldn't want the US influence in it. I am not into beating the US up on every intervention they did, but I do feel that they have misused the NATO for their own goals way too often.

And frankly, it's not even just Trump. The EU has worked on becoming more independent from the US for quite some time.

In any case, rather than the BW having a force for a fast defence, there should be a pan-European force for this purpose. For a simple reason: This way not one country would have the complete control over it, plus, it is not like the question when it should be used is complicated, if it is a pure defence force.

That’s nice, in theory, but it’s such a pie-in-the-sky pipe dream that it may as well be impossible. Aside from the political difficulties with the proposition (military cooperation between the US and Europe has actually been increasing in recent years) Europe simply does not have the means to field that kind of force. It’s decades or more out of reach for them, and they’d almost certainly need US assistance to build it in the first place which would kind of defeat the whole point.

I feel any meaningful discussion on Hardware ought to be put in the Military thread, but I point out, that - yes - the US has some shiny toys but it's not like EU Hardware is woefully inadequate either. On German toys alone, the Leopard 2 Tank is easily in the league of the M1 Abrahms (it's just using a different operational profile and is quite in demand for it's own strengths), the Wiesel is even tested in the US for a drone conversion and while our Type 212 subs are criminally under-supported by the MOD, they are first rate among the conventional submarine's of the world. Especially in the operational situations they'd face the current most likely adversary (Russia).

Yes, there needs to be a concerted effort to pool all the resources on R&D the EU can and should throw together, as well as a serious rot-cutting in the bureaucracies, but you gotta start somewhere...

Edited by 3of4 on Oct 31st 2018 at 10:01:08 AM

They are, however, conventional, which is a horrible design constraint to put on a sub - Nuclear power was invented for submarine propulsion, and it is still far and away the best choice. The Barracuda-class is, uhm, just a better ship. That is not a ding on German sub building expertise, it is just that without the nuclear reactor, you end up spending far too much space on oxygen and fuel

Edited by Izeinsummer on Oct 31st 2018 at 2:41:28 AM

The EU collectively has a stronger military game than the US in some areas, Germany produces very good tradditonal subs, while the latest Royal Navy submarines may been argued to outclass the US nuclear attack subs, the Astute Class is a powerful bit of boat.

Those are but a select few categories, and the only reason Europe excels in them at all is because they have the luxury of focusing on them without having to worry about other stuff. Those subs do their thing in the gaps between nuclear subs, for example. In almost every other category, particularly logistics and airpower, Europe is woefully behind. They don't have anything resembling the R&D establishment they'd need to catch up, and while it's conceivable the US could help them work everything out I'll point out again that would kind of defeat the point.

But it's essentially academic either way. The US military depends on European militaries, and vice versa. As we're seeing in Norway right now, our militaries are heavily integrated, and in many cases set up specifically to work together. Europe building its own independent army isn't really a realistic proposition for a lot of reasons, but I'd say the main reason would be that nobody is really interested in doing that. I mentioned it above, but despite a political split the military ties between the US and Europe have been strengthening, largely thanks to the increase in aggression from Russia recently. If anything, we're moving towards a joint NATO military, not a joint European military.

Edited by archonspeaks on Oct 31st 2018 at 3:16:21 AM

It is already happening. Germany and the Netherlands have for years taken steps in this direction. There are already cross-nation units. It will just take time.

That's more to plug holes in national capablities than any serious attempt of unifying militaries. Netherlands basically sold almost all their Leopards to us on a discount before they realised they needed them.

If you’re talking about the German/Dutch Corps, I’ll also point out that unit was formalized as a NATO High Readiness Squadron, and integrates troops from half a dozen other NATO countries. It’s not exactly some sort of special Europe-only unit.

The desire for Europe to seperate from the US militarily only really exists among politicians and pundits, and it’s a massive pipe dream at best even then. The military and advisory establishments of both groups have little to no interest in that happening. We’ve designed our militaries to work together to a very high degree, and losing that would not only be a massive blow to Europe’s defensive posture but to the US’s as well.

That military cooperation can only exist as long as politicians perceive it as a popular stance. Trump has already used NATO-scepticism as a tool to rally his base, and let's face it, those sorts of Trumpisms are not going to disappear overnight once Trump is out of office. The more such rhetoric is used, the riskier and less popular it becomes for Europe and other NATO allies to rely on the US alliance for defence — and the logical arguments NATO's generals bring to the table won't matter once such an atmosphere has been created.

Military cooperation isn’t a popularity contest. If that was true, we wouldn’t be seeing some of the highest degrees of integration in recent memory just this year.

The political situation would have to be truly, unbelievably dire for there to be a military split between the US and Europe. Trump isn’t going to get us there, though not for lack of trying.

Edited by archonspeaks on Nov 1st 2018 at 5:07:17 AM

So far, Trump's NATO-scepticism has mostly been his characteristic hot air. However, such rhetoric has consequences, even if the ones spouting it don't mean anything by it. At some point, after years of "What purpose does NATO serve?" and "Why should I send my sons to fight for Montenegro?", the people listening to such rhetoric will expect the rhetoric to be backed by substance. It's the same thing as with Brexit — British politicians spent years criticising the EU for cheap brownie points, not realising that at some point the people they were pandering to would expect action rather than mere words.

That comparison isn’t exactly accurate, considering the nature of cooperation between NATO versus the EU. A military agreement is very different from a political one. Consider that politicians typically defer to military advisors on things like that.

But suppose hypothetically Europe did want to do their own thing militarily and started refusing all help from the US. Remember, we’re talking about the break coming from the European side here, not the US side. They’d only be shooting themselves in the foot. They have zero ability to provide many of the capabilities NATO takes for granted. Germany doesn’t have any airlift capability. No European militaries operate Keyhole satellites. There are no nuclear submarines, no seabases, no stealth aircraft. Though both the US and Europe depend on each other for their defense, Europe depends on the US more than the other way around.

On a different note...Merz wants the leadership of the CDU. I want him buried. He stands exactly for the kind of CDU which needs to die.

You mean old, male and connected to the top levels of the financial world? Agreed.

I mean sexist, having been involved in questionable political dealings in the past and presenting a mind-set which is only half a step away from being racist.

You might have forgotten, but Merz was one of the guys Merkel had to push out of the way to make it to the top. I had actually hoped that she had made him him unimportant for good, but now it looks like he managed to find an opening to undo her good work.

I feel those are very similar things but lets not argue We both loathe him.

I know, I just wanted to be very candid. If the CDU elects him, they will ensure their own end. The memory of the voters isn't that short.

Not a Fan of Spahn either, especially since I learned he deliberately (in opposition to federal court instructions) told his ministry to drag their feet on topics like giving access to medicines for medically assisted suicide and the like.

Like, if he disagree's on the practice that is his right of opinion. But extending the suffering of people as well as ignoring a court ruling saying otherwise is not someone I want near power.

When in doubt, go for the female option. Though I don't really like her either, I still take her over the other two idiots.

It would seem my initial assumption of "Big Boots to fill" wasn't far off the mark.

And the two big contenders, some guys called Spahn and Merz, seem like they're living in Cloud Cuckoo Land. It'd be funny, were it not a serious situation.

EDIT: Beaten to the punch. Wow, those two are pretty shit, even in comparison to less stellar candidates within the CDU.

Edited by TechPriest90 on Nov 1st 2018 at 1:02:17 PM

I really do not see what is supposed to be so bad about Merz. Personally I'd prefer AKK over him, but everything suggests that he might be a competent candidate.

I have just read up about his political positions, many of them are not so different from Merkel, in fact he e.g. did defend her refugee policy in the past. The only cringe-worthy comments I discovered were his remarks that Hart IV is too "generous", but those were from a decade ago.

What's wrong with Merz?

1. He is REALLY into deregulations. He is basically a neoliberal, he would love to just rip up everything which might impede businesses.

2. He also happens to be one of those politician which fought against them being forced to reveal their additional sources of income. Because this guy is deep in the pocket of the big companies.

3. He happened to be the one who brought up the idiotic "leitkultur" discussion. He is a little bit more subtle about it than the likes of Söder, but he is dog-whistling towards the right wing.

Basically he has neither the principles Merkel has, nor does he actually care for the country. He only cares for filling his own pockets.