US Think Tank Slams Germany's NATO Role

[Thanas]

Not anymore anyway. The problem I think is Germany still doesn't fundamentally share the values of the liberal West, but no longer has the strength to act out.

Okay, asshat. You will now explain in detail what values the liberal west has and why Germany would want to act out but doesn't for a lack of strength.

Um, care to explain what you think was wrong with Libya exactly? Have you preferred Syria/Bahrain scenario, or am I not getting something here?

The thing is that in Libya we have so far replaced one tribe with another. The torture/shadow executions etc are still going on, now it is just the other side torturing the loosers. I am not much in favor of expending treasure and blood on another decades-long reconstruction program, which is what we ideally should do there but cannot due to the cost and us doing another one right now, and I am not in favor of this half-assed "replace bad guy 1 with bad guy 2 and pretend everything will be better" thing that is now going on there in Libya right now.

[Colonel Olrik]

Maybe he means that Germans haven't quite yet managed to convince the world of the value of a diet of bier, würst, sauerkraut and asparagus.

[Broomstick]

I am not much in favor of expending treasure and blood on another decades-long reconstruction program, which is what we ideally should do there but cannot due to the cost and us doing another one right now, and I am not in favor of this half-assed "replace bad guy 1 with bad guy 2 and pretend everything will be better" thing that is now going on there in Libya right now.

I haven't been too impressed with "reconstruction" programs following invasions over the past half century or so. In fact, the last ones I can recall working with any sort of success were the immediate post-WWII ones - arguably, the circumstances at the time were unusual and thus the results were (happily) atypical.

Maybe he means that Germans haven't quite yet managed to convince the world of the value of a diet of bier, würst, sauerkraut and asparagus.

Hey! My family has been eating that stuff for a couple generations now!

(We blame Grandpa Rausch....)

[Aaron MkII]

I pity your bathroom, and the washrooms of the German public.

[Thanas]

I pity your bathroom, and the washrooms of the German public.

After a few years, your stomach gets used to handling it. Oh, and our washrooms are highly efficient.


Still waiting for HMS Conqueror to explain himself. Maybe he, like his avatar, took a dive?

[Aaron MkII]

What the hell is that?

He probably buggered off. Don't share western values most likely means "doesn't want to invade the filthy arabs"

[HMS Conqueror]

For some time Germany was in effect a colony of the victors of WWII. Now that that is fading away, I don't see Germany enthusiastically becoming part of the Western Alliance, just withdrawing into itself. The same cannot be said for France, which may have opposed Iraq but still intervened against Gaddafi and which still maintains a powerful military force to protect its interests.

Germany seems to see its future more as a political puppeteer within the EU, and as in the past an economic rival to America through control of a large continental European trade bloc.

It should be obvious that HMS Conqueror is surfaced in my avatar btw, or else it would not be much to look at.

[Kane Starkiller]

But these aren't liberal values but strategic interests and rivalry. Two countries can share humanistic values and still be strategic competitors.

[Thanas]

For some time Germany was in effect a colony of the victors of WWII.

Colony? That is a bit too much. It is not as if the allies got a lot out of it either.

Germany seems to see its future more as a political puppeteer within the EU, and as in the past an economic rival to America through control of a large continental European trade bloc.

But these aren't liberal values but strategic interests and rivalry. Two countries can share humanistic values and still be strategic competitors.

^what he said.

[HMS Conqueror]

But these aren't liberal values but strategic interests and rivalry. Two countries can share humanistic values and still be strategic competitors.

I don't see what's humanistic about refusal to help in Libya. I also think the 'trade war' conception of the world is fundamentally illiberal. Liberal states have no cause to be rivals.

Colony? That is a bit too much. It is not as if the allies got a lot out of it either.

Arguably the colonial powers didn't get much out of their other colonies either. It was at the very least a satellite state, with the arrangement getting less formal as time went on.

Although in this case I'd argue that NATO got a lot out of Germany: a large contingent of divisions to put against the Soviets, that otherwise would have had to be provided by the US, Britain and France. The Soviets got a worse deal, partly because they got less of Germany, and partly because of the broken socioeconomic system they imposed.

[Aaron MkII]

Yes they did, spices out of India and sugar, coffee and simple fruit from central/south America was worth a lot of money.

[HMS Conqueror]

Although this belongs in a different thread, the Empires also drained a lot of resources, from obvious military costs to enormous human and resource attrition in the age when there were no antibiotics and shipwrecks were common. They also did not tend to share in the industrialisation of the European mainland, due to the bad institutions that were either imposed or retained from before colonisation.

Part of this is a private gain/public loss issue - military costs were covered out of tax, while the benefits could be kept by shareholders.

Put it this way - in 1945 Britain was the still unbeaten record holder for largest Empire in history. In 1965, it had only a tiny scrap of territory. Yet the standard of living in Britain increased in this time, and military expenses decreased.

[Thanas]

Although this belongs in a different thread, the Empires also drained a lot of resources, from obvious military costs to enormous human and resource attrition in the age when there were no antibiotics and shipwrecks were common. They also did not tend to share in the industrialisation of the European mainland, due to the bad institutions that were either imposed or retained from before colonisation.

Part of this is a private gain/public loss issue - military costs were covered out of tax, while the benefits could be kept by shareholders.

Put it this way - in 1945 Britain was the still unbeaten record holder for largest Empire in history. In 1965, it had only a tiny scrap of territory. Yet the standard of living in Britain increased in this time, and military expenses decreased.

So? Nobody talks about the modern age, they talk about the enormous wealth Britain gained from its colonies. It is only due to exploiting colonies that Britain does not speak French today.

I don't see what's humanistic about refusal to help in Libya. I also think the 'trade war' conception of the world is fundamentally illiberal. Liberal states have no cause to be rivals.

Just because a state happens to have different priorities does not mean they are not sharing values. As for the whole "liberal states have no cause to be rivals", child, please. USA/Britain were rivals until WWI, as were France and Britain, or Imperial Germany and Britain.

It was at the very least a satellite state, with the arrangement getting less formal as time went on.

What is your evidence for it being a satellite state? EDIT: I agree that up until the early fifties it definitely was an occupied state, but post that I think it was more of a case of junior partner.

[Zaune]

What is your evidence for it being a satellite state?

You're one of those people who insists on asking a question even in the face of compelling evidence that you really, really aren't going to like the answer, aren't you.

[Thanas]

What is your evidence for it being a satellite state?

You're one of those people who insists on asking a question even in the face of compelling evidence that you really, really aren't going to like the answer, aren't you.

Maybe?

[HMS Conqueror]

Although this belongs in a different thread, the Empires also drained a lot of resources, from obvious military costs to enormous human and resource attrition in the age when there were no antibiotics and shipwrecks were common. They also did not tend to share in the industrialisation of the European mainland, due to the bad institutions that were either imposed or retained from before colonisation.

Part of this is a private gain/public loss issue - military costs were covered out of tax, while the benefits could be kept by shareholders.

Put it this way - in 1945 Britain was the still unbeaten record holder for largest Empire in history. In 1965, it had only a tiny scrap of territory. Yet the standard of living in Britain increased in this time, and military expenses decreased.

So? Nobody talks about the modern age, they talk about the enormous wealth Britain gained from its colonies. It is only due to exploiting colonies that Britain does not speak French today.

I'd be happy to discuss this in another thread. I think that you are not right if you think the British naval supremacy in the Napoleonic Wars came from its colonies, though.

I don't see what's humanistic about refusal to help in Libya. I also think the 'trade war' conception of the world is fundamentally illiberal. Liberal states have no cause to be rivals.

Just because a state happens to have different priorities does not mean they are not sharing values. As for the whole "liberal states have no cause to be rivals", child, please. USA/Britain were rivals until WWI, as were France and Britain, or Imperial Germany and Britain.

Neither Imperial Germany nor France were liberal at those times (or IG at any time for that matter). A US-UK war was at least conceivable, but I'm not sure who would argue it is desirable, or that it would have had cause.

It was at the very least a satellite state, with the arrangement getting less formal as time went on.

What is your evidence for it being a satellite state? EDIT: I agree that up until the early fifties it definitely was an occupied state, but post that I think it was more of a case of junior partner.

Well yes apart from the four years where Germany was directly administered by an allied military government, it was not allowed to join the UN until 1973 and did not have a fully independent foreign policy until the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany in 1990 (compare with Japan, which still may not form alliances without the approval of the US). For the time being it remains occupied by NATO troops, though it is not called that in polite company.

[Simon_Jester]

I'd be happy to discuss this in another thread. I think that you are not right if you think the British naval supremacy in the Napoleonic Wars came from its colonies, though.

There's a positive feedback loop there. Owning colonies (and having foreign trade interests in the Mediterranean and India that grew into colonies) gave the British a reason to have a strong navy. Having a strong navy meant the British could secure their colonies against other European powers, and take other powers' colonies more or less at will (as in the Caribbean). By the time of the Napoleonic Wars, the process had been going on so long that the idea of saying "colonies caused naval superiority" makes as much sense as saying "naval superiority caused colonies."

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Note that the British lost their colonial empire within a few decades of the time when the greatest threat to the security of a colony went from being "other European powers" (which they could keep at bay with a navy) to being "local resistance movements" (which they couldn't).

[Thanas]

I'd be happy to discuss this in another thread. I think that you are not right if you think the British naval supremacy in the Napoleonic Wars came from its colonies, though.

It were these colonies which allowed Britain to compete with a country that had a larger population in the first place and which allowed them the resources to build that navy as well as to survive the continental system Napoleon had set up.

Neither Imperial Germany nor France were liberal at those times (or IG at any time for that matter).

Imperial Germany had better literacy, national healthcare and equal and direct representation in General parliamentary elections. As well as a greater equality for its minorities like the Jews. None of which apply to Britain. France also had a fairer system of parliamentary election - no rotten boroughs there.

A US-UK war was at least conceivable, but I'm not sure who would argue it is desirable, or that it would have had cause.

Which doesn't matter at all when proving your original point as false.

Well yes apart from the four years where Germany was directly administered by an allied military government, it was not allowed to join the UN until 1973 and did not have a fully independent foreign policy until the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany in 1990 (compare with Japan, which still may not form alliances without the approval of the US).

In what practical terms did this really matter? I might also point out that Germany, with the Hallstein doctrine, was able to force the western allies to not recognize the GDR.

For the time being it remains occupied by NATO troops, though it is not called that in polite company.

Lolwut?

[Aaron MkII]

The troops that were there to keep the Reds out? Which has since turned into oppurtunities for joint training and a way for the Yanks to funnel money into their MIC?

Man its like this guy is Stuart Slades younger mentally disabled half brother.

[Zaune]

Okay, you know what, I'm just going to cut right to the chase before this becomes any more excruciating to watch.

HMS Conquerer, are you intentionally insinuating that Germans have some kind of ingrained cultural and/or genetic propensity towards autocracy and/or world domination? Like, do you believe real Germans have to exert conscious effort not to hold their right arm out in front of them at a slight angle, and constantly stop themselves addressing people in authority over them as "mein Fuhrer"?

And yes, I know I'm exaggerating your position. But not by much.

[Surlethe]

It seems to me naive to think that the Western Allies' troops were originally stationed in West Germany solely to counter the Red Army. For some time after World War II, they had to be an army of occupation as well as a geopolitical chess piece against the Soviets. But to call them an army of occupation *now* is, I think, equally naive: the US is not constraining Germany's decisions with them.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The dogged insistence of a particular group of people that Germans were inherently evil and that their civilization was fundamentally flawed, even before WW1, and oriented toward aggression, and somehow different from the rest of Europe in the 19th century... All of which are demonstratably false, and yet nonetheless held as absolute tenets; were the primary reasons me and several other people ceased to associate with that group. There is a school in the US and Britain which holds that there is, more or less, something in German culture which makes them uniquely violent and dangerous to world peace. It was created by propaganda in WW1 and it is completely false. The British were just as much aggressors and the Germans trapped in an untenable situation by Russian aggression toward Austro-Hungary over the Slavic question. This noxious doctrine, and I'd not really care to debate it yet again after so many years of doing so, is essentially the evil opposite of America as an "exceptional" nation in the world and stems from the same source.

[Surlethe]

How closely associated is it with the stereotype that Germans are all sticklers for following rules?

[Aaron MkII]

This is the first I've heard of it.

[montypython]

The dogged insistence of a particular group of people that Germans were inherently evil and that their civilization was fundamentally flawed, even before WW1, and oriented toward aggression, and somehow different from the rest of Europe in the 19th century... All of which are demonstratably false, and yet nonetheless held as absolute tenets; were the primary reasons me and several other people ceased to associate with that group. There is a school in the US and Britain which holds that there is, more or less, something in German culture which makes them uniquely violent and dangerous to world peace. It was created by propaganda in WW1 and it is completely false. The British were just as much aggressors and the Germans trapped in an untenable situation by Russian aggression toward Austro-Hungary over the Slavic question. This noxious doctrine, and I'd not really care to debate it yet again after so many years of doing so, is essentially the evil opposite of America as an "exceptional" nation in the world and stems from the same source.

I've seen this sort of sentiment repeated ad nauseum by Brits and others on far too many forums for me to count, and it pisses me off to no end either...