US Think Tank Slams Germany's NATO Role

[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...

[The Duchess of Zeon]

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

I don't think it's a direct association. I think it's a legacy in certain British and Americans from WW1 and WW2 propaganda. Germany is a land of culture and democracy and held some of the very first revolutions in that direction in the western world, and produced most of the science and philosophical achievement... The reason that a lot of conservatives in the British trend hate them is because of their combination of conservative with illiberal (i.e. anti-free-market) policies before the wars, and then the simple us-vs-them mentality after them. Suffice to say that this argument caused a fair number of respected posters at a certain board to leave despite the fact that we were in agreement about almost anything else, because the Anglo-American exceptionalism of the ideology and demonization of alternative expressions of western culture was nauseating and infuriating.

[Simon_Jester]

It also acts as a sort of... psychological insurance against any accusations of fascist tendencies. If that happens, it's reassuring to think there's something special about Germans that makes it possible for them to become Nazis, when the righteous and upright freedom-loving English-speaking people would never do such a thing.

Almost anyone in a democracy who looks at a totalitarian state will start looking for reasons to think "It couldn't happen here."

[Broomstick]

Oh, and our washrooms are highly efficient.

One would expect nothing less from German washrooms.

[Thanas]

Oh, and our washrooms are highly efficient.

One would expect nothing less from German washrooms.

Now now, as i am sure you know our washrooms, in accordance to being efficient, are also inherently evil and will be marching towards Poland as soon as the command is given.

[Aaron MkII]

I figured the pipes would just drain into Warsaw.

[Thanas]

I figured the pipes would just drain into Warsaw.

That is what we have planned for the Brits, in accordance with the plans of our new allies, le French. The Eurotunnel will serve as a giant pipeline.

[Mr Bean]

Now now, as i am sure you know our washrooms, in accordance to being efficient, are also inherently evil and will be marching towards Poland as soon as the command is given.

I imagine the toilets are all painted panzer grey and the flushes are tiny little Iron crosses and every lavatory contains a jack boot polishing station.

[Connor MacLeod]

Transforming Germanic Mecha Washrooms?

[Broomstick]

Oh, and our washrooms are highly efficient.

One would expect nothing less from German washrooms.

Now now, as i am sure you know our washrooms, in accordance to being efficient, are also inherently evil and will be marching towards Poland as soon as the command is given.

Really? And is the plumbing very powerful? I expect the water pressure is such that water emerges from taps and flushes the toilet with great force. And speed. Lightning speed.

"Vee haff vays uv making you CLEAN!!!!"

[Zaune]

I figured the pipes would just drain into Warsaw.

That is what we have planned for the Brits, in accordance with the plans of our new allies, le French. The Eurotunnel will serve as a giant pipeline.

Good luck with that. All the plumbers at this end are Polish!

[Sea Skimmer]

As I recall the French war budget in 1914 was as a percentage of the economy, nearly a full percent higher than that of Germany in 1914, in a time when 3% was a lot. Clearly this just means all German figures are LIES.

[Zinegata]

Well, Germany has been shrinking its military. I think Turkey even has more tanks than the Panzer forces now. And my military-analyst friend and I have made jokes on how Denmark might be able to take back Schleswig-Holstein if they wanted to press the issue again .

Still, given Germany's security requirements having a much smaller budget is not unreasonable. There aren't thousands of Soviet tanks waiting to smash through the Fulda Gap anymore, whereas Turkey still has issues with Greece and its other neighbors.

[Spoonist]

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

I think this comes from not actually being corrupt.


There is the same prejudice vs scandinavians within the EU and the UN. As in, northern europeans like to argue the rules, because you know, we in fact believe that after setting them up one should follow them.

[HMS Conqueror]

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.

It was rather the British Isles' greater GDPPC, a result of Britain's superior institutions, which meant a given population of Brits could build more ships and guns, and pay for the Austrians and Russians to raise more and larger peasant armies.

Strictly speaking the naval war was stacked against France from the start, because France had to fight land wars on multiple fronts as well as fight at sea, whereas for Britain the sea was the only vital theatre. So it would not have taken equal GDPs anyway, and yet the French Navy was actually comparable to the RN at the start.

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.

Oh come off it. IG had an active monarchy and skewed electoral system. It was most comparable to Britain in the late 18th century, but with also conscription and a huge state bureaucracy, of which that proto-socialism was a major driver.

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.

My original point was that liberal states had no cause to be rivals, not that it could never happen anyway. You are surely aware that not everyone in US and UK was a liberal.

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.

If you think Germany's actions were beneficial anyway (which I largely do), maybe it didn't. But it's not like Germany had much of a choice.

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

Lolwut?

You laugh, but who do you think those troops are to protect against? Poland? Luxembourg? They are being withdrawn now, it's not like US-UK think Ger is going to turn around and attack us again, but the states don't tend to withdraw easily from positions they wouldn't be able to easily recover.

HMS Conquerer, are you intentionally insinuating that Germans have some kind of ingrained cultural and/or genetic propensity towards autocracy and/or world domination?

Genetic, no, that is not well supported. But cultural? Do you really think none of the previous thought survived WWII? Pretty well everyone in Germany in the 30s was some brand of authoritarian, whether of the national or international strain of socialism, or else a traditional conservative who wanted to bring back the kaiserreich.

[Zaune]

Genetic, no, that is not well supported. But cultural? Do you really think none of the previous thought survived WWII? Pretty well everyone in Germany in the 30s was some brand of authoritarian, whether of the national or international strain of socialism, or else a traditional conservative who wanted to bring back the kaiserreich.

There aren't enough facepalm pictures on the entire internet...

[HMS Conqueror]

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

I think this comes from not actually being corrupt.


There is the same prejudice vs scandinavians within the EU and the UN. As in, northern europeans like to argue the rules, because you know, we in fact believe that after setting them up one should follow them.

A little off-topic, but that map is hilarious. Apparently only the anglosphere, Japan, Germany and the low countries are not corrupt. Actually, that explains a lot.

[Broomstick]

HMS Conquerer, are you intentionally insinuating that Germans have some kind of ingrained cultural and/or genetic propensity towards autocracy and/or world domination?

Genetic, no, that is not well supported. But cultural? Do you really think none of the previous thought survived WWII? Pretty well everyone in Germany in the 30s was some brand of authoritarian, whether of the national or international strain of socialism, or else a traditional conservative who wanted to bring back the kaiserreich.

What you are saying is that people can't change, but I think you're wrong.

Leaving aside your claim that "pretty well everyone in Germany" was on board with authoritarianism of one sort or another, which can be debated, getting two beat-downs in a generation just might have caused the Germans to reconsider their war-like ways. Starting wars did Germany no favors and quite a lot of harm. They didn't regain full sovereignty until 1990, 45 years after the end of WWII. Wait, maybe you're going to claim they were an occupied vassal during that time - you know what, you start a war that results in tens of millions of dead and a devastated continent there will be consequences. Chief of which was that the nations that had to enter said conflict are going to want some assurances that we don't all have to do this again any time soon. Funny thing, though - Germany didn't suddenly start to re-arm or build up military stuff just after unification. In fact, from what I've seen that's the last thing the average German wants. Sure, there are nutball fringe groups, there are always nutball fringe groups, but I don't see any indication that the vast majority in Germany has any desire to gear up in a military manner or go back to either a kaiser or dictator. So, do please support your claim that current Germans want to return to these authoritarian forms of government that you claim because I just don't see it.

Cultures can change just as people can. Germany in the 20th Century was given some incentive to change and they did. Now some folks thinks they're pussies or something because they don't want to get involved in military adventures. Me, I much prefer today's version of Germany to 1940's. You have to be an idiot to see there isn't a difference.

[Thanas]

It was rather the British Isles' greater GDPPC, a result of Britain's superior institutions, which meant a given population of Brits could build more ships and guns, and pay for the Austrians and Russians to raise more and larger peasant armies.

Are you kidding me? Have you looked at the wealth the British got from their colonies and trade? Did you think that trade would have been possible without colonies? Are you that ignorant of your own history?

Oh come off it. IG had an active monarchy and skewed electoral system.

Prove that point to me. Go on, prove that national parliamentary elections where skewed.

It was most comparable to Britain in the late 18th century, but with also conscription and a huge state bureaucracy, of which that proto-socialism was a major driver.

The state bureaucracy was proto-socialist? I am sure the actual socialists persecuted by it would agree with that.

My original point was that liberal states had no cause to be rivals, not that it could never happen anyway. You are surely aware that not everyone in US and UK was a liberal.

Ah, so suddenly Imperial Germany is one humongous block, but British actions have to be excused by there being several factions. Righto. No way this is going to play. Liberal states are and can be rivals.

If you think Germany's actions were beneficial anyway (which I largely do), maybe it didn't. But it's not like Germany had much of a choice.

Actually yes, there was the choice of being a member of Nato or not. there was the choice of rearmament or not. There was the choice of becoming switzerland 2.0 or not. There was the choice of forming the EC, EU or not. You are stunningly ignorant of the things you proclaim.

You laugh, but who do you think those troops are to protect against? Poland? Luxembourg? They are being withdrawn now, it's not like US-UK think Ger is going to turn around and attack us again, but the states don't tend to withdraw easily from positions they wouldn't be able to easily recover.

Whatever. I take this as a concession that these are not occupational troops and that Germany in fact is not under some kind of occupation.

HMS Conquerer, are you intentionally insinuating that Germans have some kind of ingrained cultural and/or genetic propensity towards autocracy and/or world domination?

Genetic, no, that is not well supported. But cultural? Do you really think none of the previous thought survived WWII? Pretty well everyone in Germany in the 30s was some brand of authoritarian, whether of the national or international strain of socialism, or else a traditional conservative who wanted to bring back the kaiserreich.

Are you a freaking idiot? First off, no, not pretty well everyone was some brand of authoritarian. If you continue to make this claim, I will ask for evidence. And if you are claiming Germany is culturally authoritarian, then I might just as well claim Brits are cultually disposed for starving indians. It is just as idiotic a claim to make.

[ChaserGrey]

Thanas, was there serious discussion of the "Switzerland 2.0" option in Germany? I assume you're talking about after the Wall fell, because a) minimal armament doesn't work so well with fuck-off many Soviet troops on your border and b) as far as I know German military policy during the Cold War was almost all defensive anyway. What would it have entailed- I assume pretty much defensive armament only and a policy of neutrality and noninvolvement in international affairs?

[Thanas]

Thanas, was there serious discussion of the "Switzerland 2.0" option in Germany? I assume you're talking about after the Wall fell, because a) minimal armament doesn't work so well with fuck-off many Soviet troops on your border and b) as far as I know German military policy during the Cold War was almost all defensive anyway. What would it have entailed- I assume pretty much defensive armament only and a policy of neutrality and noninvolvement in international affairs?

No, I am talking about the discussion what to do after 1945. The soviets made an offer to have Germany reunited following it would be disarmed and there was some discussion about that. The offer was finally rejected due to concerns about Stalin's willingness to honor the neutrality.

[ChaserGrey]

No, I am talking about the discussion what to do after 1945. The soviets made an offer to have Germany reunited following it would be disarmed and there was some discussion about that. The offer was finally rejected due to concerns about Stalin's willingness to honor the neutrality.

Ah, OK. Interesting, thanks. Sounds like the Western Allies made the right call though- "trust Stalin" was not a good plan, generally speaking, and if he had decided to violate German neutrality there wouldn't have been a great deal they could do about it. The Red Army was definitely the 800 pound gorilla of Europe at that point.

[Sea Skimmer]

No, I am talking about the discussion what to do after 1945. The soviets made an offer to have Germany reunited following it would be disarmed and there was some discussion about that. The offer was finally rejected due to concerns about Stalin's willingness to honor the neutrality.

Stalin had the same concern. As I recall the number one sticking point was over the question as to if elections would be held before or after a withdrawal of foreign forces. The west wanted it ahead of time, because they didn't trust the Soviets to honor an unfavorable result. Stalin favored some influence over all of Germany and above all its industrial workers on the Rhine, over total control of under 25%, but certainly didn't trust the allies to honor unfavorable results either.

[Surlethe]

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

I think this comes from not actually being corrupt.


There is the same prejudice vs scandinavians within the EU and the UN. As in, northern europeans like to argue the rules, because you know, we in fact believe that after setting them up one should follow them.

I wish that map broke the US down state-by-state. And if it counts the entire US as "moderately non-corrupt" ... well, wow.

Apparently only the anglosphere, Japan, Germany and the low countries are not corrupt. Actually, that explains a lot.

Duh. Didn't your macro 101 cover the importance of strong, non-corrupt institutions as a factor of growth?

[PeZook]

It has to be noted that this map portrays the index of PERCEPTION of corruption, so it's not all THAT accurate. Just the best you can do, since measuring actual corruption is extremely difficult by definition. So two countries which are in reality moderately corrupt can have different perceptions of it by the populace.