Bundeswehr is looking increasingly threadbare

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I don't believe the German public buy into the 'threat from the east' scenario that their senior NATO partner are trying to sell, they quite rightly suspect that it's much more about stopping Russian gas from crossing borders, than it is about Russian tanks. 

Sorry if that's too political, but it's kind of hard to discuss this subject in isolation. 

Edited February 19, 2019 by Sgt.Squarehead

[A Canadian Cat]

1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I don't believe the German public buy into the 'threat from the east' scenario that their senior NATO partner are trying to sell,

I assume you mean the US. I see no evidence that US policy makers in the White House believe there is a "threat from the east". So, sounds like you are saying that the German People agree with President Trump.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Did you miss this bit, or just wilfully choose to ignore it:

2 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Sorry if that's too political, but it's kind of hard to discuss this subject in isolation. 

I was trying, really quite hard TBH, to keep my comment as apolitical as possible.

The content of my post is concise and clear, you are free to frame it in whatever political lens you choose, but I won't be entering the debate.   

Edited February 19, 2019 by Sgt.Squarehead

[z1812]

I am not pointing at anyone, but let's try to avoid any politics and focus instead on the related social and cultural forces at work. I think most are aware of the Politics at the edges of this issue.

 

[BrotherSurplice]

2 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I was trying, really quite hard TBH, to keep my comment as apolitical as possible.

 

And you really thought that the best way to do that was to say that NATO is lying about the threat from Russia?

[Sgt.Squarehead]

As I said:

5 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Sorry if that's too political, but it's kind of hard to discuss this subject in isolation. 

So are we done going around in circles? 

 

[General Jack Ripper]

... and this is why we keep such discussions to the GDF.

I'll just see myself out.

[BrotherSurplice]

On 2/19/2019 at 11:05 PM, Sgt.Squarehead said:

So are we done going around in circles? 

 

If you are done making blatantly political statements whilst professing to be apolitical, then sure.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Are you just dim, or trying to put words into my mouth to cause grief?

Because that is not a claim that I ever made.

In my first post, I stated my hope that the content was not 'too political'.....Clearly an acknowledgement that it's content was at least somewhat political.

In my second post I stated that I had made my previous post 'as apolitical as possible'.

Do you comprehend? 

Do I need to add 'subtitles for the hard of thinking' to all of my posts for you? 

Edited February 21, 2019 by Sgt.Squarehead

[sburke]

1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Are you just dim, or trying to put words into my mouth to cause grief?

Because that is not a claim that I ever made.

In my first post, I stated my hope that the content was not 'too political'.....Clearly an acknowledgement that it's content was at least somewhat political.

In my second post I stated that I had made my previous post 'as apolitical as possible'.

Do you comprehend? 

Do I need to add 'subtitles for the hard of thinking' to all of my posts for you? 

Is this really necessary?  

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Perhaps not.....But I'm a bit bored with explaining something that, to a person of normal intelligence, was clear in the first place. 

How you can expect an answer to whether Germany (a democratic country as I recall) would commit troops to a hypothetical war against Russia, without entering the realm of politics to some degree, utterly eludes me.....I did my best, but apparently that wasn't quite enough for some people. 

[Artkin]

On 2/17/2019 at 7:33 AM, General Jack Ripper said:

This is the CM2 General Discussion forum.

What does this have to do with CM2?

Nothing.

I had no clue this existed up until a couple months ago. It's hidden pretty well

[slysniper]

Lets get one thing real.

Germany has a population of 82,000,000 people.

Its one of the top 15 countries in the world. Its not some little 3rd world country.

It should have a standing army not just for a fact that Russia exist. There is many other conflict areas in the world.

As long as the world Leaders will treat each other nice only if someone else can bring death and sorrow to them and their country. 

Germany by all intent should burden its fair share of that responsibility. 

If they don't want to supply an armed force to do that. (they are more than welcome to pay other countries that are enough to amount to their fair share.

How about that for a outlook.

 

[z1812]

Originally I was hoping the thread would remain focused on the state of the German army, and how German society viewed their armed forces, as it did on the first page. Sadly it has gone very much of topic................I suppose I should not be surprised. Too bad. Page 1 was becoming interesting.

[DerKommissar]

1 hour ago, z1812 said:

Originally I was hoping the thread would remain focused on the state of the German army, and how German society viewed their armed forces, as it did on the first page. Sadly it has gone very much of topic................I suppose I should not be surprised. Too bad. Page 1 was becoming interesting.

It's important to point out that while Germany spends less percent of its GDP than Canada on military (both below the 2 percent requirement), it hosts the largest deployment of U.S. Army and Air Force personnel than anywhere else in the world (by a significant margin). From what I understand, the Bundeswehr were constitutionally limited to defense of its borders. In 1994, it got amended to allow for World Police antics. So, they got to tag along in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan.

I saw a program about a German small business that buys American decommissioned materiel by the trailer. They find a lot of goodies in there, refurbish them and sell them out. I am sure if Americans reduce the number of troops, that'll cut into businesses. If I was a Hun, I certainty would not mind if other people paid for my defense. Naturally, I would not lose sleep about the Bundeswehr having to defend Germany from foreign invasion on its own.

I think it's bad form that NVA veterans do not get military pensions, while SS veterans do. NVA is considered a "foreign military", and it doesn't sit well with the East Germans (from what I've been told).

[slysniper]

I just looked up countries wealth also, again Germany was # 18.

So it sure seems possible that they could support their armies needs if they wanted to. But as with any situation there is many facets as to why they haven't.

And in truth, Because of their history, it makes sense in a way that they do not become a world player in military force. (So the German peoples view is not a bad thing)

But they should not be given freedom from the financial burden that other like minded countries are having to bear, so there is no excuses that can justify their lack of support in such matters.

So I see no issues when efforts are made to make Germany bear some of the cost or to pick up their efforts to arm themselves to a useful level.

[slysniper]

Having that large force of American troops and bases there has been another factor as to the countries wealth.

It would be interesting to see real numbers of the cash inflow that they have because of American bases there.

My work does some military projects over seas and I am always amazed at the money this country pays out to do some of these things and how that is cash flow into their economies, not ours.

Just think about it, any place there is a large US military presence. How is that impacting the economy there. (If we were smart , countries should be bidding for us to set up in their lands)

but the truth is , we pay most for the privilege.

[sburke]

6 hours ago, z1812 said:

Originally I was hoping the thread would remain focused on the state of the German army, and how German society viewed their armed forces, as it did on the first page. Sadly it has gone very much of topic................I suppose I should not be surprised. Too bad. Page 1 was becoming interesting.

agreed.  getting increasingly frustrated with folks not being able to stay civil and at least relatively within the realm of what the original post was for.

[Macisle]

23 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Perhaps not.....But I'm a bit bored with explaining something that, to a person of normal intelligence, was clear in the first place. 

How you can expect an answer to whether Germany (a democratic country as I recall) would commit troops to a hypothetical war against Russia, without entering the realm of politics to some degree, utterly eludes me.....I did my best, but apparently that wasn't quite enough for some people. 

It's impossible to have a genuine exchange about military issues beyond base technical aspects of equipment without getting into politics. Politics are a natural and vital part of any such discussion if it has any depth or merit at all. That's why you haven't seen me join in such discussions and especially not on current events. It's difficult not to jump in sometimes, but I'm willing to keep my mouth shut in CM's house for the good of the game.

However, I think that one day, historians looking back on our time period may well use a title like Castles Made of Sand.

"And they built great castles and poured praise upon themselves for achieving such works as their ancestors in their ignorance could not.
But the works of the new man were made of sand and fell, for the builders had forgotten what true stone and wood look like."

[Lethaface]

16 hours ago, slysniper said:

Just think about it, any place there is a large US military presence. How is that impacting the economy there. (If we were smart , countries should be bidding for us to set up in their lands)

but the truth is , we pay most for the privilege.

Well on a micro level those economies will surely feel some impact. Not sure about the macro economic impact. 
I am sure though, regarding the macro economic impact, of having military bases worldwide. Without all those military bases (and carriers) and the power those project, the economic power of the US would be a lot less.

 

[slysniper]

6 hours ago, Macisle said:

However, I think that one day, historians looking back on our time period may well use a title like Castles Made of Sand.

"And they built great castles and poured praise upon themselves for achieving such works as their ancestors in their ignorance could not.
But the works of the new man were made of sand and fell, for the builders had forgotten what true stone and wood look like."

Great quote, where does it come from

[slysniper]

52 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

Well on a micro level those economies will surely feel some impact. Not sure about the macro economic impact. 
I am sure though, regarding the macro economic impact, of having military bases worldwide. Without all those military bases (and carriers) and the power those project, the economic power of the US would be a lot less.

There is no question in that our own economy runs in some part to our Military spending, I think the best proof of that is back in Pres. Reagan's period when he managed to get a bad economy turned around into a great one here. How, he started to put funding into military projects that had been lacking for a while because of cut backs to spending.

But I have a hard time believing any of our overseas cost would be a downturn for us if they are cut back, where is the logic of that. Good logic would have us pouring the money into our own companies, but again I see that common sense logic has long disappeared. So many of the projects now even have the military equipment being built by other countries, so again, not a sound concept on a few fronts there.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

8 hours ago, Macisle said:

That's why you haven't seen me join in such discussions and especially not on current events. It's difficult not to jump in sometimes, but I'm willing to keep my mouth shut in CM's house for the good of the game.

Very wise.....I think I shall adopt that policy myself. 

[Lethaface]

1 hour ago, slysniper said:

There is no question in that our own economy runs in some part to our Military spending, I think the best proof of that is back in Pres. Reagan's period when he managed to get a bad economy turned around into a great one here. How, he started to put funding into military projects that had been lacking for a while because of cut backs to spending.

But I have a hard time believing any of our overseas cost would be a downturn for us if they are cut back, where is the logic of that. Good logic would have us pouring the money into our own companies, but again I see that common sense logic has long disappeared. So many of the projects now even have the military equipment being built by other countries, so again, not a sound concept on a few fronts there.

Unfortunately don't have the time now to give this a proper reply. I just checked in quickly from work during lunch. 

Anyway I can try. The logic comes from geopolitics: without the military power projection and global inluence from it the US, current world leader, misses the 'options on the table' to give their words more 'stronk' meaning. Without military power to back you up, how is the US going to defend it economic interests / status quo? 

Actually, without the military/power and the influence that gives one can question whether the current position of the dollar would be sustainable on the short term even, and from there the whole balance sheet of the US. 

 

 

Edited February 22, 2019 by Lethaface

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I'll venture one more comment, in relation to the above.....Economics does not have to be a zero sum game.