Trump supported by German Left

[helmut]

Speakers of the German Party Die Linke ("The Left"), a party with historical roots in the ruling party of East Germany (SED), support the idea of reducing US troops in Germany. Some express the wish that not only a part, but all US troops should leave Germany, one spokeswoman said it would be good if the US Army took all nuclear weapons out of Germany.

The former communist seem to be the only group in Germany that support Trump's agenda in this respect.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Speakers of the German Party Die Linke ("The Left"), a party with historical roots in the ruling party of East Germany (SED), support the idea of reducing US troops in Germany. Some express the wish that not only a part, but all US troops should leave Germany, one spokeswoman said it would be good if the US Army took all nuclear weapons out of Germany.

The former communist seem to be the only group in Germany that support Trump's agenda in this respect.

Why ? Do the rest of the Germans prefer being militarily occupied by troops from a foreign country?

 

[helmut]

Why ? Do the rest of the Germans prefer being militarily occupied by troops from a foreign country?

It's not occupation. The US army has no right to give orders to our government.

The occupation status of West Germany ended in 1952 (as a preparation for the European Defense Community, which never became reality). The last remnant of occupation in East and West Germany ended with the 2+4-Treaty in 1990.

During the cold war, the US troops were a sign that attacking Western Europe meant fighting against US troops, and a military victory of the Red army in Europe could lead to a nuclear strike against the USSR. Now the troops are more symbolic (no-one thinks Russia would start a war with Europe), but they are also a vital part of the military network used to coordinate US troops in America and, say, Iraq. Thea also provide jobs for thousands of Germans. It is a deal with advantages for both sides.

Of course, friends to Russia or person with anti-western feelings want the troops out of Europe. Withdrawing all of them would force EU to make a deal with Russia and/or China, with a drawback or democracy in the world.

EDIT: Minor typos.

 

[disciple Clint]

It's not occupation. The US army has no right to give orders to our government.

The occupation status of West Germany ended in 1952 (as a preparation for the European Defense Community, which never became reality). The last remnant of occupation in East and West Germany ended with the 2+4-Treaty in 1990.

During the cold war, the US troops were a sign that attacking Western Europe meant fighting against US troops, and a military victory of the Red army in Europe could lead to a nuclear strike against the USSR. Now the troops are more symbolic (no-one thinks Russia would start a war with Europe), but they are also a vital part of the military network used to coordinate US troops in America and, say, Iraq. Thea also provide jobs for thousands of Germans. It is a deal with advantages for both sides.

Of course, friends to Russia or person with anti-western feelings want the troops out of Europe. Withdrawing all of them would force EU to make a deal with Russia and/or China, with a drawback or democracy in the world.

EDIT: Minor typos.

It is a deal with advantages for both sides.

Looks like the deal is part of the problem. Reality Check: Trump's row with Germany over Russian gas

 

[helmut]

Looks like the deal is part of the problem. Reality Check: Trump's row with Germany over Russian gas

The deal was there before trump came, hopefully it will last longer than Trump's presidency. The US army knows the advantage of US bases in Germany, and they will certainly tell Trump about it.

The deal is not the problem, it is Trump, especially his way of diplomacy. It seems no-one told him that there are persons with principles (whether good principles, or rather ideologies) that will not give in when threatened, but rather get the stiffer the harder they are pressed.

 

[disciple Clint]

The deal was there before trump came, hopefully it will last longer than Trump's presidency. The US army knows the advantage of US bases in Germany, and they will certainly tell Trump about it.

The deal is not the problem, it is Trump, especially his way of diplomacy. It seems no-one told him that there are persons with principles (whether good principles, or rather ideologies) that will not give in when threatened, but rather get the stiffer the harder they are pressed.

The question still outstanding is why Germany would buy from Russia when they could buy from the U.S. considering that the U.S. is spending money to help defend Germany, funny way to acknowledge the contribution.

 

[helmut]

The question still outstanding is why Germany would buy from Russia when they could buy from the U.S. considering that the U.S. is spending money to help defend Germany, funny way to acknowledge the contribution.

• Russia is cheaper.
• Carrying liquefied gas is very risky, a pipeline with gas is rather safe in comparison to a ship with liquified gas.
• Germany pays the US for being defended.
• Germany also contributes in non-military way to the maintenance of world's peace (deescalation, addressing social injustice etc. US politicians (Trump is not the first one) tend to think military action is a solution, even when any military action will destroy more than what it should save.

Things are more complicated than you think. If you subtract all actions that made the world more unsafe (e.g. Iraq, Lybia), and add non-military actions that made the world safer (Paris Agreement on climate preservation, Iran deal etc.), the contribution of Germany to a safer world is not smaller than the US part.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

The question still outstanding is why Germany would buy from Russia when they could buy from the U.S. considering that the U.S. is spending money to help defend Germany, funny way to acknowledge the contribution.

Defend Germany from what?

 

[disciple Clint]

• Russia is cheaper.
• Carrying liquefied gas is very risky, a pipeline with gas is rather safe in comparison to a ship with liquified gas.
• Germany pays the US for being defended.
• Germany also contributes in non-military way to the maintenance of world's peace (deescalation, addressing social injustice etc. US politicians (Trump is not the first one) tend to think military action is a solution, even when any military action will destroy more than what it should save.

Things are more complicated than you think. If you subtract all actions that made the world more unsafe (e.g. Iraq, Lybia), and add non-military actions that made the world safer (Paris Agreement on climate preservation, Iran deal etc.), the contribution of Germany to a safer world is not smaller than the US part.

How is Germany doing on paying their share of the UN budget? And why would anyone put money in the pocket of someone who threatens their security? We can obfuscate by attempting to justify an illogical act but that will not change the foolishness of the transaction.

 

[disciple Clint]

Defend Germany from what?

Well that makes it simple if our troops are not there to defend anything, just bring them home or send them somewhere that they will be appreciated.

 

[helmut]

Defend Germany from what?

Russia is (re)arming, and countries like Poland and the Baltic states (and the Ukraine, which wants to join NATO) see this as a threat. Indirectly, it is also a threat for Germany.

The propaganda song you liked to is rather old, it describes the situation after the NATO Double-Track Decision, and this not correctly. The Song suggests that Germans would die for the NATO, and US GIs would be in the back area, in reality it was clear that Germany could not withstand an attack of the Red army without US (and other) soldiers (The Bundeswehr has the duty to stop the enemy until military arrives", as one ironical sentence among German soldiers stated it). It would be rather GIs dying for Germany ...

The situation back in that times was frightening:

• The NATO always draw a scenario of an invasion from the Warsaw pact into Western Europe (Germany in the first case), the USSR said it would defend every aggressor on its own territory - so both NATO and Warsaw pact agreed a future war would predominately take place in West Germany.
• The USSR guarantied she would not drop the first atomic bomb, while the NATO said: Given the conventional advantage of the Warsaw pact, it might be necessary to use atomic bombs to stop the invasion - so this point was also agreed between both sides.
• But most frightening was: From both sides came the warning such a war would be most probable in the mid-eighties - they even agreed on the time when they would start the war!

The only difficulty was: Neither NATO nor Warsaw pact wanted to fire the first shoot. There was a sort of "offering a compromise" from the NATO - maybe the war could start out of a misunderstanding, or out of an escalation of the situation after Tito's death?

It is understandable that many Germans (including me) were concerned - just imagine you live in a state where probably millions of soldiers will fight against one another in the near future, the weaker side claiming the option to use atomic bombs as a last remedy ...

But it is also a fact that the peace movement in those times was influenced to some degree by communist propaganda, like that song that blames only the USA (NATO) and says nothing against the other side.

Thanks to God, the war never happened. There was Gorbachev, and eventually he convinced Reagan that peace was a better option than cold war ...

 

[helmut]

How is Germany doing on paying their share of the UN budget?

We pay our share, unlike the USA.

And why would anyone put money in the pocket of someone who threatens their security?

We don't put money in a pocket without getting something. It is a deal.

Like Trump wants a deal with China despite the fact that China is a growing threat to the USA.

BTW, I'm no fan of north stream. Better force Russia to use the existing pipelines through Ukraine ans Poland, this could be a means helping to get peace in Eastern Ukraine.

 

[disciple Clint]

We pay our share, unlike the USA.


We don't put money in a pocket without getting something. It is a deal.

Like Trump wants a deal with China despite the fact that China is a growing threat to the USA.

BTW, I'm no fan of north stream. Better force Russia to use the existing pipelines through Ukraine ans Poland, this could be a means helping to get peace in Eastern Ukraine.

 

[helmut]

<graphic>

Well, the USA have about 4 times inhabitants as Germany, and they payed about four times as Germany - so the reason why Trump stopped the US contribution has nothing to do with "too much from us, too less from others".

The main reasons seems to be that he doesn't want the USA to be dragged into obeying the (international) law.

 

[disciple Clint]

Well, the USA have about 4 times inhabitants as Germany, and they payed about four times as Germany - so the reason why Trump stopped the US contribution has nothing to do with "too much from us, too less from others".

The main reasons seems to be that he doesn't want the USA to be dragged into obeying the (international) law.

Germany indeed devotes only about 1.25 percent of its GDP to defense. While it has boosted defense spending the past two years, Germany, like about half the other NATO members, does not plan to reach 2 percent by 2024.

But Trump's claim that the U.S. is spending 4.2 percent of GDP is at odds with the Pentagon, which puts it at 3.3 percent.
FACT CHECK: Trump's Claims On NATO Spending

 

[disciple Clint]

Well, the USA have about 4 times inhabitants as Germany, and they payed about four times as Germany - so the reason why Trump stopped the US contribution has nothing to do with "too much from us, too less from others".

The main reasons seems to be that he doesn't want the USA to be dragged into obeying the (international) law.

https://www.newsweek.com/nato-allia...share-trump-national-security-adviser-1470889

 

[helmut]

Germany indeed devotes only about 1.25 percent of its GDP to defense. While it has boosted defense spending the past two years, Germany, like about half the other NATO members, does not plan to reach 2 percent by 2024.

I spoke about the contribution to the UN budget. But as to your comment:

After the end of the cold war, it was expected that times would become more peaceful, hence the reduction of military budget. And it is easier to reduce a budget than to increase a budget.

As to Germany, there is the additional problem of widespread skepticism against soldiers, high defense budget etc. Historically, it stems from the "68"-movement (part of the protests of 1968, is such simplification is allowed), and that movement was to a not small degree a long-term result of the "reeducation" of Germans after 1945. The leftist think-tank that provided a great deal of "68"-thinking was re-founded by the USA, and led by former emigrants to the USA who had collaborated with the OSS.

You wanted Krauts that abhor war, militarism and anything like that for a century or so. You got what you wanted, so don't complain.

 

[disciple Clint]

I spoke about the contribution to the UN budget. But as to your comment:

After the end of the cold war, it was expected that times would become more peaceful, hence the reduction of military budget. And it is easier to reduce a budget than to increase a budget.

As to Germany, there is the additional problem of widespread skepticism against soldiers, high defense budget etc. Historically, it stems from the "68"-movement (part of the protests of 1968, is such simplification is allowed), and that movement was to a not small degree a long-term result of the "reeducation" of Germans after 1945. The leftist think-tank that provided a great deal of "68"-thinking was re-founded by the USA, and led by former emigrants to the USA who had collaborated with the OSS.

You wanted Krauts that abhor war, militarism and anything like that for a century or so. You got what you wanted, so don't complain.

You want security get ready to pay for it, the free lunch is about over.

 

[Nithavela]

Why ? Do the rest of the Germans prefer being militarily occupied by troops from a foreign country?

Many would prefer if the american military would leave, but it won't happen. They need at least a couple of technicians to spy on our politicians' smartphones.

 

[Nithavela]

Defend Germany from what?

That's very old and also was made in the GDR. That singer made a LOT of socialist and communist propaganda songs.

You shouldn't make decisions today because of 50 year old songs from another country.