German defence woes (latest from The Times)

Krautman

War Hero
I had quite a few conversations with German males during my time in the FDR; some amazing conversations, in fact; some lovely, enlightening views expressed by the average suited-and-booted pissed Boxhead about the Poles. I'm not fooled at all by modern German expressions of love and peace, sunshine.

Germany grew rich via the efforts of the UK and the USA to ensure you stayed "loyal" to the West after the last war. It stays rich by ducking its defence liabilities and by the economic vampirism of the weaker European economies. Remind me again, how much did the FDR steal from the bank accounts of the citizens of the DDR after re-unification? Real Bruderbund in action, German-style.

We'll be at your throats, or you'll be at ours, again in less than 30 years, I reckon. And won't it be fun, when it's all the Poles coming for you next time.
And I am not fooled by generalisation. We have today roundabout 2 Million Poles living in Germany. As a rule they are mostly good neighbours, well integrated and sadly sometimes more german than the Germans. Germany grew rich because we are the proverbial 500 pound gorilla under the European economies, no boast just a fact. Is there anything to say against free competition and thriving trade? Or do these things only have value in soap-box oratories over Brexit? If you mix strong and relatively weak economies you get the problems and effects the Euro-countries now have. Mitterands idiocy, blackmailing Kohl into the Euro and Kohls idiocy giving in to this blackmailing put us were we now are.
And i can't remind you because FDR stole nothing from the DDR citizens at the reunification because he was dead. If you did mean the FRG it stole nothing, because the DDR-Mark was worthless as was the whole shithole called DDR. In the last convulsions of the DDR the exchange rate was 25 DDR-Mark for 1 D-Mark. Our glorious government at this time exchanged the savings up to 6000 DDR-Mark 1:1 savings over 6000 DDR-Mark were exchanged 1:2. Debts were bisected, wages, pensions, stipends etc were 1:1. Seen in this way the FRG stole massvie amounts, but from the West German taxpayer, not mentioning the over 2000 milliards for the "Aufbau Ost" since 1990.

And sorry in 30 years we all will have other problems than being at eacht others throats and if not you are really welcome to try.
 
[Snip] Germany grew rich because we are the proverbial 500 pound gorilla under the European economies, no boast just a fact. Is there anything to say against free competition and thriving trade? [Snip/]
You see this bit? This is at the heart of Germany's current problems. If you own the means of production, control the means of distribution, have all the shops and all the money, who's going to buy your stuff? The only way you can trade, in this circumstance, is if you lend people money so they can spend it on your goods and services. Not the greatest idea for a sustainable economic model.

500 pound gorillas have severe myopia apparently.
 
Last edited:

Krautman

War Hero
You see this bit? This is at the heart of Germany's current problems. If you own the means of production, control the means of distribution, have all the shops and all the money, who's going to buy your stuff? The only way you can trade, ion this circumstance, is if you lend people money so they can spend it. Not the greatest idea for a sustainable economic model.

500 pound Gorilla's have severe myopia apparently.
I know that and I deeply resent it.
 
And I am not fooled by generalisation. We have today roundabout 2 Million Poles living in Germany. As a rule they are mostly good neighbours, well integrated and sadly sometimes more german than the Germans. Germany grew rich because we are the proverbial 500 pound gorilla under the European economies, no boast just a fact. Is there anything to say against free competition and thriving trade? Or do these things only have value in soap-box oratories over Brexit? If you mix strong and relatively weak economies you get the problems and effects the Euro-countries now have. Mitterands idiocy, blackmailing Kohl into the Euro and Kohls idiocy giving in to this blackmailing put us were we now are.
And i can't remind you because FDR stole nothing from the DDR citizens at the reunification because he was dead. If you did mean the FRG it stole nothing, because the DDR-Mark was worthless as was the whole shithole called DDR. In the last convulsions of the DDR the exchange rate was 25 DDR-Mark for 1 D-Mark. Our glorious government at this time exchanged the savings up to 6000 DDR-Mark 1:1 savings over 6000 DDR-Mark were exchanged 1:2. Debts were bisected, wages, pensions, stipends etc were 1:1. Seen in this way the FRG stole massvie amounts, but from the West German taxpayer, not mentioning the over 2000 milliards for the "Aufbau Ost" since 1990.

And sorry in 30 years we all will have other problems than being at eacht others throats and if not you are really welcome to try.

The label may have changed, sunshine, but the fabric's still the same, init.
 

Krautman

War Hero
The label may have changed, sunshine, but the fabric's still the same, init.
With all due respect, you are beginning to bore the hell out of me. I'm not your sunshine, so we will not swapping spit or something else in the shower. Why don't you just hump somebody else's leg sunshine?
 

Riga

War Hero
They may still have the desire but it would be more appropriate to ask are they likely, or capable, of acting on them ? And if they did are we prepared (£$£$£) to oppose them by force to stop title to a few fields or a few dying industrial regions changing hands, especially if the majority of the inhabitants are supportive or indifferent ?

Europe is full of desires for other people's territory but we still don't prepare to fight them: List of territorial disputes - Wikipedia
Please show me the majority of Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians along with Poles, Slovaks and Czechs who are indifferent to Russian hegemony.

Is NATO fit for purpose? No. Much like the EU machine. Do we need a reformed NATO? Yes.
 

Riga

War Hero
Forgotten MC 14/3? That would have been nukes on German soil or do you doubt that? So just stop bullshitting me with supposed nuclear attacks on America or the UK. Short memory, ingratitude, resentenment and a good portion of envy obviously made you forget some essential facts obviously. Germany grew rich because it had and has a potent economy, not because of the how do you call it "US/UK" defence umbrella that was indeed a NATO defence umbrella. We fulfilled our obligations back then. Contrary to your allegations the Cold war never went hot for NATO:
  1. on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France, on the territory of Turkey or on the islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
  2. on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in whicH occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
A dodgy war in SE Asia or in another shithole is not covered by the NATO treaty, really simple.
Er. I've met Czechoslovak forces who were fighting Americans in forested area between Plzen and East German / Austrian borders.
I've taught Slovak soldiers on the trail of Brits near Sliac AFB and I'm sure many of the silent services have a story or three. It may not have been public, but it could get hot for a very select few.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Please show me the majority of Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians along with Poles, Slovaks and Czechs who are indifferent to Russian hegemony.

Is NATO fit for purpose? No. Much like the EU machine. Do we need a reformed NATO? Yes.
NATO?

That some members are given to hubris, revisionism and cynicism is besides the point. It's still the best we've got.

I'd suggest that far it's better suited to purpose than any 'EU Army'.
 

JCC

Old-Salt
Please show me the majority of Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians along with Poles, Slovaks and Czechs who are indifferent to Russian hegemony.
I was thinking more of regions such as the Donbass. I'm not challenging your assertion that the Baltics et al deserve their independence merely pointing out that most border regions have a crust of peoples some of whom feel they should be on the other side.
 

JCC

Old-Salt
NATO?

That some members are given to hubris, revisionism and cynicism is besides the point. It's still the best we've got.

I'd suggest that far it's better suited to purpose than any 'EU Army'.
If the purpose is to prevent modern Russia invading and conquering the West then I'm sceptical that they have that ability or inclination nowadays; if they have how is it America's or the UK's concern ?

With the US refocusing towards Asia and the UK heading for the sunlit uplands their continuing membership of NATO doesn't really fit with their new strategic objectives. Perhaps a defensive alliance formed around 5 Eyes would be more suitable ?
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
If the purpose is to prevent modern Russia invading and conquering the West then I'm sceptical that they have that ability or inclination nowadays; if they have how is it America's or the UK's concern ?

With the US refocusing towards Asia and the UK heading for the sunlit uplands their continuing membership of NATO doesn't really fit with their new strategic objectives. Perhaps a defensive alliance formed around 5 Eyes would be more suitable ?
It's not just about the Fulda Gap though, is it?

Whether Russia's military in fact now has the ability or inclination to bomb-burst out and head for the the Channel ports (giving the Ukraine a kicking or brassing up Syria is a rather different prospect to taking us on, despite our many current failings) is perhaps moot; NATO is and has been broadly aligned with the Western nations' interests since its setting up.

I'd suggest that it's still well within the US's and the UK's interests to have a secure and functioning Western Europe. It's fully within Western Europe's interests to have a secure and functioning Western Europe. That might include dealing cooperatively and cohesively with mass migration or attacks on tankers in the Gulf, for instance.

That some NATO members are playing silly buggers because they are ignoring, in an Emperor's new clothes style, the failings of their domestic political ambitions is by the by.

Trump is right to be calling them on this. Obama did too, so it's not like this is new news.
 
Last edited:

JCC

Old-Salt
It's not just about the Fulda Gap though, is it?
Surely that's exactly what NATO was for ?

Whether Russia's military in fact now has the ability or inclination to bomb-burst out and head for the the Channel ports (giving the Ukraine a kicking or bracing up Syria is a rather different prospect to taking us on, despite our many current failings) is perhaps moot; NATO is and has been broadly aligned with the Western nations' interests since its setting up.

I'd suggest that it's still well within the US's and the UK's interests to have a secure and functioning Western Europe. It's fully within Western Europe's interests to have a secure and functioning Western Europe. That might include dealing cooperatively and cohesively with mass migration or attacks on tankers in the Gulf, for instance.
That's World Police stuff. All good things but surely not really any of NATO's business unless the T&Cs have been changed ?

That some NATO members are playing silly buggers because they are ignoring, in an Emperor's new clothes style, the failings of their domestic political ambitions is by the by.

Trump is right to be calling them on this. Obama did too, so it's not like this is new news.
Absolutely, just because he's as mad as a box of frogs doesn't mean he isn't right on this.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Surely that's exactly what NATO was for ?

That's World Police stuff. All good things but surely not really any of NATO's business unless the T&Cs have been changed ?
You're thinking in pure geographical terms.

An attack on a country might include, for instance, an attack on its commercial shipping.

Or, you might consider that going to a place where religious fundamentalists are training and preparing for attacks on sovereign territory to in fact be a defensive measure.
 

JCC

Old-Salt
You're thinking in pure geographical terms. An attack on a country might include, for instance, an attack on its commercial shipping.
We're still in World police mode here; does NATO attack the US because tariff barriers are put in place against EU trade ?

Or, you might consider that going to a place where religious fundamentalists are training and preparing for attacks on sovereign territory to in fact be a defensive measure.
In some circumstances Yes - in others No. I am suggesting that NATO has moved so far from its original purpose that it has become a thoroughly meddlesome organisation that is wandering around the world seeking justification for its continued existence.

By being there it enables Western politicians to continue interfering to the detriment of all. Not everybody seems to want our Liberal Democracy.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
We're still in World police mode here; does NATO attack the US because tariff barriers are put in place against EU trade?
There’s a difference between tariffs and physically molesting a vessel and its crew.

In some circumstances Yes - in others No. I am suggesting that NATO has moved so far from its original purpose that it has become a thoroughly meddlesome organisation that is wandering around the world seeking justification for its continued existence.

By being there it enables Western politicians to continue interfering to the detriment of all. Not everybody seems to want our Liberal Democracy.
I’d suggest that even we don’t want our liberal democracy.

However, what do you suggest in a ‘meddlesome’ NATO’s place? Moreover, define ‘interfering’. I suspect that that’d get a sharp response from some of those involved in the many positive things that NATO does/has done.

I’d also suggest that, imperfect as it may be, NATO still provides a deterrent effect that were it not there would result in a very different geopolitical landscape.
 

Top