Polish-German Reconcilliation Seminar

And hated by Germans and probably Europeans at large - especially in Central and Eastern Europe as well as in UK by many people - for allowing a flood of radical violent young men who commit massacres, bombings, van attacks every few weeks, and rapes, assaults, etc. daily. She'll also be remembered for caring less about residents and citizens of Germany who lives there for years, decades, generations, and more for people who only came to reap the welfare benefits. A real refugee doesn't care where he or she goes - as long as it's safe. This is why Poles walked on foot to Iran to escape USSR's persecution and some even live there to this day. These migrants came to Germany because the government will pay for them, their 8 kids, provide food, schooling, housing, and might even send a government worker to wash their butts too - since toilet paper wouldn't be P.C. As soon as Denmark cut the welfare payments, surprise surprise - half the migrants left immediately.

Hence AfD's success in the recent elections. This is just the beginning. She needs to retire ASAP.

What are you talking about? there is about 1614 people in Poland that see themselves as Tatars or Polish Tatars. Plus there is Meddling from the Saudi Arabia so I wouldn't be so enthusiastic for no reason at all.

Anyway I think that Germany should pay compensation to Poland.

The price tag becomes the key question here:-)

Admin pliz stay away as it is very much ON TOPIC.

* Tacitus * For one, there can be no doubt about Germany's commitment to Nato. There has been so far precisely one time when the Nato defence clause was triggered, by the USA no less. They dragged us into a war with no end in sight. Germany is one of the biggest contributors in Afghanistan, both financially and military, and is still engaged there. So the USA has no reason to complain here. Germany is leading the Nato brigade in Lithuania.* /Tacitus *

The NATO forces in Afghanistan have been tiny since several years. At the peak Germany had there 4000 soldiers in the most peaceful region and with limited rules of engagement - basically doing police type job. One could argue that we contributed more with 2500 soldiers in more difficult area and taking part in offensive actions. Only UK and Canada played there a significant role, Germany with several other countries (including Poland) were in the 2nd league. Besides, overall from American point of view that was a drop in the bucket compared with US commitment to defence of Europe over decades. Think what you want about it but If you were American, you would say the same thing.

In Lithuania it's an international battalion. The whole concept of international unit at this low level is a joke. It's a political thing just for show.

In order to turn NATO back into a collective defence pact, a 50k soldiers rapid reaction + 150k quick reaction forces are need. With tanks, howitzers and all the real stuff, not some light infantry trained for "peacekeeping missions". Additionally, they would have to be ready to get a green light in case of territory of any member state is at risk of being violated, without any discussions, dialogs, strongly worded statements, red lines and all of that. Tell that to German politicians and they will scream warmongering.

* Tacitus * Just another proof of how dishonest the debate is actually. The USA nowadays devotes most of its' military ressources elsewhere, particulary in Asia and the ME. They still have soldiers in Europe, but many of them e.g. those bases in Germany serve as logistics for their military operations in the ME.* /Tacitus *

I'm well aware of that but still US voters ask why they should spend even 1 USD on defence of Europe especially when Europeans themselves spend so little and Germany is often showed as an example of that behaviour - because it's the largest, don't have any financial problems and was the primary "taker" during the cold war.

* Tacitus * I initially wrote a long response to this, short answer there are 3 ways in which Germany can increase spending without much problems:

- Higher wages for soldiers.

- Macron has already asked Merkel if Germany would be willing to contribute financially to the French nuclear weapon program.* /Tacitus *

Both of these "solutions" don't provide any value added. And the 3rd one...

* Tacitus * - Germany has already made progress in merging its' military with other Nato members. One idea is that Germany would pay for equipment that smaller states cannot afford while those contribute their soldiers.

foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/22/germany-is-quietly-building-a-european-army-under-its-command * /Tacitus *

...I know that. That's the beginning of "EU army", which is going to replace NATO. That's the plan.

- push Yanks out of Europe.
- gain more political influence via the German-French dominated "EU army".
- make more money pushing German and French equipment down the throats of other countries -> the spare parts, ammunition and overall maintenance over the life cycle cost much more than the equipment itself, so even If there's going to significant discount, in the end it will be simply more orders and cash for France and Germany. So in short create through fake gifts in case of military what have already been done economically via EU.

For us that's a terrible idea as in practice it will be:
- buy wind turbines from Siemens, tanks from Rheinmetall, airplanes from Airbas and (here goes a long list...) or else "EU army" will not defend you.

And even If we do, max 10 years later instead of Belarus and Ukraine, we will have Greater Russia (or whatever they will call it) across the bprfer as Russians will simply laugh at "EU army". So we come to the conclusion...

* Tacitus *
It would also be much simpler if Poland and the Baltic states left. No common border with Russia anymore, no problems. * /Tacitus *

...that our national interests in the area of security & defence are totally different. That's what I've been saying all the way.

Admin pliz stay away as it is very much ON TOPIC.

For one, there can be no doubt about Germany's commitment to Nato. There has been so far precisely one time when the Nato defence clause was triggered, by the USA no less. They dragged us into a war with no end in sight. Germany is one of the biggest contributors in Afghanistan, both financially and military, and is still engaged there. So the USA has no reason to complain here. Germany is leading the Nato brigade in Lithuania.

Just another proof of how dishonest the debate is actually. The USA nowadays devotes most of its' military ressources elsewhere, particulary in Asia and the ME. They still have soldiers in Europe, but many of them e.g. those bases in Germany serve as logistics for their military operations in the ME.

Just another proof of how dishonest the debate is actually. The USA nowadays devotes most of its' military ressources elsewhere, particulary in Asia and the ME. They still have soldiers in Europe, but many of them e.g. those bases in Germany serve as logistics for their military operations in the ME.

I initially wrote a long response to this, short answer there are 3 ways in which Germany can increase spending without much problems:

- Higher wages for soldiers. Since Germany is facing a labourer shortage, it has become very difficult to attract young recruits because you can earn much more in the economy. So we will probably see a significan increase of the wage structure, which is already a huge part of the budget.

- Macron has already asked Merkel if Germany would be willing to contribute financially to the French nuclear weapon program. The French weapons are in need of modernization, and it has been suggested that Germany could agree to contribute money in return for France becoming the nuclear shield for Europe.

- Germany has already made progress in merging its' military with other Nato members. One idea is that Germany would pay for equipment that smaller states cannot afford while those contribute their soldiers.

foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/22/germany-is-quietly-building-a-european-army-under-its-command

It would also be much simpler if Poland and the Baltic states left. No common border with Russia anymore, no problems.

@G (undercover)

At its' peak Germany had a contingent of 5500 soldiers in Afghanistan. Germany also undertook offensive operation in which it suffered casualities. It is true that initially German soldiers were very much restrained in what they were allowed to do, but those legal restraints - which were in place partly due to the experience of WWII - have been gradually lifted. Afghanistan certainly was an important learning experience for Germany and in the end they lead a large Counterinsurgency Campaign.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterinsurgency_in_Northern_Afghanistan

German special forces also participated in military operations with the USA and others:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tora_Bora

We can argue about numbers all we want. And I am not going to downplay American involvement in Europe during the Cold War, because it was certainly crucial and expensive (although I would argue that the wars America fought elsewhere, e.g. the Vietnam War were significantly more expensive). That being said, the USA didn't protect Europe out of charity, but because it realized that the Cold War would be won in Europe. It's commitment there lead to the downfall of the SU and American global hegemony for more than a decade. And my point is, that the USA are the only member state who asked others to come to there defence, to which every country obliged. American soldiers didn't die in Combat Operations in Europe during the Cold War, but European soldiers died in Afghanistan on behalf of the USA. I understand that the USA wants higher defence spending in Europe, but I find it disrespectful to the soldiers who died in Afghanistan to marginalize their efforts. Btw. Germany will probably again increase its' number of soldiers again for mission Resolute Support.


It just shows you how nonsensical a firm adherence to the 2% target is. Not that paying soldiers more to attract the number of recruits needed is a bad idea mind you. The question is not how to spend more money, but how to spend it more efficiently.


I very much doubt that this is the plan of the German political elite. I don't think hardly anyone is more unhappy about the decrease of American investment in Europe than the German politicians. That being said, we must be realistic. Even without Trump, even without the 2% debate, I believe that it would have been only a matter of time until the USA were to reduce its' activities in Europe in order to deal with the rise of China in Asia. The USA is not being pushed out, but decided to curb its' engagement in Europe of its' own free will. So down the line, Europeans will have to learn how to defend themselves, and a proper European army would be the best way to do it. As for the equipment part, it is way too soon to make any speculations about this. Fact is, that French and German military equipment, including tanks are already vastly used by many European Nato members, and e.g. Germany has recently sold a lot of armored vehicles to the Baltic states, so its' not like we need this competetive advantage. Furthermore even if things turned out like you describe - what I very much doubt - it would still be benefical for the smaller states, since they would not able to afford most of the stuff otherwise, and in a shared battalion would not have to pay in full for maintenance. Again, the main problem of European defence spending is not that it is too low, it is simply spread too thin because every country has to pay for their own air force et al.


Aside from the fact that this would violate so many EU regulations that no sane government would try to attempt this, it is also very unlikely. It is not like the USA tried the same during the Cold War when Europe very much depended on it, so it is no realistic scenario for a European army, in which France and Germany would play a significantly smaller part, (there are e.g. other major countries like Italy and Spain) that their governments would use economic blackmail on other fields as well.


I very much doubt that. Ideally an EU army would also include nuclear weapons (by France) and should be large enough to deter Russia from any agression. it doesn't need to be as large as Russia's, it should simply be enough to mount a serious defence that would make an invasion far too costly to consider.

Also I contest that Germany and Poland have no common security interests. Poland wants security towards Russia. Germany wants Poland secure, because it is an important trading partner, and more importantly protects its' Eastern flank. Berlin is less than 100km from the Oder river away, and nobody wants the Russians on our border. The problem is however that their attitude towards Russia differs. Poland has lived under Russia's heel for more than 4 decades and is thus very hostile. It doesn't help that Poland's most powerful man believes in conspiracy theory that Russia killed his brother. Germany on the other hand was Russia's potential enemy during the Cold War, but it also made the experience that negotiations, diplomacy and trade policy can significantly reduce the risk of war and ease geostrategic rivalries in general (Ostpolitik). Of course we can argue that Putin's Russia is far more belligerent than the SU, but this experience is still important. We have to make a stand against Russia, but we also have to make sure that there is room for a diplomatic solution.

There are measures we can introduce that have a purpose, and those that are needlessy antagonistic. We stationed an international brigade in each Baltic state. This would be enough to combat any attempt of Russia to replicate the "Hybrid warfare" concept tested in the Ukraine. But it would not be sufficient to deter a full Russian invasion. However, not even a significantly larger group of soldiers (let us say 10.000 instead of 1000) would be enough in this case. Russia would close the Sulwaki gap, overrun the Baltics and probably try to defend its' new territory without invadind Poland. By stationing soldiers in the Baltics the Nato send a mesage that it would be willing to fight and die for those countries, but it did so in a size that would not be seen as provocation to Russia. The latter point is important because we must be honest here: Particulary in Western Europe, not only in Germany, public opinion is very much divided on those issues. Nato made a compromise that so far worked out.

Why? It's a benchmark. Poland has exceeded 2% without anyone forcing it too.


ROFL!!!!! Yeah because France and England, both the signers of the Budapest Moratorium on Ukraine REALLY stopped Russian aggression in 2014 lol. They did NOTHING and you're talking about them standing up to Russia if they invade the Baltics? Please... They were too scared to even send Ukrainians lethal aid for fear of poking the Russian Bear. Meanwhile, Poles, Brits, some Americans, Croats and everyday local Ukrainians scraped up what they could and formed self defense battalions and beat back the Russians - especially at Mariupol. The irregulars were more effective than the actual Ukrainian army.

PLEASE, Poland and the Baltics have no faith that France, UK, or Germany would ever help out in the event of a Russian invasion. The only party we trust to help us, and not even completely, would be the US. Ask any Pole and they'll tell you the same damn thing - especially those in the military. The Germans, French, etc would pull out immediately, send their troops back home, and tell Russia and Poland to negotiate and Poland to cede any lost territory. The Americans, at least under Trump, I do believe would have the balls to stand up and fight against Putin. Still, we've learned our lesson in WW2 and the Cold War - Poland can only count on itself for defense ultimately. This is why we're expanding our military like never before and even incorporating over 100k paramilitaries and 'weekend warrior' types into the national guard and territorial defense - something that we took a page out of from the Ukrainian military doctrine.

Admin, you... individual. Stop removing my posts. It's more valuable content than most of the rest here...

Too many quotes in your posts, best to cut down to stop them getting binned.


At 1.22% they still spend 3 times more than we at 2%... on the other hand they have personal costs several times higher... so it's not a perfect indicator... but it's showing well the will / effort of a given country...

Americans and Russians will never go into direct military conflict with each other. No one will shoot first risking the end of civilization. That's the point here thus not only keeping American in Europe - but encouraging them to bring more combat units is critical.

I'll write a longer response tomorrow. Here is a recently published article that might be very interesting for the topic at hand:

NATO Grapples with Serious Organizational Shortcomings
spiegel.de/international/world/nato-faces-serious-shortcomings-in-command-revamp-a-1173947.html

Germany might very well become the host country for the facilities that would be needed to organize the defence of Eastern Europe.

True. Russia actually is more restrained in some cases than US - not always, but some. Nonetheless, US troops stationed in Poland, Lithuania, Romania, etc are far more of a deterrent to Putin than German troops - or even native Polish/Lithuanian/Romanian ones.


At best a C&C center away from front lines. However, it's too far from the borderlands. Germany really should focus more on deploying its troops inside the country to control the terror attacks and protect the borders, even patrol no-go high crime areas.

independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-nato-border-forces-map-where-are-they-positioned-a7562391.html

At least the Germans still use the Iron Cross as their insignia. Quite frankly, I'm surprised the SJW's and Co haven't made a fuss about that.

It helps that the Nazis used the swastika as insignia whereever they could and that it has a history that goes back several centuries ago.


We don't use soldiers for police duty in Germany and ther e is no need for this anyway.

I think that a German military presence is a needed one! I mean, it's finally time, long overdue, to my mind, that Germany assert herself on the global scene. It's unhealthy for any nation to remain mired in the past, no matter how "recent" or how disturbing. In order for Germany to develop, for her citizens, particularly her youngest citizens, to grow, it is critical for them to play an active. and not merely an observer, role to insure democracy. This is all part of any country doing her bit in order to participate actively on the world stage.

The former WW2 allies are (in a way) still in control of the German military, as far as I know. Germany is not allowed to develop their own nuclear subs or long range missiles for example, and troop numbers are limited to 370,000 by the Two Plus Four Agreement. Another reason why Trump's demands to increase military spending in NATO countries is such a sham.

This says otherwise:

timesofisrael.com/germany-okayes-deal-to-sell-nuke-capable-submarines-to-israel

Germany also gave at least 3 dolphin class subs to Israel as a sort of 'gift' and also helped the country to establish its nuclear arsenal. You know, the one where no UN or IAEA inspector has been allowed to see. Meanwhile Iran has been lambasted nonstop despite being open with inspectors and found to be mostly compliant with the Obama-Iran deal. Germany has also helped Israel with its missile tech.


I bet the hundreds of women who were groped on NYE disagree. I bet the numerous migrant/refugee center workers who were assaulted disagree. I bet the women who were told to jog in pairs disagree considering the police and establishment are too inept to have realized what a flood of migrants from vastly different cultures and lands would entail and how to respond appropriately to protect the actual citizens...

independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/police-women-run-pairs-jogger-raped-park-assault-leipzig-germany-a7929266.html
dw.com/en/german-police-we-cant-handle-refugee-numbers/a-18582235
spectator.co.uk/2016/01/its-not-only-germany-that-covers-up-mass-sex-attacks-by-migrant-men-swedens-record-is-shameful


Why is it a sham? So enforcing the 2% of GDP benchmark that NATO members agreed to is a sham? Protecting Europe against an invasion, especially from Russia, is a sham?

Those subs are powered by diesel-electric engines, not nuclear reactors.


There's nothing to enforce, because the 2% are only a voluntary goal. "Sham" because 1) Trump doesn't understand that most nations in Europe do not want Germany's military to be one of the world's largest (for obvious reasons), and 2) if you "demand" that Germany spends 2% of its GDP on useless weapons, then at least free the country from any 70+ year old shackles. Of course, none of the complainers that insist that Germany fulfills its "obligations" want to go down that route. Ask Polish politicians if they would be comfortable.

Actually Poles don't mind. We're not worried about Germany at all. We're far more concerned with Russia.

Besides, Merkel already agreed to it and money from Germany has been flowing in.

dw.com/en/chancellor-angela-merkel-backs-2-percent-of-gdp-nato-contribution/a-37716593
dw.com/en/germany-to-expand-bundeswehr-to-almost-200000-troops/a-37655018

If UK, Greece, Estonia, and Poland can do 2%, so can Germany.

Huh ? They have already dominated nearly all of Europe via EU.

Ah Jews...


The same apply to Poland and most other countries. It has nothing to do with WW2.

That is somewhat curved argument to put it mildly. The reason Germany do not fulfil the 2% NATO benchmark spending on the military is due to German and European policies focus more on building a welfare state than on some considerations or worries as to Germany rebuilding their military might.

l would say that comfort of the Polish politicians would be the last thing on their mind.

?Oh F... off!


Lzyko, take your morning medications seems you talking about alternate dimension here. Germany are participation actively on the world stage for a while and more so since the end of the cold war. They don't need a huge military apparatus because their strength lies elsewhere

Sadly though, any attempts on Germany's or any other country's part sans military presence (if not direct involvement) is dillusional! I've head all the arguments heretofore, Ironside. "No, Germany lost the Big One big time but won the peace through her economic dominance of Europe almost single-handedly!" etc. ad nauseum.

Ahemmm, only partly true. Germany continues to exist in Hitler's shadow, long, long after 1945, and has suffered psychically ever since.

Perhaps being bled dry serves as their eternal punishment.

As for morning meds, man, go take a freakin' pill yourselfLOL

Poland is not allowed to build their own missiles and nuclear powered submarines? Sources, please.


You're right. Germany prefers to focus more on economic and social matters rather than spending their hard earned cash on even more useless weapons. If ever, the next large scale war in Europe would be fought with nukes anyway, so why waste your dough on fancy panzers and fighter jets? The ones who really care about limiting German military power are not so much the German themselves (although they do, too), but their neighbors. Why do you think they insisted on a limiting troop levels to 370,000 in the Two Plus Four Agreement?


Flowing in where? The 2% GDP is what the NATO members agreed on spending on their own military by 2024. No NATO member owes the USA anything financially.

What like the last two world wars, go ask any Jewish survivor of the holocaust that question see what answer you get.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Conventional_Armed_Forces_in_Europe
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate-Range_Nuclear_Forces_Treaty

+ others. Apply to both Germany and Poland.

I'm not aware of any laws not allowing either Germany or Poland having nuclear powered submarines. But unless you want to run patrols across oceans for moths, it just doesn't make sense. Diesel powered ships are enough for Baltic, the North Sea or anything close to Europe.

If there are any "special" restrictions regarding German military, please quote these laws. I'm fairly sure they don't exist.

Diesel submarines produce less noise and are thus better suited for the Baltic Seas anyway, since we need stealth there.

@TheOther

Hence why money has been flowing into military spending ever since trump put Merkel in her place. If it wasn't for the US spending and backing, NATO would crumble. Quite sad that countries who are a part of NATO can't be bothered to spend the benchmark 2% on defense for their own citizens yet buy out 4 star hotels and rent cruise ships to house economic migrants

google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/03/19/trumps-right-about-germany-and-defense-but-not-about-the-economics-of-nato/amp

Oh lyzko, Germany can't assert itself in any other way besides economically and politically. They've lost the will to fight for the proud German civilization and you expect them to assert themselves on the world stage? Russia is about as wealthy as the state of Texas by itself yet they manage to keep everyone on their toes. Germany lost the will to do this after ww2. All they can do is complain that the wiser polish, Hungarian, etc leadership isn't taking their 'share of the burden' Germany is in Mali now, why and for what strategic purpose? Who knows... They're better off patrolling the Mediterranean or finding the next ghaddafi to lead libya

Germany remains the economic engine of Europe, like her or not, and has much to contribute, guilty as she certainly has been of throwing her weight around.

@Lyzko

Yes it does - but UK and France aren't far behind. Germany has done a great job saving money and balancing their budgets. As an economic and political power, yes they're top dog in EU (although I'd say UK is more powerful overall than Germany and their GDP is only slightly below Germany's).

The east is catching up. Most people don't realize Poland's economy is larger than Norway, Denmark, Austria, etc. by GDP and very close to Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, etc.

How true, Dirk, which is why, as you know from reading my posts, I become so annoyed here when certain members continually speak of Poland as though she were still the proverbial backwater, subservient to her larger neighbors to the West and North!

You are right. I checked it - the restrictions seem to be all in regards to nuclear weapons. I could've sworn that I've recently read somewhere about the German navy not being allowed to build nuclear powered subs, but I probably misunderstood. My bad.