Most Germans think Europe can defend itself without U.S. help: poll

[Cerilis]

I don't think so, not without reforms.

Edit: Wait, I read that as "Germany can defend itself", not Europe... eeeeeh, there is France but... still sceptical.

[Vankrys]

Nope, not if the US isn't there to carry.

notice that Russia didn't touch the baltic states. Those juicy tiny countries it would be so easy to just swallow them. It's almost like they are part of a bigger alliance and Putin doesn't dare awaking a sleeping giant.

[Uncle]

WWII would have possibly be prevented if most of Europe and the US were in some sort of military alliance that guaranty if one country is attacked, everyone come to the rescue. Need i remind the US hesitated to enter WWII and only did so in December 1941, hand forced by japan.

Most of Europe was actually in a military alliance. Except the allies withdrawed from their word when Germany began to move. WW II could have been prevented by France alone if only our rulers and military chiefs at that time didn't stay in the 1920s, thinking we would steamroll Germany again; meanwhile, Hitler made Germany create a modern army who was technologicaly 20 years ahead of French's, completely reversing the situation of the WW I.

[Vankrys]

I don't think so, not without reforms.

Edit: Wait, I read that as "Germany can defend itself", not Europe... eeeeeh, there is France but... still sceptical.

Even if the UK leave the EU, they don't leave Europe, i don't think the UK would stand still if Europe is attacked.

- - - Updated - - -

Most of Europe was actually in a military alliance. Except the allies withdrawed from their word when Germany began to move. WW II could have been prevented by France alone if only our rulers and military chiefs at that time didn't stay in the 1920s, thinking we would steamroll Germany again; meanwhile, Hitler made Germany create a modern army who was technologicaly 20 years ahead of French's, completely reversing the situation of the WW I.

nothing that compare to the power of NATO. That's why Putin seeks to undermine the strength of NATO and seeding discord, Russia cannot take NATO straight on.

And Frankly, Nuclear weapons, as well as many way to get them airborne, ICBM, nuclear submarine etc... did change the geopolitical situation. Hitler in 2018 would risk what he did in 1939.

[Mayhem]

Nope, not if the US isn't there to carry.

Aha, ok. That's based on what?

[Uncle]

nothing that compare to the power of NATO. That's why Putin seeks to undermine the strength of NATO and seeding discord, Russia cannot take NATO straight on.

That's right, but he is also trying to undermine European Union, as well as USA, because both of them don't want to see an European Union truly united because it would be by far the world most powerful force.
However, Putin pity schemes won't lead to anything and he knows it perfectly; even if the country is far from being clean, Russia is essentialy a strawman made up by the US to justify their "us vs them" philosophy: America needs an ennemy to deflect the attention from it's own flaws and decline.

[Vankrys]

That's right, but he is also trying to undermine European Union, as well as USA, because both of them don't want to see an European Union truly united because it would be by far the world most powerful force.
However, Putin pity schemes won't lead to anything and he knows it perfectly; even if the country is far from being clean, Russia is essentialy a strawman made up by the US to justify their "us vs them" philosophy: America needs an ennemy to deflect the attention from it's own flaws and decline.

it's almost poetic the parallel one can draw between America needs and enemy, and Trump needs a Clinton to continue to be relevant.

[Uncle]

it's almost poetic the parallel one can draw between America needs and enemy, and Trump needs a Clinton to continue to be relevant.

Yep, and it's even stronger in that case, because it is a double level thing: Trump is using Clinton as a scapegoat to deflect critics against him about his behavior with Putin and Russia, but Russia itself is also a strawman, which is why America is slowly dying: because everyone is looking elsewhere instead of trying to extinguish the fire who is burning the house.

[Deja Thoris]

Of course Europe could defend itself.

I'm not even sure how this is a question and I'm not sure the shitlords here have much of a clue either generally speaking.

Americas troops in Europe aren't there to defend against invasion, they are there to project power.

[Independent voter]

Of course Europe could defend itself.

I'm not even sure how this is a question and I'm not sure the shitlords here have much of a clue either generally speaking.

Americas troops in Europe aren't there to defend against invasion, they are there to project power.

Why would Europe host American troops so America can project power? There must be something in it for Europe.

[Crispin]

Russia killed 200 Europeans on flight MH17

Yet you fund the regime by buying their natural gas.

Oh are we playing that game? Guess who supported and trained the guys who later on decided to smash 2 airplanes into 2 tower in NYC?

Guess who's exporting to Iran aswell? that's right, you are. Drop the retarded rhetoric and stupid arguments your President is spewing, fact check them, and then fact check them again, before you turn into some echo-chamber of his ignorance.

[Deja Thoris]

There must be something in it for Europe.

Ya don't think?

I'm pretty confident that Europe can take care of itself.

[Crispin]

Why would Europe host American troops so America can project power? There must be something in it for Europe.

They've been there since WW2, newsflash, the US is pretty fucking far away from anywhere your military has it's operations. I guess you'd rather fund your navy to act permanent naval base, instead of using your allies nearby bases?

Do you honestly think there's 65k Americans sitting in a bunker, waiting to prevent an invasion?


And yes, that something is the fact that we're part of an alliance, at this point it's doing you a favour. Germany is a part of NATO, everyone and their mom (including the US) will defend them regardless if there's troops there already or not.

[Deleted]

We are allies?
I mean it has mostly been a good reason.

We've never been allies. The US always joins in halfway through and makes a shit ton of money out of dealing to both sides.

Only right-wing idiots trust the US.

[Masark]

Bundeswehr has 4 (yeah, that's four) Tornados actually combat ready. Most germans are - since 'retards' might sound nation-bashy - overwhelmed by the complexety of the question.

Curious how you're specifying an aircraft from the 1980s that is being retired and replaced for your measurement of military readiness.

[Deleted]

Bundeswehr has 4 (yeah, that's four) Tornados actually combat ready.

And what does it mean? That only 4 is ready to make combat on short notice with peacetimem staffing? What about a total war senario, there 1% probability to crach becuse incomplete maintenance is a acceptable loss rate....

[P for Pancetta]

They're not wrong - I mean why are 65000 US soldiers in Germany? WTF are they doing?

Back when I still lived near a major Nato base and a US army garrison the US soldiers where renown for being respectable people. If you had a house for rent these where prime candidates because they where nice and clean and didn't make a ruckus.

[Deleted]

RT also says the US killed the Romanovs.

Guess you also believe the US does not use torture or had black sites in Poland.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...en-346948.html

[Naiyano]

Chill guys. This statement is a few days old. He probably doesn't even remember that he said it.

[Mayhem]

We have somehow not yet answered the question from the very first reply in the thread: Defend against what?

1) I can't think of a single nation or group out there that would benefit from a war against Germany enough to make risking it worthwhile. Not even Russia. Germany has too many too deep economic ties around the world, so anyone attacking would very likely hurt their own economy bad enough to make it a bad idea to begin with.

1.1) I also can't really think of any nation or group that is so badly impacted by the existance of Germany that they'd consider a "final solution" as their only way of survival - and the costs of war are far too great to use it for anything less for most countries.

2) Every attacker that is remotely concievable (and that's a very remote remotely) would have to first cross at least one allied or at least non-aligned nation first. You can't fight a war with just ICBMs. You need some infrastructure close by. Therefore an attacker would FIRST have to either obliterate or bribe another nation they can use.

3) Germany isn't alone. The EU is as much a military pact as it is a peace treaty and economic union. You'll never face Germany alone.


Even with the ...questionable shape the Bundeswehr is currently in, Germany is in no real danger currently, and won't be for at least a couple of decades. (Enough time to make some fixes, now that the issue seems to have reached enough domestic publicity.)

Arguing that those measly 65k troops are such a big economic factor is laughable btw. In a country of >80mil people 65k - even if adding supporting infrastructure - is a drop in the ocean. Sure, there would be a big impact locally where the bases are at, but it's no different than some city's largest employer going bankrupt - something we've had happen multiple times as well and didn't "go down". So cut that BS.

US troops are very welcome to leave if they like. Maybe come back as civillians and enjoy our hospitality and great beers!

Uhm, jeah, it's not just about Germany, but about Europe.